Stephen Gerald Breyer is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. A lawyer by occupation, he became a professor and jurist before President Bill Clinton appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1994. After a clerkship with Supreme Court Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg in 1964, Breyer became well known as a law professor and lecturer at Harvard Law School, starting in 1967. There he specialized in administrative law, writing a number of influential textbooks that remain in use today, he held other prominent positions before being nominated for the Supreme Court, including special assistant to the United States Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust and assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force in 1973. He served on the First Circuit Court of Appeals from 1980 to 1994. In his 2005 book Active Liberty, Breyer made his first attempt to systematically lay out his views on legal theory, arguing that the judiciary should seek to resolve issues in a manner that encourages popular participation in governmental decisions.
Breyer was born in San Francisco, the son of Anne A. and Irving Gerald Breyer, raised in a middle-class Jewish family. Irving Breyer was legal counsel for the San Francisco Board of Education. Both Breyer and his younger brother, a federal district judge, are Eagle Scouts of San Francisco's Troop 14. Breyer's paternal great-grandfather emigrated from Romania to the United States, settling in Cleveland, where Breyer's grandfather was born. In 1955, Breyer graduated from Lowell High School. At Lowell, he was a member of the Lowell Forensic Society and debated in high school tournaments, including against future California governor Jerry Brown and future Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe. Breyer received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy from Stanford University, a Bachelor of Arts from Magdalen College, Oxford in PPE as a Marshall Scholar, a Bachelor of Laws from Harvard Law School, he is fluent in French. In 1967, he married Joanna Freda Hare, a psychologist and member of the British aristocracy, as the youngest daughter of John Hare, 1st Viscount Blakenham.
The Breyers have three adult children: an Episcopal priest and author of The Close. Breyer served as a law clerk to Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg during the 1964 term, served as a fact-checker for the Warren Commission, he was a special assistant to the United States Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust from 1965 to 1967 and an assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force in 1973. Breyer was a special counsel to the U. S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary from 1974 to 1975 and served as chief counsel of the committee from 1979 to 1980, he worked with the chairman of the committee, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, to pass the Airline Deregulation Act that closed the Civil Aeronautics Board. Breyer was a lecturer, assistant professor, law professor at Harvard Law School starting in 1967, he taught there until 1994 serving as a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government from 1977 to 1980. At Harvard, Breyer was known as a leading expert on administrative law.
While there, he wrote two influential books on deregulation: Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation and Regulation and Its Reform. In 1970, Breyer wrote "The Uneasy Case for Copyright", one of the most cited skeptical examinations of copyright. Breyer was a visiting professor at the College of Law in Sydney, the University of Rome, the Tulane University Law School. From 1980 to 1994, Breyer was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In the last days of President Jimmy Carter's administration, on November 13, 1980, Carter nominated Breyer to the First Circuit, to a new seat established by 92 Stat. 1629, the United States Senate confirmed him on December 9, 1980, by an 80–10 vote. He received his commission on December 10, 1980, he served as Chief Judge from 1990 to 1994. He served as a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States between 1990 and 1994 and the United States Sentencing Commission between 1985 and 1989. On the sentencing commission, Breyer played a key role in reforming federal criminal sentencing procedures, producing the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which were formulated to increase uniformity in sentencing.
His service on the First Circuit terminated on August 2, 1994, due to his elevation to the Supreme Court. In 1993, President Bill Clinton considered him for the seat vacated by Byron White that went to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Breyer's appointment came shortly thereafter, following the retirement of Harry Blackmun in 1994, when Clinton nominated Breyer as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on May 17, 1994. Breyer was confirmed by the Senate on July 29, 1994, by an 87 to 9 vote, received his commission on August 3, he was the second-longest-serving junior justice in the history of the Court, close to surpassing the record set by Justice Joseph Story of 4,228 days. Breyer's pragmatic approach to the law "will tend to make the law more sensible". In 2006, Breyer said that in assessing a law's constitutionality, while some of his colleagues "emphasize language, a more literal reading of the text and tradition", he looks more to the "purpose a
William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American lawyer and jurist who served on the Supreme Court of the United States for 33 years, first as an Associate Justice from 1972 to 1986, as the 16th Chief Justice of the United States from 1986 until his death in 2005. Considered a conservative, Rehnquist favored a conception of federalism that emphasized the Tenth Amendment's reservation of powers to the states. Under this view of federalism, the court, for the first time since the 1930s, struck down an act of Congress as exceeding its power under the Commerce Clause. Born in Shorewood, Rehnquist pursued a legal career in Phoenix, Arizona after graduating from Stanford Law School, he clerked for Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson during the Supreme Court's 1952–1953 term and served as a legal adviser for Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election. In 1969, President Richard Nixon appointed Rehnquist as Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Counsel. In 1971, Nixon nominated Rehnquist to succeed Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan II, Rehnquist won Senate confirmation that same year.
Rehnquist established himself as the most conservative member of the Burger Court. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan nominated Rehnquist to succeed retiring Chief Justice Warren Burger, Rehnquist again won Senate confirmation. Rehnquist served as Chief Justice for nearly 19 years, making him the fourth-longest-serving Chief Justice, the eighth-longest-serving Justice, he became an intellectual and social leader of the Rehnquist Court, earning respect from the Justices who opposed his opinions. Though he remained a member of the conservative wing of the court, Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were regarded as more conservative; as Chief Justice, Rehnquist presided over the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. Rehnquist wrote the majority opinions in United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison, holding in both cases that Congress had exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause, he opposed the court's Roe v. Wade decision and continued to argue that Roe had been incorrectly decided in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
In Bush v. Gore, he voted with the court's majority to end the Florida recount. Rehnquist grew up in the Milwaukee suburb of Shorewood, his father, William Benjamin Rehnquist, was a sales manager at various times for printing equipment and medical supplies and devices. His paternal grandparents immigrated from Sweden. Rehnquist graduated from Shorewood High School in 1942, he attended Kenyon College, in Gambier, for one quarter in the fall of 1942, before entering the U. S. Army Air Forces, he served from March 1943 – 1946 in assignments in the United States. He was put into a pre-meteorology program and assigned to Denison University until February 1944, when the program was shut down, he served three months at Will Rogers Field in Oklahoma City, three months in Carlsbad, New Mexico, went to Hondo, for a few months. He was chosen for another training program, which began at Chanute Field and ended at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey; the program was designed to teach the repair of weather instruments. In the summer of 1945, Rehnquist went overseas as a weather observer in North Africa.
After the war, Rehnquist attended Stanford University with assistance under the provisions of the G. I. Bill. In 1948, he received both a Master of Arts degree in political science. In 1950, he attended Harvard University, where he received another Master of Arts, this time in government, he returned to Stanford, graduated from the Stanford Law School in the same class as Sandra Day O'Connor, with whom he would serve on the Supreme Court. They dated at Stanford and Rehnquist proposed marriage, though O'Connor declined as she was by dating her future husband. Rehnquist graduated first in his class. Rehnquist went to Washington, D. C. to work as a law clerk for Justice Robert H. Jackson of the United States Supreme Court during the court's 1952–1953 term. There, he wrote a memorandum arguing against federal court-ordered school desegregation while the court was considering the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, decided in 1954. Rehnquist's 1952 memo, entitled "A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases", defended the "separate-but-equal" doctrine.
In that memo, Rehnquist said: I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by "liberal" colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed. To the argument that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are. In both his 1971 Senate confirmation hearing for associate justice and his 1986 hearing for chief justice, Rehnquist testified that the memorandum reflected the views of Justice Jackson rather than his own views. Rehnquist said, "I believe that the memorandum was prepared by me as a statement of Justice Jackson's tentative views for his own use." Elsie Douglas, long-time secretary and confidante of Justice Jackson, stated during Rehnquist's 1986 hearings that his allegation was "a smear of a great man, for whom I served as secretary for many years.
Justice Jackson did not ask law clerks to express his views. He expressed his own and they express
Women in United States juries
The representation of women in United States juries has increased during the last hundred years, due to legislation and court rulings. Up until the late twentieth century, women were excluded or allowed to opt out from jury service; the push for women's jury rights generated debate similar to the women's suffrage movement, permeating the media with arguments for and against. Federal and state court case rulings increased women's participation on juries; some states allowed women to serve on juries much earlier than others. States differed on whether women's suffrage implied women's jury service; the jury of matrons was an early exception to the exclusion of women from juries. Stemming from English common law, matrons in the American colonies were called upon in cases involving pregnant women to offer expertise on pregnancy and childbirth. William Blackstone spearheaded the idea of women's exclusion as a result of "propter defectum sexus", his beliefs were integrated into the legal systems of the United States, including the ideals of coverture.
Women's place on the jury would be challenged for decades with arguments including their lack of intelligence, emotional stability, need to tend to home life. Women would find themselves in between the two ends of the spectrum: full legal right to participate on a jury or barred from participation. Most arguments for exclusionary policies relied on the belief that women had other preceding duties in the home; the belief that women were too sensitive or incompetent to be jurors was widespread. Some opponents of female jurors sought to shield women from the unpleasant content of many court cases. At a time when women were beginning to assert their sameness with men, the movement for jury rights required them to emphasize their differences, arguing that men and women were not interchangeable; the movement to include women on juries coincided with the women's suffrage movement. However, when women gained the right to vote, it was not automatically clear that women had the right to serve on juries.
In fact, with federal women's suffrage came many questions about women's citizenship like whether women could remain citizens after marrying a foreigner, hold a political office, or serve on a jury. The movement for women's jury rights has been described as “something like a second suffrage campaign.”As jury trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution by the phrase "a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury" and the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, gender representation in American juries have been decided by Supreme court rulings. With current state legislation, all-female juries are possible; the jury of the State of Florida v. George Zimmerman got attention for its all-woman composition; when the 1930s and 1940s rolled around, "middle class women demanded to serve on juries as a right of equal citizenship." When the Great Depression struck the nation in the 1930s, the intelligent and qualified men that the FGJA had sought out would be removed from their positions at work to help serve.
With funds tight and the need for work vital, the FGJA began to expand their requirements for those who could serve on juries in order to keep working men in their positions and have enough jurors serving in the court. At this time, the League of Women Voters and the National Woman's Party demanded for the right to be considered for jury duty. Woman began to demand service on the basis of "female equity and citizenship" and noticed that, though they were allowed to serve in similar governmental positions, they were not allowed to serve on the juries themselves. In 1937, woman federal jurors won official approval and in some states, including California, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, participation on a jury was compulsory. In the late 1930s, the perspectives on women jurors transitioned from a place of sentiment to one of special competence. Women became "law abiding, attentive to detail, less to be swayed by emotion than men," and they were able to see through lies because they had been "sifting truth from falsehood due to their years of dealing with children who try to escape punishment by fibbing."
Rather than being seen as overly sensitive and emotional, women began to gain the identity as more "civilized" than men and they were placed on a pedestal of "moral superiority." However, despite the fact they women were allowed to participate on juries, the women who desired to serve had to do so through voluntary submission. This narrowed the female pool to middle class women who were strong activists in the women's movement. Judge John C. Knox had advocated for the expansion of the qualifications for jurors and promoted women to serve on the jury, he argued for the expansion of the juries to be "truly representative of the community". His hope was for the federal courts to create a system of "hand-picked juries" that would be limited to educated, middle-class men; the tests given to potential jurors created rules and regulations that barred the unemployed as well as those who had different clothing, speech patterns or spelling than what was deemed acceptable to those who ran the screening process.
The media portrayed female jurors in both positive and negative ways as women throughout the country pushed to gain the right to serve on juries. This mirrors the ways in which women's suffrage was displayed i
Equal Protection Clause
The Equal Protection Clause is a clause within the text of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". A primary motivation for this clause was to validate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all citizens would have the guaranteed right to equal protection by law; as a whole, the Fourteenth Amendment marked a large shift in American constitutionalism, by applying more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War. The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, inspired the well-known phrase "Equal Justice Under Law"; this clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court decision that helped to dismantle racial segregation, the basis for many other decisions rejecting discrimination against, bigotry towards, people belonging to various groups.
While the Equal Protection Clause itself applies only to state and local governments, the Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment nonetheless imposes various equal protection requirements on the federal government via reverse incorporation; the Equal Protection Clause is located at the end of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Equality as a concept has been enshrined in America since the Declaration of Independence, this did not mean that equality was a part of daily life or legal practices. Before the passing of the reconstruction amendments, which included the Equal Protection Clause, there were various legal challenges for the rights of Black people in America.
Blacks were considered inferior and, until the ratification of Thirteenth Amendment, it was legal to own them as slaves. Blacks that were not bound to involuntary servitude had no legal rights with the Supreme Court, in one of the most infamous Supreme Court cases of all time, purporting that Blacks in America had no constitutional rights which they could appeal to in society or in the courts. Before this decision there was nothing barring free Black Americans from theoretical access to rights under the law, but in the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, the Supreme Court established a precedent in which Black men, whether free or in bondage, had no legal rights within America. A plurality of historians believe that this judicial decision was the point of no return that set the United States on the path to the Civil War, which would subsequently lead to the ratifications of the reconstruction amendments, in which the Equal Protection Clause is located. Before and during the Civil War, the Southern states prohibited speech of pro-Union citizens, anti-slavery advocates, northerners in general, since the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states during such times.
During the Civil War, many of the Southern states stripped the state citizenship of many whites and banished them from their state seizing their property. Shortly after the Union victory in the American Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress and ratified by the states in 1865, abolishing slavery. Subsequently, many ex-Confederate states adopted Black Codes following the war, with these laws restricting the rights of blacks to hold property, including real property, many forms of personal property, to form enforceable contracts; such codes established harsher criminal consequences for blacks than for whites. Because of the inequality imposed by Black Codes, a Republican controlled Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866; the Act provided that all persons born in the United States were citizens, required that "citizens of every race and color... full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens."President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 amid concerns that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to enact such bill.
Such doubts were one factor that led Congress to begin to draft and debate what would become the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, Congress wanted to protect white Unionists who were under personal and legal attack in the former Confederacy; the effort was led by the Radical Republicans of both houses of Congress, including John Bingham, Charles Sumner, Thaddeus Stevens. It was the most influential of these men, John Bingham, the principal author and drafter of the Equal Protection Clause; the Southern states were opposed to the Civil Rights Act, but in 1865 Congress, exercising its power under Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 of the Constitution, to "be the Judge of the... Qualifications of its own Members", had excluded Southerners from Congress, declaring that their states, having rebelled against the Union, could therefore not elect members to Congress, it was this fact—the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted by a "rump" Congress—that permitted the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment by Congress and subsequently proposed to the states.
Glasser v. United States
Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, is a landmark U. S. Supreme Court decision on two issues of constitutional criminal procedure. Glasser was the first Supreme Court decision to hold that the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment required the reversal of a criminal defendant's conviction if his lawyer's representation of him was limited by a conflict of interest. Further, Glasser held that the exclusion of women from the jury pool violated the Impartial Jury Clause of the Sixth Amendment, but declined to reverse the other two convictions on this ground for technical reasons. Glasser is the first majority opinion of the Court to use the phrase "cross-section of the community." Glasser was the first jury discrimination case to invoke the Sixth Amendment. The facts of Glasser were unusual as well. According to a contemporary Chicago Tribune article, it was "the first time federal employees here have been charged with tampering with federal court justice." The five-week trial involved more than 100 witnesses, more than 4,000 transcript pages of testimony and argument, 228 exhibits.
All of the Court's prior jury pool discrimination cases had involved the exclusion of African-Americans and been litigated under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Court had come the closest to articulating a "fair cross-section of the community" doctrine in Smith v. Texas. There, the Court stated: "It is part of the established tradition in the use of juries as instruments of public justice that the jury be a body representative of the community."Daniel D. Glasser and Norton I. Kretske were Assistant United States Attorneys in the Northern District of Illinois, specializing in liquor and revenue offenses. Glasser and Kretske solicited bribes from defendants under indictment, or soon to be indicted. Glasser and six other assistants resigned on April 7, 1939, during the tenure of U. S. Attorney William Joseph Campbell. According to Campbell: "Mr. Glasser has the best record of convictions of any one in this office and his conviction record in alcohol cases is the best in the entire country.
Since I have been in office, Mr. Glasser lost only one, he hasn't lost a jury case in three and a half years." U. S. Attorney Campbell presented the case to the grand jury personally. Glasser, Alfred E. Roth, Anthony Horton, Louis Kaplan were indicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on two counts of a bribery conspiracy on September 29, 1939. Glasser and Kretske were former Assistant U. S. Attorneys. Horton was an African-American bail bondsman; the allegations were that the prosecutors either agreed to recommend the dismissal of charges or ensured that the grand jury would not return an indictment. The maximum authorized sentence under the charges was two years a $10,000 fine. All five made bail of $1,500 each; the trial began on February 6, 1940 before Judge Patrick Thomas Stone, of the Western District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation. The prosecution's opening statement was delivered by Martin Ward, the chief of the criminal division. Defense attorney William Scott Stewart's opening statement argued that Glasser and Kretske were set up by E.
C. Yellowly, the head of the alcohol tax unit. Stewart was the leader of a "battery of high priced defense counsel."The government's first witness, U. S. Attorneys' Office clerk Gordon Morgan testified that Glasser had suggested that Sidney S. Eckstone be appointed foreperson of a grand jury that returned only eight out of twenty indictments and that Glasser and Eckstone had conferred frequently. Another prosecution witness, illegal distillery landlord William F. Workman, testified that Capone-affiliated Louis Schiavone had posted $1,000,000 in bail bonds. On the sixth day of trial, alcohol tax agent Patrick Donoghue testified that, in a case that Donoghue had investigated, Glasser persuaded a grand jury to reverse itself after returning an indictment by placing the matter on the pending call indefinitely. Another government witness, bootlegging handyman Ralph Sharp testified that he had paid Kretske $250 in order for Kretske, as prosecutor, to recommend that the charges against him be dismissed.
Frank Hodorowicz, another bootlegger turned government witness, testified that he had paid Kretske $1,300 to recommend the dismissal of two cases and was convicted in the third case after he refused to pay $1,000. After he was indicted the third time, he testified, Glasser declined to intervene on his behalf, saying: "You're going to jail for five years. For all the money in the world I couldn't help you; this isn't an ordinary case. Agents are in town from Washington."Still another, Walter Kwiatkowski, testified that he paid Horton $600 to have the case against him dropped where Glasser was acting as prosecutor. And another, Victor Raubunas, testified that he twice paid bribes to Kretske in cases that Glasser was handling. Mae and Anthony Jurkas, two small-time bootleggers, testified that Glasser declined to prosecute them in exchange for the name of their bootlegging boss. Bootlegger Nicholas Abosketes and his accountant William Brantman testified that Abosketes transferred $3,000 to Brantman, paid to Kretske.
Alexander Campbell, an Assistant U. S. Attorney from India
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. Established pursuant to Article III of the U. S. Constitution in 1789, it has original jurisdiction over a narrow range of cases, including suits between two or more states and those involving ambassadors, it has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal court and state court cases that involve a point of federal constitutional or statutory law. The Court has the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution or an executive act for being unlawful. However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction; the court may decide cases having political overtones, but it has ruled that it does not have power to decide nonjusticiable political questions. Each year it agrees to hear about one hundred to one hundred fifty of the more than seven thousand cases that it is asked to review.
According to federal statute, the court consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, all of whom are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Once appointed, justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed from office; each justice has a single vote in deciding. When the chief justice is in the majority, he decides. In modern discourse, justices are categorized as having conservative, moderate, or liberal philosophies of law and of judicial interpretation. While a far greater number of cases in recent history have been decided unanimously, decisions in cases of the highest profile have come down to just one single vote, exemplifying the justices' alignment according to these categories; the Court meets in the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D. C, its law enforcement arm is the Supreme Court of the United States Police. It was while debating the division of powers between the legislative and executive departments that delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention established the parameters for the national judiciary.
Creating a "third branch" of government was a novel idea. Early on, some delegates argued that national laws could be enforced by state courts, while others, including James Madison, advocated for a national judicial authority consisting of various tribunals chosen by the national legislature, it was proposed that the judiciary should have a role in checking the executive power to veto or revise laws. In the end, the Framers compromised by sketching only a general outline of the judiciary, vesting federal judicial power in "one supreme Court, in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish", they delineated neither the exact powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court nor the organization of the Template:Judicial branch as a whole. The 1st United States Congress provided the detailed organization of a federal judiciary through the Judiciary Act of 1789; the Supreme Court, the country's highest judicial tribunal, was to sit in the nation's Capital and would be composed of a chief justice and five associate justices.
The act divided the country into judicial districts, which were in turn organized into circuits. Justices were required to "ride circuit" and hold circuit court twice a year in their assigned judicial district. After signing the act into law, President George Washington nominated the following people to serve on the court: John Jay for chief justice and John Rutledge, William Cushing, Robert H. Harrison, James Wilson, John Blair Jr. as associate justices. All six were confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 1789. Harrison, declined to serve. In his place, Washington nominated James Iredell; the Supreme Court held its inaugural session from February 2 through February 10, 1790, at the Royal Exchange in New York City the U. S. capital. A second session was held there in August 1790; the earliest sessions of the court were devoted to organizational proceedings, as the first cases did not reach it until 1791. When the national capital moved to Philadelphia in 1790, the Supreme Court did so as well.
After meeting at Independence Hall, the Court established its chambers at City Hall. Under Chief Justices Jay and Ellsworth, the Court heard few cases; as the Court had only six members, every decision that it made by a majority was made by two-thirds. However, Congress has always allowed less than the court's full membership to make decisions, starting with a quorum of four justices in 1789; the court lacked a home of its own and had little prestige, a situation not helped by the era's highest-profile case, Chisholm v. Georgia, reversed within two years by the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment; the court's power and prestige grew during the Marshall Court. Under Marshall, the court established the power of judicial review over acts of Congress, including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution and making several important constitutional rulings that gave shape and substance to the balance of power between the federal government and states; the Marshall Court ended the practice of each justice issuin