Editing Charles Evans Hughes (section)

===Rejoining the Supreme Court===
[[File:Charles Evans Hughes-TIME-1924.jpg|thumb|right|''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' cover, December 29, 1924]]
On February 3, 1930, President Hoover nominated Hughes to succeed Chief Justice Taft, who was gravely ill. Though many had expected Hoover to elevate his close friend, Associate Justice [[Harlan Stone]], Hughes was the top choice of Taft and Attorney General [[William D. Mitchell]].<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Abraham|2008|pp=156–157}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=174–175}}</ref> Though Hughes had compiled a progressive record during his tenure as an Associate Justice, by 1930 Taft believed that Hughes would be a consistent conservative on the court.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Shesol|2010|pp=27–28}}</ref> The nomination faced resistance from progressive Republicans such as senators [[George W. Norris]] and [[William E. Borah]], who were concerned that Hughes would be overly friendly to big business after working as a corporate lawyer.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Leuchtenburg|2005|pp=1187–1188}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Wittes|2006|p=50}}</ref> Many of those progressives, as well some Southern states' rights advocates, were outraged by the [[Taft Court]]'s tendency to strike down state and federal legislation on the basis of the doctrine of [[substantive due process]] and feared that a Hughes Court would emulate the Taft Court.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Shesol|2010|pp=24–25, 30}}</ref> Adherents of the substantive due process doctrine held that economic regulations such as restrictions on child labor and minimum wages violated [[freedom of contract]], which, they argued, could not be abridged by federal and state laws because of the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment]] and the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]].<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=193–195}}</ref>

The Senate Judiciary Committee held no hearings, and voted to favorably report on Hughes's nomination by a 10–2 vote on February 10, 1930.<ref name="CRS2018BJMDSR">{{cite web| last1=McMillion| first1=Barry J.| last2=Rutkus| first2=Denis Steven| date=July 6, 2018| title=Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2017: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President| url=https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL33225.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211103024945/https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL33225.pdf |archive-date=2021-11-03 |url-status=live| publisher=Congressional Research Service| location=Washington, D.C.| access-date=March 9, 2022}}</ref> On February 13, 1930, the Senate voted 31–49 against sending his nomination back to committee.<ref name="CRS2018BJMDSR" /><ref>{{cite web |title=TO RECOMMIT TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY THE NOMINATION&nbsp;... -- Senate Vote #174 – Feb 13, 1930 |url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/71-2/s174 |website=GovTrack.us |access-date=13 March 2022 |language=en}}</ref> After a brief but bitter confirmation battle, Hughes was confirmed by the Senate on February 13, 1930, in a 52–26 vote,<ref name="CRS2018BJMDSR" /><ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Abraham|2008|pp=157–158}}</ref> and he took his judicial oath of office on February 24, 1930.<ref name="SCOTUSjustices" /> Hughes's son, Charles Jr., was subsequently forced to resign as [[Solicitor General of the United States|Solicitor General]] after his father took office as Chief Justice.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Parrish|2002|p=10}}</ref> Hughes quickly emerged as a leader of the Court, earning the admiration of his fellow justices for his intelligence, energy, and strong understanding of the law.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|p=194}}</ref> Shortly after Hughes was confirmed, Hoover nominated federal judge [[John J. Parker]] to succeed deceased Associate Justice [[Edward Terry Sanford]]. The Senate rejected Parker, whose earlier rulings had alienated labor unions and the [[NAACP]], but confirmed Hoover's second nominee, [[Owen Roberts]].<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Parrish|2002|pp=11–12}}</ref> In early 1932, the other justices asked Hughes to request the resignation of Oliver Wendell Holmes, whose health had declined as he entered his nineties. Hughes privately asked his old friend to retire, and Holmes immediately sent a letter of resignation to President Hoover. To replace Holmes, Hoover nominated [[Benjamin N. Cardozo]], who quickly won confirmation.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=200–201}}</ref>

The early Hughes Court was divided between the conservative "[[Four Horsemen (Supreme Court)|Four Horsemen]]" and the liberal "[[Three Musketeers (Supreme Court)|Three Musketeers]]".{{efn|After the appointment of Benjamin Cardozo, the liberal bloc consisted of Cardozo, Harlan Stone, and Louis Brandeis. The conservative bloc consisted of [[Willis Van Devanter]], [[James Clark McReynolds]], [[George Sutherland]], and [[Pierce Butler (justice)|Pierce Butler]].<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=181–186, 246}}</ref>}}<ref name="L11881189" /> The primary difference between these two blocs was that the Four Horsemen embraced the substantive due process doctrine, but the liberals, including [[Louis Brandeis]], advocated for [[judicial restraint]], or deference to legislative bodies.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Shesol|2010|pp=30–31}}</ref> Hughes and Roberts were the swing justices between the two blocs for much of the 1930s.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Henretta|2006|p=149}}</ref>[[File:Mrs Antoinette Carter.jpg|thumb|right|Antoinette Carter Hughes]]In one of the first major cases of his tenure, Hughes joined with Roberts and the Three Musketeers to strike down a piece of state legislation in the 1931 landmark case of ''[[Near v. Minnesota]]''. In his majority opinion, Hughes held that the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] barred states from violating [[freedom of the press]]. Hughes also wrote the majority opinion in ''[[Stromberg v. California]]'', which represented the first time the Supreme Court struck down a state law on the basis of the [[incorporation of the Bill of Rights]].{{efn|Justice [[Edward Terry Sanford]] had laid out the doctrine of incorporation in the majority opinion of the 1925 case of ''[[Gitlow v. New York]]''.<ref name="L11881189"/>}}<ref name="L11881189">{{harvnb|ps=.|Leuchtenburg|2005|pp=1188–1189}}</ref> In another early case, ''[[O'Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.]]'', Hughes and Roberts joined with the liberal bloc in upholding a state regulation that limited commissions for the sale of fire insurance.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=194–195}}</ref>