See more Louis Brandeis articles on AOD.

Powered by
Share this page on
Article provided by Wikipedia

Main article: "Brandeis brief

Widely known as "the people's attorney," Brandeis pioneered pro bono work and was a true reformer. Brandeis was also the first to cite law reviews both in his briefs before the court and in his opinions as a justice. In 1907, he pioneered a new type of legal document, the "Brandeis brief." It included three pages of traditional legal citations and over one hundred innovative pages of citations to articles, government reports, and other references. It was packed full of social research and data to demonstrate the public interest in a ten-hour limitation on women's working hours. His brief proved decisive in Muller v. Oregon, which was the first Supreme Court ruling that accepted the legitimacy of a scientific examination of the social conditions in addition to the legal facts involved in a case.[28]

One of the hallmarks of the case was Brandeis's minimizing common-law jurisprudence in favor of extralegal information relevant to the case. According to judicial historian Stephen Powers, the "so-called 'Brandeis Brief' became a model for progressive litigation," by taking into consideration social and historical realities rather than just the abstract general principles. He adds that it had "a profound impact on the future of the legal profession" by accepting more broad-based legal information.[29] John Vile adds that this new "Brandeis Brief" was increasingly used, most notably in the "Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954 that desegregated public schools.[4]:123

Supporting President Wilson[edit]

President Woodrow Wilson, 1919

Brandeis's positions on regulating large corporations and monopolies carried over into the presidential campaign of 1912. Democratic candidate "Woodrow Wilson made it a central issue, part of the larger debate over the future of the economic system and the role of the national government. While the Progressive Party candidate, "Theodore Roosevelt felt that trusts were inevitable and should be regulated, Wilson and his party aimed to "destroy the trusts" by ending special privileges, such as protective tariffs and unfair business practices that made them possible.[30]:1–24

Brandeis, although originally a LaFollette Republican, switched to the Democrats and urged his friends and associates to join him.[2][18]:139 The two men met for the first time at a private conference in New Jersey that August and spent three hours discussing economic issues. Brandeis left the meeting a "confirmed admirer" of Wilson, who he said was likely to make 'an "ideal president."[5] Wilson thereafter began using the term "regulated competition," the concept that Brandeis had developed, and made it the essence of his program. In September, Wilson asked Brandeis to set forth explicitly how competition can be effectively regulated.[5]:375–377

Brandies did so, and after Wilson's victory that November, he told Brandeis, "You were yourself a great part of the victory." Wilson considered nominating Brandeis first for Attorney General and later for Secretary of Commerce, but backed down after a loud outcry from corporate executives that Brandeis had earlier opposed in court battles. Wilson concluded that Brandeis was too controversial a figure to appoint to his cabinet.[10]:257–258

Nevertheless, during Wilson's first year as president, Brandeis was instrumental in shaping the new Federal Reserve Act.[31] His arguments had been decisive in breaking deadlock on banking issues. Wilson endorsed Brandeis's proposals and those of "Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, both of whom felt that the banking system needed to be democratized and its currency issued and controlled by the government.[18]:139 They convinced Congress to enact the "Federal Reserve Act in December 1913.[31]:28–31

In 1913, Brandeis wrote a series of articles for Harper's Weekly that suggested ways of curbing the power of large banks and money trusts. And in 1914 he published a book entitled "Other People's Money and How the Bankers Use It.[32]

He also urged the Wilson administration to develop proposals for new antitrust legislation to give the "Department of Justice the power to enforce "antitrust laws, with Brandeis becoming one of the architects of the "Federal Trade Commission. Brandeis also served as Wilson's chief economic adviser from 1912 until 1916. "Above all else," writes McCraw, "Brandeis exemplified the anti-bigness ethic without which there would have been no "Sherman Act, no antitrust movement, and no Federal Trade Commission."[8]:82

Nominated to the Supreme Court[edit]

On January 28, 1916, Wilson surprised the nation by nominating Brandeis to become a member of the "U.S. Supreme Court.[33] His nomination was bitterly contested and denounced by conservative Republicans, including former president "William Howard Taft, whose credibility was damaged by Brandeis in early court battles, where he called Taft a ""muckraker".[5]:470 Further opposition came from members of the legal profession, including former "Attorney General "George W. Wickersham and former presidents of the "American Bar Association, such as ex-Senator and "Secretary of State "Elihu Root of New York, who claimed Brandeis was "unfit" to serve on the Supreme Court.[5]:470–475

The controversy surrounding Brandeis's nomination was so great that the "Senate Judiciary Committee, for the first time in its history, held a public "hearing on the nomination, allowing witnesses to appear before the committee and offer testimony both in support of and in opposition to Brandeis's confirmation. While previous nominees to the Supreme Court had been confirmed or rejected by a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate floor—often on the same day on which the President had sent the nomination to the Senate—a then-unprecedented four months lapsed between Wilson's nomination of Brandeis and the Senate's final confirmation vote.[34]

What Brandeis's opponents most objected to was his "radicalism." The "Wall Street Journal wrote of Brandeis, "In all the anti-corporation agitation of the past, one name stands out ... where others were radical, he was rabid."[3] And the New York Times claimed that having been a noted "reformer" for so many years, he would lack the "dispassionate temperament that is required of a judge."[35]:73 "Justice William O. Douglas, many years later, wrote that the nomination of Brandeis "frightened the Establishment" because he was "a militant crusader for social justice."[27]

According to legal historian Scott Powe, much of the opposition to Brandeis' appointment also stemmed from "blatant anti-semitism."[34] Taft would accuse Brandeis of using his Judaism to curry political favor, and Wickersham would refer to Brandeis' supporters (and Taft's critics) as "a bunch of Hebrew uplifters."[36] Senator "Henry Cabot Lodge privately complained that "If it were not that Brandeis is a Jew, and a German Jew, he would never have been appointed[.]"[37]

Those in favor of seeing him join the court were just as numerous and influential. Supporters included attorneys, social workers, and reformers with whom he had worked on cases, and they testified eagerly in his behalf. Harvard law professor "Roscoe Pound told the committee that "Brandeis was one of the great lawyers," and predicted that he would one day rank "with the best who have sat upon the bench of the Supreme Court." Other lawyers who supported him pointed out to the committee that he "had angered some of his clients by his conscientious striving to be fair to both sides in a case."[35]:208

In May, when the Senate Judiciary Committee asked the Attorney General to provide the letters of endorsement that traditionally accompanied a Supreme Court nomination, Attorney General "Gregory found there were none. President Wilson had made the nomination on the basis of personal knowledge. In reply to the Committee, President Wilson wrote a letter to the Chairman, Senator "Charles Culberson, testifying to his own personal estimation of the nominee's character and abilities. He called his nominee's advice "singularly enlightening, singularly clear-sighted and judicial, and, above all, full of moral stimulation." He added:

I cannot speak too highly of his impartial, impersonal, orderly, and constructive mind, his rare analytical powers, his deep human sympathy, his profound acquaintance with the historical roots of our institutions and insight into their spirit, or of the many evidences he has given of being imbued, to the very heart, with our American ideals of justice and equality of opportunity; of his knowledge of modern economic conditions and of the way they bear upon the masses of the people, or of his genius in getting persons to unite in common and harmonious action and look with frank and kindly eyes into each other's minds, who had before been heated antagonists.[38]

A month later, on June 1, 1916, the Senate officially "confirmed his nomination by a vote of 47 to 22. Forty-four Democratic Senators and three Republicans ("Robert La Follette, "George Norris, and "Miles Poindexter) voted in favor of confirming Brandeis. Twenty-one Republican Senators and one Democrat ("Francis G. Newlands) voted against his confirmation.[39]

Once on the Court, Brandeis kept active politically but worked behind the scenes, as was acceptable at the time. He was an advisor to Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal through intermediaries.[40] Many of his disciples held influential jobs, especially in the Justice Department. Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter often collaborated on political issues.[41][42]

Leading cases[edit]

Gilbert v. Minnesota (1920) – Freedom of speech[edit]

There was a strong conservative streak in the U.S. beginning with "World War I and into the 1920s, and this conservatism was reflected in decisions of the Supreme Court. Both Brandeis and Justice "Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. often dissented and became known for consistently challenging the majority's view. (However, both men approved the restrictive "Schenck v. United States decision in 1919 and the pro-sterilization "Buck v. Bell decision in 1927). These dissents were most noteworthy in cases dealing with the free speech rights of defendants who had expressed opposition to the military draft. Justice Holmes developed the concept of ""clear and present danger" as the test any restriction on speech had to meet. Both Holmes and Brandeis used this doctrine in other cases. Vile points out that Brandeis was "spurred by his appreciation for democracy, education, and the value of free speech and continued to argue vigorously for ... free speech even in wartime because of its educational value and the importance to democracy."[4]:128 And according to legal historian John Raeburn Green, Brandeis's philosophy influenced Justice Holmes himself, and writes that "Justice Holmes' conversion to a profound attachment to freedom of expression ... may be taken to have occurred in 1919, and to have coincided roughly with the advent of Mr. Justice Brandeis's influence."[43]

One such case was Gilbert v. Minnesota (1920) which dealt with a state law prohibiting interference with the military's enlistment efforts. In his dissenting opinion, Brandeis wrote that the statute affected the "rights, privileges, and immunities of one who is a citizen of the United States; and it deprives him of an important part of his liberty. ... [T]he statute invades the privacy and freedom of the home. Father and mother may not follow the promptings of religious belief, of conscience or of conviction, and teach son or daughter the doctrine of pacifism. If they do, any police officer may summarily arrest them."[44]

Legal author "Ken Gormley says Brandeis was "attempting to introduce a notion of privacy which was connected in some fashion to the Constitution...and which worked in tandem with the First Amendment to assure a freedom of speech within the four brick walls of the citizen's residence."[45] In 1969, in "Stanley v. Georgia, Justice "Marshall succeeded in linking the right of privacy with freedom of speech and making it part of the constitutional structure, quoting from Brandeis's "Olmstead dissent and his "Whitney concurrence, and adding his own conclusions from the case at hand, which dealt with the issue of viewing pornography at home:

It is now well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas... If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds... Georgia asserts the right to protect the individual's mind from the effects of obscenity. We are not certain that this argument amounts to anything more than the assertion that the State has the right to control the moral content of a person's thoughts.

Whitney v. California (1927) – Freedom of speech[edit]

The case of "Whitney v. California is notable partly because of the concurring opinion of both Justices Brandeis and Holmes. The case dealt with the prosecution of a woman for aiding the Communist Labor Party, an organization that was promoting the violent overthrow of the government. In their opinion and test to uphold the conviction, they expanded the definition of "clear and present danger" to include the condition that the "evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion." According to legal historian Anthony Lewis, scholars have lauded Brandeis's opinion "as perhaps the greatest defense of freedom of speech ever written by a member of the high court."[46]:85 In their concurring opinion, they wrote:

Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of free speech to free men from bondage of irrational fears ... Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty ...

Olmstead v. United States (1928) – Right of privacy[edit]

Olmstead v. United States

In his widely cited "dissenting opinion in "Olmstead v. United States (1928), Brandeis relied on thoughts he developed in his 1890 Harvard Law Review article "The Right to Privacy."[47] But in his dissent, he now changed the focus whereby he urged making personal privacy matters more relevant to "constitutional law, going so far as saying "the government [was] identified ... as a potential privacy invader." At issue in Olmstead was the use of wiretap technology to gather evidence. Referring to this "dirty business," he then tried to combine the notions of civil privacy and the "right to be let alone" with the right offered by the "Fourth Amendment which disallowed unreasonable search and seizure. Brandeis wrote in his lengthy dissent:

The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred against the government, the right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.[48]

In succeeding years his right of privacy concepts gained powerful disciples who relied on his dissenting opinion: Justice "Frank Murphy, in 1942, used his Harvard Law Review article in writing an opinion for the Court; a few years later, Justice "Felix Frankfurter referred to the Fourth Amendment as the "protection of the right to be let alone," as in the 1947 case of "United States v. Harris, where his opinion wove together the speeches of "James Otis, "James Madison, "John Adams, and Brandeis's Olmstead opinion, proclaiming the right of privacy as "second to none in the "Bill of Rights[15]:26

Again, five years later, Justice "William O. Douglas openly declared that he had been wrong about his earlier tolerance of wiretapping and wrote, "I now more fully appreciate the vice of the practices spawned by Olmstead ... I now feel that I was wrong ... Mr. Justice Brandeis in his dissent in Olmstead espoused the cause of privacy – the right to be let alone. What he wrote is an historic statement of that point of view. I cannot improve on it."[49]:445 And in 1963, Justice "William J. Brennan, Jr. joined with these earlier opinions taking the position that "the Brandeis point of view" was well within the longstanding tradition of American law.[15]:26

It took the growth of "surveillance technology during the 1950s and 1960s and the "full force of the "Warren Court's due process revolution," writes McIntosh, to finally overturn the Olmstead law: in 1967, Justice "Potter Stewart wrote the opinion overturning Olmstead in "Katz v. U.S. McIntosh adds, "A quarter-century after his death, another component of Justice Brandeis's privacy design was enshrined in American law."[15]

As Wayne McIntosh notes, "the spirit, if not the person, of Louis Brandeis, has continued to stimulate the constitutional mutation of a 'right to privacy.'"[15] These influences have manifested themselves in major decisions relating to everything from abortion rights to the "right to die" controversies. Cases dealing with a state ban on the dissemination of birth control information expanded on Brandeis by including an individual's "body," not just her "personality," as part of her right to privacy. In another case, "Justice Harlan credited Brandeis when he wrote, "The entire fabric of the Constitution ... guarantees that the rights to marital privacy and to marry and raise a family are of similar order and magnitude as the fundamental rights specifically protected."[50] And the landmark case of "Roe v. Wade, one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history, the Court wrote, "This right of privacy ... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."[51]

Packer Corporation v. Utah (1932) – Captive audience and free speech[edit]

In Packer Corporation v. Utah (1932), Brandeis was to advance an exception to the right of free speech. In this case, a unanimous Court, led by Brandeis, found a clear distinction between advertising placed in newspapers and magazines with those placed on public billboards. The case was a notable exception and dealt with a conflict between widespread First Amendment rights with the public's right of privacy and advanced a theory of the "captive audience." Brandeis delivered the opinion of the Court to advance privacy interests:

Advertisements of this sort are constantly before the eyes of observers on the streets and in street cars to be seen without the exercise of choice or volition on their part. Other forms of advertising are ordinarily seen as a matter of choice on the part of the observer. The young people as well as the adults have the message of the billboard thrust upon them by all the arts and devices that skill can produce. In the case of newspapers and magazines, there must be some seeking by the one who is to see and read the advertisement. The radio can be turned off, but not so the billboard or street car placard.

New Deal cases[edit]

Along with "Benjamin Cardozo and "Harlan F. Stone, Brandeis was considered to be in the liberal wing of the court—the so-called "Three Musketeers who stood against the conservative "Four Horsemen.

Louisville v. Radford (1935) – limiting presidential discretion[edit]

According to John Vile, in the final years of his career, like the rest of the Court, he "initially combated the "New Deal of "Franklin D. Roosevelt, which went against everything Brandeis had ever preached in opposition to the concepts of 'bigness' and 'centralization' in the federal government and the need to return to the states."[4]:129 In one case, Louisville v. Radford (1935), he spoke for a unanimous court when he declared the "Frazier-Lemke Act unconstitutional. The act prevented mortgage-holding banks from foreclosing on their property for five years and forced struggling farmers to continue paying based on a court-ordered schedule. "The "Fifth Amendment," he declared, "commands that however great the Nation's need, private property shall not be thus taken over without just compensation."

Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935) – NIRA is unconstitutional[edit]

In "Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935), the Court also voted unanimously to declare the "National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) unconstitutional on the grounds that it gave the president "unfettered discretion" to make whatever laws he thought were needed for economic recovery.[3] Economics author "John Steele Gordon writes that the "National Recovery Administration (NRA) was "the first iteration of Roosevelt's New Deal ... essentially a government-run cartel to fix prices and divide markets ... This was the most radical shift in the relation between government and the private economy in American history." [52] Speaking to aides of Roosevelt, Justice Louis Brandeis remarked that, "This is the end of this business of centralization, and I want you to go back and tell the president that we're not going to let this government centralize everything."[53]

Brandeis also opposed Roosevelt's "court-packing scheme of 1937, which proposed to add one additional justice to the Supreme Court for every sitting member who had reached the age of seventy without retiring. "This was," felt Brandeis and others on the Court, a "thinly veiled attempt to change the decisions of the Court by adding new members who were supporters of the New Deal," leading historian Nelson Dawson to conclude that "Brandeis ... was not alone in thinking that Roosevelt's scheme threatened the integrity of the institution."[54]:50–53

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938) – Federal versus state laws[edit]

His last important judicial opinion was also one of the most significant of his career, according to Klebanow and Jonas. In "Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether federal judges apply state law or federal "general law" where the parties to a lawsuit are from different states. Writing for the Court, Brandeis overruled the ninety-six-year-old doctrine of "Swift v. Tyson (1842), and held that there was no such thing as a "federal general common law" in cases involving diversity jurisdiction. This concept became known as the "Erie Doctrine. Applying the Erie Doctrine, federal courts now must conduct a choice of law analysis, which generally requires that the courts apply the law of the state where the injury or transaction occurred. "This ruling," concluded Klebanow and Jonas, "fits in well with Brandeis's goals of strengthening the states and reversing the long-term trend toward centralization and bigness."[3]


Relatively late in life the secular Brandeis also became a prominent figure in the "Zionist movement. He became active in the "Federation of American Zionists in 1912, as a result of a conversation with "Jacob de Haas, according to some.[55] His involvement provided the nascent American Zionist movement one of the most distinguished men in American life and a friend of the next president. Over the next several years he devoted a great deal of his time, energy, and money to championing the cause. With the outbreak of "World War I in Europe, the divided allegiance of its membership rendered the "World Zionist Organization impotent.[56] American Jews then assumed a larger responsibility independent of Zionists in Europe. The Provisional Executive Committee for Zionist Affairs was established in "New York for this purpose on August 20, 1914, and Brandeis was elected president of the organization.[57] As president from 1914 to 1918, Brandeis became the leader and spokesperson of American Zionism. He embarked on a speaking tour in the fall and winter of 1914–1915 to garner support for the Zionist cause, emphasizing the goal of self-determination and freedom for Jews through the development of a Jewish homeland.[58]

Unlike the majority of American Jews at the time, he felt that the re-creation of a Jewish national homeland was one of the key solutions to antisemitism and the ""Jewish problem" in Europe and Russia, while at the same time a way to "revive the Jewish spirit." He explained his belief in the importance of Zionism in a famous speech he gave at a conference of "Reform Rabbis in April 1915:[58]

The Zionists seek to establish this home in Palestine because they are convinced that the undying longing of Jews for Palestine is a fact of deepest significance; that it is a manifestation in the struggle for existence by an ancient people which has established its right to live, a people whose three thousand years of civilization has produced a faith, culture and individuality which enable it to contribute largely in the future, as it has in the past, to the advance of civilization; and that it is not a right merely but a duty of the Jewish nationality to survive and develop. They believe that only in Palestine can Jewish life be fully protected from the forces of disintegration; that there alone can the Jewish spirit reach its full and natural development; and that by securing for those Jews who wish to settle there the opportunity to do so, not only those Jews, but all other Jews will be benefited, and that the long perplexing Jewish Problem will, at last, find solution.

He also explained his belief that Zionism and patriotism were compatible concepts and should not lead to charges of "dual loyalty" which worried the rabbis and the dominant "American Jewish Committee:

Let no American imagine that Zionism is inconsistent with Patriotism. Multiple loyalties are objectionable only if they are inconsistent. A man is a better citizen of the United States for being also a loyal citizen of his state, and of his city; or for being loyal to his college.... Every American Jew who aids in advancing the Jewish settlement in Palestine, though he feels that neither he nor his descendants will ever live there, will likewise be a better man and a better American for doing so. There is no inconsistency between loyalty to America and loyalty to Jewry.[58]

Early in the war, Jewish leaders determined that they needed to elect a special representative body to attend the peace conference as spokesman for the religious, national and political rights of Jews in certain European countries, especially to guarantee that Jewish minorities were included wherever minority rights were recognized. Under the leadership of Brandeis, "Stephen Wise and "Julian Mack, the Jewish Congress Organization Committee was established in March 1915. The subsequent vehement debate about the idea of a "congress" stirred the feelings of American Jews and acquainted them with the Jewish problem.[57] Brandeis' efforts to bring in the American Jewish Committee and some other Jewish organizations were unsuccessful; these organizations were quite willing to participate in a conference of appointed representatives, but were opposed to Brandeis's idea of convening a congress of delegates elected by the Jewish population.

The following year, however, delegates representing over one million Jews came together in Philadelphia and elected a National Executive Committee with Brandeis as honorary chairman. On April 6, 1917, America entered the war. On June 10, 1917, 335,000 American Jews cast their votes and elected their delegates who, together with representatives of some 30 national organizations, established the "American Jewish Congress on a democratically elected basis,[57] but further efforts to organize awaited the end of the war.

Brandeis also brought his influence to bear on the Wilson administration in the negotiations leading up to the "Balfour Declaration and the "Paris Peace Conference.

In 1919 Brandeis broke on issues of structural organization and financial planning with "Chaim Weizmann, the leader of the European Zionism. In 1921 Weizmann's candidates, headed by "Louis Lipsky, defeated Brandeis's for political control of the "Zionist Organization of America. Brandeis resigned from the ZOA, along with his closest associates Rabbi "Stephen S. Wise, Judge Julian W. Mack and "Felix Frankfurter. His ouster was devastating to the movement, and by 1929 there were no more than 18,000 members in the ZOA.["citation needed] Nonetheless he remained active in "philanthropy directed at Jews in Palestine. In the summer of 1930, these two factions and visions of Zionism, would come to a compromise largely on Brandeis's terms, with a changed leadership structure for the ZOA.[59] In the late 1930s he endorsed immigration to Palestine in an effort to help European Jews escape genocide when Britain denied entry to more Jews.[60]

Death and legacy[edit]

Brandeis retired from the Supreme Court on February 13, 1939, and he died on October 5, 1941, following a heart attack.

The remains of both Justice Brandeis and his wife are interred beneath the portico of the Law School of the "University of Louisville, in Louisville, Kentucky.[61][62][63] Brandeis himself made the arrangements that made the law school one of only thirteen Supreme Court repositories in the U.S. His professional papers are archived at the library there.

Brandeis lived to see many of the ideas that he had championed become the law of the land. Wages and hours legislation were now accepted as constitutional, and the right of labor to organize was protected by law. His spirited, eloquent defense of free speech and the right of privacy have had a continuing, powerful influence upon the Supreme Court and, ultimately, upon the life of the entire nation. The Economist magazine has called him "A "Robin Hood of the law,"[64] and former Secretary of State "Dean Acheson, his early law clerk, was "impressed by a man whose personal code called for ... the zealous molding of the lives of the underprivileged so that paupers might achieve moral growth."[65]:246

Wayne McIntosh writes of him, "In our national juristic temple, some figures have been accorded near-Olympian reverence... a part of that legal pantheon is Louis D. Brandeis – all the more so, perhaps because Brandeis was far more than a great justice. He was also a social reformer, legal innovator, labor champion, and Zionist leader... And it was as a judge that his concepts of privacy and free speech ultimately, if posthumously, resulted in virtual legal sea changes that continue to resonate even today." Former Justice William O. Douglas wrote, "he helped America grow to greatness by the dedications of which he made his life."

The "U.S. Postal Service in September 2009 honored Brandeis by featuring his image on a new set of commemorative stamps along with U.S. Supreme Court associate justices "Joseph Story, "Felix Frankfurter and "William J. Brennan Jr.[66] In the Postal Service announcement about the stamp, he was credited with being "the associate justice most responsible for helping the Supreme Court shape the tools it needed to interpret the Constitution in light of the sociological and economic conditions of the 20th century." The Postal Service honored him with a stamp image in part because, their announcement states, he was "a progressive and champion of reform, [and] Brandeis devoted his life to social justice. He defended the right of every citizen to speak freely, and his groundbreaking conception of the right to privacy continues to impact legal thought today."[67]

Brandeis was a founding member of the "Massachusetts Bar Association.[68]

Namesake institutions[edit]

Selected opinions[edit]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ "Federal Judicial Center: Louis Brandeis". 2009-12-12. Retrieved 2009-12-12. 
  2. ^ a b Marc Eric McClure (2003). Earnest Endeavors: The Life and Public Work of George Rublee. Greenwood. p. 76. 
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag Klebanow, Diana, and Jonas, Franklin L. People's Lawyers: Crusaders for Justice in American History, M.E. Sharpe (2003)
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Vile, John R. Great American Judges: An Encyclopedia, ABC-CLIO (2003)
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Mason, Thomas A. Brandeis: A Free Man's Life, Viking Press (1946)
  6. ^ Urofsky, Melvin I. Louis D. Brandeis: A Life. New York: Pantheon (2009) "ISBN 0-375-42366-4
  7. ^ a b c d e Strum, Philippa. Louis D. Brandeis: Justice for the People, Harvard University Press (1984)
  8. ^ a b c d McCraw, Thomas K. Prophets of Regulation, Harvard University Press (1984)
  9. ^ Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
  10. ^ a b c d e :86Lief, Alfred. Brandeis: The Personal History of an American Ideal, Stackpole Sons (1936)
  11. ^ a b Brandeis, Louis. The Opportunity in the Law, Harvard University Press (1911)
  12. ^ Grant B. Mindle, "Liberalism, Privacy, and Autonomy," Journal of Politics (1989) 51#3 pp. 575–598 in JSTOR
  13. ^ Solove, Daniel J., Rotenberg, Marc, and Schwartz, Paul M., Privacy, Information, and Technology (Aspen Publishers, 2006), 9
  14. ^ a b Warren and Brandeis, The Right To Privacy, 4 Harvard Law Review 193 (1890)
  15. ^ a b c d e McIntosh, Wayne V., Judicial Entrepreneurship: the Role of the Judge in the Marketplace of Ideas, Greenwood Publishing (1997)
  16. ^ Louis D. Brandeis (30 June 1973). Letters of Louis D. Brandeis: Volume III, 1913–1915: Progressive and Zionist. SUNY Press. pp. 79–80. "ISBN "978-1-4384-2259-6. 
  17. ^ Melvin I. Urofsky, Louis D. Brandeis and the Progressive Tradition (1981)
  18. ^ a b c d Piott, Steven L. American Reformers, 1870–1920, Rowman & Littlefield (2006)
  19. ^ Bruce, Will M. Classics of Administrative Ethics, Westview Press (2001)
  20. ^ a b Brandeis, Louis. "The Regulation of Competition Versus the Regulation of Monopoly", address to the Economic Club of New York on November 1, 1912
  21. ^ Brandeis, Louis. "Opportunity in the Law", address delivered May 4, 1905, before the Harvard Ethical Society
  22. ^ For a detailed history of this struggle from Brandeis's point of view, see Staples, Henry Lee and Mason, Alpheus Thomas, "The Fall of a Railroad Empire: Brandeis and the New Haven Merger Battle" (Syracuse University Press, 1947). Justice Brandeis and his staff cooperated with the authors.
  23. ^ a b Weller, John L., The New Haven Railroad: its Rise and Fall, Hastings House (1969)
  24. ^ "Louis D. Brandeis". The Independent. July 27, 1914. Retrieved 24 July 2012. 
  25. ^ a b Chernow, Ron. The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance, Grove Press (2001)
  26. ^ Brandeis, Louis. The Brandeis Brief, Muller v. Oregon (208 US 412)
  27. ^ a b Douglas, William O. "Louis Brandeis: Dangerous Because Incorruptible" Book review of Justice on Trial, New York Times, July 5, 1964
  28. ^ Urofsky, Melvin I. (2005). "Louis D. Brandeis: Advocate Before and On the Bench". Journal of Supreme Court History. 30 (1): 31–46. "doi:10.1111/j.1059-4329.2005.00096.x. 
  29. ^ Powers, Stephen, and Rothman, Stanley. The Least Dangerous Branch?: Consequences of Judicial Activism, Smith College, Greenwood Publishing Group (2002)
  30. ^ a b Link, Albert S. Wilson: the New Freedom, Princeton University Press (1953)
  31. ^ Brandeis, Louis. Other People's Money – and How the Bankers Use It, (1914) complete text from Louis D. Brandeis School of Law
  32. ^ New York Times: Brandeis Named for Highest Court," January 29, 1916. Retrieved February 21, 2010.
  33. ^ a b "National Public Radio: A History of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings"
  34. ^ a b Todd, Alden L. Justice on Trial: The Case of Louis D. Brandeis, McGraw-Hill (1964)
  35. ^ Afran, Bruce, & Garber, Robert A. (2005). Jews on Trial. pp. 157–158.
  36. ^ Afran, Bruce, & Garber, Robert A. (2005). Jews on Trial. p. 154.
  37. ^ Woodrow Wilson (1918). Selected Addresses and Public Papers of Woodrow Wilson. Boni and Liveright, Inc. p. 119. 
  38. ^ "Confirm Brandeis by Vote of 47 to 22," June 2, 1916, accessed December 31, 2009
  39. ^ Richard A. Colignon (1997). Power Plays: Critical Events in the Institutionalization of the Tennessee Valley Authority. SUNY Press. p. 170. 
  40. ^ Bruce Allen Murphy, The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices (Oxford University Press, 1982) p. 343
  41. ^ The famed jurist "Learned Hand "thought it appropriate for a federal judge to offer private advice, as he so frequently did with Theodore Roosevelt, so long as there was no prominent public identification with the cause." See Gerald Gunther (2010). Learned Hand: The Man and the Judge. p. 202. 
  42. ^ Green, John Raeburn. The Supreme Court, the Bill of Rights, and the States, 97 Univ. of Pennsylvania Law Review, 608, 630 (1949)
  43. ^ Gilbert v. Minnesota, Decided December 13, 1920, full text
  44. ^ Gormley, Ken, and Richardson, Elliot Archibald Cox: Conscience of a Nation, Da Capo Press, (1999)
  45. ^ Lewis, Anthony. Make No Law: The Sullivan case and the First Amendment, Random House, (1991)
  46. ^ "Right to Privacy". 
  47. ^ Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), complete text including dissent
  48. ^ Finkelman, Paul. Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties, CRC Press, (2006)
  49. ^ Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
  50. ^ Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
  51. ^ "Gordon, John Steele. "The Economic Contradictions of Obama-ism", Commentary magazine, April, 2009, pgs. 23–26
  52. ^ Harry Hopkins, "Statement to Me by Thomas Corcoran Giving His Recollections of the Genesis of the Supreme Court Fight," April 3, 1939, typescript in Harry Hopkins Papers
  53. ^ Dawson, Nelson L. ed., Brandeis and America, Univ. Press of Kentucky (1989)
  54. ^ Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism, p.159; Peter Grose, Israel in the Mind of America, p. 48
  55. ^ Michael Brown, The Israeli-American Connection: Its Roots in the Yishuv, 1914–1945, (1996), p. 26 "In early 1914 the USS North Carolina arrived in Jaffa harbor with money and supplies provided by Schiff, the American Jewish Committee, and the Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist Affairs, then acting for the WZO, which had been rendered impotent by the war."
  56. ^ a b c Patriot, Judge, and Zionist at the "Wayback Machine (archived October 27, 2007)
  57. ^ a b c Brandeis, Louis. "The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It", Speech given at a Conference of Eastern Council of Reform Rabbis, April 25, 1915
  58. ^ Religion: Zionist Chiefs, "Time, Jul. 28, 1930
  59. ^ Urofsky (2009)
  60. ^ Christensen, George A. (1983) Here Lies the Supreme Court: Gravesites of the Justices, Yearbook at the "Wayback Machine (archived September 3, 2005) "Supreme Court Historical Society at "Internet Archive.
  61. ^ Louis D. Brandeis memorial at "Find a Grave.
  62. ^ Christensen, George A., Here Lies the Supreme Court: Revisited, Journal of Supreme Court History, Volume 33 Issue 1, Pages 17–41 (February 19, 2008), "University of Alabama.
  63. ^ The Economist, September 24, 2009 ("Books and Arts" section)
  64. ^ Harper, John Lamberton. American Visions of Europe Cambridge Univ. Press (1996)
  65. ^ "Brandeis' Stamp Of Approval Recognized" at the "Wayback Machine (archived March 22, 2012),, October 21, 2009
  66. ^ U.S.Postal Service Press Release at the "Wayback Machine (archived January 13, 2011), new Brandeis commemorative stamp announced, December 2008
  67. ^ Brink, Robert J. (1987). Fiat Justitia: A History of the Massachusetts Bar Association. 1910–1985. Boston: Massachusetts Bar Association. pp. Forward. "ISBN "0-944394-00-0. 


Selected works by Brandeis[edit]

Books about Brandeis[edit]

Select articles[edit]

Shorter mention[edit]

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

Legal offices
Preceded by
"Joseph Lamar
"Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Succeeded by
"William Douglas
) )