Stephen Breyer – författare

What role should courts play in a modern democracy? How should fundamental provisions of a democratic constitution be interpreted? These questions have divided constitutional theorists and those responsible for interpreting and applying constitutional law including, notoriously, the current U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Breyer is the most prominent liberal voice in the Supreme Court, this book distils his experience of interpreting the U.S. constitution and outlines a general liberal theory of the role of constitutional courts.Breyer argues that the primary role of a democratic constitution is to preserve and encourage 'Active Liberty': citizen participation in shaping government and its laws. The book argues that promoting active liberty requires judicial modesty and deference to legislative bodies; it also requires the recognition of the changing needs and demands of the populace. Breyer makes a powerful case against treating constitutions as a static guide for a world that has passed into history.Throughout the book, active liberty is employed as a foundational concept to illuminate the interpretation of key constitutional questions, and recent Supreme Court controversies, such as the scope of free speech and racial equality protection.For this revised, international edition of the book, Justice Breyer extends his discussion of democratic theory to examine topical questions in European constitutional law, including the legitimacy of the European Union, religious freedom under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The American Supreme Court is one of the most powerful and controversial judicial bodies in the world. The Court has assumed the role of settling fundamental issues of American social policy through its power of constitutional interpretation, and its rulings are among the most divisive, and controversial events in American political life.How did the American court come to acquire such power? How does it maintain its authority and public confidence in the face of deep political divides. In this book Stephen Breyer, a leading intellect in the current Court, gives an insider's view on how America's Supreme Court came to acquire such a prominent role in American public life, how the Court operates, and how it can continue to maintain the trust of the American public as the final arbiter of the values underlying America's democratic constitution.Breyer introduces the history of the Court by telling the stories of the landmark cases that defined the role the Court would play in American politics. He then offers a powerful restatement of his views on how a constitutional court should fulfil its function as final interpreter of a democratic constitution. In doing so, he examines some of the Court's most controversial recent decisions, on issues such as the legality of detention in Guantanamo Bay, and the scope of protection of gun ownership in Heller.The book offers a unique introduction to how the American Supreme Court does and should operate, invaluable to all students of American law and politics, and anyone looking to understand the workings of American politics.

A brilliant new approach to the Constitution and courts of the United States by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.For Justice Breyer, the Constitution’s primary role is to preserve and encourage what he calls “active liberty”: citizen participation in shaping government and its laws. As this book argues, promoting active liberty requires judicial modesty and deference to Congress; it also means recognizing the changing needs and demands of the populace. Indeed, the Constitution’s lasting brilliance is that its principles may be adapted to cope with unanticipated situations, and Breyer makes a powerful case against treating it as a static guide intended for a world that is dead and gone. Using contemporary examples from federalism to privacy to affirmative action, this is a vital contribution to the ongoing debate over the role and power of our courts.From the Trade Paperback edition.

The Supreme Court is one of the most extraordinary institutions in our system of government. Charged with the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution, the nine unelected justices of the Court have the awesome power to strike down laws enacted by our elected representatives. Why does the public accept the Court’s decisions as legitimate and follow them, even when those decisions are highly unpopular? What must the Court do to maintain the public’s faith? How can the Court help make our democracy work? These are the questions that Justice Stephen Breyer tackles in this groundbreaking book.Today we assume that when the Court rules, the public will obey. But Breyer declares that we cannot take the public’s confidence in the Court for granted. He reminds us that at various moments in our history, the Court’s decisions were disobeyed or ignored. And through investigations of past cases, concerning the Cherokee Indians, slavery, and Brown v. Board of Education, he brilliantly captures the steps—and the missteps—the Court took on the road to establishing its legitimacy as the guardian of the Constitution.Justice Breyer discusses what the Court must do going forward to maintain that public confidence and argues for interpreting the Constitution in a way that works in practice. He forcefully rejects competing approaches that look exclusively to the Constitution’s text or to the eighteenth-century views of the framers. Instead, he advocates a pragmatic approach that applies unchanging constitutional values to ever-changing circumstances—an approach that will best demonstrate to the public that the Constitution continues to serve us well. The Court, he believes, must also respect the roles that other actors—such as the president, Congress, administrative agencies, and the states—play in our democracy, and he emphasizes the Court’s obligation to build cooperative relationships with them.Finally, Justice Breyer examines the Court’s recent decisions concerning the detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, contrasting these decisions with rulings concerning the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. He uses these cases to show how the Court can promote workable government by respecting the roles of other constitutional actors without compromising constitutional principles.Making Our Democracy Work is a tour de force of history and philosophy, offering an original approach to interpreting the Constitution that judges, lawyers, and scholars will look to for many years to come. And it further establishes Justice Breyer as one of the Court’s greatest intellectuals and a leading legal voice of our time.From the Hardcover edition.

Breaking the Vicious Circle is a tour de force that should be read by everyone who is interested in improving our regulatory processes. Written by a highly respected federal judge, who would go on to serve on the Supreme Court, and who obviously recognizes the necessity of regulation but perceives its failures and weaknesses as well, it pinpoints the most serious problems and offers a creative solution that would for the first time bring rationality to bear on the vital issue of priorities in our era of limited resources.

A sitting justice reflects upon the authority of the Supreme Court—how that authority was gained and how measures to restructure the Court could undermine both the Court and the constitutional system of checks and balances that depends on it.A growing chorus of officials and commentators argues that the Supreme Court has become too political. On this view the confirmation process is just an exercise in partisan agenda-setting, and the jurists are no more than “politicians in robes”—their ostensibly neutral judicial philosophies mere camouflage for conservative or liberal convictions. Stephen Breyer, drawing upon his experience as a Supreme Court justice, sounds a cautionary note. Mindful of the Court’s history, he suggests that the judiciary’s hard-won authority could be marred by reforms premised on the assumption of ideological bias. Having, as Hamilton observed, “no influence over either the sword or the purse,” the Court earned its authority by making decisions that have, over time, increased the public’s trust. If public trust is now in decline, one part of the solution is to promote better understandings of how the judiciary actually works: how judges adhere to their oaths and how they try to avoid considerations of politics and popularity.Breyer warns that political intervention could itself further erode public trust. Without the public’s trust, the Court would no longer be able to act as a check on the other branches of government or as a guarantor of the rule of law, risking serious harm to our constitutional system.

This book will become the bible of regulatory reform. No broad, authoritative treatment of the subject has been available for many years except for Alfred Kahn’s Economics of Regulation (1970). And Stephen Breyer’s book is not merely a utilitarian analysis or a legal discussion of procedures; it employs the widest possible perspective to survey the full implications of government regulation—economic, legal, administrative, political—while addressing the complex problems of administering regulatory agencies.Only a scholar with Judge Breyer’s practical experience as chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee could have accomplished this task. He develops an ingenious original system for classifying regulatory activities according to the kinds of problems that have called for, or have seemed to call for, regulation; he then examines how well or poorly various regulatory regimes remedy these market defects. This enables him to organize an enormous amount of material in a coherent way, and to make significant and useful generalizations about real-world problems.Among the regulatory areas he considers are health and safety; environmental pollution, trucking, airlines, natural gas, public utilities, and telecommunications. He further gives attention to related topics such as cost-of-service ratemaking, safety standards, antitrust, and property rights. Clearly this is a book whose time is here—a veritable how-to-do-it book for administration deregulators, legislators, and the judiciary; and because it is comprehensive and superbly organized, with a wealth of highly detailed examples, it is practical for use in law schools and in courses on economics and political science.

A landmark dissenting opinion arguing against the death penalty.Does the death penalty violate the Constitution? In Against the Death Penalty, Justice Stephen Breyer argues that it does; that it is carried out unfairly and inconsistently and, thus, violates the ban on ""cruel and unusual punishments"" specified by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.“Today’s administration of the death penalty,” Breyer writes, “involves three fundamental constitutional defects: (1) serious unreliability, (2) arbitrariness in application, and (3) unconscionably long delays that undermine the death penalty’s penological purpose. Perhaps as a result, (4) most places within the United States have abandoned its use.”This volume contains Breyer's dissent in the case of Glossip v. Gross, which involved an unsuccessful challenge to Oklahoma's use of a lethal-injection drug because it might cause severe pain. Justice Breyer's legal citations have been edited to make them understandable to a general audience, but the text retains the full force of his powerful argument that the time has come for the Supreme Court to revisit the constitutionality of the death penalty.Breyer was joined in his dissent from the bench by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Their passionate argument has been cited by many legal experts including fellow Justice Antonin Scalia—as signaling an eventual Court ruling striking down the death penalty. A similar dissent in 1963 by Breyer's mentor, Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, helped set the stage for a later ruling, imposing what turned out to be a four-year moratorium on executions.

“A decision the Court and the Nation will come to regret.”Ten years ago, the United States Supreme Court struck down two local school board initiatives meant to reverse extreme racial segregation in public schools. The sharply divided 5-4 decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District marked the end of an era of efforts by local authorities to fulfill the promise of racially integrated education envisioned by the Supreme Court in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education. In a searing landmark dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer warned this was “a decision the Court and the Nation will come to regret.” A decade later, the unabated resegregation of America's schools continues to confirm Justice Breyer's fears, as many schools and school districts across the country are more racially segregated today than they were in the late 1960s.Edited and introduced by Justice Breyer's former law clerk—and accompanied by a sobering update on the state of segregated schools in America today—this volume contains the full text of Justice Breyer's most impassioned opinion, a dissent that Justice John Paul Stevens called at the time “eloquent and unanswerable.” The cautionary words of Justice Breyer should echo in classrooms across the country and in the hearts and minds of parents and schoolchildren everywhere.

“A decision the Court and the Nation will come to regret.”Ten years ago, the United States Supreme Court struck down two local school board initiatives meant to reverse extreme racial segregation in public schools. The sharply divided 5-4 decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District marked the end of an era of efforts by local authorities to fulfill the promise of racially integrated education envisioned by the Supreme Court in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education. In a searing landmark dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer warned this was “a decision the Court and the Nation will come to regret.” A decade later, the unabated resegregation of America''s schools continues to confirm Justice Breyer''s fears, as many schools and school districts across the country are more racially segregated today than they were in the late 1960s.Edited and introduced by Justice Breyer''s former law clerk-and accompanied by a sobering update on the state of segregated schools in America today-this volume contains the full text of Justice Breyer''s most impassioned opinion, a dissent that Justice John Paul Stevens called at the time “eloquent and unanswerable.” The cautionary words of Justice Breyer should echo in classrooms across the country and in the hearts and minds of parents and schoolchildren everywhere.

A landmark dissenting opinion arguing against the death penalty.Does the death penalty violate the Constitution? In Against the Death Penalty, Justice Stephen Breyer argues that it does; that it is carried out unfairly and inconsistently and, thus, violates the ban on ""cruel and unusual punishments"" specified by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.“Today’s administration of the death penalty,” Breyer writes, “involves three fundamental constitutional defects: (1) serious unreliability, (2) arbitrariness in application, and (3) unconscionably long delays that undermine the death penalty’s penological purpose. Perhaps as a result, (4) most places within the United States have abandoned its use.”This volume contains Breyer's dissent in the case of Glossip v. Gross, which involved an unsuccessful challenge to Oklahoma's use of a lethal-injection drug because it might cause severe pain. Justice Breyer's legal citations have been edited to make them understandable to a general audience, but the text retains the full force of his powerful argument that the time has come for the Supreme Court to revisit the constitutionality of the death penalty.Breyer was joined in his dissent from the bench by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Their passionate argument has been cited by many legal experts including fellow Justice Antonin Scalia—as signaling an eventual Court ruling striking down the death penalty. A similar dissent in 1963 by Breyer's mentor, Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, helped set the stage for a later ruling, imposing what turned out to be a four-year moratorium on executions.

In this original, far-reaching, and timely book, Justice Stephen Breyer examines the work of the Supreme Court of the United States in an increasingly interconnected world, a world in which all sorts of activity, both public and private—from the conduct of national security policy to the conduct of international trade—obliges the Court to understand and consider circumstances beyond America’s borders. It is a world of instant communications, lightning-fast commerce, and shared problems (like public health threats and environmental degradation), and it is one in which the lives of Americans are routinely linked ever more pervasively to those of people in foreign lands. Indeed, at a moment when anyone may engage in direct transactions internationally for services previously bought and sold only locally (lodging, for instance, through online sites), it has become clear that, even in ordinary matters, judicial awareness can no longer stop at the water’s edge.    To trace how foreign considerations have come to inform the thinking of the Court, Justice Breyer begins with that area of the law in which they have always figured prominently: national security in its constitutional dimension—how should the Court balance this imperative with others, chiefly the protection of basic liberties, in its review of presidential and congressional actions? He goes on to show that as the world has grown steadily “smaller,” the Court’s horizons have inevitably expanded: it has been obliged to consider a great many more matters that now cross borders. What is the geographical reach of an American statute concerning, say, securities fraud, antitrust violations, or copyright protections? And in deciding such matters, can the Court interpret American laws so that they might work more efficiently with similar laws in other nations?While Americans must necessarily determine their own laws through democratic process, increasingly, the smooth operation of American law—and, by extension, the advancement of American interests and values—depends on its working in harmony with that of other jurisdictions. Justice Breyer describes how the aim of cultivating such harmony, as well as the expansion of the rule of law overall, with its attendant benefits, has drawn American jurists into the relatively new role of “constitutional diplomats,” a little remarked but increasingly important job for them in this fast-changing world. Written with unique authority and perspective, The Court and the World reveals an emergent reality few Americans observe directly but one that affects the life of every one of us. Here is an invaluable understanding for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.

From the Hardcover edition.

New York Times Bestseller In a provocative and brilliant analysis, retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer deconstructs the textualist philosophy of the current Supreme Court’s supermajority and makes the case for a more pragmatic approach of the Constitution. “You will not read a more important legal work this election year.” —Bob Woodward, Washington Post reporter and author of fifteen #1 New York Times bestselling books “A dissent for the ages.” —The Washington Post “Breyer’s candor about the state of the court is refreshing and much needed.” —The Boston GlobeThe relatively new judicial philosophy of textualism dominates the Supreme Court. Textualists claim that the right way to interpret the Constitution and statutes is to read the text carefully and examine the language as it was understood at the time the documents were written. This, however, is not Justice Breyer’s philosophy nor has it been the traditional way to interpret the Constitution since the time of Chief Justice John Marshall. Justice Breyer recalls Marshall’s exhortation that the Constitution must be a workable set of principles to be interpreted by subsequent generations. Most important in interpreting law, says Breyer, is to understand the statutes as well as the consequences of deciding a case one way or another. He illustrates these principles by examining some of the most important cases in the nation’s history, among them the Dobbs and Bruen decisions from 2022 that he argues were wrongly decided and have led to harmful results.

In a provocative and brilliant analysis, retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer deconstructs the textualist philosophy of the current Supreme Court’s supermajority and makes the case for a more pragmatic approach of the Constitution. “You will not read a more important legal work this election year.” —Bob Woodward, Washington Post reporter and author of fifteen #1 New York Times bestselling books “A dissent for the ages.” —The Washington Post “Breyer’s candor about the state of the court is refreshing and much needed.” —The Boston GlobeThe relatively new judicial philosophy of textualism dominates the Supreme Court. Textualists claim that the right way to interpret the Constitution and statutes is to read the text carefully and examine the language as it was understood at the time the documents were written. This, however, is not Justice Breyer’s philosophy nor has it been the traditional way to interpret the Constitution since the time of Chief Justice John Marshall. Justice Breyer recalls Marshall’s exhortation that the Constitution must be a workable set of principles to be interpreted by subsequent generations. Most important in interpreting law, says Breyer, is to understand the statutes as well as the consequences of deciding a case one way or another. He illustrates these principles by examining some of the most important cases in the nation’s history, among them the Dobbs and Bruen decisions from 2022 that he argues were wrongly decided and have led to harmful results.

Dans un monde de plus en plus interdépendant, soumis à des défis communs et souvent inédits, notamment dans les domaines de la sécurité, du droit de la concurrence, de la famille, de la propriété intellectuelle, comment organiser la mondialisation du droit pour répondre à ces enjeux, et quel est à cet égard le rôle du juge national ? Ce sont les questions auxquelles répond Stephen Breyer, l’un des plus grands juges des États-Unis. Il s’adresse à ses concitoyens pour leur expliquer que ce contexte d’interdépendance oblige à juger différemment, même lorsque l’on est la plus grande puissance mondiale. Aucun juge, pas même un juge américain, ne peut plus se permettre de garder les yeux braqués sur sa loi nationale ; il doit aussi tenir compte de ce qu’ont décidé ses collègues à travers le monde. De fait, nombre de décisions de la Cour suprême ne se limitent plus aux frontières des États-Unis ; elles possèdent désormais une dimension planétaire, et engagent sa responsabilité non seulement envers le peuple américain, mais aussi envers le reste de la population mondiale. Montrant les limites du principe de territorialité des lois pour résoudre les contentieux d’aujourd’hui, Stephen Breyer en appelle à une « diplomatie judiciaire » et à un dialogue international harmonieux entre les juridictions. Un livre puissant, qui a pour ambition de stimuler la pensée, l’analyse et l’imagination des juges, des avocats et des professeurs de droit. Un ouvrage qui fera date. Stephen Breyer est juge à la Cour suprême des États-Unis. Il est l’auteur de La Cour suprême, l’Amérique et son histoire et de Pour une démocratie active, qui ont marqué la pensée juridique. Guy Canivet est président honoraire de la Cour de cassation et membre du Conseil constitutionnel.