Earl Warren

Chief Justice

• Born: March 19, 1891
• Birthplace: Los Angeles, California
• Died: July 9, 1974
• Place of death: Washington, D.C.

Chief justice of the United States (1953-1969)

The U.S. Supreme Court under Warren’s leadership reached landmark decisions that struck down existing practices in the areas of racial segregation, limitations on political association, voting apportionment, the investigation of criminal suspects, and other controversial issues.

Area of achievement Law

Early Life

Earl Warren was born in Los Angeles. His father, Methias Warren, was a Norwegian immigrant who had come to the United States during his adolescence and for many years worked as a railroad car mechanic; the boy’s mother, Christine Hernlund Warren, was of Swedish ancestry. Ethel Warren, Earl’s sister, was four years older than he. In 1896, the family moved to Bakersfield. As a boy, Warren raised animals and worked at various jobs on the Southern Pacific Railroad; his best subjects in school were history, English, and French. His interest was aroused in 1903 when a deputy marshal killed two lawmen and was later tried in a local court; Warren saw the trial and also watched other trials. Although his father encouraged him to consider a career in engineering, Warren was intrigued by the examples of courtroom advocacy he had seen. By the time he completed high school, he had saved some eight hundred dollars, which he used to meet his expenses when he entered the University of California, Berkeley.

Warren’s academic record was acceptable, if not outstanding; after his third year, he was allowed to take courses at the university’s law school. He received a bachelor’s degree in 1912, and two years later he was awarded his law degree. He was graduated at about the middle of his class and was not selected to serve on the school’s Law Review. For some time thereafter, he practiced in a local law office; on the United States’ entry into World War I, he joined the Army, serving as a bayonet instructor. After a period of service that took him to Fort Lee, Virginia, he was discharged in 1918 with the rank of first lieutenant in the infantry. He then began work for the city attorney in Oakland. In 1925, he became the district attorney for Alameda County, an area just east of San Francisco.

Slightly taller than six feet, Warren weighed more than two hundred pounds; he had a strong build, though in later years he had to struggle somewhat to control his girth. His features were often described as typically Scandinavian: He had a long face with a straight nose and clear blue eyes, his complexion was fair, and he had blond hair that eventually became gray. Throughout his adult life he wore glasses, in time favoring those with rounded, dark-rimmed frames.

Although hitherto he had not seriously concerned himself with women, Warren became deeply attached in 1921 to Nina Palmquist Meyers, whom he met at a morning swimming party. An attractive young widow whose husband had died shortly after their son was born, she returned Warren’s affection; after a lengthy courtship, they were married in 1925. Over a period of seven years, two sons and three daughters were born to them, and Warren, as a proud father, became an archetypal family man, constantly concerned with his children’s education and well-being.

Life’s Work

Warren became widely known for his relentless pursuit of lawbreakers, notably bootleggers, and he took vigorous action against gambling and vice. In 1931, Raymond Moley, an important political observer and later adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, called Warren “the most intelligent and politically independent district attorney in the United States.” On some cases Warren went to great lengths to obtain convictions; controversy arose in 1936, during his investigation of a shipboard homicide on the SS Point Lobos. Four defendants, who allegedly were Communist sympathizers, were brought to trial on evidence obtained partly through electronic eavesdropping and prolonged interrogation in the absence of defense counsel. Ultimately they were found guilty of second-degree murder. Violent crime affected Warren’s life directly, as well: In 1938, his father was beaten to death at his home in Bakersfield. The assailant was never found.

Later that year, Warren was elected attorney general for the state of California; his tenure in that office was characterized by the same zeal he had displayed in local law enforcement. In 1939, drawing on an extended legal definition of the state’s coastal waters, he directed a major raid on the Rex, an offshore gambling ship. He also became involved in politics: He opposed the nomination of a noted legal scholar to the California Supreme Court, partly because of the latter’s purported relations with the Communist Party. Claims of national security were invoked in 1942, when Warren supervised the forcible relocation of about 110,000 Japanese Americans; he depicted them as potential saboteurs and collaborationists. Although somewhat later many others denounced this measure, until the last years of his life Warren contended that it was necessary in view of the military situation at that time.

Warren’s politics were Republican, but his positions on social issues had a wide appeal to voters at large. He campaigned for governor in 1942 and was elected overwhelmingly; four years later, under California’s cross-filing system, he won the primaries of both major parties. In 1950, he became the only person to be elected to a third term as governor of that state. He supported measures to expand the state’s educational system; he also advocated prison reform and improved mental health care. He was acutely conscious of the financial hardships imposed by medical expenses, which he and his family had incurred during periods of hospitalization; in 1945 he urged, unsuccessfully, that the state enact a form of health care insurance. In 1949, he signed a bill requiring that women receive equal pay for work performed on an equal basis with men.

Because of his demonstrated political appeal and the growing importance of California and the Western states in national politics, there were Republican political strategists who looked to Warren as one of the party’s possible standard-bearers. In 1948, the Republican nominee for president, Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York, chose Warren as his vice-presidential running mate. He campaigned with some vigor, and even after Dewey’s unexpected defeat, some of the California governor’s supporters held out hopes for the next election. At that time, however, Dwight D. Eisenhower announced his candidacy and in short order obtained the Republican nomination; he was then elected president by a convincing margin. In 1953, after the sudden death of Chief Justice Frederick M. Vinson created a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, Eisenhower offered the position to Warren.

A major issue that Warren, and his colleagues, had to confront was the troubled question of racial segregation; in a landmark decision that he wrote for a unanimous Court, Warren found that public facilities described as “separate but equal” were inherently unequal and therefore were in violation of the Constitution. The case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned rulings ultimately based on a decision of 1896; once judicial decisions had eliminated distinctions on this level, a new era in racial relations was opened.

Political concerns also came before the Supreme Court, notably in connection with the government’s efforts strictly to limit Communist and other left-wing activities. On constitutional grounds, Warren and his colleagues resisted such measures. On one Monday in June, 1957, the Court handed down four separate decisions restricting powers to investigate individuals’ political backgrounds or to cite political affiliations as grounds for the termination of employment.

Warren believed that the most important case to come before him was Baker v. Carr (1962), which challenged Tennessee’s system of electoral apportionment as unduly favoring lightly populated rural districts. The Court’s decision, written by Justice William J. Brennan, effectively established that federal judicial power could be exercised to ensure equal representation for voters participating in state elections. In another case, Reynolds v. Sims (1964), Warren wrote the opinion of a majority of justices in holding that both houses of the Alabama legislature had to be elected on an equal and proportional basis.

Rather different, and unsettling, questions arose when Warren became chair of the commission that investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Although originally he had been reluctant to take this position, Warren conscientiously supervised the collection of evidence; after the commission’s report was issued in 1964, he stoutly defended its conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone in killing the president.

Chief Justice Warren had often come under attack for the Court’s decisions; desegregation and reapportionment had been denounced as intrusions on states’ rights, in areas not hitherto subject to the Court’s rulings. Several U.S. senators contended that decisions upholding individual liberties actually were concessions to the communists. Opposition arose in many quarters: In 1957, Warren resigned his membership in the American Bar Association in protest against lack of support from that organization. The militantly anticommunist John Birch Society mounted a widespread campaign calling for Warren’s impeachment. During his later years on the Court, Warren became associated with controversial decisions affecting the rights of criminal suspects, for which he was castigated by many.

Cases such as Mallory v. United States (1957) and Mapp v. Ohio (1961) had overturned convictions obtained through improper interrogation or search and seizure without a warrant. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) established the right of the indigent to obtain counsel for their defense during criminal trials. In Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), the Court found that the accused has a right to counsel during initial questioning by the police; limitations on the direct investigation of suspects were stated specifically in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), a landmark decision that Warren wrote for a majority on the Court. The requirement that, prior to any questioning, the police must inform suspects of their rights under the Constitution established explicit guidelines for the treatment of accused persons but was bitterly attacked by many law enforcement officers and political figures.

Warren sometimes parted company with his fellow justices; thus, he sided with a majority on decisions involving the use of sit-ins to demonstrate for civil rights but dissented in cases in which claims of obscenity were contravened by those of free speech. Weary with advancing age, and in anticipation of his retirement from the bench, in 1968 he offered to resign on the condition that a successor be found beforehand. Although his associate, Abe Fortas, was not confirmed by the Senate and ultimately resigned from the Supreme Court in the wake of a financial scandal, Warren renewed his offer and left the Court when Warren E. Burger was confirmed as chief justice in 1969. The last years of his life were spent writing, traveling, and lecturing; Warren continued to manifest a lively interest in political controversies that affected judicial concerns. He suffered from angina pectoris and coronary occlusion, for which he was hospitalized several times. On July 9, 1974, he died of cardiac arrest at the Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, D.C.

Significance

To friends, associates, and opponents alike, Warren’s career in public service posed contrasts and questions that were not readily resolved. During his work in law enforcement, Warren had shown some deference for the rights of the accused, but in exceptional cases he disregarded them; his active role in combating crime, in Alameda County and for the state of California, did not seem to foreshadow his efforts on behalf of individual rights after his appointment to the Supreme Court. In his native state he had denounced communism, and he had carried out sweeping measures against Japanese Americans; as chief justice, he openly championed interpretations of the Constitution that ensured political liberties and promoted racial equality before the law. Although his views had been well within the political mainstream, the transition that later took place could not easily be ascribed to underlying features of continuity in his outlook, or indeed to the changed historical circumstances surrounding cases that arose during his tenure on the Supreme Court.

It was sometimes contended that Warren followed the lead of other justices, such as Hugo L. Black and William O. Douglas, in reaching major decisions, notably those that upheld individual rights. Warren had essentially a practical, rather than an abstract or academic, philosophy of the law; he reached decisions promptly and held fast once he had made them. Other justices, moreover, have readily attested the determined leadership he exercised, even in cases in which he assigned the Court’s opinions to others of like mind. While occasionally, as in cases involving pornography, a majority voted against his positions, most major decisions reflected his colleagues’ views as well as his own, and often he was able to win over those who wavered.

A final issue concerns the Supreme Court’s role in American politics and society. More than any other institution, the Supreme Court brought about racial desegregation, and it prescribed the forms by which criminal suspects are advised of their constitutional rights. Such decisions have tangibly affected the lives of millions. Supporters and critics have described this process as a form of judicial activism, by which the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution was applied directly to state and local, as well as federal, concerns. Although opposition often centers on the tenor and content of particular decisions, questions remain as to the nature and scope of the Court’s powers within the framework of the Constitution. It is Warren’s legacy to have demonstrated the means and range by which the Court might intervene in major questions of American public life.

Further Reading

Kurland, Philip B. Politics, the Constitution, and the Warren Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. In a series of lectures that are astringently critical of the Court’s actions, Kurland, an important scholar specializing in the Supreme Court, contends that Warren and his colleagues found new and potentially hazardous interpretations of the Constitution.

Levy, Leonard W., ed. The Supreme Court Under Earl Warren. New York: Quadrangle Books, 1972. The divergent standpoints of defenders and responsible critics of the Court are presented in this collection of articles by various legal specialists.

Newton, Jim. Justice for All: Earl Warren and the Nation He Made. New York: Riverhead Books, 2006. A definitive biography, comprehensively chronicling Warren’s life and career and describing the complexities and contradictions of his personality.

Pollack, Jack Harrison. Earl Warren: The Judge Who Changed America. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1979. A brisk, favorable account of Warren’s life that at each stage evokes the political atmosphere surrounding his work in law and government. The author emphasizes the social and political consequences of decisions handed down by the Warren Court.

Schwartz, Bernard. Super Chief: Earl Warren and His Supreme Court, a Judicial Biography. New York: New York University Press, 1983. Warren’s sixteen terms on the high court are studied in this massive work by a noted legal scholar. The author reveals the extent to which differing positions and judicial infighting affected the court’s deliberations; in the process, Warren’s marked capacity for leadership is demonstrated. The unpublished papers of seven justices and a broad range of personal interviews were used in the composition of this work.

Urofsky, Melvin I. The Warren Court: Justices, Rulings, and Legacy. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 2001. An examination of the court, including profiles of the justices, discussions of its decisions, and an appraisal of its influence.

Warren, Earl. The Memoirs of Earl Warren. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977. This work, which Warren composed during the last four years of his life, published posthumously, depicts Warren’s work against crime, his actions as governor of California, and the concerns that guided him in reaching controversial decisions on the Supreme Court. Although not free from special pleading, some portions are lively, and there are also useful statements of his positions on racial issues, criminal investigation, and other important matters.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗. The Public Papers of Chief Justice Earl Warren. Edited by Henry M. Christman. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1959. Eleven of Warren’s major opinions, from his first five terms on the Supreme Court, are published here, along with other addresses and statements on public issues.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗. A Republic, If You Can Keep It. New York: Quadrangle Books, 1972. This brief treatise sets forth, on a rather basic level, Warren’s views on the constitution and its place in American history; from time to time he refers to major decisions in which he was involved.

White, G. Edward. Earl Warren: A Public Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982. This important scholarly examination of Warren’s political career and judicial work points to the aspects of continuity and change in his outlook on major issues; the author provides, on a topical basis, a critical assessment of his opinions as chief justice.