Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Abe Fortas

Abe Fortas (June 19, 1910 – April 5, 1982) was an lawyer and who served as an Associate Justice of the from October 4, 1965, to May 14, 1969. Appointed by President to replace Arthur J. Goldberg, Fortas had previously advised Johnson and other Democratic presidents, rising through agencies including roles at the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of the Interior. Before ascending to the bench, Fortas argued pivotal cases as a private attorney, most notably representing Clarence Earl Gideon in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), which secured a unanimous ruling extending the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to indigent defendants in state criminal proceedings. On the Court, he authored majority opinions advancing due process, such as Kent v. United States (1966) requiring hearings before waiving juvenile jurisdiction to adult courts and Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) upholding students' First Amendment rights to symbolic protest absent disruption. His nomination to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice in June 1968 faltered amid Senate filibuster over ethical concerns, including payments from former clients for academic work and perceived undue influence from Johnson. Fortas's tenure concluded with his resignation on May 14, 1969, following disclosures that he had accepted $20,000 annually from the family foundation of financier —who was later convicted of —for life, an arrangement he repaid only after Wolfson's indictment, raising conflict-of-interest questions. This episode, the first forcing a justice's departure under impeachment threat, stemmed from investigative reporting and conservative senators' scrutiny of his liberal jurisprudence and ties, though Fortas maintained no impropriety. After resigning, he resumed private practice at a firm bearing his name until health issues curtailed his work.

Early Life and Education

Family Background and Upbringing

Abraham Fortas was born on June 19, 1910, in Memphis, Tennessee, to Orthodox Jewish immigrant parents Woolfe (later William) Fortas and Rachel "Ray" Berzansky Fortas. His father, born around 1881 in England to Russian-born parents, immigrated to the United States and worked as a carpenter and cabinetmaker in Memphis, initially at a relative's furniture factory before striking out independently around 1919. His mother, originating from Lithuania, managed the household in a working-class environment. As the youngest of five children, Fortas grew up alongside siblings including Mary, Meyer, Esther (also known as Esta or Annette), and Nellie, some of whom were born abroad before the family's arrival in . The family resided in modest circumstances on the fringes of Memphis's black ghetto, facing financial struggles exacerbated by the father's separation from his more prosperous brother's furniture business, which limited economic stability despite the local Jewish community's entrepreneurial opportunities. shaped the household, with religious observance central to daily life, though the family's —his died in 1930 at age 49—necessitated early contributions from the children to support. Fortas's upbringing in Memphis's public schools fostered self-reliance amid these hardships; his father introduced him to the , which he played professionally in local theaters from age 13 to help the family, honing skills in music that became a lifelong alongside an for academics. This environment of immigrant striving and cultural rootedness in a Southern city with a small but tight-knit Jewish population instilled resilience, though it contrasted with the relative affluence of extended relatives in the Fortas furniture trade.

Academic and Early Professional Development

Fortas graduated first in his class from Southwestern College (now Rhodes College) in , in 1930, having attended on scholarship. He secured scholarships to both and but chose Yale, where he immersed himself in the emerging legal realist movement under faculty like and Thurman Arnold. At Yale, Fortas excelled academically, graduating second in his class in June 1933 with cum laude honors and serving as editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal. Upon graduation, Fortas accepted a prestigious teaching position at , one of the highest honors afforded recent graduates, where he lectured on subjects including municipal corporations and contributed to the school's intellectual environment during its formative years under legal realism's influence. This role lasted one year, after which, in 1934, he followed his mentor Douglas to Washington, D.C., beginning his transition into federal government service with an initial position at the . There, Fortas started as a staff attorney, rapidly advancing through roles that honed his expertise in securities regulation amid the New Deal's regulatory expansions.

Pre-Supreme Court Career

Government Service in New Deal Era

Following his graduation from in 1933, Fortas entered federal government service as part of the legal staff of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, a agency established to address agricultural overproduction and farm income decline through production controls and price supports. In 1934, he transitioned to the , newly created under the to regulate the securities industry and protect investors from manipulative practices. By 1937, Fortas had advanced to assistant director of the SEC's Division, where he contributed to regulatory efforts over holding companies amid the broader push for economic stabilization and reform. In 1939, Fortas was appointed general counsel of the Bituminous Coal Division within the Public Works Administration (PWA), a major relief program authorized under the National Industrial Recovery Act to fund large-scale public works projects aimed at reducing unemployment and stimulating economic recovery. The PWA, directed by Secretary of the Interior , oversaw expenditures exceeding $6 billion on infrastructure such as dams, bridges, and public buildings, with the Bituminous Coal Division focusing on regulatory compliance and legal oversight in the coal sector, which had been granted exemptions and codes under earlier recovery legislation. During this period, Fortas handled legal challenges related to coal industry regulations and labor disputes, reflecting the New Deal's emphasis on industrial codes and fair competition. Fortas's service extended into the Department of the Interior, where in he became director of the Division of Power, managing hydroelectric and energy resource development critical to wartime mobilization. Appointed of the Interior in —a position he held until 1946—Fortas acted as the department's second-in-command under Ickes, overseeing conservation, resource allocation, and legal affairs during , including opposition to the mass on grounds. His tenure involved administering vast public lands and natural resources, aligning with legacies in environmental management and , though increasingly oriented toward defense priorities.

Private Practice and Landmark Cases

In 1946, following his departure from government service, Fortas co-founded the Washington, D.C.-based law firm Arnold & Fortas with Thurman Arnold, a former federal judge and antitrust enforcer. Paul Porter, a former Federal Communications Commission chairman, joined shortly thereafter, renaming the partnership Arnold, Fortas & Porter, which specialized in regulatory, antitrust, and constitutional litigation. The firm expanded rapidly, attracting high-profile clients from industries including railroads, broadcasting, and natural resources, and by the mid-1960s, it had become one of Washington's most influential practices, with annual revenues exceeding $1 million. Fortas played a central role in the firm's appellate work, arguing numerous cases before federal courts and leveraging his government experience to navigate complex regulatory disputes. Among these, the firm defended clients targeted during the McCarthy era, resisting pressures to avoid politically sensitive representations when many peers declined such work. Fortas personally handled defenses against loyalty oaths and investigations, emphasizing in challenges to administrative overreach. A pivotal achievement came in 1963 when the U.S. appointed Fortas to represent indigent defendant in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, after Gideon's handwritten petition highlighted his denied request for counsel in a trial. On January 15, 1963, Fortas argued that the Sixth Amendment's , previously extended to capital cases via Powell v. Alabama (1932), should apply to all prosecutions under the Fourteenth Amendment's , overturning Betts v. Brady (1942). The unanimous decision on March 18, 1963, mandated appointed counsel for indigent defendants, fundamentally reshaping nationwide and influencing over 2,000 state convictions retrospectively. Fortas's preparation drew on empirical data from state practices and historical precedents, underscoring the causal link between lack of representation and unjust outcomes in non-capital trials.

Advisory Role to Lyndon B. Johnson

Abe Fortas first met Lyndon B. Johnson in 1938 while both were involved in New Deal programs in Washington, D.C., establishing an early professional connection that evolved into a close advisory relationship. As Johnson ascended in Texas and national politics, Fortas, practicing law at Arnold, Fortas & Porter, provided legal counsel on sensitive political and electoral matters. This partnership positioned Fortas as one of Johnson's most trusted external advisors, handling issues that required discretion and legal acumen beyond official channels. In the 1948 Texas Democratic Senate primary runoff, Fortas served as Johnson's personal attorney amid intense disputes following Johnson's narrow 87-vote victory over former Governor Coke Stevenson. Fortas played a key role in legal efforts to secure Johnson's placement on the general election ballot despite Stevenson's contest of the results, which alleged irregularities including the late addition of 202 votes from Ballot Box 13 in Jim Wells County—all for Johnson—reversing the initial tally. These maneuvers, supported by a U.S. stay from Justice on October 11, 1948, ensured Johnson's certification as the nominee, enabling his general election victory. As Senate Majority Leader from 1955, Johnson relied on Fortas for counsel during investigations threatening his leadership, notably the 1963 Bobby Baker scandal involving Johnson's protégé and Senate secretary. Fortas, who had represented Baker, withdrew from that case upon Johnson's vice presidency but advised Johnson directly on damage control, including strategy sessions documented in White House tapes from September 2, 1964. This episode highlighted Fortas's role in shielding Johnson from fallout tied to Baker's influence-peddling allegations, which implicated Senate operations under Johnson's tenure. Following President Kennedy's assassination on November 22, 1963, Fortas assisted newly sworn-in President Johnson in organizing the to investigate the events, contributing to its structure and legal framework by December 1963. Throughout Johnson's vice presidency and early presidency, Fortas offered ongoing advice on legislative strategy, foreign policy crises—such as the May 17, 1965, discussion on the intervention—and domestic policy drafting, cementing his influence until Johnson's July 28, 1965, nomination of Fortas to the as a reward for decades of loyalty.

Appointment to the Supreme Court

Nomination and Confirmation

On July 28, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated Abe Fortas to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, filling the vacancy created by Arthur J. Goldberg's resignation to become the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Goldberg's departure, announced earlier that year, was influenced by Johnson's diplomatic priorities, though Fortas's selection reflected his longstanding advisory role to the president on legal and policy matters during the Great Society era. The Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled confirmation hearings for August 5, 1965, where Fortas testified on his judicial philosophy and professional background, emphasizing his commitment to constitutional interpretation over . The proceedings were notably brief and lacked significant contention, with committee members praising Fortas's legal acumen from his time in private practice and government service, including arguments before the in cases. No formal opposition emerged, despite Fortas's close personal and professional ties to , which some observers noted could raise concerns about but did not materialize into objections at the time. The full confirmed Fortas on August 11, 1965, by without a roll call, indicating broad bipartisan support in the Democratic-controlled chamber. He received his commission that same day, though he was not sworn in until October 4, 1965, allowing time for transition from his advisory duties. This swift process contrasted with later scrutiny of nominations and underscored the relatively non-partisan nature of judicial confirmations in the mid-1960s amid Johnson's legislative momentum.

Initial Integration and Relationships on the Court

Upon his confirmation by the Senate on August 11, 1965, and subsequent swearing-in on October 4, 1965, Abe Fortas integrated into the as a reliable member of its liberal majority, leveraging his prior experience arguing landmark cases like (1963) before the Court. His legal acumen from private practice and government service facilitated quick acceptance among justices favoring expanded individual rights, including Chief Justice and , with whom he collaborated on opinions advancing and equal protection doctrines. For instance, in his early tenure during the 1965-1966 term, Fortas authored the majority opinion in Katzenbach v. Morgan (384 U.S. 641, 1966), upholding Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment's enforcement power to prohibit literacy tests for voters, aligning with the Court's activist approach to civil rights. Fortas's relationships on the Court reflected ideological affinities and personal frictions. He maintained cordial ties with Warren, whose retirement in 1968 prompted President Lyndon B. Johnson's nomination of Fortas as chief justice, and with Brennan, joining in decisions like Memoirs v. Massachusetts (383 U.S. 413, 1966) refining obscenity standards under the First Amendment. However, a bitter hostility developed with Hugo L. Black, despite Black's earlier intervention in 1948 aiding Johnson's Senate election via Fortas's involvement; their rift stemmed from diverging views on constitutional interpretation, with Black's textualism clashing against Fortas's more pragmatic expansions of rights, evident in Black's dissents against Fortas's positions in cases like Tinker v. Des Moines (393 U.S. 503, 1969). Fortas's integration was complicated by his continued close advisory role to , including attending meetings and disclosing Court deliberations, which fueled perceptions of compromised even in his initial years and strained institutional norms. This executive entanglement, while not immediately derailing his influence within the liberal bloc—where he supported rulings like (384 U.S. 436, 1966) and Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (383 U.S. 663, 1966) striking down poll taxes—highlighted tensions with justices prioritizing , contributing to broader scrutiny of his tenure.

Judicial Tenure as Associate Justice

Approach to Oral Arguments and Deliberations

Fortas demonstrated a highly engaged and verbal style during oral arguments, averaging 673 words spoken per case across his tenure from October 4, 1965, to May 14, 1969—a figure notably higher than many contemporaries in the pre-1995 era and indicative of his advocacy roots. This level of participation aligned with his pre-Court experience as a formidable litigator, where he had mastered persuasive courtroom delivery, as evidenced by his successful representation of in the 1963 retrial arguments leading to the landmark right-to-counsel decision. His bench comments and questions often reflected a lawyerly tenacity, aiming to test arguments rigorously rather than passively observe. A specific illustration of this intensity occurred during the January 1967 oral arguments in Boutilier v. INS, where Fortas sharply interrogated government counsel on the Immigration and Naturalization Service's assertion that constituted an intrinsic psychopathological disorder, underscoring his willingness to challenge foundational premises aggressively. Such probing extended his pre-appointment reputation for thorough preparation and dramatic advocacy, though it sometimes drew criticism for resembling more than neutral . In internal deliberations and conferences, Fortas adopted an unusually permeable approach, routinely sharing confidential details of case discussions, tentative votes, and strategic insights with Lyndon B. Johnson, whom he advised closely even after ascending to the bench. This practice, which included attending meetings to relay internals, contravened norms of judicial isolation and confidentiality established to insulate decision-making from external influence. While enabling executive alignment on matters like Vietnam War-related cases, it prioritized personal loyalty and advisory continuity over the 's traditional seclusion, contributing to perceptions of compromised independence.

Decisions on Individual Rights and Liberties

Fortas authored the majority opinion in In re Gault (1967), an 8-1 decision that extended core protections under the to proceedings. The case involved 15-year-old Gerald Gault, who was committed to a for making an without formal notice of charges, access to counsel, opportunity for confrontation or cross-examination of witnesses, or protection against . Fortas emphasized that juvenile courts, intended to provide rehabilitative rather than punitive, had devolved into systems denying fairness, holding that the absence of these safeguards violated constitutional requirements where was at stake. This ruling marked a pivotal shift, applying elements of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to minors, though it stopped short of requiring public trials or jury determinations. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), Fortas wrote the 7-2 majority opinion affirming students' First Amendment rights to symbolic speech in public schools. The decision protected three students suspended for wearing black armbands to protest the , rejecting school officials' preemptive ban absent evidence of substantial disruption to educational activities. Fortas articulated that "it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to or expression at the schoolhouse gate," provided expression does not materially interfere with operations or collide with others' rights. This established a balancing test prioritizing individual expression unless it poses a clear threat, influencing subsequent free speech claims in educational settings. Fortas contributed to First Amendment religion clause jurisprudence through Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), where he drafted the per curiam opinion invalidating a 1928 state law prohibiting the teaching of in public schools. The statute, rooted in anti-Darwinian sentiment, was challenged after a teacher was dismissed for intending to discuss ; the Court held it violated the Establishment Clause by advancing religious doctrine over neutral scientific inquiry, as states cannot penalize discussion of theories lacking religious endorsement. This reinforced the principle that public education must avoid endorsing specific creeds, building on prior precedents like Scopes v. State while emphasizing . Fortas joined majorities expanding Fourth Amendment protections, including Katz v. United States (1967), which redefined searches to encompass electronic surveillance without physical intrusion if reasonable expectations exist. In that 7-1 ruling, the Court suppressed evidence from a phone booth wiretap lacking a , prioritizing individual over property-based trespass doctrines. He also supported the Miranda v. Arizona (1966) framework for custodial interrogations, ensuring warnings of rights to silence and counsel to safeguard against coerced confessions. These positions aligned with the Warren Court's emphasis on procedural safeguards in , though Fortas occasionally dissented in cases balancing rights against public order, such as upholding restrictions on distribution.

Positions on Presidential Power and Separation of Powers

Fortas advocated for an enhanced role of the executive branch in addressing the complexities of modern governance, viewing the expansion of presidential authority as a necessary adaptation to national challenges rather than an unconstitutional overreach. This perspective aligned with his pre-judicial experiences as a New Deal architect and close advisor to President , where he contributed to policy deliberations on domestic and , including the escalation of U.S. involvement in . His belief in a robust presidency was evident in statements acknowledging the "enormous growth of presidential power" from the era onward, which he saw as justified by the demands of effective leadership amid legislative inertia. During his Supreme Court tenure from 1965 to 1969, Fortas did not author or join opinions directly confronting core separation-of-powers disputes involving presidential authority, as few such cases reached the Court on merits review; the judiciary often deferred to executive actions on national security grounds, such as denying certiorari in challenges to Vietnam War policies. However, his continued informal consultations with Johnson on executive decisions, including war strategy and domestic crises like the 1967 Detroit riots, raised concerns among contemporaries that he compromised judicial impartiality by entangling the branches. For instance, FBI records later revealed that Fortas briefed the president on details of pending Court cases, potentially influencing executive responses and exemplifying a breach of institutional boundaries. Critics, including senators during his failed 1968 chief justice nomination, contended that Fortas's philosophy and conduct exemplified an erosion of checks and balances, prioritizing executive efficacy over strict constitutional delineation. In (1967), his partial concurrence emphasized deference to officials' good-faith actions in civil rights enforcement, reflecting a pragmatic tolerance for administrative discretion that aligned with broader support for presidential initiative. Fortas recused himself from (1969), a key separation-of-powers ruling limiting congressional exclusion powers, amid his own emerging ethical scrutiny, avoiding direct endorsement of either legislative or executive supremacy in inter-branch conflicts. Overall, his positions underscored a realist approach favoring flexibility, informed by causal exigencies of , though lacking empirical judicial precedents to test their limits during his brief service.

Criticisms of Judicial Activism

Fortas's participation in the Warren Court's liberal-leaning decisions drew sharp rebukes from conservative senators and commentators, who viewed his jurisprudence as emblematic of that substituted unelected judges' preferences for democratically enacted laws. During the 1968 confirmation hearings for his elevation to , opponents including Senator interrogated Fortas on the Court's role in fostering social disorder through rulings that expanded criminal defendants' rights and curtailed state authority over obscenity and public morals, accusing the justices of "coddling rapists and pornographers" and prioritizing individual liberties over community safety. Thurmond specifically pressed Fortas on whether the bore principal responsibility for the era's "turmoil and air of and disrespect," linking decisions like those easing evidentiary standards in criminal cases to rising rates and eroded respect for authority. A focal point of critique was Fortas's majority opinion in In re Gault (May 15, 1967), which imposed adult-like safeguards—including notice of charges, , confrontation of witnesses, and protection against —on juvenile courts, fundamentally altering systems designed under the doctrine for rehabilitation rather than punishment. Critics argued this federal mandate overreached into state juvenile justice, transforming informal, welfare-oriented proceedings into adversarial trials that hampered swift intervention for wayward youth and prioritized procedural formalism over effective deterrence and reform, contributing to perceptions of leniency amid urban unrest. Similarly, Fortas's opinion in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community (February 24, 1969) upheld students' First Amendment rights to wear anti-Vietnam War armbands in school, establishing that student speech could not be suppressed unless it caused , a standard decried by contemporaries and later observers as inviting judicial second-guessing of educators' disciplinary prerogatives. Justice Hugo Black's dissent warned that the ruling risked converting schools into forums for political agitation, undermining administrative control and fostering indiscipline; conservative legislators echoed this during Fortas's hearings, viewing it as part of a pattern where the Court legislated social policy on contentious issues like war protests, bypassing elected school boards and parents. Subsequent rulings, such as School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986), have cabined 's reach by upholding restrictions on vulgar or disruptive speech, underscoring ongoing debate over its activist expansion of minor students' expressive rights at the expense of institutional order. These opinions exemplified broader conservative charges that Fortas, as a key voice, advanced an interpretive method untethered to original constitutional text or historical practice, effectively enacting progressive reforms on , , and that aligned with Lyndon B. Johnson's agenda rather than deferring to legislative branches. Such activism, detractors contended, eroded by invalidating state laws on empirical grounds of efficacy—e.g., claiming informal juvenile hearings failed rehabilitative goals without robust data—while inviting backlash that politicized judicial confirmations and prompted calls for restraint post-Fortas.

Chief Justice Nomination and Collapse

Context of Earl Warren's Retirement

Chief Justice informed President of his intention to retire on June 13, 1968, stating in a letter that he would step down upon the confirmation of a successor to ensure continuity on the Court. publicly announced the retirement plan on June 21, 1968, emphasizing 's long service since his 1953 appointment by President and the need for a seamless transition. , then aged 77, had served 15 years as Chief Justice, overseeing a period of landmark decisions expanding civil rights, protections, and reapportionment standards, which had drawn increasing conservative criticism amid rising urban unrest and crime rates in the late 1960s. Warren cited advancing age as the primary reason for his , expressing a desire to avoid leading the Court into his later years when he might be less effective. Privately, however, the timing reflected concerns over the 1968 presidential election dynamics; after Senator Robert F. Kennedy's assassination on June 5, Warren anticipated Republican nominee Richard Nixon's victory and sought to enable a Democratic successor appointment under Johnson to preserve the Court's direction. This conditional —effective only upon successor confirmation—positioned the lame-duck Johnson administration to nominate Associate Justice Abe Fortas for on June 26, 1968, alongside Thurgood to fill Fortas's associate seat. The announcement occurred against a backdrop of national turmoil, including the Vietnam War escalation, assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Kennedy, and widespread riots, which fueled Republican calls for "law and order" and critiques of the Warren Court's perceived leniency toward criminal defendants. Conservatives in Congress and the public viewed the Court's activism—exemplified by rulings like Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)—as contributing to social disorder, heightening opposition to any effort to extend Warren's influence through Johnson's nominations. Warren ultimately remained on the bench until June 23, 1969, when Nixon's nominee, Warren Burger, was confirmed, marking the end of the Warren era.

Emerging Scandals During Confirmation

As the Senate Judiciary Committee began hearings on Fortas's on July 16, 1968, opposition quickly centered on his judicial philosophy and perceived activism, but ethical concerns soon surfaced regarding his financial arrangements and ongoing advisory role to President Johnson. Senators, including , interrogated Fortas about communications with the on matters like policy escalation and executive clemency, arguing these compromised judicial impartiality despite Fortas's denials of influencing Court decisions. A pivotal revelation emerged in late July 1968 when an anonymous informant alerted aides to a $15,000 payment Fortas had received in 1967 from for leading a series on at its . The fee, equivalent to nearly 40% of a justice's annual of $37,500 at the time, was funded through university channels but raised questions about the propriety of such compensation for a sitting justice, potentially creating appearances of financial dependence or conflicts with donors. Fortas testified that the payment was for nine lectures delivered over a year and maintained it complied with rules, but critics, including members, viewed it as inconsistent with the judiciary's expected detachment from private gain. Fortas returned the fee amid the scrutiny, but the disclosure amplified broader attacks on his , with opponents like Thurmond leaking details to and portraying it as of ethical laxity. This issue, though not criminal, intertwined with ideological assaults—such as accusations of Fortas's role in liberalizing standards via per curiam decisions—and eroded support among moderate senators. By September 1968, the Judiciary Committee advanced the nomination 11-6, yet the financial controversy fueled a threat, culminating in Fortas requesting withdrawal on October 4, 1968, to avert further damage to the .

Senate Proceedings and Defeat

The Senate Judiciary Committee commenced hearings on Abe Fortas's nomination to on , , with Fortas testifying extensively on his judicial philosophy and defending the Warren Court's decisions amid criticism from conservative senators. Opponents, including Senators (D-SC) and (D-NC), interrogated Fortas on rulings like (1966), portraying them as undermining law enforcement, while Fortas argued they balanced individual rights with public order. Ethical questions arose on July 19, , when it was disclosed that Fortas had accepted a $15,000–$20,000 annual stipend from a linked to financier to teach a at , amounting to about 40% of his salary and raising concerns over potential influence and nondisclosure. The committee approved the nomination on September 6, 1968, by an 11–6 vote, with most Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed, forwarding it to the full Senate despite lingering reservations from figures like Senator (R-IL), who initially supported but later wavered. Floor debate intensified in late September, led by Senator (R-MI), who argued that Fortas's post-appointment consultations with President —on matters including policy and legislation—violated and judicial impartiality, citing specific instances of White House meetings. Griffin further contended that the lame-duck nomination in an election year improperly denied the incoming president (anticipated to be ) the opportunity to select the chief justice, framing it as a procedural overreach rather than purely ideological opposition, though critics highlighted Fortas's liberal jurisprudence as emblematic of excesses. A bipartisan coalition of 18 Republicans and several , including Thurmond, launched a to block a confirmation vote, framing extended debate as necessary scrutiny rather than obstruction. On , 1968, the voted on a motion to end debate, which failed 45–43, falling short of the two-thirds threshold required under rules at the time (approximately 67 votes of those present). The defeat prompted Fortas to request withdrawal, which announced on October 2, 1968, lamenting it as a "constitutional tragedy" that deprived the Court of its most qualified leader while noting the 's success reflected broader political shifts favoring conservative . The episode marked the first time a nomination was derailed by , influencing subsequent norms against election-year promotions of sitting justices.

Ethics Violations and Resignation

Financial Dealings with Louis Wolfson

In early 1966, shortly after his appointment to the Supreme Court, Associate Justice Abe Fortas entered into a financial arrangement with the Wolfson Family Foundation, controlled by businessman Louis E. Wolfson, who faced ongoing Securities and Exchange Commission scrutiny for alleged securities law violations related to unregistered stock sales. The agreement stipulated a lifetime annuity of $20,000 per year payable to Fortas for nominal consulting on a foundation initiative to promote educational improvements, with payments to continue to his wife, Carolyn Agger, upon his death; in practice, Fortas provided limited advice, such as suggesting scholars for involvement, but no substantial work was performed. Fortas received the initial $20,000 payment via check from the in January 1966, at a time when Wolfson anticipated potential legal challenges from federal probes into his business practices, including tied to his control of entities like Continental Enterprises. Prior professional ties existed, as Fortas had advised Wolfson on legal matters before joining the in August 1965, but the post-appointment raised concerns about the of impropriety, given the judiciary's canons prohibiting private that could imply or divided loyalty. By December 22, 1966, Fortas repaid the $20,000 with a personal check to the foundation, later stating that evolving judicial responsibilities prompted him to terminate the arrangement due to its incompatibility with his role. Wolfson was subsequently indicted in late 1966, convicted in September 1967 of violating securities laws, and sentenced to one year in prison plus a $100,000 fine, though no direct evidence emerged linking Fortas's involvement to attempts at judicial intervention. The episode nonetheless highlighted vulnerabilities in judicial ethics standards, as Fortas had not publicly disclosed the transaction or recused himself from matters potentially touching Wolfson's interests, fueling later investigations into whether the payment compromised institutional impartiality.

Investigations by Life Magazine and Congress

In May 1969, Life magazine published an investigative article exposing Associate Justice Abe Fortas's financial arrangement with the Wolfson Family Foundation, established by industrialist , who had been convicted in December 1967 of and sentenced to prison. The article detailed that in January 1966, shortly before Wolfson's indictment by a federal , the foundation issued Fortas a $20,000 check as the first installment of an annual lifetime annuity intended to fund a law professorship at the ; however, the funds were paid directly to Fortas personally rather than to the university, and he returned the initial payment plus interest approximately 11 months later, after Wolfson's legal troubles intensified. Life reported that Fortas had met with Wolfson multiple times during this period, including efforts to influence officials on Wolfson's behalf, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest given Fortas's role on the and Wolfson's ongoing SEC investigations. Fortas issued a statement denying any impropriety, asserting the payment was a legitimate consultancy unrelated to Wolfson's cases and that he had repaid it voluntarily upon learning of the SEC probe's seriousness, though he did not disclose the arrangement to the Court at the time. The revelations prompted immediate congressional scrutiny, with members demanding Fortas's or to preserve judicial . House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford cited the episode as grounds for proceedings under Article II, Section 4 of the , arguing it constituted "" due to the appearance of corruption, and urged the House to investigate Fortas's broader financial ties, including undisclosed payments from other private clients. , including James B. Allen and , echoed these calls, with Thurmond introducing a resolution for a inquiry into Fortas's conduct, though no formal hearings convened before his . The Justice Department, under Attorney General , conducted a parallel probe, uncovering evidence of the lifetime annuity structure and additional contacts between Fortas and Wolfson associates, which fueled congressional pressure but was limited by Fortas's Fifth Amendment invocations in related depositions. Democrats largely defended Fortas or remained silent, attributing the scrutiny to partisan opposition from conservatives opposed to his liberal jurisprudence, yet the bipartisan later deemed the Wolfson dealings violative of judicial ethics canons.

Resignation and Immediate Consequences

Abe Fortas submitted his as Associate Justice of the on May 14, 1969, stating that his decision was "an act of conscience" intended to spare the institution from prolonged controversy amid ongoing investigations into his financial ties to . President accepted the resignation the following day, May 15, 1969, marking the first time a justice had stepped down under explicit threat of proceedings initiated by House Republicans. Fortas maintained throughout that he had committed no wrongdoing, emphasizing in his letter that the scrutiny had become a distraction from the Court's duties. The resignation immediately halted congressional probes and impeachment efforts, which had gained momentum following Life magazine's disclosures and referrals from the Securities and Exchange Commission and Justice Department. It created an associate justice vacancy that President Nixon would fill in 1970 with , shifting the Court's ideological balance further toward conservatism after the earlier confirmation of Warren Burger as on June 9, 1969—just weeks after Fortas's departure. The episode eroded public trust in the judiciary's ethical standards in the short term, as evidenced by contemporary media coverage and debates highlighting perceived conflicts of interest among justices. Politically, the resignation provided the Nixon administration with leverage in judicial nominations, averting a potential while underscoring partisan divisions; Democrats decried the investigations as politically motivated, while Republicans, including John Mitchell, had urged Fortas's exit to uphold institutional integrity. Fortas's abrupt exit after less than four years on the bench concluded his judicial service and precluded any further influence on Court proceedings, including recusal debates that had arisen during the Wolfson-related scrutiny.

Post-Resignation Life and Death

Return to Private Practice

After resigning from the Supreme Court on May 14, 1969, Fortas sought to rejoin his pre-government firm, (later ), but was rebuffed due to the ongoing ethics scandal. He instead founded a new small firm, Fortas & Koven, in , with five lawyers, operating from offices in Canal Square overlooking the C&O Canal. The firm maintained an association with the Chicago-based & Koven, allowing Fortas to serve as "" there while focusing his primary work in the capital. Fortas's practice emphasized consulting in and securities , drawing on his prior corporate clientele and expertise, though on a reduced scale compared to his pre-Court career. He occasionally argued cases before the , including high-profile appearances in the , demonstrating his continued influence in appellate advocacy despite the tarnished reputation from his resignation. By the late , he had rebuilt a viable practice, maintaining a demanding schedule of nine-hour workdays and active social engagements in Washington legal circles.

Final Years and Death

After resigning from the Supreme Court on May 14, 1969, Fortas established a small private law firm in Washington, D.C., following rejection by his former partners at Arnold & Porter. He resumed legal practice, occasionally arguing cases before the Supreme Court, and maintained a low public profile amid ongoing scrutiny of his ethics. Fortas continued his professional activities into his later years, focusing on advisory roles and selective litigation rather than high-volume practice. No major health issues were publicly detailed prior to his , though his age and prior stresses may have contributed to cardiovascular strain. On April 5, 1982, Fortas died at his , home from a ruptured , at the age of 71. His passing marked the end of a contentious legal shaped by both influential jurisprudence and ethical controversies.

Legacy and Historical Assessments

Positive Contributions to Criminal Justice

Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, Fortas played a pivotal role in advancing defendants' rights by arguing (1963) on behalf of indigent petitioner . Appointed by the Court to represent Gideon, who had been denied counsel in a burglary trial, Fortas contended that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions extended to state courts via the , overturning Betts v. Brady (1942). The unanimous 9-0 decision on March 18, 1963, mandated publicly funded counsel for indigent defendants in state cases, fundamentally enhancing access to justice and reducing wrongful convictions due to inadequate representation. As an associate justice from October 4, 1965, to May 14, 1969, Fortas contributed to the Warren Court's expansion of procedural safeguards in criminal cases. He joined the 5-4 majority in (1966), which required police to inform suspects of their rights to silence and counsel prior to custodial interrogation, aiming to prevent coerced confessions and ensure voluntary statements. This ruling, decided on June 13, 1966, standardized protections against under the Fifth Amendment, influencing interrogation practices nationwide. Fortas authored the majority opinion in In re Gault (1967), a landmark decision extending due process rights to juveniles in delinquency proceedings. Decided on May 15, 1967, the 8-1 ruling addressed Gerald Gault's commitment to an Arizona industrial school for an obscene phone call, holding that juveniles were entitled to written notice of charges, right to counsel, opportunity to confront witnesses, and protection against self-incrimination—rights previously absent in informal juvenile systems justified as "civil" rather than criminal. Fortas emphasized that the state acts in a parens patriae role but must afford fundamental fairness to avoid arbitrary deprivations of liberty, thereby aligning juvenile justice more closely with adult criminal procedure standards. These efforts positioned Fortas as an active proponent of empirical fairness in , prioritizing constitutional constraints on state power to mitigate errors in fact-finding and handling. His pre- and post-appointment work helped institutionalize protections that data later showed reduced miscarriages of justice, though implementation challenges persisted.

Ethical Lapses and Institutional Damage

Fortas's acceptance of a $20,000 annual retainer from the Wolfson Family Foundation in January 1966, shortly before his ascension to the Supreme Court, exemplified a profound ethical breach by creating an appearance of financial dependence on a private interest with matters pending before the judiciary. The foundation, controlled by financier Louis Wolfson—a former Fortas client facing SEC scrutiny for securities violations—intended the payment as a lifetime annuity, which Fortas retained even after Wolfson's indictment on fraud charges later that year, only returning it under pressure. This arrangement violated canons of judicial ethics prohibiting compensation from sources likely to influence impartiality, as Wolfson's appeal of his 1967 conviction reached the Court in 1969, raising questions of recusal and potential subversion of judicial independence. The scandal's exposure by Life magazine on May 5, 1969, amplified these lapses into a public crisis, prompting congressional investigations and impeachment threats that forced Fortas's resignation on May 14, 1969—the first such departure under duress in Supreme Court history. The American Bar Association condemned the conduct as antithetical to ethical standards, underscoring how Fortas's prior advisory role to President blurred lines between executive influence and judicial detachment. These events inflicted lasting institutional harm on the by eroding public confidence in its integrity and impartiality, as the revelation of undisclosed financial ties fueled perceptions of and politicization. Fortas's resignation, while averting , highlighted systemic vulnerabilities in self-regulation, inviting intensified legislative oversight and partisan attacks that diminished the Court's aura of apolitical authority. In causal terms, the lapses demonstrated how personal financial entanglements could cascade into broader distrust, catalyzing flawed post-scandal reforms like the 1970s Code of Judicial Conduct, which lacked enforcement mechanisms and failed to fully restore credibility. This precedent underscored the judiciary's reliance on reputational capital, with Fortas's fall serving as a benchmark for how ethical failures amplify institutional fragility amid public scrutiny.

Influence on Judicial Ethics Reforms

The resignation of Abe Fortas from the on May 14, 1969, amid revelations of his acceptance of a $20,000 annual retainer from financier —ostensibly for economic consulting but undisclosed and continuing post-appointment—intensified scrutiny of judicial financial ethics. The arrangement, which began in January 1966 while Fortas advised President and persisted after his 1965 confirmation as associate justice, was criticized by the as contrary to established canons of judicial ethics, emphasizing the appearance of impropriety and potential conflicts of interest. This episode eroded public confidence in the judiciary's integrity, prompting congressional and bar association demands for formalized standards to curb outside income sources that could compromise impartiality. In direct response, the Judicial Conference of the United States, under Warren Burger, implemented reforms targeting federal judges' extrajudicial compensation. By March 1970, the Conference prohibited judges from accepting honoraria or fees for speeches, writings, or similar activities, a measure aimed at preventing the kind of ongoing private payments Fortas had received. These changes extended to the 1973 promulgation of the Code of Judicial Conduct by the Conference, which codified rules against personal financial interests influencing judicial duties and required avoidance of even the appearance of bias—norms that echoed the Fortas scandal's core issues of undisclosed retainers and familial ties to litigants. Although justices were not formally bound by the Code, the affair established resignation under ethical pressure as a mechanism for accountability, influencing later statutes like the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, which barred justices from honoraria exceeding $2,000 annually and mandated financial disclosures for lower federal judges (with justices following voluntarily). Fortas's case thus catalyzed a shift toward proactive ethics governance, highlighting systemic gaps in self-regulation and spurring institutional adaptations to prioritize over reliance on individual honor. However, the exemptions for the in post-scandal reforms—such as non-binding rules—revealed persistent weaknesses, as the Fortas fallout prioritized lower-court without imposing equivalent mandates on the high bench. This legacy underscored the causal link between high-profile ethical breaches and momentum, though critics note that without mandatory oversight, similar vulnerabilities endured for decades.

References

  1. [1]
    Abe Fortas - Oyez
    Abe Fortas. Born: Jun 19, 1910: Memphis, TN; Died: Apr 5, 1982; Ethnicity: English; Religion: Jewish; Family status: Lower-middle class; Mother: Ray Berson ...
  2. [2]
    Justices 1789 to Present - Supreme Court
    October 1, 1962, July 25, 1965. Fortas, Abe, Tennessee, Johnson, L. October 4, 1965, May 14, 1969. Marshall, Thurgood, New York, Johnson, L. October 2, 1967 ...
  3. [3]
    Collection: Abe Fortas papers | Archives at Yale
    From 1965 to 1968, many major cases came before the Supreme Court, on such subjects as anti-trust law, criminal law, labor law, the limits of free speech ...Missing: achievements | Show results with:achievements
  4. [4]
    Fortas, Abe - Federal Judicial Center |
    Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States. Nominated by Lyndon B. Johnson on July 28, 1965, to a seat vacated by Arthur J. Goldberg.Missing: early SEC<|separator|>
  5. [5]
    The 23 or so refugees from Recife, Brazil, who ... - Supreme Court
    Aug 22, 2004 · Among other pro bono endeavors, Fortas' successful argument in Gideon v. Wainwright secured his legacy as a shaper of the rights of every person ...
  6. [6]
    Justice Abe Fortas - Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
    Fortas helped shape First Amendment law with a pair of decisions involving public schools. He wrote the majority opinion in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent ...Missing: key achievements
  7. [7]
    Statement by the President Upon Withdrawing the Nomination of ...
    WITH DEEP REGRET I have accepted and concur in the request of Mr. Justice Fortas and am withdrawing his nomination as Chief Justice of the United States.
  8. [8]
    Legal history highlight: The failed election-year nomination of Abe ...
    Mar 10, 2016 · President Lyndon Johnson's unsuccessful 1968 nomination of Justice Abe Fortas to replace Earl Warren, who had announced his intent to retire from his position ...
  9. [9]
    Letter Accepting the Resignation of Abe Fortas as Associate Justice ...
    I wish hereby to tender my resignation as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, which, with your approval, will be effective as of this date.Missing: scandal primary
  10. [10]
    The Cautionary Tale of Abe Fortas | Brennan Center for Justice
    Feb 6, 2018 · He took $20,000 from the Wolfson Foundation, which was a family foundation of Louis Wolfson, who was indicted for securities fraud.Missing: primary sources
  11. [11]
    Justice's Resignation First Under Impeachment Threat - CQ Press
    Abe Fortas became the first Supreme Court Justice to step down under threat of impeachment when he submitted a letter of resignation to Chief Justice Earl ...Missing: scandal | Show results with:scandal
  12. [12]
    Abe Fortas - Tennessee Encyclopedia
    Mar 1, 2018 · Abe Fortas, associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, was born in Memphis, the son of an English-born Orthodox Jew and cabinetmaker.
  13. [13]
    Woolf Fortas (1881-1930) | WikiTree FREE Family Tree
    Oct 2, 2020 · Woolf Fortas (later known as William) was born in England, in about 1881, [1] to parents born in Russia. His father was named Myer Fortas.
  14. [14]
    Memphis and the Making of Justice Fortas - Project MUSE
    Mar 22, 2023 · Woolf Fortas and his wife Ray, as they were listed in the census, were originally from Russia and Lithuania, respectively, and they came to ...Missing: father Woolfe origin
  15. [15]
    Abe Fortas - Jewish Virtual Library
    Fortas was born in Memphis, Tennessee on June 19, 1910. His parents, Woolfe (who later changed his first name to William) and Rachel Berzansky, were born in ...Missing: family background upbringing siblings
  16. [16]
    Abe Fortas (1910-1982) - Find a Grave Memorial
    1935). Siblings. Mary Fortas Fain. 1898–1981 · Meyer Fortas. 1905–1967 · Esta Annette Fortas Bloom. 1908–1996 · Nellie Fortas Glaser. unknown–1932. Flowers • 79.
  17. [17]
    Abraham Fortas (1910-1982) | WikiTree FREE Family Tree
    Jun 12, 2020 · Abe grew up in Memphis, where the 1920 U.S. Census recorded 9-year-old Abe Fortas in the household of William Fortas, 39, a proprietor in the ...Missing: upbringing | Show results with:upbringing
  18. [18]
    From Southwestern to the Supreme Court - | Rhodes News
    May 23, 2018 · Born in Memphis in 1910 to poor immigrant Jewish parents, young Abe Fortas lived the early years of his life on the margins. His parents had ...Missing: upbringing | Show results with:upbringing
  19. [19]
    FORTAS: – Chicago Tribune
    Born of Jewish immigrants, he grew up in poverty on the edge of Memphis` black ghetto. His father, a cabinetmaker, taught himself to read and write; his ...
  20. [20]
    The Many-Sided Justice Fortas(Cont.) - The New York Times
    The fifth child of a cabinetmaker who emigrated from England, Fortas was born in Memphis, Tenn., and started to earn a living at the age of 13 by playing ...
  21. [21]
    [PDF] Introduction - Supreme Court Historical Society
    There is fraud, pestilence, bad science, the free press, and how little Abe Fortas grew up and thrived in Memphis. And we also have. Grier Stephenson, guiding ...Missing: Woolfe | Show results with:Woolfe
  22. [22]
    Abe Fortas | Research Starters - EBSCO
    Abe Fortas was an influential American lawyer and associate justice of the Supreme Court, known for his contributions to civil liberties and individual ...
  23. [23]
    Previous Associate Justices: Abe Fortas, 1965-1969
    ABE FORTAS was born in Memphis, Tennessee, on June 19, 1910. He was graduated from Southwestern College (now Rhodes College) in 1930 and from Yale University ...Missing: upbringing parents siblings
  24. [24]
    [PDF] April 11, 1938. Abe Fortas, Assistant Director, Public Utilities ...
    Abe Fortas, Assistant Director,. Public Utilities Division,. Securities and Commission,. Washington, D.C.. Dear Abe: With great reluctance and deep regrets ...Missing: Exchange | Show results with:Exchange<|control11|><|separator|>
  25. [25]
    EX-JUSTICE ABE FORTAS DIES AT 71; SHAPED HISTORIC ...
    Apr 7, 1982 · Former Associate Justice Abe Fortas, who resigned from the Supreme Court in 1969, died of a ruptured aorta Monday night at his home here.
  26. [26]
    History of Arnold & Porter - FundingUniverse
    Then in January 1946 Arnold persuaded Abe Fortas to join him to form Arnold & Fortas. Fortas taught at the Yale Law School after he graduated from there. During ...
  27. [27]
    Justice Abe Fortas: Life as a Lawyer's Lawyer and a Greek Tragedy
    May 5, 2024 · The son of Jewish immigrants, Fortas was born and raised in Memphis. Hard-working and brilliant, Fortas won scholarships to Southwestern College ...Missing: upbringing parents siblings
  28. [28]
    At a Time When Lawyers Feared Defending Government Enemies ...
    Mar 26, 2025 · Arnold, Fortas & Porter was among the few Washington firms who rose to the challenge. Today we once more see a legal community divided over how ...
  29. [29]
    [PDF] Remembering 1965: Abe Fortas and the Supreme Court
    For in 1969, when Abe Fortas became the first. Supreme Court Justice to resign before a public outcry of impeachment, the truths of 1965 became painfully ...
  30. [30]
    Republicans, Beware the Abe Fortas Precedent - POLITICO Magazine
    Feb 15, 2016 · Abe Fortas and Lyndon Johnson first met in 1938, when both were ambitious, young New Dealers. As LBJ rose to prominence as Senate majority ...Missing: chronology | Show results with:chronology
  31. [31]
    101. Justice Black and the 1948 Texas Democratic Senate Primary
    Sep 30, 2024 · 76 years ago yesterday, Justice Black effectively sealed LBJ's first election to the U.S. Senate by staying lower-court investigations into ...
  32. [32]
    LBJ & Abe Fortas, 2 Sept. 1964 - KC Johnson
    LBJ & Abe Fortas, 2 Sept. 1964. When the Bobby Baker scandal suddenly revived with Delaware senator John Williams' September 1 allegations (suggesting a ...
  33. [33]
    [PDF] The Fortas Case and the Struggle for the Supreme Court
    Finally, Senator Joseph Tydings, who called for Fortas's resignation following public disclosure of Fortas's associations with Wolfson, was defeated a year ...
  34. [34]
    Bobby Baker - Spartacus Educational
    One Sunday evening I was consulting with Abe Fortas at his home when Lady Bird Johnson called... I hardly heard her. I was thinking: LBJ's right there by ...
  35. [35]
    On This Day: On May 17, 1965, President Johnson and Abe Fortas ...
    May 17, 2025 · On This Day: On May 17, 1965, President Johnson and Abe Fortas were inside the situation room at the White House discussing the Dominican ...
  36. [36]
    July 28, 1965: Press Conference | Miller Center
    I will very shortly, this afternoon, send to the United States Senate my nomination of the Honorable Abe Fortas to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.<|separator|>
  37. [37]
    Supreme Court Nominations (1789-Present) - Senate.gov
    Fortas, Abe, Warren, Jun 26, 1968, W, Oct 4, 1968. Marshall, Thurgood, Clark ... justice not to be subsequently confirmed by the Senate. 24. Nominated to ...
  38. [38]
    Catalog Record: Nomination of Abe Fortas - HathiTrust Digital Library
    Nomination of Abe Fortas : hearings before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Eighty-Ninth Congress, first session, on Aug. 5, 1965.
  39. [39]
    SENATE APPROVAL OF FORTAS LIKELY; High Court Nominee ...
    The Senate Judiciary Committee announced yesterday that the hearing date had been postponed from Aug. 5 to Aug. 12 at the nominee's request. However, the Senate ...<|separator|>
  40. [40]
    Abe Fortas - Ballotpedia
    ... Department of the Interior; 1939-1941: General Counsel for the Bituminous Coal Division, Public Works Administration; 1937-1939: Assistant Director of the ...<|separator|>
  41. [41]
    The Constitutionalist | The New Yorker
    Mar 5, 1990 · In a 1966 case, “Memoirs” v. Massachusetts, Justices Brennan, Warren, and Fortas had used as a test of obscenity that the material in question ...
  42. [42]
    FORTAS: The Rise and Ruin of a Supreme Court Justice
    Dec 1, 1988 · Professor Murphy traces Abe Fortas' rise to preeminence as student, teacher, public servant, practitioner of the law and power broker, followed ...Missing: key achievements
  43. [43]
    [PDF] The New Oral Argument: Justices as Advocates
    The Supreme Court's website describes oral arguments as “an opportu- nity for the Justices to ask questions directly of the attorneys representing the parties ...
  44. [44]
    [PDF] Gideon v. Wainwright Abe Fortas, Attorney Appointed by the ...
    Abe Fortas, Attorney Appointed by the Supreme Court. Monologue. (420 ... Justice Hugo L. Black wrote the opinion for the court and all of the Justices signed.
  45. [45]
    Did the FBI Try to Blackmail Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas
    Jul 18, 2005 · ” In the oral arguments on Boutilier, Fortas aggressively questioned the government lawyer on the INS claim that homosexuality was intrinsically ...
  46. [46]
    A Tough Lawyer Goes to the Court - The New York Times
    He took his case to the Supreme Court, where Abe Fortas argued it-and won a reversal. SINCE Lyndon Johnson became President, Fortas has been an ...
  47. [47]
    Facts and Case Summary - In re Gault - United States Courts
    Unanimous Decision: Justice Fortas wrote the opinion of the court. Justices Douglas, Clark, and Harlan each wrote concurring opinions. Reasoning: In its opinion ...
  48. [48]
    In re Gault | Oyez
    8–1 decision for Gault majority opinion by Abe Fortas ... No. The proceedings of the Juvenile Court failed to comply with the Constitution. The Court held that ...
  49. [49]
    In re Gault | 387 U.S. 1 (1967) - Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
    Appellants allege that the Arizona Juvenile Code is unconstitutional, or, alternatively, that the proceedings before the Juvenile Court were constitutionally ...
  50. [50]
    Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District | Oyez
    Justice Hugo L. Black wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the First Amendment does not provide the right to express any opinion at any time.
  51. [51]
    Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)
    In his opinion for the Court majority, Justice Abe Fortas held that the students retained their First Amendment rights while at school as long as their ...
  52. [52]
    Abe Fortas | The First Amendment Encyclopedia - Free Speech Center
    Aug 10, 2023 · Fortas, who was born in Memphis, Tennessee, graduated from Southwestern College (now Rhodes College) and Yale Law School, where he edited the ...Missing: parents | Show results with:parents<|separator|>
  53. [53]
    Justice Abe Fortas and the Decision in Epperson v Arkansas
    ... Abe Fortas, attended a segregated public high school in Memphis . ... In the spring of 1967, the Arkansas Supreme Court, without oral argument, reversed Reed's ...
  54. [54]
    Epperson v. Arkansas - Oyez
    Writing for the Court, Justice Abe Fortas stated that the law had been based solely on the beliefs of fundamentalist Christians, who felt that evolutionary ...Missing: biography | Show results with:biography
  55. [55]
    Katz v. United States | Oyez
    The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was ...
  56. [56]
    [PDF] Abe Fortas: A Biography - DigitalCommons@NYLS
    Fortas rose from humble beginnings in Memphis, Tennessee through hard-earned scholastic achievement, and landed as a Yale law professor and New Deal ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  57. [57]
    In Washington, You Just Don't Not Return a Call From Abe Forte
    Aug 1, 1971 · ... Supreme Court practices in history after he left the bench) to “I ... Abe Fortas I don't care what your poli tics are.” Myer Feldman, a ...
  58. [58]
    [PDF] Fortas: Concerning Dissent and Civil Disobedience
    5. Powell v. McCormack, 395 F.2d 577 (D.C. Cir. 1968), cert. granted, 37 U.S.L.W.. 3184 (Nov. 19, 1968). The Supreme Court's agreement to hear the case ...
  59. [59]
    [PDF] The Broad Role
    The question of qualifications or fitness was an issue on only four of these twenty-one occasions. In debating nominations for the Supreme Court, the Senate has ...Missing: style | Show results with:style
  60. [60]
    Justice Fortas Told President About Case, Researcher Says
    Jan 23, 1990 · Mr. Theoharis said the F.B.I. files show that Justice Fortas violated the Constitution's doctrine of separation of court and executive power by ...
  61. [61]
    [PDF] Serving at the Pleasure of the President: Justice Fortas's Failings as ...
    See Laura Kalman, Abe Fortas: Symbol of the Warren Court?, in THE WARREN COURT IN HISTORICAL. AND POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE 155, 157 (Mark Tushnet ed., 1993); ...
  62. [62]
    [PDF] Litigating the Separation of Powers
    109 Powell v. McCormack, 395 F.2d 577, 593-96 (D.C. Cir. 1968). 110 Powell ... Justice Abe Fortas, himself embroiled in scandal, did not participate in the case ...<|separator|>
  63. [63]
    The Political and Academic Debate Over Judicial Activism
    Senators questioned Fortas aggressively about liberal activism on the Warren Court; Fortas was even charged with coddling rapists and pornographers (Keck 2004, ...
  64. [64]
    The Senate: Fortas at the Bar | TIME
    For Abe Fortas, the confrontation must have been an occasion of particular pain. ... questioning Administration estimates of war spending. Fortas refused ...
  65. [65]
    In Re Gault-Progress or Regression - Justice Programs Office
    Oct 24, 2018 · In the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, Justice Abe Fortas notes that such a crime, were it committed by an adult, would likely incur a ...
  66. [66]
    Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
    Petitioners were aware of the regulation that the school authorities adopted. On December 16, Mary Beth and Christopher wore black armbands to their schools.
  67. [67]
    Tinker at 50: Student rights move forward? - American Bar Association
    These words written by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas in the 1969 landmark decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District formed ...
  68. [68]
    Origins of the Politicized Confirmation – Ian Drake - Law & Liberty
    May 28, 2020 · He went on to become a notable advocate before the Supreme Court and finally an advisor to LBJ. It was Fortas' close friendship with Lyndon ...Missing: pre- | Show results with:pre-
  69. [69]
    Why Liberals and Conservatives Flipped on Judicial Restraint
    Fortas was soon embroiled in scandal and had to resign; this gave Richard Nixon two Supreme Court appointments to replace Fortas and Warren. Two years later, in ...
  70. [70]
    The President's News Conference
    RESIGNATION OF CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN. THE PRESIDENT. [1.] On June 13th I received letters from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court which read as follows:.Missing: context | Show results with:context
  71. [71]
    Earl Warren's Legacy - NPR
    Jun 30, 2008 · And I'm Michele Norris. Forty years ago this month, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Earl Warren, announced his retirement. And it turned ...
  72. [72]
    Earl Warren Court (1953-1969) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
    President John F. Kennedy replaced him with Justice Arthur Goldberg, who served just three years on the Court before being replaced by Justice Abe Fortas.<|separator|>
  73. [73]
    Justice Fortas: Johnson's Blunder and the End of the Warren ...
    Nov 28, 2018 · When he publicly announced his plan to retire in June 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren said it was solely for reasons of age.<|separator|>
  74. [74]
    How Liberal Blunders Handed the Right the Supreme Court | TIME
    Oct 7, 2024 · In June 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren decided to retire because he was convinced that Richard Nixon would win the presidency. Warren “detested ...
  75. [75]
    Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment - Senate.gov
    Photo of Justice Abe Fortas. In June 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren informed President Lyndon Johnson that he planned to retire from the Supreme Court.
  76. [76]
    Supremely Contentious | National Endowment for the Humanities
    In his opening statement, Fortas directly addressed his role as adviser to Johnson: “Since I have been a justice, the president of the United States has never, ...Missing: "historical | Show results with:"historical
  77. [77]
    Exit Warren; After a Profound Influence on His Era
    Warren arrived at a time of great change in the United States, in the fields of Negro rights, civil rights and individual liberties. He had been a prose- cutor, ...
  78. [78]
    23. The Resignation of Justice Fortas - by Steve Vladeck
    Apr 17, 2023 · On May 14, 1969, Justice Abe Fortas resigned from the Supreme Court—less than four years after his October 1965 appointment. (That date was the ...
  79. [79]
    On This Day In 1968: Johnson Withdraws Fortas Nomination To The ...
    Oct 2, 2009 · Forty-one years ago today, President Johnson is forced to withdraw the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice, in the wake of a ...Missing: clients seminar
  80. [80]
    The Senate: The Fortas Defeat - Time Magazine
    Fortas finally became the hapless focus of conservative unrest over court decisions on pornography and the rights of criminal suspects. The attack developed ...Missing: criticisms | Show results with:criticisms
  81. [81]
    Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas Is Accused of Bribery - EBSCO
    On May 14, Fortas submitted a four-page letter of resignation to Warren, detailing the nature of his relationship with Wolfson but admitting no wrongdoing. He ...Missing: primary | Show results with:primary
  82. [82]
    FORTAS QUITS THE SUPREME COURT, DEFENDS DEALINGS ...
    He said that he received a check for $20,000 in January, 1966, but that he began to have second thoughts about the arrangement because his judicial duties had ...Missing: specifics | Show results with:specifics
  83. [83]
    Justice Fortas's Cautionary Tale: Ethical Lapses Required ...
    May 10, 2024 · William Brennan observed that “we were all stunned.” Fortas indicated that he intended to resign from the Court, and no Justice tried to ...Missing: relationship | Show results with:relationship
  84. [84]
    Life Says Fortas Received And Repaid a Wolfson Fee
    On Dec. 22, according to the article, Justice Fortas paid back the $20,000 to the Wolfson foundation with a personal check. The foundation's Federal tax ...
  85. [85]
    Investor Louis Wolfson Is Convicted of Selling Stock Illegally - EBSCO
    Investor Louis Wolfson was convicted in 1967 for selling unregistered shares of stock, specifically in Continental Enterprises, a company he controlled.
  86. [86]
    Abe Fortas resigns from Supreme Court May 15, 1969 - POLITICO
    May 15, 2008 · On this day in 1969, Abe Fortas, denying he had done anything wrong, resigned from the Supreme Court to return to private law practice.Missing: scandal | Show results with:scandal
  87. [87]
    May 14, 1969: The Spectacular Fall of Abe Fortas - ABA Journal
    Apr 1, 2020 · Under their agreement, Fortas was to receive $20,000 a year for life. He had returned the money, but only after Wolfson was indicted. With ...
  88. [88]
    Fortas's Statement on Article in Life - The New York Times
    Sup Ct Justice Fortas comes under attack over revelations of his connections with financier L Wolfson, now serving prison term far stock manipulation, ...
  89. [89]
    SOME IN G.O.P. ASK FORTAS TO RESIGN - The New York Times
    WASHINGTON, May 5- Some Congressional Republicans called today for the resignation of Justice Abe Fortas following the disclosure that he had received-and ...
  90. [90]
    [PDF] HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Monday, May 12, 1969 - GovInfo
    Not only must Abe Fortas resign or be removed, public confidence in the High. Court cries out for removal of Warren,. Douglas, and Brennan. The U.S. Supreme ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  91. [91]
    [PDF] Justice Abe Fortas Resigns, Sends Letters to President and Warren
    Justice ~be Fortas today r~ signed from the Supreme Court. Accused of taking money from a business tycoon iIi trouble and returning' it 11 months later, Fortas ...Missing: scandal primary<|separator|>
  92. [92]
    Abe Fortas resigns from Supreme Court, May 15, 1969 - POLITICO
    May 14, 2017 · On this day in 1969, Abe Fortas, denying he had done anything wrong, resigned from the Supreme Court to return to private law practice.
  93. [93]
    In 1969 Abe Fortas Became the First Justice Forced to Resign ...
    Apr 19, 2023 · In 1969, Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign after his financial relationship came to light with businessman Louis Wolfson, who paid Fortas ...<|separator|>
  94. [94]
    Abe Fortas Today: A 'Lawyer's Lawyer' - The Washington Post
    Dec 15, 1979 · Now he works in his new firm and is of counsel to Chicago's Friedman & Koven. Originally, Howard Koven, who is a principal in both firms, ...
  95. [95]
    Not So Supreme Court - Our Memphis History
    Jun 3, 2023 · ... Lyndon Johnson and ratified by the Senate to assume what was known ... He died in 1982 of an aortic aneurysm. Sources: Wikipedia Abe FortasMissing: chronology | Show results with:chronology<|control11|><|separator|>
  96. [96]
    Ex-Justice Abe Fortas Dies at 71 - The Washington Post
    Apr 6, 1982 · Fortas had appeared in good health recently, enjoying a full social life and working nine-hour days at Fortas and Koven, the law firm he started ...
  97. [97]
    DEATH OF JUSTICE FORTAS - GovInfo
    this, the last day of oral argument for the 1981 Term, we pause to note with sadness, the death of our colleague former. Justice Abe Fortas in his 72nd year.
  98. [98]
    Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) | Wex - Law.Cornell.Edu
    The indigent defendant was represented gratis by future Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas. The ruling greatly increased the use of public defenders.
  99. [99]
    Remembering Gideon's Lawyers - NACDL
    Fortas argued that a federal court should not enjoin a state-run election.13 Arguments took place for a four-hour period in Justice Black's office in the ...
  100. [100]
    Arnold & Porter Celebrates the 60th Anniversary of Gideon v ...
    Mar 20, 2023 · The Supreme Court appointed Fortas to represent Gideon, who had been convicted of burglary after his request for a court appointed lawyer was ...<|separator|>
  101. [101]
    Abe Fortas (TN) - US Supreme Court Associate Justice
    In 1939, he worked as general counsel to the Public Works Administration. In 1941, he became director of the Power Division in the Department of the Interior.
  102. [102]
    DEDICATION A Tribute to Justice Abe Fortas - HeinOnline
    Justice Fortas during his four years of tenure on the Warren Court was an able and active participant in the advances made by the Supreme Court during this ...
  103. [103]
    A Mistake in the 1970s Still Haunts Supreme Court Ethics | TIME
    Jun 26, 2024 · But the timing of Fortas' association with Wolfson and his oversized payments for a part-time position looked suspicious, especially after the ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  104. [104]
    54 Years Ago, a Supreme Court Justice Was Forced to Quit for ...
    Apr 11, 2023 · Justice Abe Fortas's departure from the court in 1969 is both a blueprint for how lawmakers could respond today and a benchmark of how far we have fallen.
  105. [105]
    [PDF] Outside the Monastery: A Historical Look at Judicial Ethics
    Nov 26, 2024 · to spur changes, notably Justice Abe Fortas's resignation following receipt of fees for speaking engagements and outside income from a.
  106. [106]
    [PDF] How Public Outcry Has Influenced the Court to Address Judicial ...
    Jun 27, 2024 · The rules governing outside employment have changed since the. Justice Fortas scandal. Title VI of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 now imposes ...<|separator|>