Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Stephen Johnson Field
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===Jurisprudence=== Field wrote 544 opinions, more than any other justice save for [[Samuel Freeman Miller|Samuel Miller]], [[John Paul Stevens|John P. Stevens]],<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.law360.com/articles/1128989/a-look-back-at-justice-stevens-most-important-opinions|title=A Look Back at Justice Stevens' Most Important Opinions - Law360|access-date=May 7, 2021|archive-date=May 7, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210507155857/https://www.law360.com/articles/1128989/a-look-back-at-justice-stevens-most-important-opinions|url-status=live}}</ref> and [[Clarence Thomas]]<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://ballotpedia.org/Clarence_Thomas_%28Supreme_Court%29 |title=Clarence Thomas (Supreme Court) - Ballotpedia<!-- Bot generated title --> |access-date=May 7, 2021 |archive-date=April 15, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210415080144/https://ballotpedia.org/Clarence_Thomas_(Supreme_Court) |url-status=live }}</ref> (by comparison, Chief Justice Marshall wrote 508 opinions in his 34 years on the court).<ref>{{harvp|Tocklin|1997|loc = n. 174}}.</ref> According to journalist [[Brian Doherty (journalist)|Brian Doherty]], "Field was one of the pioneers of the concept (beloved by many [[Libertarian theories of law|libertarian legal thinkers]]) of [[substantive due process]] β the notion that the due process protected by the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]] applied not merely to procedures but to the substance of laws as well."<ref>{{cite book |author-link = Brian Doherty (journalist) |last = Doherty |first = Brian |title = [[Radicals for Capitalism|Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement]] |page = 28 |year = 2007 }}</ref> Field's vocal advocacy of [[substantive due process]] was illustrated in his dissents to the ''[[Slaughter-House Cases]]'' and ''[[Munn v. Illinois]]''. In the ''Slaughter-House Cases'', Justice Field's dissent focused on the Privileges or Immunities clause, not the Due Process clause (which was important in the dissent of Justice Bradley as well as the dissent of Justice Swayne). In both ''Munn v. Illinois'' and ''[[Mugler v. Kansas]]'', Justice Field based his dissent on the protection of property interests by the Due Process clause. One of Field's most notable opinions was his majority opinion in ''[[Pennoyer v. Neff]]'', which set the standard on [[personal jurisdiction]] for the next 100 years. His views on due process were eventually adopted by the court's majority after he left the Supreme Court. In other cases he helped end the [[income tax]] (''[[Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company]]''), limited [[United States antitrust law|antitrust law]] (''[[United States v. E.C. Knight Company]]''), and limited the power of the [[Interstate Commerce Commission]]. He also joined the majority in ''[[Plessy v. Ferguson]]'' that upheld [[racial segregation]]. Field dissented in the landmark case ''[[Strauder v. West Virginia]]'', where the majority opinion held that the exclusion of African-Americans from juries violated the Fourteenth Amendment's [[Equal Protection Clause]]. [[File:Justice Field.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Field's gravesite]] Early in his career, Field wrote opinions against California's laws discriminating against the Chinese immigrants to that state.<ref>{{harvp|McCloskey|1951|pp= 109-111}}.</ref> Serving as an individual jurist in district court, he notably struck down the so-called '[[Pigtail Ordinance]]' in 1879, which was regarded as discriminating against Chinese, making him unpopular with the Californian public. In his 1884 district court ruling, ''In re [[Look Tin Eli|Look Tin Sing]]'', he declared that children born in U.S. jurisdictions are U.S. citizens regardless of ancestry.<ref name="looktinsing ruling">{{cite web |title=In re Look Tin Sing (Ruling) |url=http://libraryweb.uchastings.edu/library/research/special-collections/wong-kim-ark/21%20F.%20905.pdf |website=libraryweb.uchastings.edu |publisher=Federal Reporter 21 F. 905, Circuit Court, D. California, September 29, 1884 |access-date=8 April 2019 |archive-date=October 4, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201004060216/http://libraryweb.uchastings.edu/library/research/special-collections/wong-kim-ark/21%20F.%20905.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> However, as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, he penned opinions infused with racist anti-Chinese-American rhetoric, most notably in his majority opinion in ''The Chinese Exclusion Case, [[Chae Chan Ping v. United States]],'' 130 U.S. 581 (1889), and in his dissent in ''Chew Heong v. United States'', 112 U.S. 536 (1884).
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)