Ex-Justice Stevens optimistic about court's future
Lawyer Interviews
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens spent much of his 35 years on the court disagreeing with the majority, but he's bullish about the institution.
At a talk Monday at Princeton University, his biggest applause line was for his shortest answer. The question: Are you optimistic about the future of the court and the Constitution?
His answer: "Yes."
The 91-year-old retired justice had a public conversation with Princeton Provost Christopher Eisgruber, who served as a clerk for him in the 1989-1990 court session.
His talk came a week after the publication of his book "Five Chiefs," about the three chief justices he served under and the two others he got to know earlier in his legal career as a clerk and a lawyer.
Stevens, famous for his bow ties, donned one in Princeton black and orange for the occasion. During a tenure that was the third-longest in court history, he also became famous for disagreeing with the court's majority. Stevens was appointed by Republican President Gerald Ford, and by the time he left last year, he was perhaps the most reliably liberal member of the court. About half his 1,400 opinions were dissents
For some Princeton students, that made him a hero. One woman wore a T-shirt that said, "I (heart) JPS."
Stevens has regrets about upholding a Texas capital punishment law and wishes the court would change positions on sovereign immunity and allow lawsuits against the government.
Yet he's happy with the way the court works.
He appeared a bit taken aback when one student asked him if the court should have a way to enforce its own rulings. "It's true that the court has to rely on the executive branch," he said. "But I don't think that's ever been a problem."
He also that by the time he joined the court in 1975, it was a congenial place — something he said wasn't the case when he was a clerk there himself in 1947.
Related listings
-
Court strikes down Hawaii law requiring permission to carry guns
Lawyer Interviews 06/25/2026The Supreme Court struck down a Hawaii law requiring people to get permission to carry guns into stores and hotels on Thursday, in its latest opinion backing Second Amendment rights.The high court's 6-3 decision means people can carry guns onto priva...
-
Supreme Court Backs Trump administration on Telecom Regulation
Lawyer Interviews 06/05/2026The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration Thursday in upholding the power of federal regulators to enforce data privacy laws on telecommunications companies.The 8-1 decision preserved one of the Federal Communications Commission's key too...
-
Washington tourist pleads not guilty in Hawaiian monk seal rock case
Lawyer Interviews 06/01/2026A tourist from Washington state pleaded not guilty Wednesday to charges accusing him of hurling a coconut-sized rock at an endangered Hawaiian monk seal and was ordered to stay away from Hawaii beaches.Igor Lytvynchuk, 38, of Covington, Washington, w...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.