Islamabad

Quest for a Worthy Legacy

Chief Justice Yahya Afridi has taken over a court that is seen to be in discord. His predecessor’s legacy has judgments that many think had him abrogating the very rights he was supposed to defend.

By Mir Adnan Aziz | December 2024


Lives define legacies, and their significance transcends time. Cherished or otherwise, legacies are debts owed to future generations and remain enshrined in memories. How can one remain impervious to them and leave a blemished one behind?

In 1946, U.S. President Truman appointed Fred Vinson as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Riven by ambitions and personal conflicts, the justices continuously sparred with each other. They also rebuked Vinson’s authority to lead the Court and berated his ability to handle complex legal matters. Opinions and remarks were not based on law but on personal differences.

Justices Hugo Black and Felix Frankfurter were at loggerheads about the role of judges. Black labeled judicial deference to the executive as forfeiture of constitutional responsibilities. Frankfurter, stressing that public policy lay with the legislative, called for total deference to Congress. Different mindsets led to a crippling divide throughout the duration of the Vinson Court. The spillover created turmoil in the nation.

In 1953, Vinson passed away, and President Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as Chief Justice. This was after he had pledged support to Eisenhower at a Republican convention earlier that year. Despite the political appointee appendage, Warren immediately removed the fissures and discord within the Court. The Brown v. Board of Education decision is a milestone in US judicial history.

To Warren’s credit, a fragmented Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision favoring the Browns. It held that segregating public schools by race was unconstitutional as it violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. A catalyst for the 1960s US civil rights legislation, it became a predictor of Barack Obama’s trek to the White House.

Geoffrey Stone and David Strauss, distinguished law professors at the University of Chicago, write in “Democracy and Equality: The Enduring Constitutional Vision of the Warren Court” that it was “one of the great, if not the greatest, decisions of the 20th Century.”

Other landmark judgments included Mapp v. Ohio, which held that illegally seized evidence could not be used against an accused. In Gideon v. Wainwright, the court was obligated to counsel defendants who could not afford the same. The Miranda v. Arizona decision made it mandatory for police to inform the arrested about their right to remain silent and the right to counsel. These decisions redrew the US criminal justice system.

The Warren Court legacy is one of profound sensitivity. For Earl Warren, the Court was a protector of the public and a check on the conduct and excesses of the executive. Some termed it judicial activism. It did and continues to benefit many as it interpreted the Constitution to help people reshape the American legal and social landscape. Such judicial activism is laudable and a virtue.

In 2019, 377 judges and legal historians were asked whom they considered the most consequential US Chief Justice. 271 voted for Earl Warren. One voter observed that it was hard even to fathom the advancement of civil liberties during his leadership.

Another added, “He was appointed for political reasons, as they all are, but turned out to be truly devoted to law and not politics.” Half a century after Warren left office, this is a worthy legacy indeed.

Read More