Editing Earl Warren (section)

===1960s===
{{see also|Presidency of John F. Kennedy|Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson|History of the United States (1964–1980)}}
[[File:President & First Lady Kennedy with Chief Justice Earl Warren & Mrs. Warren, circa 1962.jpg|thumb|President Kennedy, Jacqueline Kennedy, Chief Justice Earl Warren, and Nina Elisabeth Meyers (Warren's wife), November 1963]]

After the Republican Party nominated Richard Nixon in the [[1960 United States presidential election|1960 presidential election]], Warren privately supported the Democratic nominee, [[John F. Kennedy]]. They became personally close after Kennedy was inaugurated. Warren later wrote that "no American during my long life ever set his sights higher for a better America or centered his attacks more accurately on the evils and shortcomings of our society than did [Kennedy]."{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=368–369}} In 1962, Frankfurter retired and was replaced by Kennedy appointee [[Arthur Goldberg]], which gave the liberal bloc a majority on the Court.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=385–386, 403}} Goldberg left the Court in 1965 but was replaced by [[Abe Fortas]], who largely shared Goldberg's judicial philosophy.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=444–445}} With the liberal bloc firmly in control, the Warren Court handed down a series of momentous rulings in the 1960s.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|p=447}}

====Bill of Rights====
The 1960s marked a major shift in constitutional interpretation, as the Warren Court continued the process of the [[incorporation of the Bill of Rights]] in which the provisions of the first ten amendments to the US Constitution were applied to the states.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=530–531}}{{efn|The original Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, but the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, contains the [[Due Process Clause]], which applies to state governments and has been used by the Court to incorporate the Bill of Rights. Some, including Douglas, favored the total incorporation of the Bill of Rights, but the Court has selectively incorporated various provisions of the Bill of Rights across numerous cases. The first major incorporation case was ''[[Gitlow v. New York]]'' (1925).{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=373–375, 405, 530}}}} Warren saw the Bill of Rights as a codification of "the natural rights of man" against the government and believed that incorporation would bring the law "into harmony with moral principles."{{Sfn|White|1981|pp=469–470}} When Warren took office, most of the provisions of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] already applied to the states, but the vast majority of the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. The Warren Court saw the incorporation of the remaining provisions of the First Amendment as well as all or part of the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth]], [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth]], [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth]], and [[Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Eighth]] Amendments. The Warren Court also handed down numerous other important decisions regarding the Bill of Rights, especially in the field of criminal procedure.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=530–531}}

In ''[[New York Times Co. v. Sullivan]]'', the Supreme Court reversed a libel conviction of the publisher of the ''New York Times''. In the majority opinion, Brennan articulated the [[actual malice]] standard for libel against public officials, which has become an enduring part of constitutional law.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=438–440}} In ''[[Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District]]'', the Court reversed the suspension of an eighth-grade student who wore a black armband in protest of the [[Vietnam War]]. Fortas's majority opinion noted that students did not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=490–491}} The Court's holding in ''[[United States v. Seeger]]'' expanded those who could be classified as [[conscientious objectors]] under the [[Selective Service System]] by allowing nonreligious individuals with ethical objections to claim conscientious objector status.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=481–483}} Another case, ''[[United States v. O'Brien]]'', saw the Court uphold a prohibition against [[draft-card burning|burning draft-cards]].{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=485–487}} Warren dissented in ''[[Street v. New York]]'' in which the Court struck down a state law that prohibited the desecration of the [[American flag]]. When his law clerks asked why he dissented in the case, Warren stated, "Boys, it's the American flag. I'm just not going to vote in favor of burning the American flag."{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=491–492}} In the 1969 case of ''[[Brandenburg v. Ohio]]'', the Court held that governments cannot punish speech unless it is "directed to inciting or producing [[imminent lawless action]] and is likely to incite or produce such action."{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=502–503}}

[[File:Impeach Warren.png|thumb|right|An "Impeach Earl Warren sign", posted in San Francisco in October 1958]]

In 1962, ''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'' held that the [[Establishment Clause]] prohibits mandatory prayer in public school.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=386–387}} The ruling sparked a strong backlash from many political and religious leaders, some of whom called for the impeachment of Warren. Warren became a favored target of right-wing groups, such as the [[John Birch Society]], as well as the [[1964 United States presidential election|1964 Republican presidential nominee]], [[Barry Goldwater]].{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=387–391, 435}} ''Engel'', the criminal procedure cases, and the persistent criticism of conservative politicians like Goldwater and Nixon contributed to a decline in the Court's popularity in the mid- and the late 1960s.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|p=498}} ''[[Griswold v. Connecticut]]'' had the Court strike down a state law designed to restrict access to [[contraception]], and it established a constitutional [[right to privacy]]. ''Griswold'' later provided an important precedent for the case of ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', which disallowed many laws designed to restrict access to [[abortion in the United States|abortion]].{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=447–449}}

====Criminal procedure====
In the early 1960s, the Court increasingly turned its attention to criminal procedure, which had traditionally been primarily a domain of the states. In ''[[Elkins v. United States]]'' (1960), Warren joined with the majority in striking down the "Silver Platter Doctrine," a loophole to the [[exclusionary rule]] that had allowed federal officials to use evidence that had been illegally gathered by state officials. The next year, in ''[[Mapp v. Ohio]]'', the Court held that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on "unreasonable searches and seizures" applied to state officials.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=372–376}} Warren wrote the majority opinion in ''[[Terry v. Ohio]]'' (1968) in which the Court established that police officers may frisk a criminal suspect if they have a [[reasonable suspicion]] that the suspect is committing or is about to commit a crime.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=466–468}} In ''[[Gideon v. Wainwright]]'' (1962), the Court held that the Sixth Amendment required states to furnish publicly funded attorneys to all criminal defendants accused of a [[felony]] and unable to afford counsel. Prior to ''Gideon'', criminal defendants had been guaranteed the right to counsel only in federal trials and [[capital punishment|capital]] cases.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=403–406}}

In ''[[Escobedo v. Illinois]]'' (1964), the Court held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal suspects the right to speak to their counsel during police interrogations. ''Escobedo'' was limited to criminal suspects who had an attorney at the time of their arrest and requested to speak with that counsel. In the landmark case of ''[[Miranda v. Arizona]]'', Warren wrote the majority opinion, which established a right to counsel for every criminal suspect and required police to give criminal suspects what became known as a "[[Miranda warning]]" in which suspects are notified of their right to an attorney and their [[right to silence]]. Warren incorporated some suggestions from Brennan, but his holding in ''Miranda'' was most influenced by his past experiences as a district attorney. Unlike many of the other Warren Court decisions, including ''Mapp'' and ''Gideon'', ''Miranda'' created standards that went far beyond anything that had been established by any of the states. ''Miranda'' received a strong backlash from law enforcement and political leaders.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=456–460}} Conservatives angrily denounced what they called the "handcuffing of the police."<ref>{{cite book|editor1-first=Ronald|editor1-last=Kahn|editor2-first=Ken I.|editor2-last=Kersch|title=The Supreme Court and American Political Development|year=2006|url=https://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0700614397?keywords=miranda%20%26%2334%3Bcrime%20rates%26%2334%3B&p=S04N&checkSum=%252FyIgYm2ybgibk6P%252BM%252FG9LcucFd6ieUBSkCM%252FVsFiLs0%253D|page=442|publisher=University Press of Kansas |isbn=978-0-7006-1439-4 }}</ref>

====Reapportionment (one man, one vote)====
{{quote box
| quote  =  The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. And the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.| source =
--[[Chief Justice of the United States|Chief Justice]] Earl Warren on [[Suffrage|the right to vote]] as the foundation of [[democracy]] in ''[[Reynolds v. Sims]]'' (1964).<ref>{{cite web |title=''Reynolds v. Sims'', 377 U.S. 533 (1964), at 555. |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/377/533/ |publisher=Justia US Supreme Court Center |access-date=January 5, 2021 |date=June 15, 1964}}</ref>
| width  = 27%
| align  = right
| style = padding:8px;
}}

In 1959, several residents dissatisfied with Tennessee's legislative districts brought suit against the state in ''[[Baker v. Carr]]''. Like many other states, Tennessee had state legislative districts of unequal populations,{{efn|The [[Vermont General Assembly]] provides one example of the disparity in populations. In 1961, one member of the Vermont General Assembly represented 33,000 people, and another member represented 49 people.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|p=380}}}} and the plaintiffs sought more equitable legislative districts. In ''[[Colegrove v. Green]]'' (1946), the Supreme Court had declined to become involved in legislative apportionment and instead left the issue as a matter for Congress and the states. In ''[[Gomillion v. Lightfoot]]'' (1960), the Court struck down a redistricting plan designed to disenfranchise African-American voters, but many of the justices were reluctant to involve themselves further in redistricting.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=379–381}} Frankfurter insisted that the Court should avoid the "political thicket" of apportionment and warned that the Court would never be able to find a clear formula to guide lower courts.<ref>{{cite journal|first=James A.|last=Gazell|title=One Man, One Vote: Its Long Germination|journal=[[The Western Political Quarterly]]|volume=23|issue=3|date=September 1970|pages=445–462|jstor=446565|doi=10.1177/106591297002300301|s2cid=154022059}}</ref> Warren helped convince Associate Justice [[Potter Stewart]] to join Brennan's majority decision in ''Baker v. Carr'', which held that redistricting was not a [[political question]] and so federal courts had jurisdiction over the issue. The opinion did not directly require Tennessee to implement redistricting but instead left it to a federal district court to determine whether Tennessee's districts violated the Constitution.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=381–385}} In another case, ''[[Gray v. Sanders]]'', the Court struck down Georgia's [[County Unit System]], which granted disproportional power to rural counties in party primaries.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=406–407}} In a third case, ''[[Wesberry v. Sanders]]'', the Court required states to draw congressional districts of equal population.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|p=433}}

In ''[[Reynolds v. Sims]]'' (1963), the chief justice wrote what biographer Ed Cray terms "the most influential of the 170 majority opinions [Warren] would write." While eight of the nine justices had voted to require congressional districts of equal population in ''Wesberry'', some of the justices were reluctant to require state legislative districts to be of equal population. Warren indicated that the [[Equal Protection Clause]] required that state legislative districts be apportioned on an equal basis: "legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests." His holding upheld the principle of "[[one man, one vote]]," which had previously been articulated by Douglas.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=432–435}} After the decision, the states reapportioned their legislatures quickly and with minimal troubles. Numerous commentators have concluded reapportionment was the Warren Court's great "success story."<ref>{{cite journal|first=Robert B.|last=McKay|title=Reapportionment: Success Story of the Warren Court|journal=[[Michigan Law Review|Mich. L. Rev.]]|volume=67|issue=2|date=December 1968|pages=223–236|jstor=1287416|doi=10.2307/1287416|url=https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4900&context=mlr}}</ref>

====Civil rights====
{{see also|Civil rights movement}}

Civil rights continued to be a major issue facing the Warren Court in the 1960s. In ''Peterson v. Greenville'' (1963), Warren wrote the Court's majority opinion, which struck down local ordinances that prohibited restaurants from serving black and white individuals in the same room.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=408–410}} Later that decade, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]] in ''[[Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States]]''. The Court held that the [[Commerce Clause]] empowered the federal government to prohibit racial segregation in [[public accommodations]] like hotels. The ruling effectively overturned the 1883 ''[[Civil Rights Cases]]'' in which the Supreme Court had held that Congress could not regulate racial discrimination by private businesses.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=441–442}} The Court upheld another landmark civil rights act, the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]], by holding that it was valid under the authority provided to Congress by the [[Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifteenth Amendment]].{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=469–470}}

In 1967, Warren wrote the majority opinion in the landmark case of ''[[Loving v. Virginia]]'' in which the Court struck down state [[Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States|laws banning interracial marriage]]. Warren was particularly pleased by the ruling in ''Loving'' since he had long regretted that the Court had not taken up the similar case of ''[[Naim v. Naim]]'' in 1955.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=449–452}} In ''[[Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections]]'' (1966), the Court struck down [[poll taxes in the United States|poll taxes]] in state elections.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=470–471}} In another case, ''[[Bond v. Floyd]]'', the Court required the Georgia legislature to seat the newly elected legislator [[Julian Bond]]; members of the legislature had refused to seat Bond because he opposed the [[Vietnam War]].{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=484–485}}

====Warren Commission====
{{main|Warren Commission}}
[[File:Lbj-wc.jpg|thumb|Earl Warren presents the Commission's report to President Johnson on September 24, 1964.]]

Shortly after the [[assassination of John F. Kennedy]], the newly sworn-in president, [[Lyndon B. Johnson]], convinced Warren to serve as the head of a bipartisan commission tasked with investigating the assassination.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Katzenbach, Nicholas deB. (Nicholas deBelleville), 1922-2012.|title=Some of it was fun : working with RFK and LBJ|date=October 17, 2008|isbn=978-0-393-07068-2|edition=First|location=New York|pages=135|oclc=915999588}}</ref>  From December 1963 to October 1964, Warren simultaneously served as chief justice of the United States and chairman of the [[Warren Commission]].{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=414–419}} Warren originally declined to head the Commission due to his belief that a sitting-Chief Justice should not be involved in non-judicial work, however when Johnson told him that he feared war would break out with the Soviet Union Warren changed his mind.<ref>{{cite news |title=Johnson Feared War At Kennedy Death, Earl Warren Says |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1972/12/09/archives/johnson-feared-war-at-kennedy-death-earl-warren-says.html |work=The New York Times |date=9 December 1972}}</ref>

At the start of the investigation, Warren decided to hire the commission's legal staff from outside the government to avoid any improper influence on their work.{{sfn|Willens|2013|p=37}}  Warren appointed [[J. Lee Rankin|Lee Rankin]] as general counsel and worked closely with Rankin and his assistants, [[Howard P. Willens]] and [[Norman Redlich]], to recruit staff lawyers, supervise their investigation and publish the Commission's report.{{sfn|Willens|2013|p=37}}  To avoid the confusion and duplication of parallel investigations, Warren convinced the Texas authorities to defer any local inquiry into the assassination.{{sfn|Willens|2013|loc=p. 30, citing Warren Commission, Executive Session Transcript, December 6, 1963, at 14-18}}

Warren was personally involved in several aspects of the investigation.  He supervised four days of testimony by Lee Harvey Oswald's widow, [[Marina Oswald Porter|Marina Oswald]], and was widely criticized for telling the press that, although her testimony would be publicly disclosed, "it might not be in your lifetime."{{sfn|Willens|2013|loc=p. 60, citing The Baltimore Sun, "The Whole Truth", February 5, 1964.}} He attended the closed-door interview of [[Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis|Jacqueline Kennedy]]<ref>{{Cite book|last=Specter, Arlen.|title=Passion for truth : from finding JFK's single bullet to questioning Anita Hill to impeaching Clinton|date=2001|publisher=Perennial|others=Robbins, Charles.|isbn=0-06-095810-3|edition=1st Perennial|location=New York|pages=106–08|oclc=49301736}}</ref> and insisted on participating in the deposition of [[Jack Ruby]] in Dallas, where he visited the book depository.{{sfn|Willens|2013|pp=206-07}} Warren also participated in the investigation of Kennedy's medical treatment and autopsy.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Belin|first=David W.|title=November 22, 1963: You Are the Jury|publisher=Quadrangle|year=1973|pages=345–47}}</ref> At [[Robert F. Kennedy|Robert Kennedy]]'s insistence, Warren handled the unwelcome task of reviewing the autopsy photos alone.{{sfn|Willens|2013|p=94}}  Because the photos were so gruesome, Warren decided that they should not be included in the Commission's records.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Bugliosi, Vincent.|title=Reclaiming history : the assassination of President John F. Kennedy|date=May 17, 2007|isbn=978-0-393-07212-9|edition=First|location=New York|pages=426–27|oclc=916036483}}</ref>

Warren closely supervised the drafting of the Commission's report. He wanted to ensure that Commission members had ample opportunity to evaluate the staff's work and to make their own judgments about important conclusions in the report.{{sfn|Willens|2013|p=219}} He insisted that the report should be unanimous and so he compromised on a number of issues to get all the members to sign the final version. Although a reenactment of the assassination "produced convincing evidence" supporting the single-bullet theory, the Commission decided not to take a position on the single-bullet theory.{{sfn|Willens|2013|p=270}}<ref>Bugliosi, ''Reclaiming History'', pp. 456-57.</ref> The Commission unanimously concluded that the assassination was the result of a single individual, [[Lee Harvey Oswald]], who acted alone.<ref>Newton, ''Justice for All'', pp. 415-23, 431-42.</ref>

The Warren Commission was an unhappy experience for the chief justice. As Willens recalled, "One can't say too much about the Chief's sacrifice. The work was a drain on his physical well-being."<ref>Cray, ''Chief Justice'', p. 429.</ref> However, Warren always believed that the Commission's primary conclusion, that Oswald acted alone, was correct. In his memoirs, Warren wrote that Oswald was incapable of being the key operative in a conspiracy, and that any high-level government conspiracy would inevitably have been discovered.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Warren|first=Earl|title=The memoirs of chief justice Earl Warren.|date=2001|publisher=Madison Books|isbn=1-56833-234-3|edition=1st Madison books|location=Lanham, Md.|pages=364–67|oclc=49302082}}</ref> ''Newsweek'' magazine quoted Warren saying that, if he handled the Oswald case as a district attorney, "I could have gotten a conviction in two days and never heard about the case again."<ref>Cray, ''Chief Justice'', p. 422.</ref> Warren wrote that "the facts of the assassination itself are simple, so simple that many people believe it must be more complicated and conspiratorial to be true."{{Sfn|Cray|1997|p=422}}  Warren told the Commission staff not to worry about [[John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories|conspiracy theories]] and other criticism of the report because “history will prove us right.”{{sfn|Willens|2013|p=11}}