Editing Stephen Breyer

{{Short description|US Supreme Court justice from 1994 to 2022}}
{{Good article}}
{{Pp-blp|small=yes}}
{{Use American English|date=February 2022}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=March 2024}}
{{Infobox officeholder
| name                = Stephen Breyer
| image               = Stephen Breyer, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg
| alt                 = Official portrait of Stephen Breyer as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
| caption             = Official portrait, {{circa|2006}}
| office              = [[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States]]
| nominator           = [[Bill Clinton]]
| term_start          = August 3, 1994
| term_end            = June 30, 2022
| predecessor         = [[Harry Blackmun]]
| successor           = [[Ketanji Brown Jackson]]
| office1             = Chief Judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit]]
| term_start1         = March 1990
| term_end1           = August 3, 1994
| predecessor1        = [[Levin H. Campbell]]
| successor1          = [[Juan R. Torruella]]
| office2             = Judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit]]
| nominator2          = [[Jimmy Carter]]
| term_start2         = December 10, 1980
| term_end2           = August 3, 1994
| predecessor2        = ''Seat established''
| successor2          = [[Sandra Lynch]]
| birth_name          = Stephen Gerald Breyer
| birth_date          = {{Birth date and age|1938|8|15}}
| birth_place         = [[San Francisco, California]], U.S.
| party               = [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]]<ref>{{Cite web |last=Weiss |first=Debra Cassens |date=February 3, 2020 |title=Which SCOTUS justices are registered Democrats or Republicans? Fix the Court investigates |url=https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/which-supreme-court-justices-are-registered-democrats-and-republicans-fix-the-court-investigates |access-date=March 9, 2024 |website=ABA Journal |language=en}}</ref>
| death_date          = 
| death_place         = 
| spouse              = {{marriage|Joanna Hare|1967}}
| children            = 3
| relatives           = [[Charles Breyer]] (brother)
| education           = {{unbulleted list|[[Stanford University]] ([[Bachelor of Arts|BA]])|{{nowrap|[[Magdalen College, Oxford]] ([[Bachelor of Arts|BA]])}}|[[Harvard University]] ([[Bachelor of Laws|LLB]])}}
| signature           = Stephen Breyer signature.svg
| signature_alt       = Cursive signature in ink
| branch              = {{Tree list}}
* [[United States Army]]
** [[U.S. Army Reserve]]
{{Tree list/end}}
| serviceyears        = 1957–1965
| rank                = [[Corporal (United States)|Corporal]]
| unit                = [[Military Intelligence Corps (United States Army)|Army Strategic Intelligence]]
| module              = {{Listen|pos=center|embed=yes|filename=Stephen Breyer delivers the opinion of the Court in Washington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc.ogg|title=Stephen Breyer's voice|type=speech|description=Stephen Breyer delivers the opinion of the Court in ''[[Washington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc.]]''<br />Recorded March 19, 2019}}
| battles             = [[Vietnam War]]
| allegiance          = 
}}
{{Liberalism US}}

'''Stephen Gerald Breyer'''  ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|b|r|aɪ|.|ər}} {{respell|BRY|ər}}; born August 15, 1938) is an American lawyer and retired jurist who served as an [[associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|associate justice]] of the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] from 1994 until his retirement in 2022. He was nominated by President [[Bill Clinton]], and replaced retiring justice [[Harry Blackmun]]. Breyer was generally associated with the [[Ideological leanings of United States Supreme Court justices|liberal wing]] of the Court.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kersch |first=Ken |year=2006 |title=Justice Breyer's Mandarin Liberty |url=https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi |url-status=live |journal=University of Chicago Law Review |volume=73 |pages=759–822 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171226033939/https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&httpsredir=1&article=5339&context=uclrev |archive-date=December 26, 2017 |quote=As his decision to characterize both the New Deal and Warren Courts as centrally committed to democracy and 'active liberty' makes clear, Justice Breyer identifies his own constitutional agenda with that of these earlier courts, and positions himself, in significant respects, as a partisan of midcentury constitutional liberalism.}}</ref> Since his retirement, he has been the Byrne Professor of Administrative Law and Process at [[Harvard Law School]].<ref>{{Cite press release |title=Justice Stephen Breyer returns to Harvard Law School |date=July 15, 2022 |url=https://today.law.harvard.edu/justice-stephen-breyer-returns-to-harvard-law-school/ |language=en-US |access-date=July 16, 2022 |website=Harvard Law Today}}</ref>

Born in [[San Francisco]], Breyer attended [[Stanford University]] and the [[University of Oxford]], and graduated from [[Harvard Law School]] in 1964.<ref name="Harvyears">{{Cite encyclopedia |title=Stephen Breyer |encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Stephen-Breyer |last=Smentkowski |first=Brian P. |date=August 11, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211009092144/https://www.britannica.com/biography/Stephen-Breyer |archive-date=October 9, 2021 |quote=Breyеr received bachelor's degrees from [[Stanford University]] (1959) and the [[University of Oxford]] (1961), which he attended on a [[Rhodes Scholarship]], and a law degree from [[Harvard University]] (1964). In 1964–65 he clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice [[Arthur J. Goldberg]]. He taught law at Harvard University from 1967 to 1994.}}</ref> After a [[Law clerk|clerkship]] with Associate Justice [[Arthur Goldberg]] in 1964–65, Breyer was a law professor and lecturer at Harvard Law School from 1967 until 1980.<ref name=Harvyears/> He specialized in [[administrative law]], writing textbooks that remain in use today. He held other prominent positions before being nominated to the Supreme Court, including special assistant to the [[United States Assistant Attorney General|United States assistant attorney general]] for [[Competition law|antitrust]] and assistant special prosecutor on the [[Watergate scandal|Watergate Special Prosecution Force]] in 1973. Breyer became a [[United States federal judge|federal judge]] in 1980, when he was appointed to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit]]. In his 2005 book ''[[Active Liberty]]'', Breyer made his first attempt to systematically communicate his views on legal theory, arguing that the judiciary should seek to resolve issues in a manner that encourages popular participation in governmental decisions.

On January 27, 2022, Breyer and President Joe Biden announced Breyer's intention to retire from the Supreme Court.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Shear |first=Michael |date=January 27, 2022 |title=Biden calls Breyer a 'model public servant' and plans to name his successor soon. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/27/us/politics/biden-breyer-retire.html |access-date=January 27, 2022 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US}}</ref> On February 25, 2022, Biden nominated [[Ketanji Brown Jackson]], a judge on the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]] and one of Breyer's former [[law clerk]]s, to succeed him.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Macaya |first=Melissa |date=February 25, 2022 |title=Biden nominates Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/biden-supreme-court-nominee-ketanji-brown-jackson/index.html |access-date=February 26, 2022 |work=CNN}}</ref> Breyer remained on the Supreme Court until June 30, 2022, when Jackson succeeded him.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Chowdhury |first1=Maureen |last2=Lee |first2=Ji Min |last3=Wagner |first3=Meg |last4=Macaya |first4=Melissa |date=April 7, 2022 |title=Jackson won't be sworn in until Justice Stephen Breyer retires |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ketanji-brown-jackson-senate-confirmation-vote/h_ce810c9efaecde5b1c9f1909825804b5 |access-date=April 7, 2022 |work=CNN}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Blitzer |first=Ronn |date=June 29, 2022 |title=Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire Thursday: 'It has been my great honor' |url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-justice-stephen-breyer-retire-thursday-my-great-honor |access-date=June 29, 2022 |work=Fox News}}</ref> Breyer wrote majority opinions in landmark Supreme Court cases such as ''[[Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.]]'', ''[[United States v. Lara]]'', and ''[[Google v. Oracle]]'' and notable dissents questioning the constitutionality of the death penalty in cases such as ''[[Glossip v. Gross]]''.

==Early life and education==
Breyer was born on August 15, 1938, in San Francisco, California,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Urofsky |first=Melvin I. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4V12AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA74 |title=Biographical Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court: The Lives and Legal Philosophies of the Justices |date=May 25, 2006 |publisher=CQ Press |isbn=9781452267289 |location=Washington, DC |page=74 |access-date=November 8, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200903052411/https://books.google.com/books?id=4V12AwAAQBAJ |archive-date=September 3, 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Egelko |first=Bob |date=June 29, 2022 |title='A justice of great intellect': S.F.-born Justice Breyer steps down from Supreme Court |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/A-justice-of-great-intellect-S-F-born-17275261.php |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220819134105/https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/A-justice-of-great-intellect-S-F-born-17275261.php |archive-date=August 19, 2022 |access-date=June 27, 2024 |website=sfchronicle.com}}</ref> to Anne A. (''née'' Roberts) and Irving Gerald Breyer.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Walsh |first=Mark |date=April 11, 2018 |title=For One Supreme Court Justice, a Personal Connection to School Law |url=https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/for-one-supreme-court-justice-a-personal-connection-to-school-law/2018/04 |access-date=January 26, 2022 |work=Education Week |language=en |issn=0277-4232}}</ref> Breyer's paternal great-grandfather emigrated from Romania to the United States, settling in Cleveland, Ohio, where Breyer's grandfather was born.<ref name="bookref1">{{Cite book |last1=Slater |first1=Elinor |title=Great Jewish Men |last2=Slater |first2=Robert |date=January 1996 |publisher=Jonathan David Publishers |isbn=9780824603816 |page=73}}</ref> Breyer was raised in a [[Middle class|middle-class]] [[Jews|Jewish]] family. His father was a lawyer who served as legal counsel to the [[San Francisco Board of Education]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Stephen G. Breyer |url=https://www.oyez.org/justices/stephen_g_breyer/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070321212656/https://www.oyez.org/justices/stephen_g_breyer/ |archive-date=March 21, 2007 |access-date=March 21, 2007 |publisher=Oyez}}</ref> Breyer and his younger brother [[Charles R. Breyer]], who later became a [[United States federal judge|federal district judge]], were active in the [[Boy Scouts of America]] and achieved the [[Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America)|Eagle Scout]] rank.<ref name="honor">{{Cite book |last=Townley |first=Alvin |url=http://www.thomasdunnebooks.com/TD_TitleDetail.aspx?ISBN=0312366531 |title=Legacy of Honor: The Values and Influence of America's Eagle Scouts |publisher=St. Martin's Press |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-312-36653-7 |location=New York |pages=56–59 |access-date=December 29, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061219180428/http://www.thomasdunnebooks.com/TD_TitleDetail.aspx?ISBN=0312366531 |archive-date=December 19, 2006 |url-status=live |orig-year=December 26, 2006}}</ref><ref name="honor2">{{Cite web |last=Ray |first=Mark |year=2007 |title=What It Means to Be an Eagle Scout |url=http://www.scoutingmagazine.org/issues/0701/a-what.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181113011825/https://scoutingmagazine.org/issues/0701/a-what.html |archive-date=November 13, 2018 |access-date=January 5, 2007 |website=[[Scouting (magazine)|Scouting]] |publisher=Boy Scouts of America}}</ref> Breyer attended [[Lowell High School (San Francisco)|Lowell High School]], where he was a member of the [[Lowell Forensic Society]] and [[debate]]d regularly in high school tournaments, including against future California governor [[Jerry Brown]] and future Harvard Law School professor [[Laurence Tribe]].<ref name="Oyez Bio">{{Cite web |title=Oyez Bio |url=https://www.oyez.org/justices/stephen_g_breyer/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070321212656/https://www.oyez.org/justices/stephen_g_breyer/ |archive-date=March 21, 2007 |access-date=March 21, 2007}} (For Brown; need cite for Tribe)</ref>

After graduating from high school in 1955, Breyer studied [[philosophy]] at [[Stanford University]]. He graduated in 1959 with a [[Bachelor of Arts]] degree with highest honors and membership in [[Phi Beta Kappa]].<ref name="toobin" /> Breyer was awarded a [[Marshall Scholarship]], which he used to study [[philosophy, politics, and economics]] at [[Magdalen College, Oxford]], receiving a [[B. A.|B.A.]] with [[British undergraduate degree classification#Degree classification|first-class honors]] in 1961.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CHRG-BREYER/pdf/GPO-CHRG-BREYER.pdf |title=Serial No. J-103-64 |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office |year=1995 |isbn=01-6-046946-5 |location=Washington, DC |pages=24 |access-date=April 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181203225551/https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CHRG-BREYER/pdf/GPO-CHRG-BREYER.pdf |archive-date=December 3, 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref> He then returned to the United States to attend [[Harvard Law School]], where he was an articles editor of the ''[[Harvard Law Review]]'' and graduated in 1964 with a [[Bachelor of Laws]] degree, ''[[Latin honors#North America|magna cum laude]]''.<ref>{{Cite web |date=October 12, 2006 |title=Inaugural D.C. French Festival launches sans the Freedom Fries |url=http://www.washingtonlife.com/issues/holiday-2006/pollywood/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080830045653/http://www.washingtonlife.com/issues/holiday-2006/pollywood/ |archive-date=August 30, 2008 |access-date=August 30, 2010 |website=Washington Life Magazine}}</ref>

Breyer spent eight years in the [[United States Army Reserve]] during the [[Vietnam War]], including six months on active duty in the [[Military Intelligence Corps (United States Army)|Army Strategic Intelligence]]. He reached the rank of [[corporal]] and was [[Military discharge|honorably discharged]] in 1965.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Senate Judiciary Committee Initial Questionnaire (Supreme Court) |url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CHRG-BREYER/pdf/GPO-CHRG-BREYER-4-3-4-1.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201209083410/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CHRG-BREYER/pdf/GPO-CHRG-BREYER-4-3-4-1.pdf |archive-date=December 9, 2020 |access-date=August 24, 2020 |publisher=United States Senate Judiciary Committee |location=Washington, DC}}</ref>

In 1967, Breyer married Joanna Freda Hare, a [[psychologist]] and member of the [[British nobility|British aristocracy]], younger daughter of [[John Hare, 1st Viscount Blakenham]] and granddaughter of [[Richard Hare, 4th Earl of Listowel]]. They have three adult children: Chloe, an [[Episcopal Church in the United States of America|Episcopal]] priest; Nell; and Michael.<ref name="Supreme Court Bio">[{{SCOTUS URL|about/biographies.aspx}} The Justices of the Supreme Court]. Retrieved April 6, 2012</ref>

==Legal career==
After law school, Breyer served as a [[law clerk]] to U.S. Supreme Court justice [[Arthur Goldberg]] from 1964 to 1965. He served briefly as a fact-checker for the [[Warren Commission]], then spent two years in the [[United States Department of Justice|U.S. Department of Justice]]'s [[United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division|Antitrust Division]] as a special assistant to its [[United States Assistant Attorney General|assistant attorney general]].

In 1967, Breyer returned to Harvard Law School as an assistant professor. He taught at Harvard Law until 1980, and held a joint appointment at [[Harvard Kennedy School]] from 1977 to 1980. At Harvard, Breyer was known as a leading expert on [[administrative law]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Jasanoff |first=Sheila |date=Spring 1994 |title=The dilemmas of risk regulation: Breaking the Vicious Circle by Stephen Breyer |url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_199404/ai_n8720105 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071118171456/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_199404/ai_n8720105 |archive-date=November 18, 2007 |work=Issues in Science and Technology}}</ref> While there, he wrote two highly influential books on deregulation: ''Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation'' and ''Regulation and Its Reform''. In 1970, Breyer wrote "[[The Uneasy Case for Copyright]]", one of the most widely cited skeptical examinations of copyright. Breyer was a visiting professor at [[The College of Law (Australia)|the College of Law]] in Sydney, Australia, the [[University of Rome La Sapienza|University of Rome]],<ref name="Supreme Court Bio" /> and the [[Tulane University Law School]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 16, 2011 |title=Tulane Law School – Study Abroad |url=http://www.law.tulane.edu/abroad/index.aspx?ekmensel=c580fa7b_168_0_4386_1 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170419042621/http://www.law.tulane.edu/abroad/index.aspx?ekmensel=c580fa7b_168_0_4386_1 |archive-date=April 19, 2017 |access-date=February 14, 2012 |publisher=Law.tulane.edu}}</ref>

While teaching at Harvard, Breyer took several leaves of absence to serve in the U.S. government. He served as an assistant [[special prosecutor]] on the [[Watergate scandal|Watergate]] Special Prosecution Force in 1973. Breyer was a special counsel to the [[United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary|U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary]] from 1974 to 1975 and served as chief counsel of the committee from 1979 to 1980.<ref name="Supreme Court Bio" /> He worked closely with the chairman of the committee, Senator [[Edward M. Kennedy]], to pass the [[Airline Deregulation Act]] that closed the [[Civil Aeronautics Board]].<ref name="Oyez Bio" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Thierer |first=Adam |date=December 21, 2010 |title=Who'll Really Benefit from Net Neutrality Regulation? |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20026346-501465.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131019184816/http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20026346-501465.html |archive-date=October 19, 2013 |access-date=December 22, 2010 |publisher=[[CBS News]]}}</ref>

==U.S. Court of Appeals (1980–1994)==
{{external media | width = 210px | float = right | headerimage=
 | video1 = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OByUKNPIJU Justice Stephen Breyer: The Court And The World], 1:14:57, [[WGBH Educational Foundation|WGBH Forum Network]]<ref name="wgbh">{{Cite web |date=November 6, 2015 |title=Stephen Breyer: The Court and the World |url=http://forum-network.org/lectures/justice-stephen-breyer-court-and-world/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160322055929/http://forum-network.org/lectures/justice-stephen-breyer-court-and-world/ |archive-date=March 22, 2016 |access-date=April 9, 2015 |publisher=[[WGBH Educational Foundation|WGBH Forum Network]]}}</ref>}}
In the last days of President [[Jimmy Carter]]'s administration, on November 13, 1980, after he had been defeated for reelection, Carter nominated Breyer to the First Circuit, to a new seat established by {{USStat|92|1629}}, and the [[United States Senate]] confirmed him on December 9, 1980, by an 80–10 vote.<ref>{{Cite web |title=TO CONFIRM THE NOMINATION OF STEPHEN G. BREYER TO BE ... – Senate Vote #1021 – Dec 9, 1980 |url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/96-1980/s1021 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201029131834/https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/96-1980/s1021 |archive-date=October 29, 2020 |access-date=October 7, 2020}}</ref> He received his commission on December 10, 1980. From 1980 to 1994, Breyer was a judge on the [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit]]; he was the court's [[Chief judge (United States)|Chief Judge]] from 1990 to 1994.<ref name="Supreme Court Bio" /> One of his duties as chief judge was to oversee the design and construction of a new [[John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse|federal courthouse for Boston]], beginning an avocational interest in architecture and the [[Pritzker Architecture Prize]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pedersen |first=Martin |date=August 8, 2018 |title=Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer: 'To Understand a Building, Go There, Open your Eyes, and Look!' |url=https://www.archdaily.com/899827/supreme-court-justice-stephen-breyer-to-understand-a-building-go-there-open-your-eyes-and-look |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200920234300/https://www.archdaily.com/899827/supreme-court-justice-stephen-breyer-to-understand-a-building-go-there-open-your-eyes-and-look |archive-date=September 20, 2020 |access-date=March 4, 2020 |work=Arch Daily}}</ref>

Breyer served as a member of the [[Judicial Conference of the United States]] between 1990 and 1994 and the [[United States Sentencing Commission]] between 1985 and 1989.<ref name="Supreme Court Bio" /> On the sentencing commission he played a key role in reforming federal criminal sentencing procedures, producing the [[Federal Sentencing Guidelines]], which were formulated to increase uniformity in sentencing.<ref>{{Cite news |date=September 28, 2004 |title=Justice Breyer Should Recuse Himself from Ruling on Constitutionality of Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Duke Law Professor Says |url=http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2004/09/breyertip_0904.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120731163145/http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2004/09/breyertip_0904.html |archive-date=July 31, 2012 |work=Duke University News}}</ref>

== Supreme Court (1994–2022) ==
[[File:The World Affairs Council presents Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer (cropped).jpg|thumb|Breyer speaking in [[Philadelphia, Pennsylvania]], in 2011]]
In 1993, on the recommendation of [[Orrin Hatch]], President [[Bill Clinton]] considered both Breyer and [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]] for the seat vacated by [[Byron White]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Burr |first=Thomas |date=July 29, 2018 |title=Sen. Orrin Hatch's impact on the Supreme Court: How a one-time lawyer from Pittsburgh shaped the highest court in the land |url=https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/07/29/sen-orrin-hatchs-impact/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231215021454/https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/07/29/sen-orrin-hatchs-impact/ |archive-date=December 15, 2023 |access-date=March 18, 2024 |work=The Salt Lake Tribune}}</ref> Clinton ultimately appointed Ginsburg.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Berke |first=Richard |date=June 15, 1993 |title=The Overview; Clinton Names Ruth Ginsburg, Advocate for Women, to Court |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7DB163EF936A25755C0A965958260 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201105022355/https://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/15/us/supreme-court-overview-clinton-names-ruth-ginsburg-advocate-for-women-court.html |archive-date=November 5, 2020 |access-date=February 18, 2017 |work=The New York Times}}</ref> 

After [[Harry Blackmun]] retired in 1994, Clinton initially offered the nomination to [[George J. Mitchell|George Mitchell]], the [[Senate Majority Leader]], who was retiring. Mitchell declined. Former [[governor of Arizona]] [[Bruce Babbitt]], who ran for president in 1988 and was serving as [[United States Secretary of the Interior|Secretary of the Interior]], was then offered the nomination, but also declined, saying he was looking forward to spending more time with his wife, [[Harriet C. Babbitt]]. She was serving as the 12th [[United States Ambassador to the Organization of American States]]. Babbitt later said that had he been confirmed to the court, she would have been compelled to resign and that he did not want to cause that. Both served in their positions to the end of Clinton's presidency in January 2001. Clinton next offered the nomination to [[Harriett Woods]], a former [[Lieutenant Governor of Missouri|lieutenant governor of Missouri]] and two-time Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate. Woods was serving as president of the [[National Women's Political Caucus]]. She also declined, and recommended Breyer and U.S. representative [[Barbara Jordan]].<ref>Toobin, Jeffrey (2007). The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court</ref>

Clinton then turned to [[Richard S. Arnold]], a former Arkansas state representative and [[chief of staff]] to Arkansas Governor [[Dale Bumpers]]. President [[Jimmy Carter]] had nominated Arnold to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit]], and the Senate confirmed him on February 20, 1980. He served till 1990. After that, he was serving as [[Chief judge (United States)|chief judge]] and a member of the [[Judicial Conference of the United States]]. Clinton had almost nominated Arnold before; he was the runner-up to Ginsburg.<ref>John Paul Frank; A. Leon Higginbotham Jr. (1993). "A Brief Biography of Judge Richard S. Arnold"</ref> Arnold told Clinton the day before the planned announcement of his nomination that due to serious "health concerns", he had to "defer this honorable nomination".<ref>Toobin, Jeffrey (2007). The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court</ref>

Initially, Clinton had felt Breyer lacked "soul and passion". But after heavy lobbying by Senators [[Ted Kennedy]] and [[Tom Harkin]], Clinton met with Breyer again and proceeded to nominate him as an [[associate justice]] of the [[United States Supreme Court]] on May 17, 1994.<ref>Toobin, Jeffrey (2007). The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court</ref> Breyer was confirmed by the Senate on July 29, 1994, by an 87 to 9 vote, and received his commission on August 3.

In 2015, Breyer broke a federal law that bans judges from hearing cases when they or their spouses or minor children have a financial interest in a company involved. His wife sold about $33,000 worth of stock in [[Johnson Controls]] a day after Breyer participated in the oral argument. This brought him back into compliance and he joined the majority in ruling in favor of the interests of a Johnson Controls subsidiary which was party to ''[[FERC v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n]]''.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Hananel |first=Sam |date=October 16, 2015 |title=Supreme Court justice took part in case despite wife's stock ownership |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/conflict-interest-supreme-court-justices-stocks |work=[[PBS NewsHour]]}} {{cite court |url = https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-840/ |litigants = Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n v. Elec. Power Supply Ass'n |vol = 577 |reporter = U.S. |opinion = ___ |year = 2016 |via = Justia.com }}</ref>

Breyer wrote 551 opinions during his 28-year career, not counting those relating to orders or in the "[[shadow docket]]".<ref>{{Cite web |title=Stephen Breyer |url=https://ballotpedia.org/Stephen_Breyer |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210502164600/https://ballotpedia.org/Stephen_Breyer |archive-date=May 2, 2021 |access-date=May 7, 2021 |website=Ballotpedia}}</ref>

===Abortion===
In 2000, Breyer wrote the majority opinion in ''[[Stenberg v. Carhart]]'', which struck down a Nebraska law banning [[partial-birth abortion]].<ref>{{Cite news |date=June 2003 |title=The Women of Roe v. Wade |url=https://www.firstthings.com/article/2003/06/the-women-of-roe-v-wade |work=First Things}}</ref><ref name="stenberg" /> On June 29, 2020, he wrote the plurality opinion in ''[[June Medical Services v. Russo]]''.<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 29, 2020 |title=June Medical Services L. L. C. et al. v. Russo, Interim Secretary, Louisiana Department Of Health And Hospitals |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210214231318/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf |archive-date=February 14, 2021 |access-date=February 14, 2021}}</ref> The ruling struck down Louisiana's abortion law requiring any doctor who performed abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. Breyer reaffirmed the "benefits and burdens" test he had created in ''[[Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt]]'', which struck down a nearly identical abortion law in Texas. In 2022, he dissented in ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'', which overturned ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''.

===Census===
In ''[[Department of Commerce v. New York]]'' (2019), Breyer was in the 5–4 majority that ruled that the Census Bureau had not followed proper procedure in its implementation of a citizenship question. He was also one of four justices who would have held the citizenship question unconstitutional in itself. In a mostly concurring opinion, he wrote: "Yet the decision was ill considered in a number of critically important respects. The Secretary did not give adequate consideration to issues that should have been central to his judgment, such as the high likelihood of an undercount, the low likelihood that a question would yield more accurate citizenship data, and the apparent lack of any need for more accurate citizenship data to begin with. The Secretary's failures in considering those critical issues make his decision unreasonable".<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 27, 2019 |title=Department of Commerce v. New York |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200823075819/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf |archive-date=August 23, 2020 |access-date=May 22, 2021 |website=supremecourt.gov}}</ref>

On December 18, 2020, Breyer was one of three dissenters in ''[[Trump v. New York]]''. In a 20-page dissent, he argued that the Court should not have sidestepped the case and should have ruled in favor of the challengers, who wanted the Court to block the Trump administration's last-minute attempts to exclude undocumented immigrants from the census.<ref>{{Cite web |date=December 18, 2020 |title=Trump v. New York |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-366_7647.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210428190828/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-366_7647.pdf |archive-date=April 28, 2021 |access-date=May 22, 2021 |website=supremecourt.gov}}</ref> The census ultimately did not exclude undocumented immigrants, due to a lack of time and the subsequent issuance of [[Executive Order 13986]].

===Copyright===
In ''[[Eldred v. Ashcroft]]'', decided on January 15, 2003, Breyer and Justice [[John Paul Stevens]] filed separate dissenting opinions. In his 28-page dissent, Breyer argued that the 20-year retroactive extension of existing copyright granted by the [[Copyright Term Extension Act]] (CTEA) amounted effectively to a grant of perpetual copyright that violated the [[Copyright Clause]] of the Constitution, read in light of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]]. He argued that the extension would produce a period of protection worth more than 99.8% of protection in perpetuity and that few artists would be more inclined to produce work knowing that their great-grandchildren would receive royalties. He also wrote that the [[fair use]] defense came to no avail either, as it could not help "those who wish to obtain from electronic databases material that is not there", e.g. teachers who can find from online no ideal material to be used in the class as it has been deleted.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Supreme Court Decision on Eldred v Ashcroft - Breyer J., dissenting |url=http://www.copyright.gov/docs/eldredd1.pdf |access-date=November 22, 2010}}</ref> In 2012, he expressed a similar idea in his dissent in ''[[Golan v. Holder]]'', which affirmed the constitutionality of the application of Section 514 of the [[Uruguay Round Agreements Act]] of 1994.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Supreme Court Decision on Golan v Holder |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/565/302/#tab-opinion-1963687 |access-date=July 6, 2022}}</ref>

In 2005, while joining a unanimous Court in ''[[MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.]]'' against [[peer-to-peer file sharing]] companies [[Grokster]] and [[Streamcast]] on the ground of inducement liability, Breyer wrote a concurrence that the companies would be protected under the [[Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.|''Sony'' doctrine]] without evidence of inducement.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Supreme Court Decision on ''Grokster'' |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/913 |access-date=July 6, 2022}}</ref>

On March 20, 2012, Breyer wrote for a unanimous court in ''[[Mayo v. Prometheus]]'' that patent claims relating to new diagnostic methods of natural phenomena were not patentable as they did not add an "inventive concept to application of the natural laws".<ref>{{cite web |last=Denniston |first=Lyle | url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/opinion-recap-freeing-doctors-to-practice/ | title=Making Sense of Opinion recap: Freeing doctors to practice | website=[[Scotusblog]] | date=June 20, 2012 }}</ref> The patent, which was related to a patient's metabolization of a drug resulting from a determination of effective dosage, was analyzed to determine whether it was of an applied "law of nature" or merely an instruction on applying a [[natural law]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Patel |first=Sailesh | url=https://natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-s-mayo-v-prometheus-decision-implications-biotechnology | title=The Supreme Court's Mayo v. Prometheus Decision The Implications for Biotechnology | website=[[The National Law Review]] | date=March 23, 2012 }}</ref> In Breyer's analysis, a doctor's administration of an already known drug related only to an identification of an "intended audience" to carry out the practice rather than a transformation of the subject.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Dorn |first=Brian | title=Mayo v. Prometheus: A Year Later |journal=ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters | date=June 27, 2013 |volume=4 |issue=7 |pages=572–573 |doi=10.1021/ml400230u |pmid=24900711 |pmc=4027457 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Harmon Arner |first1=Erika |last2=Bianco |first2=Krista | url=https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/ip-updates/a-summary-of-the-supreme-court-s-prometheus-decision.html | title=MA Summary of the Supreme Court's Prometheus Decision | website=[[Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner]] | date=June 21, 2012 }}</ref> Breyer added, "If a law of nature is not patentable, then neither is a process reciting a law of nature, unless that process has additional features that provide practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the law of nature itself."<ref>{{cite web |last=Mann |first=Ronald | url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/court%e2%80%99s-biotech-case-sends-stern-warning-to-federal-circuit-and-software-designers/ | title=Court's biotech case sends stern warning to Federal Circuit and software designers | website=[[SCOTUSblog]] | date=March 21, 2012 }}</ref>

In ''[[American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.]]'', decided on June 25, 2014, Breyer delivered the majority opinion, ruling that [[Aereo]], allowing subscribers to view near-live streams of over-the-air television on Internet-connected devices, operated so overwhelmingly similar to the cable companies that it violated the right of public performance of the networks' copyrighted work.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Supreme Court Decision on ''Aereo'' |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/431 |access-date=July 6, 2022}}</ref>

In ''[[Google v. Oracle]]'', decided on April 5, 2021, Breyer wrote the 38-page majority opinion, holding that Google's copying of 11,500 lines of Java declaring code (0.4% of all Java code) constituted fair use because "three of these packages were ... fundamental to being able to use the Java language at all". Breyer explained, "By using the same declaring code for those packages, programmers using the Android platform can rely on the method calls that they are already familiar with to call up particular tasks (e.g., determining which of two integers is the greater); but Google's own implementing programs carry out those tasks. Without that copying, programmers would need to learn an entirely new system to call up the same tasks."<ref>{{Cite web |date=April 5, 2021 |title=Google v. Oracle |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956diff_2024.pdf |access-date=May 22, 2021 |website=supremecourt.gov}}</ref>

===Death penalty===
In 2015, Breyer dissented in ''[[Glossip v. Gross]]'', which held by a 5–4 vote that prisoners challenging their executions must provide a "known and available" execution method before challenging their method of execution. In a dissent joined by Ginsburg, Breyer questioned the constitutionality of the death penalty itself. He wrote, "For the reasons I have set forth in this opinion, I believe it highly likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment. At the very least, the Court should call for full briefing on the basic question."<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 29, 2015 |title=GLOSSIP ET AL. v. GROSS ET AL. |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210204093238/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf |archive-date=February 4, 2021 |access-date=February 14, 2021}}</ref> In July 2020, Breyer reiterated this position, writing, "As I have previously written, the solution may be for this Court to directly examine the question whether the death penalty violates the Constitution."<ref>{{Cite web |date=July 14, 2020 |title=WILLIAM P. BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. v. DANIEL LEWIS LEE, ET AL. |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/20a8_970e.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210204043107/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/20a8_970e.pdf |archive-date=February 4, 2021 |access-date=February 14, 2021}}</ref>

===Free speech===
On June 18, 2015, Breyer wrote the majority opinion in ''[[Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans]]''. He wrote that [[vehicle registration plates of the United States|license plates]] are considered [[government speech|governmental speech]] and are more subject to regulation than private speech.<ref>{{cite web |last=Denniston |first=Lyle | url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/opinion-analysis-the-message-determines-the-right/ | title=Opinion analysis: The message determines the right | website=[[Scotusblog]] | date=June 18, 2015 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Liptak |first=Adam | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/us/supreme-court-says-texas-can-reject-confederate-flag-license-plates.html | title=Supreme Court Says Texas Can Reject Confederate Flag License Plates | website=[[The New York Times]] | date=June 18, 2015 }}</ref> In doing so, he noted that States have historically used license plates to convey governmental messages and that speech appearing on "what is essentially a government-issued ID" could reasonably assumed to be associated with the State.<ref>{{cite web |last=Walsh |first=Mark | url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/a-view-from-the-courtroom-a-bonus-day-for-opinions/ | title=A "view" from the Courtroom: A bonus day for opinions | website=[[Scotusblog]] | date=June 18, 2015 }}</ref> Breyer also commented on the differences between the government and private citizens, saying that government speech "is not barred by the Free Speech Clause from determining the content of what it says. […] Were the Free Speech Clause interpreted otherwise, government would not work".<ref>{{cite web |last=Lithwick |first=Dahlia | url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/06/walker-v-sons-of-confederate-veterans-the-supreme-court-confronts-the-ugly-power-of-the-confederate-flag.html | title=Reality Strikes the Supreme Court | website=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] | date=June 18, 2015 }}</ref>

On June 23, 2021, Breyer authored the majority opinion in ''[[Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.]]'', relating to the role of school regulation of off-campus [[student speech]].<ref>{{cite news |last=Walsh |first=Mark | url=https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/u-s-supreme-court-rules-for-student-on-regulation-of-off-campus-speech/2021/06 | title=U.S. Supreme Court Rules for Cheerleader Who Posted Vulgar Snapchat Message | website=[[Education Week]] | date=June 23, 2021 }}</ref> In his opinion he noted the importance of potential regulation of such speech by school authorities but acknowledged that such regulation was diminished due to the potential implication of a 24-hour restriction on student speech if fully realized, its traditional role under parental supervision, and the interest of schools in safeguarding the [[marketplace of ideas]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Taticci |first=Mark | url=https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2021/6/supreme-court-decides-mahanoy-area-school-district-v-bl | title=Supreme Court Decides Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. | website=[[Faegre Drinker]] | date=June 23, 2021 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Howe |first=Amy | url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/court-rules-for-high-school-cheerleader-in-first-amendment-dispute-over-snapchat-profanity/ | title=Court rules for high school cheerleader in First Amendment dispute over Snapchat profanity | website=[[SCOTUSblog]] | date=June 23, 2021 }}</ref> Despite this, Breyer stipulated that the utterance of profanity on social media did not constitute "substantial disruptance" of a school activity or threaten harm to others, writing, "the justifications offered for punishing Levy's speech were simply insufficient […] were she an adult, the First Amendment would provide strong protection".<ref>{{cite web |last=Totenberg |first=Nina | url=https://www.npr.org/2021/06/23/1001382019/supreme-court-rules-cheerleaders-f-bombs-are-protected-by-the-first-amendment | title=Supreme Court Rules Cheerleader's F-Bombs Are Protected By The 1st Amendment | website=[[NPR]] | date=June 23, 2021 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Millhiser |first=Ian | url=https://www.vox.com/2021/6/23/22547040/supreme-court-cursing-cheerleader-stephen-breyer-free-speech-mahanoy-bl-brandi-levy | title=The Supreme Court's "cursing cheerleader" case is its biggest student free speech case in 14 years | website=[[Vox (website)|Vox]] | date=June 23, 2021 }}</ref>

===Defendant protections===
On June 21, 2011, Breyer wrote for the majority in ''[[Turner v. Rogers]]'' on the requirement of [[counsel]] or some other safeguard in [[civil contempt]] cases.<ref>{{cite web |last=Liptak |first=Adam | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/us/politics/21contempt.html | title=Court Issues Split Ruling on Poor's Right to Counsel | website=[[The New York Times]] | date=June 20, 2011 }}</ref> In his opinion, he acknowledged that a [[right to counsel]] does not exist in all matters relating to incarceration, as in civil contempt cases the defendant's opponent is also often unrepresented, the arguments typically center on straightforward questions, and substitute safeguards are available.<ref>{{cite web |last=Diller |first=Rebekah | url=https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/turner-v-rogers-what-court-did-and-didnt-say | title=Turner v. Rogers: What the Court Did and Didn't Say | website=[[Brennan Center for Justice]] | date=June 21, 2011 }}</ref> These safeguards, such as soliciting financial information or informing the defendant of the legal significance of payment, were required to have been provided by the state on pain of an erroneous deprivation of liberty.<ref>{{cite web |last=Van Oort |first=Aaron | url=https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2011/6/supreme-court-decides-turner-v-rogers | title=Supreme Court Decides Turner v. Rogers | website=[[Faegre Drinker]] | date=June 20, 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Schultz |first=Evan | url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2011/06/opinion-analysis-no-right-to-lawyer-for-deadbeat-dad/ | title=Opinion analysis: No right to lawyer for deadbeat dad | website=[[SCOTUSblog]] | date=June 21, 2011 }}</ref>

On June 22, 2015, Breyer wrote for the majority in ''[[Kingsley v. Hendrickson]]'' that a pretrial detainee must prove that [[Police brutality|excessive police force]] was excessive only by an objective standard, not a subjective standard.<ref>{{cite web |last=Panditharatne |first=Mekela | url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/police-force-supreme-court-kingsley/398861/ | title=When Is the Use of Force by Police Reasonable? | website=[[The Atlantic]] | date=July 17, 2015 }}</ref> In his opinion, he wrote that the [[Due Process Clause]] protects pretrial detainees from "objectively unreasonable" force by a state actor.<ref>{{cite web |last=Walsh |first=Mark | url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/a-view-from-the-courtroom-a-web-of-intrigue-as-the-term-winds-down/ | title=A "view" from the Courtroom: A web of intrigue as the Term winds down | website=[[SCOTUSblog]] | date=June 22, 2015 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | author-link=Mark Joseph Stern | last = Stern |first=Mark Joseph |url=https://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/06/supreme_court_kingsley_v_hendrickson_a_new_protection_against_police_abuse.html | title=After Freddie Gray | website=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] | date=June 22, 2015 }}</ref> He concluded, "in the absence of an expressed intent to punish, a pretrial detainee can nevertheless prevail by showing that the actions are not 'rationally related to a legitimate non-punitive governmental purpose' or that the actions 'appear excessive in relation to that purpose.'"<ref>{{cite web |last=Re |first=Richard | url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/opinion-analysis-supporting-excessive-force-claims-in-jails-and-prisons/ | title=Opinion analysis: Supporting excessive force claims in jails – and prisons? | website=[[SCOTUSblog]] | date=June 22, 2015 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Gilna |first=Derek | url=https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2015/jul/7/supreme-court-clarifies-legal-standard-pre-trial-detainee-excessive-force-claims/ | title=Supreme Court Clarifies Legal Standard for Pre-Trial Detainee Excessive Force Claims | website=[[Prison Legal News]] | date=July 7, 2015 }}</ref>

On February 21, 2018, Breyer wrote for the majority in ''[[Class v. United States]]'' on whether some who has already pleaded guilty may challenge a federal law's constitutionality.<ref>{{cite web |last=Scarinci |first=Donald | url=https://constitutionallawreporter.com/2018/03/01/class-v-united-states-2018/ | title=CLASS V UNITED STATES (2018) GUILTY PLEA DOES NOT BAR FEDERAL CRIMINAL DEFENDANT FROM CHALLENGING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE OF CONVICTION | website=Constitutionallawreporter.com | date=2018 }}</ref> In his opinion, he distinguished ''Class'' from past cases where appeal was denied, such as ''[[United States v. Broce]]'' and ''[[Menna v. New York]]'', as Class's admission of guilt resulted in his ability to appeal the questioned indictments that his record would otherwise have contradicted.<ref>{{cite web |last=Lucian |first=Dervan | url=https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/supreme-court-review/2018/9/2018-cato-supreme-court-review-5.pdf | title=Class v. United States: Bargained Justice and a System of Efficiencies | website=[[The Cato Institute]] | date=2018 }}</ref> He concluded, "the claims at issue here do not fall within any of the categories of claims that Class's plea agreement forbids him to raise on direct appeal. They challenge the Government's power to criminalize Class's (admitted) conduct. They thereby call into question the Government's power to 'constitutionally prosecute' him. A guilty plea does not bar a direct appeal in these circumstances.”<ref>{{cite web |last=Sample |first=Brandon | url=https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/apr/19/guilty-plea-does-not-foreclose-challenge-constitutionality-conviction-us-supreme-court-decides/ | title=Guilty Plea Does Not Foreclose Challenge To Constitutionality Of Conviction, U.S. Supreme Court Decides | website=Criminal Legal News | date=April 19, 2018 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Little |first=Rory | url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/02/opinion-analysis-appellate-constitutional-attacks-offense-conviction-not-waived-absent-explicit-waiver/ | title=Opinion analysis: Appellate constitutional attacks on the offense of conviction are not waived absent explicit waiver (Corrected)| website=[[SCOTUSblog]] | date=February 23, 2018 }}</ref>

===Native American law===
On November 27, 2001, Breyer wrote the majority opinion in ''[[Chickasaw Nation v. United States]]'', relating to whether tribes are liable for taxes on gambling operations.<ref>{{cite web |last=Jackson |first=George | url=https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1200&context=ailr | title=Chickasaw Nation v. United States and the Potential Demise of the Indian Canon of Construction | website=[[American Indian Law Review]] | date=January 1, 2003 }}</ref> In his opinion, he stipulated that [[Internal Revenue Code|IRC]] chapter 35, which affords state governmental lotteries an exemption from federal excise taxes, does not provide the same tax exemption to tribal pull-tab operations that act as lotteries under the IRC.<ref name=SCOTUS>{{ussc|name=Chickasaw Nation v. United States|534|84|2001}}.</ref> Breyer wrote that a straightforward reading of the code, which stipulated that the "reporting and withholding of taxes" on gambling operations applied equally to both the states and tribes, was "included inadvertently. The presence of a bad example in a statute does not warrant rewriting the remainder of the statute's language. Nor does it necessarily mean that the statute is ambiguous." Chapter 35, according to Breyer, "simply imposes taxes […] from which it exempts certain state-controlled gambling activities".<ref>{{cite web |last=Dean Luthrey |first=Grayden | url=https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1205&context=ailr | title=Chickasaw Nation v. United States: The Beginning of the End of the Indian-Law Canons in Statutory Cases and the Start of the Judicial Assault on the Trust Relationships? | website=[[American Indian Law Review]] | date=January 1, 2003 }}</ref>
 
On April 19, 2004, Breyer wrote the majority opinion in ''[[United States v. Lara]]'', holding that both tribal governments and the federal government may prosecute non-member Native Americans for the same charges without violating the [[Double Jeopardy Clause]], as Native Nations are separate [[Tribal sovereignty in the United States|sovereigns]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Berger |first=Bethany | url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=687356 | title=United States v. Lara as a Story of Native Agency | website=[[Tulsa Law Review]] | date=November 5, 2004 |ssrn=687356 }}</ref> He reiterated this question in the context of the tribe's sovereignty as "Whether Congress has the constitutional power to relax restrictions that the political branches have, over time, placed on the exercise of a tribe's inherent legal authority".<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20040421_RL32361_e91afd8c75fdd6c7f17e2ceaad8498197156fa07.pdf | title=Tribal Sovereignty Over Nonmember Indians: United States v. Billy Jo Lara | website=[[Congressional Research Service]] | date=April 21, 2004 }}</ref> Breyer concluded that the [[Indian Commerce Clause]] gives Congress the authority to legislate with respect to tribes and that Congress's amendments to the [[Indian Civil Rights Act]] constitute a deference to tribal sovereignty ensuring double jeopardy does not apply.<ref>{{cite web |last=Fletcher |first=Matthew | url=https://www.michbar.org/file/barjournal/article/documents/pdf4article717.pdf | title=United States v. Lara: Affirmation of Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction over Nonmember Indians | website=[[Michigan Bar Journal]] | date=July 2004 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Batzer |first=Mackenzie | url=https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=1080&context=chapman-law-review | title=Trapped in a Tangled Web United States v. Lara: The Trouble With Tribes and the Sovereignty Debacle | website=Chapman Law Review | date=2005 }}</ref>

===Environment===
In ''[[Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.]]'' (2000), Breyer was in the 7–2 majority that held that people who use the North Tyger River for recreational purposes but could not do so due to pollution had standing to sue industrial polluters.

On April 23, 2020, Breyer wrote the majority opinion in ''[[County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund]]''.<ref>{{Cite web |date=April 23, 2020 |title=COUNTY OF MAUI, HAWAII v. HAWAII WILDLIFE FUND ET AL. |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-260_jifl.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210126011944/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-260_jifl.pdf |archive-date=January 26, 2021 |access-date=February 14, 2021}}</ref> The Court ruled that the County of Maui must have a permit under the [[Clean Water Act]] in order to release [[groundwater pollution]] into the ocean. Although the ruling was less broad than the 9th Circuit's ruling, environmentalist groups saw the ruling as a win and an affirmation of the Clean Water Act.<ref>{{Cite news |date=April 23, 2020 |title=Supreme Court says Clean Water Act applies to some groundwater pollution |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/23/politics/supreme-court-clean-water-act-maui/index.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210302061215/https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/23/politics/supreme-court-clean-water-act-maui/index.html |archive-date=March 2, 2021 |access-date=February 14, 2021 |publisher=CNN}}</ref>

On July 31, 2020, Breyer dissented when the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, refused to lift a stay on the 9th Circuit ruling that halted construction of the wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. The Sierra Club argued that the wall would harm the environment unduly, including threatening wildlife and changing the flow of water in the Sonoran Desert.<ref>{{Cite web |date=October 21, 2019 |title=The Destruction Caused by the Border Wall Is Worse Than You Think |url=https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2020-1-january-february/protect/destruction-caused-border-wall-worse-you-think |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210121175206/https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2020-1-january-february/protect/destruction-caused-border-wall-worse-you-think |archive-date=January 21, 2021 |access-date=February 14, 2021 |publisher=Sierra Club}}</ref> Breyer wrote, "The Court's decision to let construction continue nevertheless, I fear, may 'operat[e], in effect, as a final judgment.'" Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined his dissent.<ref>{{Cite web |date=July 31, 2020 |title=DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. SIERRA CLUB, ET AL. |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a60_bqm1.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309193041/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a60_bqm1.pdf |archive-date=March 9, 2021 |access-date=February 14, 2021}}</ref>

On March 4, 2021, Breyer dissented in ''[[United States Fish and Wildlife Serv. v. Sierra Club, Inc.]]'', joined only by Sotomayor. The case concerned the Sierra Club's request under the [[Freedom of Information Act (United States)|Freedom of Information Act]] (FOIA) for "draft opinions" concerning rules governing underwater structures that are used to cool industrial equipment. The Sierra Club argued that it had the right to access the documents.<ref>{{Cite news |date=March 4, 2021 |title=Breaking Away from Norms and Traditions, Justice Breyer Does Not 'Respectfully' Dissent Against Justice Barrett's First Majority Opinion |url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/breaking-away-from-norms-and-traditions-justice-breyer-does-not-e2-80-98respectfully-e2-80-99-dissent-against-justice-barrett-e2-80-99s-first-majority-opinion/ar-BB1efi0M |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210414223704/https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/breaking-away-from-norms-and-traditions-justice-breyer-does-not-e2-80-98respectfully-e2-80-99-dissent-against-justice-barrett-e2-80-99s-first-majority-opinion/ar-BB1efi0M |archive-date=April 14, 2021 |access-date=March 4, 2021 |publisher=MSN}}</ref> The majority opinion limits environmental groups' ability to obtain government documents under FOIA.<ref>{{Cite web |date=March 4, 2021 |title=Barrett Rejects Sierra Club in First Opinion for Supreme Court |url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/barrett-rejects-sierra-club-in-first-opinion-for-supreme-court/ar-BB1efbUk |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210305123308/http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/barrett-rejects-sierra-club-in-first-opinion-for-supreme-court/ar-BB1efbUk |archive-date=March 5, 2021 |access-date=March 4, 2021 |publisher=MSN}}</ref> Breyer wrote in his dissent, "Agency practice shows that the Draft Biological Opinion, not the Final Biological Opinion, is the document that informs the EPA of the Services' conclusions about jeopardy and alternatives and triggers within the EPA the process of deciding what to do about those conclusions. If a Final Biological Opinion is discoverable under FOIA, as all seem to agree it is, why would a Draft Biological Opinion, embodying the same Service conclusions (and leaving the EPA with the same four choices), not be?"<ref>{{Cite web |date=March 4, 2021 |title=UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ET AL. v. SIERRA CLUB, INC. |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-547_08m1.pdf |access-date=March 4, 2021}}</ref>

In ''Hollyfrontier Cheyenne Refining v. Renewable Fuels Association'', Breyer ruled for oil refineries, joining the majority opinion, which held that oil refineries struggling financially did not need a continuous exemption every year since 2011 in order to be granted an exemption from federal renewable fuels policy.<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 25, 2021 |title=Oil refineries win battle over renewable-fuel exemptions |url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/oil-refineries-win-battle-over-renewable-fuel-exemptions/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210629222957/https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/oil-refineries-win-battle-over-renewable-fuel-exemptions/ |archive-date=June 29, 2021 |access-date=June 25, 2021 |website=SCOTUSblog}}</ref>

===Health care===
Breyer generally voted to uphold the [[Affordable Care Act]] since its passage in 2010. He wrote the 7-2 majority opinion in ''[[California v. Texas]]'', a decision on June 17, 2021, holding that Texas and other states lacked standing to sue against the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate. Breyer wrote, "It is consequently not surprising that the plaintiffs cannot point to cases that support them. To the contrary, our cases have consistently spoken of the need to assert an injury that is the result of a statute's actual or threatened enforcement, whether today or in the future."<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 17, 2021 |title=19-840 California v. Texas (06/17/2021) |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210617140242/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf |archive-date=June 17, 2021 |access-date=June 17, 2021 |website=supremecourt.gov}}</ref>

===Partisan gerrymandering===
On April 28, 2004, Breyer dissented in ''[[Vieth v. Jubelirer]]'', in which the Court held that partisan [[gerrymandering]] is a non-justiciable claim. Breyer wrote in his dissent, "Sometimes purely political 'gerrymandering' will fail to advance any plausible democratic objective while simultaneously threatening serious democratic harm. And sometimes when that is so, courts can identify an equal protection violation and provide a remedy."<ref>{{Cite web |date=April 28, 2004 |title=Vieth et al. v. Jubelirer, President Of The Pennsylvania Senate, et al. |url=http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1580.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140508180353/http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1580.pdf |archive-date=May 8, 2014 |access-date=February 14, 2021}}</ref> In 2006, Breyer was in a 5–4 majority holding that District 23 of the [[2003 Texas redistricting]] violated the Voting Rights Act due to [[vote dilution]]. Along with Justice [[John Paul Stevens]], Breyer would also have ruled in favor of plaintiffs' claims that Texas's statewide plan was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. In June 2019, Breyer dissented in ''[[Rucho v. Common Cause]]'', in which the Supreme Court decided 5–4 that gerrymandering is a non-justiciable claim.<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 27, 2019 |title=Rucho et al. v. Common Cause et al. |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210215052934/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf |archive-date=February 15, 2021 |access-date=February 14, 2021}}</ref>

===Voting rights===
Breyer wrote the majority opinion in ''[[Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama]]'', which ruled that racial gerrymandering claims must be looked at district by district, and struck down four of Alabama's state Senate districts as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders.<ref>{{Cite web |date=March 25, 2015 |title=ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS ET AL. v. ALABAMA ET AL. |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-895_o7jq.pdf |access-date=March 1, 2022}}</ref>

Breyer joined Ginsburg's dissent in ''[[Shelby County v. Holder]]''. A 5–4 majority ruled that Section 4(b) of the [[Voting Rights Act]] is unconstitutional. Breyer joined another dissent by Ginsburg in ''[[RNC v. DNC]]'', which overturned a lower court's extension of a voting deadline in the Wisconsin primary elections.<ref>{{Cite web |date=April 6, 2020 |title=REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL. v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL. |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1016_o759.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210215052844/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1016_o759.pdf |archive-date=February 15, 2021 |access-date=February 14, 2021}}</ref> The lower court had extended the deadline so that people who had not yet received mail-in ballots by April 7 could vote by mail in the wake of the [[COVID-19]] pandemic. Breyer dissented in a similar Wisconsin case in October; the petitioners had asked the court to require Wisconsin to count mail-in ballots received up to six days after Election Day, and the Court, with Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissenting, refused the petitioners' request to extend the deadline.<ref>{{Cite web |date=October 26, 2020 |title=DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL. v. WISCONSIN STATE LEGISLATURE, ET AL. |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a66_new_m6io.pdf#page=24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210223065650/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a66_new_m6io.pdf#page=24 |archive-date=February 23, 2021 |access-date=February 14, 2021}}</ref> Breyer joined Kagan's dissent in ''[[Brnovich v. DNC]]'' (2021), a case that upheld Arizona's ban on ballot harvesting and refusal to count out-of-precinct ballots.<ref>{{Cite web |date=July 1, 2021 |title=No. 19-1257 Brnovich v. DNC |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210706222115/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf |archive-date=July 6, 2021 |access-date=September 6, 2021 |website=supremecourt.gov}}</ref> As the most senior dissenter, Breyer likely assigned the dissenting opinion to Kagan.{{citation needed|date=February 2022}}

== Retirement and post-retirement ==
[[File:Steve Breyer Retirement.png|thumb|right|Breyer announcing his pending retirement alongside President [[Joe Biden]] on January 27, 2022]]
[[File:Stephen Breyer 53501586118 o (1).jpg|thumb|Breyer in 2024]]

After Democratic victories in the 2020 [[2020 United States presidential election|presidential]] and [[2020 United States Senate elections|Senate]] elections, progressive activists and Democratic members of Congress called on Breyer to retire so that President Biden could nominate a younger liberal justice.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Durkee |first=Alison |date=April 9, 2021 |title=Progressives Demand 'Breyer Retire' So Biden Can Appoint Supreme Court Justice |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/04/09/progressives-demand-stephen-breyer-retire-so-biden-can-appoint-supreme-court-justice/?sh=214ddab8ad96 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210419041021/https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/04/09/progressives-demand-stephen-breyer-retire-so-biden-can-appoint-supreme-court-justice/?sh=214ddab8ad96 |archive-date=April 19, 2021 |work=Forbes}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Stracqualursi |first=Veronica |date=April 16, 2021 |title=Democratic congressman calls on Justice Stephen Breyer to retire |url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/16/politics/mondaire-jones-stephen-breyer-supreme-court/index.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210418025000/https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/16/politics/mondaire-jones-stephen-breyer-supreme-court/index.html |archive-date=April 18, 2021 |work=CNN}}</ref> In an August 2021 ''[[New York Times]]'' interview, Breyer said he wished to retire before his death, and recounted a conversation he had with Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] in which Scalia mentioned that he did not want his successor to "reverse everything I've done for the last 25 years". Breyer said that Scalia's point will "inevitably be in the psychology" of his decision to retire.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Cillizza |first=Chris |date=August 27, 2021 |title=Analysis: Stephen Breyer just made Democrats' Friday |url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/27/politics/stephen-breyer-supreme-court-retirement/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210831180137/https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/27/politics/stephen-breyer-supreme-court-retirement/index.html |archive-date=August 31, 2021 |access-date=September 5, 2021 |publisher=CNN}}</ref> In a September 2021 interview with ''[[Fox News]]'''s [[Chris Wallace]], Breyer said activists calling for his retirement are "entitled to their opinion" and "I didn't retire because I had decided on balance I wouldn't retire". He said he took several factors into account when deciding his retirement plans, and reiterated that he did not plan to "die on the court".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Politi |first=Daniel |date=September 12, 2021 |title=Justice Stephen Breyer: 'I Don't Intend to Die on the Court' |url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/justice-stephen-breyer-retirement-fox-news-sunday.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210912231210/https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/justice-stephen-breyer-retirement-fox-news-sunday.html |archive-date=September 12, 2021 |access-date=September 12, 2021 |website=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |language=en}}</ref>

On January 26, 2022, news outlets reported Breyer's intention to retire from the court at the end of the 2021–22 term.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Breuninger |first=Kevin |date=January 26, 2022 |title=Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire, giving Biden a chance to nominate a replacement |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/26/supreme-court-justice-stephen-breyer-to-retire-giving-biden-a-chance-to-nominate-a-replacement.html |access-date=January 26, 2022 |website=CNBC |language=en-US}}</ref> Breyer confirmed his pending retirement in a White House announcement alongside Biden on January 27.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Shear |first=Michael |date=January 27, 2022 |title=Biden calls Breyer a 'model public servant' and plans to name his successor soon. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/01/27/us/stephen-breyer-supreme-court-retire/biden-breyer-retire |access-date=January 27, 2022 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US}}</ref> On February 25, Biden announced [[Ketanji Brown Jackson Supreme Court nomination|his nomination]] of [[Ketanji Brown Jackson]], a former clerk of Breyer and judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]], to succeed Breyer on the Supreme Court.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Thomas |first1=Ken |last2=Gershman |first2=Jacob |last3=Bravin |first3=Jess |date=February 25, 2022 |title=Ketanji Brown Jackson Announced as Biden's Pick for Supreme Court Nominee |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-taps-ketanji-brown-jackson-for-supreme-court-11645797644 |access-date=February 25, 2022 |work=The Wall Street Journal}}</ref> The U.S. Senate confirmed Jackson by a vote of 53–47 on April 7, 2022.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Baker |first1=Sam |last2=Gonzalez |first2=Oriana |date=April 7, 2022 |title=Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmed as first Black female Supreme Court justice |url=https://www.axios.com/ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court-biden-5aaba226-c0e0-43f6-8952-a803c9c0e29c.html |access-date=April 7, 2022 |website=[[Axios (website)|Axios]]}}</ref> The last opinion Breyer wrote before his retirement was the majority opinion in ''[[Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety]]''.<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 29, 2022 |title=Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-603/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231017173854/https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-603/ |archive-date=October 17, 2023 |access-date=October 17, 2023 |publisher=Justia US Supreme Court Center}}</ref> He retired on June 30, 2022, at 12:00 noon [[Eastern Time Zone|EDT]], following the court's final opinions and orders for the term.<ref>{{Cite web |last=de Vogue |first=Ariane |date=June 29, 2022 |title=Breyer makes it official: He's leaving the Supreme Court on Thursday at noon |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/29/politics/breyer-supreme-court/index.html |access-date=June 29, 2022 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=June 29, 2022 |title=Justice Breyer Retirement Letter |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/2022-06-29_SGB_Letter.pdf |access-date=June 29, 2022 |website=Chambers of Justice Stephen Breyer |publisher=[[Supreme Court of the United States]] |location=Washington, DC}}</ref> Breyer's retirement left only one [[Veteran|military veteran]], [[Samuel Alito]], on the Supreme Court.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Preston |first=Matthew |date=April 15, 2022 |title=Ketanji Brown Jackson's Historic Rise Leaves Just One Military Veteran on the Supreme Court |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2022/04/15/supreme-court-ketanji-brown-jackson-veteran/9510328002/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220415131417/https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2022/04/15/supreme-court-ketanji-brown-jackson-veteran/9510328002/ |archive-date=April 15, 2022 |access-date=October 9, 2022 |website=USA Today}}</ref>

On July 2, 2022, it was announced that Breyer had been appointed Byrne Professor of Administrative Law and Process at [[Harvard Law School]], with immediate effect. Breyer had previously both attended and taught at Harvard Law School.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://hls.harvard.edu/today/justice-stephen-breyer-returns-to-harvard-law-school/ |title=Justice Stephen Breyer returns to Harvard Law School |date= 2 July 2022 |access-date= 7 January 2025}}</ref>

As a retired Supreme Court justice, Breyer can still sit as a judge in lower federal courts [[by designation]]. He first returned to the bench in 2025 in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the court on which he was a judge before his Supreme Court appointment.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/breyer-is-back-to-lobbing-hypotheticals-at-first-circuit-return |title=Breyer Is Back Lobbing Hypotheticals at First Circuit Return (1) |website=Bloomberg Law |date=January 8, 2025}}</ref>

Breyer attended the [[second inauguration of Donald Trump]] in 2025, appearing with the nine sitting Supreme Court justices.<ref>{{cite news|url = https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-is-attending-trump-inauguration-2025/|title = Who is and isn't attending Trump's 2025 inauguration? Here's who is at his swearing in|last = Hubbard|first = Kaia|date = January 20, 2025|accessdate = May 12, 2025|work = [[CBS News]]}}</ref>

==Judicial philosophy==
===In general===
{{further|Purposive approach}}

Breyer's [[Pragmatism|pragmatic]] approach to the law "will tend to make the law more sensible", according to [[Cass Sunstein]], who added that Breyer's "attack on [[originalism]] is powerful and convincing".<ref name="115 YALE L.J. 1719">{{Cite journal |last=Sunstein |first=Cass R. |date=May 2006 |title=Justice Breyer's Democratic Pragmatism |url=http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/221_om87hycw.pdf |url-status=live |journal=The Yale Law Journal |volume=115 |issue=7 |pages=1719–1743 |doi=10.2307/20455667 |jstor=20455667 |s2cid=154739751 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170704041242/http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/221_om87hycw.pdf |archive-date=July 4, 2017 |quote=Breyer thinks that, as compared with a single-minded focus on literal text, his approach will tend to make the law more sensible, almost by definition. He also contends that it 'helps to implement the public's will and is therefore consistent with the Constitution's democratic purpose.' Breyer concludes that an emphasis on legislative purpose 'means that laws will work better for the people they are presently meant to affect. Law is tied to life, and a failure to understand how a statute is so tied can undermine the very human activity that the law seeks to benefit.'}} Quote is at p. 1726.</ref>

Breyer consistently voted in favor of [[abortion]] rights,<ref name="Wittes2005">{{Cite news |last=Wittes |first=Benjamin |date=September 25, 2005 |title=Memo to John Roberts: Stephen Breyer, a cautious, liberal Supreme Court justice, explains his view of the law |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/22/AR2005092201017.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170714053504/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/22/AR2005092201017.html |archive-date=July 14, 2017 |access-date=September 15, 2017 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]}}</ref><ref name="stenberg">''[[Stenberg v. Carhart]]'', {{ussc|530|914|2000}}.</ref> one of the most controversial areas of the Supreme Court's docket. He also defended the Court's use of foreign law and [[international law]] as persuasive (but not binding) authority in its decisions.<ref>{{Cite web |date=January 13, 2005 |title=Transcript of Discussion Between Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer |url=http://domino.american.edu/AU/media/mediarel.nsf/1D265343BDC2189785256B810071F238/1F2F7DC4757FD01E85256F890068E6E0?OpenDocument |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070404123503/http://domino.american.edu/AU/media/mediarel.nsf/1D265343BDC2189785256B810071F238/1F2F7DC4757FD01E85256F890068E6E0?OpenDocument |archive-date=April 4, 2007 |access-date=March 21, 2007 |publisher=AU Washington College of Law}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Pearlstein |first=Deborah |date=April 5, 2005 |title=Who's Afraid of International Law |url=https://prospect.org/article/afraid-international-law/ |access-date=October 6, 2023 |work=American Prospect Online}}</ref><ref>''[[Roper v. Simmons]]'', {{ussc|543|551|2005}}; ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'', {{ussc|539|558|2003}}; ''[[Atkins v. Virginia]]'', {{ussc|536|304|2002}}.</ref> Breyer is also recognized as deferential to the interests of law enforcement and to legislative judgments in the Court's [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] rulings. He demonstrated a consistent pattern of deference to Congress, voting to overturn congressional legislation at a lower rate than any other Justice since 1994.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Gewirtz |first1=Paul |last2=Golder |first2=Chad |date=July 6, 2005 |title=So Who Are the Activists? |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080307225205/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html |archive-date=March 7, 2008 |access-date=March 23, 2007 |work=The New York Times}}</ref>

Breyer's extensive experience in [[administrative law]] is accompanied by his staunch defense of the [[Federal Sentencing Guidelines]]. He rejects the strict interpretation of the [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth Amendment]] espoused by [[Antonin Scalia|Justice Scalia]] that all facts necessary to criminal punishment must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.<ref>''[[Blakely v. Washington]]'', {{ussc|542|296|2004}}.</ref> In many other areas on the Court, too, Breyer's pragmatism was considered the intellectual counterweight to Scalia's [[textualism|textualist]] philosophy.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Sullivan |first=Kathleen M. |date=February 5, 2006 |title=Consent of the Governed |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/books/review/05sullivan.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151229082108/http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/books/review/05sullivan.html |archive-date=December 29, 2015 |access-date=February 18, 2017 |work=The New York Times}}</ref>

In describing his interpretive philosophy, Breyer has sometimes noted his use of six interpretive tools: text, history, tradition, precedent, the purpose of a statute, and the consequences of competing interpretations.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Lithwick |first=Dalia |date=December 6, 2006 |title=Justice Grover Versus Justice Oscar |url=http://www.slate.com/id/2154993/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070303154406/http://www.slate.com/id/2154993/ |archive-date=March 3, 2007 |access-date=March 19, 2007 |work=Slate}}</ref> He has noted that only the last two differentiate him from textualists such as Scalia. Breyer argues that these sources are necessary, however, and in the former case (purpose), can in fact provide greater objectivity in legal interpretation than looking merely at what is often ambiguous statutory text.<ref>{{Cite news |date=September 30, 2005 |title=Interview with Nina Totenberg |url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4929668 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070214061347/http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4929668 |archive-date=February 14, 2007 |access-date=March 19, 2007 |publisher=NPR}}</ref> With the latter (consequences), Breyer argues that considering the impact of legal interpretations is a further way of ensuring consistency with a law's intended purpose.<ref name="115 YALE L.J. 1719" />

===''Active Liberty''===
[[File:Stephen Breyer (cropped).jpg|thumb|Breyer in 2011]]

Breyer expounded his judicial philosophy in 2005 in ''[[Active Liberty|Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution]]''. In it, Breyer urges judges to interpret legal provisions (of the Constitution or of statutes) in light of the purpose of the text and how well the consequences of specific rulings fit those purposes. The book is considered a response to the 1997 book ''A Matter of Interpretation'', in which [[Antonin Scalia]] emphasized adherence to the original meaning of the text alone.<ref name="Wittes2005" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Feeney |first=Mark |date=October 3, 2005 |title=Author in the Court: Justice Stephen Breyer's New Book Reflects His Practical Approach to the Law |url=http://archive.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2005/10/03/author_in_the_court/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171226131035/http://archive.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2005/10/03/author_in_the_court/ |archive-date=December 26, 2017 |access-date=December 26, 2017 |work=[[The Boston Globe]]}}</ref>

In ''Active Liberty'', Breyer argues that the [[Founding Fathers of the United States|Framers of the Constitution]] sought to establish a democratic government involving the maximum liberty for its citizens. Breyer refers to [[Isaiah Berlin]]'s ''Two Concepts of Liberty''. The first Berlinian concept, being what most people understand by liberty, is "freedom from government coercion". Berlin termed this "[[negative liberty]]" and warned against its diminution; Breyer calls this "modern liberty". The second Berlinian concept—"[[positive liberty]]"—is the "freedom to participate in the government". In Breyer's terminology, this is the "active liberty" the judge should champion. Having established what "active liberty" is, and positing the primary importance (to the Framers) of this concept over the competing idea of "negative liberty", Breyer makes a predominantly [[utilitarian]] case for rulings that give effect to the [[Original intent|democratic intentions]] of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]].{{citation needed|date=August 2022}}

The book's historical premises and practical prescriptions have been challenged. For example, according to [[Peter Berkowitz]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Berkowitz |first=Peter |title=Democratizing the Constitution |url=http://www.peterberkowitz.com/democratizingtheconstitution.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071128141817/http://www.peterberkowitz.com/democratizingtheconstitution.pdf |archive-date=November 28, 2007 |access-date=October 26, 2007}}</ref> the reason that "[t]he primarily democratic nature of the Constitution's governmental structure has not always seemed obvious", as Breyer puts it, is "because it's not true, at least in Breyer's sense, that the Constitution elevates active liberty above modern [negative] liberty". Breyer's position "demonstrates not fidelity to the Constitution", Berkowitz argues, "but rather a determination to rewrite the Constitution's priorities". Berkowitz suggests that Breyer is also inconsistent in failing to apply this standard to the issue of abortion, instead preferring decisions "that protect women's modern liberty, which remove controversial issues from democratic discourse". Failing to answer the [[Textualism|textualist]] charge that the [[Living Constitution|Living Documentarian]] judge is a law unto himself, Berkowitz argues that ''Active Liberty'' "suggests that when necessary, instead of choosing the consequence that serves what he regards as the Constitution's leading purpose, Breyer will determine the Constitution's leading purpose on the basis of the consequence that he prefers to vindicate".{{citation needed|date=August 2022}}

Against the last charge, Cass Sunstein has defended Breyer, noting that of the nine justices on the Rehnquist Court, Breyer had the highest percentage of votes to uphold acts of Congress and also to defer to the decision of the [[Executive branch of the United States|executive branch]].<ref>Sunstein, pg. 7, citing Lori Ringhand, "Judicial Activism and the Rehnquist Court", available on ssrn.com and Cass R. Sunstein and Thomas Miles, "[https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=2663&context=journal_articles Do Judges Make Regulatory Policy? An Empirical investigation of Chevron] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171226131026/https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=2663&context=journal_articles |date=December 26, 2017 }}", ''University of Chicago Law Review'' 823 (2006).</ref> However, according to [[Jeffrey Toobin]] in ''[[The New Yorker]]'', "Breyer concedes that a judicial approach based on 'active liberty' will not yield solutions to every constitutional debate", and that, in Breyer's words, "respecting the democratic process does not mean you abdicate your role of enforcing the limits in the Constitution, whether in the Bill of Rights or in separation of powers."<ref name="toobin">{{Cite magazine |last=Toobin |first=Jeffrey |date=October 31, 2005 |title=Breyer's Big Idea |url=https://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/10/31/051031fa_fact?currentPage=1 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140317153814/http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/10/31/051031fa_fact?currentPage=1 |archive-date=March 17, 2014 |access-date=February 18, 2020 |magazine=[[The New Yorker]]}}</ref>

To this point, and from a discussion at the [[New York Historical Society]] in March 2006, Breyer has noted that "democratic means" did not bring about an end to [[slavery]], or the concept of "one man, one vote", and it is the concept of universal suffrage that allowed corrupt and discriminatory (but democratically inspired) state laws to be overturned in favor of [[civil rights]].<ref name="NYHS">{{Cite web |last=Pakaluk |first=Maximilian |date=March 13, 2006 |title=Chambered in a 'Democratic Space'. Justice Breyer explains his Constitution |url=http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pakaluk_200603130802.asp |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060318104617/http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pakaluk_200603130802.asp |archive-date=March 18, 2006 |access-date=October 31, 2007 |website=National Review}}</ref>

===Other books===
In 2010, Breyer published a second book, ''Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge's View''.<ref>({{ISBN|978-0307269911}}); {{Cite news |last=Fontana |first=David |date=October 3, 2005 |title=Stephen Breyer's 'Making Democracy Work', reviewed by David Fontana |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/01/AR2010100103520.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101106030604/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/01/AR2010100103520.html |archive-date=November 6, 2010 |access-date=October 8, 2010 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref> In it, he argues that judges have six tools they can use to determine a legal provision's proper meaning: (1) its text; (2) its historical context; (3) [[precedent]]; (4) tradition; (5) its purpose; and (6) the consequences of potential interpretations.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Breyer |first=Stephen |title=Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge's View |year=2010 |page=74}}</ref> [[Textualists]], like [[Scalia]], only feel comfortable using the first four of these tools; while pragmatists, like Breyer, believe that "purpose" and "consequences" are ''particularly'' important interpretative tools.<ref>{{Cite AV media |url=https://fedsoc.org/commentary/videos/a-conversation-on-the-constitution-with-supreme-court-justices-stephen-breyer-and-antonin-scalia-event-audio |title=A conversation on the constitution: perspectives from Active Liberty and A Matter of Interpretation |date=December 5, 2006 |type=Video |publisher=The American Constitution Society; The Federalist Society |place=Capital Hilton Ballroom – Washington, D.C. |people=Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Jan Crawford Greenburg (moderator)}}</ref>

Breyer cites several watershed moments in Supreme Court history to show why the consequences of a particular ruling should always be in a judge's mind. He notes that [[President Jackson]] ignored the Court's ruling in ''[[Worcester v. Georgia]]'', which led to the [[Trail of Tears]] and severely weakened the Court's authority.<ref name="Shesol">{{Cite news |last=Shesol |first=Jeff |date=September 17, 2010 |title=Evolving Circumstances, Enduring Values |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/books/review/Shesol-t.html?pagewanted=all&mcubz=0 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171226182345/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/books/review/Shesol-t.html?pagewanted=all&mcubz=0 |archive-date=December 26, 2017 |work=The New York Times}}</ref> He also cites the ''[[Dred Scott]]'' decision, an important precursor to the [[American Civil War]].<ref name="Shesol" /> When the Court ignores the consequences of its decisions, Breyer argues, it can lead to devastating and destabilizing outcomes.<ref name="Shesol" />

In 2015, Breyer released a third book, ''The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities'', examining the interplay between U.S. and international law and how the realities of a globalized world need to be considered in U.S. cases.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Witt |first=John Fabian |date=September 14, 2015 |title=Stephen Breyer's 'The Court and the World' |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/books/review/stephen-breyers-the-court-and-the-world.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160825072412/http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/books/review/stephen-breyers-the-court-and-the-world.html |archive-date=August 25, 2016 |access-date=February 18, 2017 |work=The New York Times}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities |url=http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/253016/the-court-and-the-world-by-stephen-breyer/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151118112408/http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/253016/the-court-and-the-world-by-stephen-breyer/ |archive-date=November 18, 2015 |access-date=October 27, 2015 |publisher=Penguin Random House}}</ref>

On March 26, 2024, Breyer released a fourth book, ''Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism''. In an interview about the book, he said that textualism, a judicial philosophy conservative justices favor, "will not help achieve the goals of those who write statutes or those who wrote and adopted the Constitution" and is doomed to fail.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/03/26/stephen-breyer-supreme-court-interview-00148948|title=A Supreme Court Justice Sounds a Warning|website=Politico|date=March 26, 2024|access-date=March 27, 2024}}</ref>

===Other views===
In an interview on ''[[Fox News Sunday]]'' on December 12, 2010, Breyer said that based on the values and the historical record, the [[Founding Fathers of the United States]] never intended guns to go unregulated and that history supports his and the other dissenters' views in ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller]]''. He summarized:

{{Blockquote|We're acting as judges. If we're going to decide everything on the basis of history—by the way, what is the scope of the right to keep and bear arms? Machine guns? Torpedoes? Handguns? Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland. There is no problem, I don't think, for anyone who really wants to have a gun.<ref>{{Cite news |date=December 12, 2010 |title=Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns |url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/breyer-founding-fathers-would-have-allowed-restrictions-on-guns/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110513210354/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/12/breyer-founding-fathers-allowed-restrictions-guns/#content |archive-date=May 13, 2011 |access-date=April 2, 2011 |publisher=Fox News}}</ref>}}

In the wake of the controversy over Justice [[Samuel Alito]]'s [[2010 State of the Union Address#Supreme Court Justices' response|reaction]] to President [[Barack Obama]]'s [[Citizens United v. FEC#Opposition|criticism]] of the Court's ''[[Citizens United v. FEC]]'' ruling in his [[2010 State of the Union Address]],<ref>{{Cite news |last=Nagraj |first=Neil |date=January 28, 2010 |title=Justice Alito mouths 'not true' when Obama blasts Supreme Court ruling in State of the Union address |url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/01/28/2010-01-28_justice_alito_mouths_not_true_when_obama_blasts_supreme_court_ruling_in_state_of.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100131145816/http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/01/28/2010-01-28_justice_alito_mouths_not_true_when_obama_blasts_supreme_court_ruling_in_state_of.html |archive-date=January 31, 2010 |access-date=December 13, 2010 |work=[[Daily News (New York)|Daily News]] |location=New York}}</ref> Breyer said he would continue to attend the address:

{{Blockquote|I think it's very, very, very important—very important—for us to show up at that State of the Union, because people today are more and more visual. What [people] see in front of them at the State of the Union is that federal government. And I would like them to see the judges too, because federal judges are also a part of that government.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Blake |first=Aaron |date=December 12, 2010 |title=Justice Breyer: I'll go to State of the Union |url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/12/breyer-ill-go-to-state-of-the.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111203215727/http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/12/breyer-ill-go-to-state-of-the.html |archive-date=December 3, 2011 |access-date=December 13, 2010 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref>}}

===Honors===
Breyer was elected to the [[American Philosophical Society]] in 2004.<ref>{{Cite web |title=APS Member History |url=https://search.amphilsoc.org/memhist/search?creator=Stephen+Breyer&title=&subject=&subdiv=&mem=&year=&year-max=&dead=&keyword=&smode=advanced |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210609165052/https://search.amphilsoc.org/memhist/search?creator=Stephen+Breyer&title=&subject=&subdiv=&mem=&year=&year-max=&dead=&keyword=&smode=advanced |archive-date=June 9, 2021 |access-date=June 9, 2021 |website=search.amphilsoc.org}}</ref> In 2007, Breyer was honored with the [[Distinguished Eagle Scout Award]] by the [[Boy Scouts of America]].<ref name="breyerDE">{{Cite journal |year=2007 |title=Distinguished Eagle Scout Award |url=http://www.scoutingmagazine.org/issues/0711/d-news.html |url-status=live |journal=Scouting |issue=November&nbsp;– December 2007 |page=10 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071118092306/http://www.scoutingmagazine.org/issues/0711/d-news.html |archive-date=November 18, 2007 |access-date=November 1, 2007}}</ref> In 2018, he was named to chair of the [[Pritzker Architecture Prize]] jury, succeeding previous chair [[Glenn Murcutt]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer Named Chair of Pritzker Architecture Prize Jury |url=https://www.architectmagazine.com/awards/u-s-supreme-court-justice-stephen-breyer-named-chair-of-pritzker-architecture-prize-jury_o |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210515151156/https://www.architectmagazine.com/awards/u-s-supreme-court-justice-stephen-breyer-named-chair-of-pritzker-architecture-prize-jury_o |archive-date=May 15, 2021 |access-date=March 5, 2019 |website=Architect Magazine|date=August 16, 2018 }}</ref>

==In popular culture==
Breyer has appeared as a guest on [[Stephen Colbert]]'s TV show. On the ''[[List of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert episodes (2021)#September|Late Show]]'' in September 2021, he discussed the [[Texas Heartbeat Act]] and his reluctance to retire.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Weber |first=Peter |date=September 15, 2021 |title=Justice Breyer tells Colbert the Supreme Court's refusal to halt the Texas abortion was 'very, very, very, very wrong' |url=https://theweek.com/stephen-colbert/1004875/justice-breyer-tells-colbert-the-supreme-courts-refusal-to-halt-the-texas |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210918171346/https://theweek.com/stephen-colbert/1004875/justice-breyer-tells-colbert-the-supreme-courts-refusal-to-halt-the-texas |archive-date=September 18, 2021 |access-date=September 18, 2021 |work=The Week}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Watch The Late Show with Stephen Colbert: Justice Stephen Breyer Addresses Speculation About His Retirement Plans – Full show on CBS |url=https://www.cbs.com/shows/the-late-show-with-stephen-colbert/video/AM44Yje8UyuzWSua7OVNWUmaAILrpvyt/justice-stephen-breyer-addresses-speculation-about-his-retirement-plans/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210918171348/https://www.cbs.com/shows/the-late-show-with-stephen-colbert/video/AM44Yje8UyuzWSua7OVNWUmaAILrpvyt/justice-stephen-breyer-addresses-speculation-about-his-retirement-plans/ |archive-date=September 18, 2021 |access-date=September 18, 2021 |website=CBS}}</ref>

Breyer appeared on ''[[Fareed Zakaria GPS]]'' on CNN in September 2021 where he was questioned on when he planned to retire.<ref>{{Cite web |last=de Vogue |first=Ariane |date=September 19, 2021 |title=Breyer defends state of Supreme Court in interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria |url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/19/politics/breyer-fareed-zakaria-gps/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210920011200/https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/19/politics/breyer-fareed-zakaria-gps/index.html |archive-date=September 20, 2021 |access-date=September 19, 2021 |website=CNN}}</ref> He promoted his book ''The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics''.

== Publications ==
* {{Cite book |last1=Breyer |first1=Stephen G. |title=Energy Regulation by the Federal Power Commission |last2=MacAvoy |first2=Paul W. |publisher=Brookings Institution |year=1974 |isbn=9780815710769 |location=Washington, DC |oclc=866410}}
* {{Cite book |last1=Breyer |first1=Stephen G. |title=Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy |last2=Stewart |first2=Richard B. |publisher=Little, Brown and Company |year=1979 |edition=1st |location=New York}}
* {{Cite book |last1=Breyer |first1=Stephen G. |title=Regulation and its Reform |publisher=Harvard University Press |year=1982 |edition=1st |location=Cambridge, MA}}
* {{Cite journal |last=Breyer |first=Stephen |date=Fall 1988 |title=The Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Key Compromises Upon Which They Rest |url=https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1630&context=hlr |url-status=live |journal=Hofstra Law Review |volume=17 |issue=1 |pages=1–50 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171005050652/http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1630&context=hlr |archive-date=October 5, 2017}}
* {{Cite book |last=Breyer |first=Stephen G. |title=Breaking the Vicious Cycle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation |publisher=Harvard University Press |year=1994 |isbn=9780674081147 |location=Cambridge, MA |oclc=246886908}}
* {{Cite book |last=Breyer |first=Stephen |title=Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution |title-link=Active Liberty |publisher=Vintage Books |year=2005 |isbn=0-307-27494-2 |location=New York}}
* {{Cite book |last1=Breyer |first1=Stephen G. |title=Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy: Problems, Text, and Cases |last2=Stewart |first2=Richard B. |last3=Sunstein |first3=Cass R. |last4=Vermeule |first4=Adrian |publisher=Aspen Publishers |year=2006 |isbn=978-0735556065 |edition=6th |location=Boston, MA}}
* {{Cite book |last=Breyer |first=Stephen |url=https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/253016/the-court-and-the-world-by-stephen-breyer/ |title=Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge's View |publisher=A. A. Knopf |year=2010 |isbn=9780307269911 |location=New York |oclc=813897125}}
* {{Cite book |last=Breyer |first=Stephen |url=http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/253016/the-court-and-the-world-by-stephen-breyer/ |title=The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities |publisher=Penguin Random House |year=2015 |isbn=9781101912072 |location=New York |oclc=952026314}}
* {{Cite book |last1=Breyer |first1=Stephen G. |title=Against the Death Penalty |last2=Bessler |first2=John D. |publisher=Brookings Institution |year=2016 |isbn=9780815728900 |location=Washington, DC |oclc=948669357}}
* {{Cite book |last=Breyer |first=Stephen G. |title=Breaking the Promise of Brown: The Resegregation of America's Schools |publisher=Brookings Institution Press |year=2020 |isbn=9780815731665 |location=Washington, DC |oclc=1197773870}}
* {{Cite book |last=Breyer |first=Stephen |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Gw41EAAAQBAJ |title=The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics |publisher=Harvard University Press |year=2021 |isbn=9780674269361 |location=Cambridge, MA |oclc=1246624044}}
*  {{Cite book |last=Breyer |first=Stephen |title=Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism |publisher=Simon & Schuster |year=2024|isbn=9781668021538|location=New York |oclc=1427062034}}

==See also==
{{Portal|Biography|United States|Law}}
* [[Bill Clinton Supreme Court candidates]]
* [[Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States]]
* [[List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States]]
* [[List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 2)]]
* [[List of United States federal judges by longevity of service]]
* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court]]
* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Roberts Court]]
* [[List of United States Supreme Court justices by time in office]]

==References==
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}

==Further reading==
{{refbegin}}
* {{Cite web |last=Collins |first=Ronald |date=February 28, 2014 |title=Hypothetically Speaking: Justice Breyer's Dialectical Propensities |url=http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2014/02/hypothetically-speaking-justice-breyers-dialectical-propensities.html |website=Concurring Opinions Blog}}
{{Refend}}

==External links==
{{Sister project links|wikt=no|b=no|q=Stephen Breyer|s=author:Stephen Breyer|commons=Category:Stephen Breyer|n=no|v=no|species=no}}
* [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Stephen-Breyer Stephen Breyer] in ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]''
* {{FJC Bio|255|nid=1378241|name=Stephen Gerald Breyer<!--(1938–)-->}}
* {{Ballotpedia|Stephen_Breyer}}
* [http://www.OnTheIssues.org/Stephen_Breyer.htm Issue positions and quotes] at [[OnTheIssues]]
* {{C-SPAN|5390}}
* [http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_5.2/braun.htm Review of Stephen Breyer's Active Liberty: Interpreting our Democratic Constitution] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200712013524/http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_5.2/braun.htm |date=July 12, 2020 }}
* [http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=3637&sec_id=3637 "Stephen Breyer, the court's necromancer"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070312111015/http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=3637&sec_id=3637 |date=March 12, 2007 }}, a book review of ''Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution'' in the ''[[New English Review]]''
* [https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4965766 {{"'}}Active Liberty' from Justice Stephen Breyer"], October 20, 2005, NPR's ''[[Fresh Air]]''
* [https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4929668 "Supreme Court Justice Breyer on 'Active Liberty{{'"}} Part 1 of Interview], September 29, 2005, NPR's ''[[Morning Edition]]''
* [https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4930456 "Justice Breyer: The Case Against 'Originalists{{'"}} Part 2 of Interview], September 30, 2005, NPR's ''[[Morning Edition]]''
* [https://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=35&prgDate=03-24-2007&view=storyview Justice Breyer's appearance] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131003020549/http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=35&prgDate=03-24-2007&view=storyview |date=October 3, 2013 }} on NPR's quiz show ''[[Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me]]'', March 24, 2007
*  WGBH Forum Network: one and a half hours with US Supreme Court Justice of Law Stephen Breyer, September 8, 2003. [https://web.archive.org/web/20070613225135/http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/forum.php?lecture_id=1274 Description (archived)] | [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE2oBlBj0ZY Video].
* {{Internet Archive film clip|id=openmind_ep1667|description="The Open Mind – 'Active Liberty' by Mr. Justice Breyer, Part I (2005)"}}
* {{Internet Archive film clip|id=openmind_ep1668|description="The Open Mind – 'Active Liberty' by Mr. Justice Breyer, Part II (2005)"}}
* [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CHRG-BREYER/pdf/GPO-CHRG-BREYER.pdf Supreme Court Associate Justice Nomination Hearings on Stephen Gerald Breyer in July 1994]{{snd}}[[United States Government Publishing Office]]

{{s-start}}
{{s-legal}}
{{s-new|seat}}
{{s-ttl|title=Judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|United States Court of Appeals <br> for the First Circuit]]|years=1980–1994}}
{{s-aft|after=[[Sandra Lynch]]}}
|-
{{s-bef|before=[[Levin H. Campbell]]}}
{{s-ttl|title=Chief Judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|United States Court Appeals <br> for the First Circuit]]|years=1990–1994}}
{{s-aft|after=[[Juan R. Torruella]]}}
|-
{{s-bef|before=[[Harry Blackmun]]}}
{{s-ttl|title=[[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States]]|years=1994–2022}}
{{s-aft|after=[[Ketanji Brown Jackson]]}}
|-
{{s-prec|usa}}
{{s-bef|before=[[Anthony Kennedy]]|as=Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court}}
{{s-ttl|title=[[United States order of precedence|Order of precedence of the United States]]<br />''as Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court''}}
{{s-aft|after=[[Scott Bessent]]|as=Secretary of the Treasury}}
{{s-end}}

{{SCOTUS Justices|associatejustices}}
{{Stephen Breyer opinions}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Breyer, Stephen}}
[[Category:1938 births]]
[[Category:20th-century American Jews]]
[[Category:20th-century American lawyers]]
[[Category:21st-century American Jews]]
[[Category:21st-century American judges]]
[[Category:Alumni of Magdalen College, Oxford]]
[[Category:American legal scholars]]
[[Category:American people of Romanian-Jewish descent]]
[[Category:American recipients of the Legion of Honour]]
[[Category:Hare family]]
[[Category:Harvard Law School alumni]]
[[Category:Harvard Law School faculty]]
[[Category:Jewish American academics]]
[[Category:Jewish legal scholars]]
[[Category:Jews from California]]
[[Category:Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit]]
[[Category:Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States]]
[[Category:Law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States]]
[[Category:Lawyers from San Francisco]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:Marshall Scholars]]
[[Category:Members of the American Philosophical Society]]
[[Category:Members of the United States Sentencing Commission]]
[[Category:Military personnel from California]]
[[Category:Scholars of administrative law]]
[[Category:Stanford University alumni]]
[[Category:Tulane University Law School faculty]]
[[Category:United States Army non-commissioned officers]]
[[Category:United States Army reservists]]
[[Category:United States court of appeals judges appointed by Jimmy Carter]]
[[Category:United States federal judges appointed by Bill Clinton]]