Description: The Hughes Court: From Progressivism to Pluralism, 1930 to 1941 describes the closing of one era in constitutional jurisprudence and the opening of another. This comprehensive study of the Supreme Court from 1930 to 1941 - when Charles Evans Hughes was Chief Justice - shows how nearly all justices, even the most conservative, accepted the broad premises of a Progressive theory of government and the Constitution. The Progressive view gradually increased its hold throughout the decade, but at its end, interest group pluralism began to influence the law. By 1941, constitutional and public law was discernibly different from what it had been in 1930, but there was no sharp or instantaneous Constitutional Revolution in 1937 despite claims to the contrary. This study supports its conclusions by examining the Court's work in constitutional law, administrative law, the law of justiciability, civil rights and civil liberties, and statutory interpretation.
Brief description: Mark Tushnet is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law emeritus at Harvard Law School. After graduating from Harvard College and Yale Law School, he served as law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. He has written widely on constitutional theory, comparative constitutional law, and US legal and constitutional history. His book The NAACP's Legal Strategy Against Segregated Education (1987) won the Littleton Griswold Prize awarded by the American Historical Association.
Review Quotes: 'No one understands the politics of law better or takes the law more seriously than Mark Tushnet. With a complete mastery of the decisions of the Hughes Court, Tushnet shows us the justices as they saw themselves, professionals of disparate backgrounds, temperaments, and talents, dispatching, with the tools at hand, the disputes that ceaselessly came to them. Familiar constitutional landmarks are here, as is the high drama of Franklin D. Roosevelt's 'Court-packing' plan, but so are more gradual changes in the law of the presidency, the administrative state, the federal courts, civil liberties, and civil rights that ended with the nation on the verge of a new constitutional order. Despite economic calamity and social strife, the Supreme Court thrived, not by being above politics, but by proving its worth by doing its job.' Daniel R. Ernst, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal History, Georgetown University Law Center