Editing Hugo Black (section)

==Supreme Court career==
As soon as Black started on the court, he advocated [[judicial restraint]] and worked to move the court away from interposing itself in social and economic matters. Black vigorously defended the "plain meaning" of the Constitution, rooted in the ideas of its era, and emphasized the supremacy of the legislature; for Black, the role of the Supreme Court was limited and constitutionally prescribed.<ref name="Ball (2006)" />{{rp|16, 50}}

During his early years on the Supreme Court, Black helped reverse several earlier court decisions that were based on a narrow interpretation of federal power. Many [[New Deal]] laws that would have been struck down under earlier precedents were thus upheld. In 1939 Black was joined on the Supreme Court by [[Felix Frankfurter]] and [[William O. Douglas]]. Douglas voted alongside Black in several cases, especially those involving the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]], while Frankfurter soon became one of Black's ideological foes.<ref>G. Edward White, ''The Constitution and the New Deal'' (2002)</ref> From 1945 until 1971, Black was the senior associate justice of the Supreme Court.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Wood |first=Sandra L. |year=1997 |title=In the Shadow of the Chief: The Role of the Senior Associate Justice |url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jspcth1997&id=158&div=&collection= |journal=Journal of Supreme Court History |volume=1997 |pages=25|doi=10.1111/j.1540-5818.1997.tb00109.x |s2cid=145064343 }}</ref> As of 2023, Black is the most recent sitting Supreme Court justice to have [[List of law schools attended by United States Supreme Court justices|received his legal education]] from [[list of law schools in the United States|a public law school]].

===Relationship with other justices===
[[File:Roberthjackson.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|left|Black was involved in a bitter controversy with Justice Robert H. Jackson (shown above).]]

In the mid-1940s, Justice Black became involved in a bitter dispute with Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]] as a result of [[Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America|''Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. v. Local 6167, United Mine Workers'' (1945)]]. In this case the court ruled 5–4 in favor of the UMW; Black voted with the majority, while Jackson dissented. However, the coal company requested the court rehear the case on the grounds that Justice Black should have [[recuse]]d himself, as the mine workers were represented by Black's law partner of 20 years earlier. Under the Supreme Court's rules, each Justice was entitled to determine the propriety of disqualifying himself. Jackson agreed that the petition for rehearing should be denied, but refused to give approval to Black's participation in the case. Ultimately, when the court unanimously denied the petition for rehearing, Justice Jackson released a short statement, in which Justice Frankfurter joined. The concurrence indicated that Jackson voted to deny the petition not because he approved of Black's participation in the case, but on the "limited grounds" that each Justice was entitled to determine for himself the propriety of recusal.<ref>Roger K. Newman, ''Hugo Black'' pp. 333–334.</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Rehnquist|first=William H.|year=1987|title=The Supreme Court|location=New York|publisher=Knopf|isbn=0-688-05714-4|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/supremecourthowi00rehn}}</ref> At first the case attracted little public comment. However, after Chief Justice [[Harlan Stone]] died in 1946, rumors that President [[Harry S. Truman]] would appoint Jackson as Stone's successor led several newspapers to investigate and report the ''Jewell Ridge'' controversy.<ref name="Conscience1">''Salt of the Earth, Conscience of the Court''. By John M. Ferren, Wiley Rutledge. p. 325. UNC Press.</ref> Black and Douglas allegedly leaked to newspapers that they would resign if Jackson were appointed Chief.<ref name="Conscience1"/> Truman ultimately chose [[Fred M. Vinson]] for the position.

In 1948, Justice Black approved an order solicited by [[Abe Fortas]] that barred a federal district court in Texas from further investigation of significant voter fraud and irregularities in the [[1948 United States Senate election in Texas|1948 Democratic primary election runoff for United States Senator from Texas]]. The order effectively confirmed future president [[Lyndon Johnson]]'s apparent victory over former Texas governor [[Coke Stevenson]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Caro|first=Robert A.|author-link=Robert Caro|year=1990|title=The Years of Lyndon Johnson: Means of Ascent|title-link=Means of Ascent|pages=379–384|location=New York|publisher=Vintage Books|isbn=978-0-679-73371-3}}</ref>

In the 1960s, Black clashed with Fortas, who by that time had been appointed as an associate justice. In 1968, a Warren clerk called their feud "one of the most basic animosities of the Court".<ref name="abe fortas">{{cite book
| title=Abe Fortas
| author=Laura Kalman
| publisher=[[Yale University Press]]
| year=1990
| isbn=0300173695
| url=https://books.google.com/books?id=x-Fbl_xE1E0C
| access-date=October 20, 2008
| archive-date=December 26, 2011
| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111226130815/http://books.google.com/books?id=x-Fbl_xE1E0C
| url-status=live
}}</ref>

===1950s and beyond===
Vinson's tenure as chief justice coincided with the [[Second Red Scare]], a period of intense [[anti-communism]] in the United States. In several cases the Supreme Court considered, and upheld, the validity of anticommunist laws passed during this era. For example, in ''American Communications Association v. Douds'' (1950), the court upheld a law that required [[trade union|labor union]] officials to forswear membership in the [[Communist Party USA|Communist Party]]. Black dissented, claiming that the law violated the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]]'s free speech clause. Similarly, in ''[[Dennis v. United States]]'', {{ussc|341|494|1951}}, the court upheld the [[Smith Act]], which made it a crime to "advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States". The law was often used to prosecute individuals for joining the Communist Party. Black again dissented, writing:

<blockquote>Public opinion being what it now is, few will protest the conviction of these Communist petitioners. There is hope, however, that, in calmer times, when present pressures, passions and fears subside, this or some later Court will restore the First Amendment liberties to the high preferred place where they belong in a free society.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=341&invol=494|title=FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.|website=Findlaw|access-date=February 18, 2006|archive-date=February 6, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060206223302/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=341&invol=494|url-status=live}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Beginning in the late 1940s, Black wrote decisions relating to the Establishment Clause, where he insisted on the strict [[separation of church and state]]. The most notable of these was ''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'' (1962), which declared state-sanctioned prayer in public schools unconstitutional. This provoked considerable opposition, especially in conservative circles.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Engel/ |title=''Engel v. Vitale'' |publisher=Tourolaw.edu |access-date=September 6, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080905035141/http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Engel/ |archive-date=September 5, 2008 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Efforts to restore school prayer by constitutional amendment failed.<ref>{{Cite web |date=December 16, 2021 |title='Hungry for a Spiritual Revival': The School Prayer Amendment and the Rise of the New Right |url=https://cafe.com/article/hungry-for-a-spiritual-revival-the-school-prayer-amendment-and-the-rise-of-the-new-right/ |access-date=April 20, 2022 |website=CAFE |language=en-US}}</ref>

In 1953 Vinson died and was replaced by [[Earl Warren]]. While all members of the court were New Deal liberals, Black was part of the most liberal wing of the court, together with Warren, Douglas, [[William J. Brennan Jr.|William Brennan]], and [[Arthur Goldberg]]. They said the court had a role beyond that of Congress.<ref>Lucas A. Powe, ''The Warren Court and American Politics'' (2000)</ref> Yet while he often voted with them on the Warren Court, he occasionally took his own line on some key cases, most notably ''[[Griswold v. Connecticut]]'' (1965), which established that the Constitution protected a [[right to privacy]]. In not finding such a right implicit in the Constitution, Black wrote in his dissent that "Many good and able men have eloquently spoken and written{{nbsp}}... about the duty of this Court to keep the Constitution in tune with the times.{{nbsp}}... For myself, I must with all deference reject that philosophy."<ref name="Ball (2006)" />{{rp|120}}

Black's most prominent ideological opponent on the Warren Court was [[John Marshall Harlan II]], who replaced Justice Jackson in 1955. They disagreed on several issues, including the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the states, the scope of the due process clause, and the [[One man, one vote#United States|one man, one vote]] principle.{{Citation needed|date=September 2019}}

Black had a number of [[List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 1)|law clerks who became notable in their own right]], including Judges [[Louis F. Oberdorfer]], [[Truman McGill Hobbs]], [[Guido Calabresi]], and [[Drayton Nabers Jr.]], Professors [[John K. McNulty]], [[Stephen Schulhofer]], and [[Walter E. Dellinger III]], Mayor [[David Vann (mayor)|David Vann]], FCC Commissioner [[Nicholas Johnson]], US solicitor general [[Lawrence G. Wallace]], and trial lawyer [[Stephen Susman]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2020/07/13/when-supreme-court-clerkships-become-a-family-tradition/|title=When Supreme Court Clerkships Become a Family Tradition|first1=Tony Mauro|last1=July 13|first2=2020 at 02:56{{nbsp}}pm {{pipe}} The original version of this story was published on The National Law|last2=Journal|website=National Law Journal|access-date=July 16, 2020|archive-date=July 14, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200714184025/https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2020/07/13/when-supreme-court-clerkships-become-a-family-tradition/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://memory.loc.gov/service/mss/eadxmlmss/eadpdfmss/uploaded_pdf/ead_pdf_batch_27_December_2004/2001/ms001046.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=July 16, 2020 |archive-date=March 1, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210301142140/http://memory.loc.gov/service/mss/eadxmlmss/eadpdfmss/uploaded_pdf/ead_pdf_batch_27_December_2004/2001/ms001046.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>