Justice David Souter, once heralded as a reliable conservative appointment to the Supreme Court in 1990, surprised many by emerging with a record that leaned towards more liberal viewpoints. From the outset of his tenure, Souter distinguished himself with an evident commitment to the principles of constitutional privacy, individual equality, and a firm separation between church and state. Notably, during the pivotal 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Souter aligned himself with the majority to affirm the central tenets of Roe v. Wade, thereby solidifying his reputation as a key figure in the ongoing dialogue surrounding abortion rights in America.
On the morning of June 29, 1992, Souter took his position at the courtroom bench and delivered a poignant opinion that reflected both his respect for established precedent and the court’s duty to uphold its commitments over time. He articulated the importance of the court’s legitimacy, likening it to a person’s character and stressing that its validity is inherently tied to the nation’s welfare. His rich New Hampshire accent echoed through the chamber as he insisted that such legitimacy is not merely for the court’s benefit, but for the society it serves.
Fast forward nearly thirty years, and as the court prepared to take on a new abortion case—one that would ultimately lead to the landmark 2022 reversal of Roe—Souter expressed a desire to refrain from revisiting his past rulings. In characteristic fashion, he opined that silence was the most prudent position for a judge reflecting on their previous decisions, showing his preference for modesty and restraint rather than revisiting contentious subjects from his past.
Souter, who passed away recently, left behind a legacy marked by integrity and a unique intellectual demeanor. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, he embodied a period in which Supreme Court justices were less tethered to the political whims of their appointing presidents. This independence, however, generated some backlash among conservative circles, which fostered the refrain of “No more Souters” as a rallying cry. The response from leaders within the Federalist Society and right-wing factions urged for deeper scrutiny during the vetting process for future Republican nominees, rooted in the disappointments outlined by Souter’s leftward shift.
Following Souter’s appointment, the former New Hampshire governor and Bush’s chief of staff, John Sununu, anticipated a fruitful appointment for conservatives and believed Souter would exceed expectations. Despite his distinguished public service background, marked by roles such as attorney general and state supreme court justice—Souter had limited visibility on federal matters prior to his appointment, leading him to humorously remark that he never viewed himself as particularly obscure when questioned about his sudden rise to national prominence.
Throughout his tenure on the bench, Souter was known for his disinterest in the social scene of Washington, D.C., preferring to return to New Hampshire where he could immerse himself in a world filled with books. He retired at a relatively young age of 69, leaving a seat that President Barack Obama would later fill with Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic justice. In her tribute to him, Sotomayor highlighted Souter’s passion for literature and the profound impact it had on his worldview and judicial philosophy.
Souter’s contributions profoundly influenced the landscape of the Supreme Court, most notably in slowing the anticipated conservative tide that many expected to overrun the judiciary. By joining forces with Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, Souter played a critical role in upholding Roe v. Wade during Casey, a decision that emphasized the implications of the ruling on societal relationships and individual choices over a span of two decades.
As history marches forward, the current Supreme Court has since overturned many of the decisions Souter supported, including landmark rulings concerning racial remedies and First Amendment rights. He famously dissented in the 2000 case Bush v. Gore, wherein he argued that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision and congressional resolution should stand unimpeded by the court’s intervention. This case would resonate bitterly across the nation and fuel further polarization.
The closure of Souter’s era is underscored by his empathetic character, revealed in heartfelt remembrances of his predecessor, Justice William Brennan. Souter’s tributes to Brennan reflected a sense of humor and warmth, even as he acknowledged the complexities of their judicial philosophy. It is this nuanced legacy that defines Justice David Souter—not merely through his rulings, but through the integrity, camaraderie, and occasional levity he brought to a high court navigating the challenging waters of American constitutional law.