Rehnquist's Sorry Record on Racism

Chief Justice Rehnquist Information

Wrote memorandum supporting Plessy v. Ferguson. In Plessy the Court endorsed state supported segregation and established that Jim Crow “separate but equal” principle was constitutional. Chief Justice Rehnquist served as a clerk to Justice Robert Jackson. The memo “A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases” advised Justice Jackson to affirm Plessy in future segregation cases, including Brown v. Board of Education. The memo stated “I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by my ‘liberal’ colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed.” Plessy was later overturned in Brown v. Board of Education. While under oath during his confirmation hearings, Justice Rehnquist denied that the memo reflected his beliefs at the time. One writer wrote that for Justice Rehnquist “it depends on what the definition of ‘I’ is.” Justice Rehnquist went so far as to attribute his statements to former Supreme Court Justice Jackson. Justice Jackson was deceased at the time and therefore unable to defend himself against these attacks. Elsie Douglas, Justice Jackson’s former secretary, defended her boss sharply and criticized Justice Rehnquist for smearing the name and reputation of Justice Jackson. Justice Rehnquist has been accused of perjury by several scholars for stating to Congress that the memo did not represent his beliefs.

Alan Dershowitz, Supreme Injustice, Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 242 - 244 n. 37;

Brad Snyder, How the Conservatives Canonized Brown v. Board of Education, 52 Rutgers L. Rev. 383 (2000);

Jeffrey Rosen, Rehnquist’s Choice, New Yorker, Jan. 11, 1999;

Edward Lazarus, Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall and Future of the Modern Supreme Court, Penguin, 1999, pp. 145 - 146;

Laura Ray, A Law Clerk and His Justice: What William Rehnquist Did Not Learn From Robert Jackson, 29 Indiana L. Rev. 535 (1996);

Warren Weaver, et. al., 8 Men and a Lady: Profiles of the Justices of the Supreme Court, National Press, Inc., 1990; and

Nomination of William H. Rehnquist, of Virginia to be Chief Justice of the United States. 99th Congress, 2nd Session, September 17, 1986, 9:31 p.m., p. s-12831, Vote No. 266, found at www.senate.gov/~rpc/rva/992/992266.html

Justice Rehnquist wrote a proposed constitutional amendment designed to limit the enforcement of Brown v. Board of education

Justice Rehnquist, then President Nixon’s Assistant Attorney General, wrote the memos in March 1970. According to Justice Rehnquist, the amendment was designed to permit northern schools to preserve de facto segregation through “neighborhood schools.” Justice Rehnquist believed the amendment would allow gerrymandering of schools districts even if the neighborhood plan was “adopted by the local school board at least partly because they would make some schools largely white, and others largely black.”

Brad Snyder, How the Conservatives Canonized Brown v. Board of Education, 52 Rutgers L. Rev. 383, 460-61 (2000).

Wrote memorandum endorsing Texas’ “Whites Only” Primaries

Terry v. Adams was case about the rights of blacks to vote in a “private” Texas primary.

Justice Rehnquist while clerking for Justice Jackson wrote in a memo “I take a dim view of this pathological search for discrimination. . . and as a result I now have a mental block against the case.” In a second memo he wrote: “The Constitution does not prevent the majority from banding together, nor does it attaint success in the effort. It is about time the Court faced the fact that the white people of the south don’t like the colored people: the constitution restrains them from effecting thru (sic) state action but it most assuredly did not appoint the Court as a sociological watchdog to rear up every time private discrimination raises its admittedly ugly head.”

Brad Snyder, How the Conservatives Canonized Brown v. Board of Education, 52 Rutgers L. Rev. 383 (2000)

Fought passage of ordinance permitting blacks to enter stores and restaurants.

In 1964, Justice Rehnquist appeared before the Phoenix City Council voicing opposition to the city’s proposed public accommodations ordinance. Additionally, he wrote a letter criticizing the council’s decision to the Arizona Republic after the ordinance was passed.

As Supreme Court Decides Presidency, Chief Justice Rehnquist is Accused of Past Harassment of Black Voters at the Polls, Democracy NOW, (www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20001212.html), December 12, 2000;

Brad Snyder, How the Conservatives Canonized Brown v. Board of Education, 52 Rutgers L. Rev. 383 (2000);

Edward Lazarus, Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall and Future of the Modern Supreme Court, Penguin, 1999, p. 193.

Laura Kay, A Law Clerk and His Justice: What William Rehnquist Did Not Learn From Robert Jackson, 29 Ind. L. Rev. 535, 592 n. 44 (1996).

Public Accommodations Law Passage is Called “Mistake,” Arizona Republic, June 4, 1964(Justice Rehnquist’s letter to editor) cited in 52 Rutgers L. Rev. 383, 494 n. 323.

Harassed minority voters in Arizona.

Several witnesses have stated under oath that Justice Rehnquist harassed minority voters during the early 1960's. Justice Rehnquist denies he harassed minority voters. James Brosnahan, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Phoenix from 1961 to 1963, said in a statement delivered to Congress that on election day in 1962, he and several assistant U.S. attorneys were assigned the task of receiving complaints alleging illegal interference with the voting process. The group received several complaints from precincts in South Phoenix. The precincts were predominately black and Hispanic. The complaints involved Justice Rehnquist. Broshnahan visited one of the precincts. When he arrived he saw Justice Rehnquist. There were reports that poll watchers had to physically push Rehnquist out of polling places to stop him from interfering with the voting rights of the minority citizens.

Alan Dershowitz, Supreme Injustice, Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 242 - 244 n. 37;

As Supreme Court Decides Presidency, Chief Justice Rehnquist is Accused of Past Harassment of Black Voters at the Polls, Democracy NOW, (www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20001212.html), December 12, 2000;

Brad Snyder, How the Conservatives Canonized Brown v. Board of Education, 52 Rutgers L. Rev. 383 (2000);

Edward Lazarus, Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall and Future of the Modern Supreme Court, Penguin, 1999, p. 193;

Nadine Cohodas, Strom Thurmond & the Politics of Southern Change, Simon & Shuster, 1993, p. 487;

Statement of James J. Brosnahan to the United States Judiciary Committee, August 1, 1986 found at www.thenation.com/special/20010101rehnquist.mhtml

Nomination of William H. Rehnquist, of Virginia to be Chief Justice of the United States, 99th Congress, 2nd Session, September 17, 1986, 9:31 p.m., p, s-12831, Vote No. 266 found at www.senate.gov/~rpc/rva/992/992266.html

Owned property containing restrictive covenants barring the sale of his property to nonwhites and Jews. Justice Rehnquist, a sophisticated lawyer, professed ignorance of the restrictive covenant.

Derrick Z. Jackson, Globe Columnist, 12/13/2000 http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/The_court_that_throttled_democracy+.shtml(stating that Rehnquist he had two properties (one in suburban Phoenix and one in Virginia) containing discriminatory restrictive covenants);

Edward Lazarus, Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall and Future of the Modern Supreme Court, Penguin, 1999, p. 193;

Nadine Cohodas, Strom Thurmond & the Politics of Southern Change, Simon & Shuster, 1993, p. 487; and

Alan M. Dershowitz, Chutzpah, Simon and Schuster, 1991, p. 115.

Voted to grant Bob Jones University tax exempt status

In 1970, the IRS ruled that Bob Jones could not enjoy tax exempt status because of its racially discriminatory policies. Bob Jones began admitting blacks on a limited basis. Blacks could enroll at the school but only if they were married to other blacks or promised not to date or marry outside the black race. Bob Jones University applied for tax exempt status and was denied. Bob Jones University sued to restore its tax exemption and won. The case then went before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court in a 8-1 decision held that the university’s policy violated deeply accepted views of elementary justice and that it could not enjoy tax exempt status. The Supreme Court, Chief Justice Burger, held that nonprofit private schools that prescribe and enforce racially discriminatory admission standards on the basis of religious doctrine do not qualify as tax‑exempt organizations under the Internal Revenue Code, nor are contributions to such schools deductible as charitable contributions. The sole dissenter was, you guessed it, Justice William Rehnquist.

Edward Lazarus, Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall and Future of the Modern Supreme Court, Penguin, 1999, p. 232;