Ah! Then I think writing a book about him could be fruitful, if no one has written on him more recently (with that book being 1958)… I say DO IT!!!
Do you have access to like Jstor or some sort of journal database for law journals? You might be able to find some good stuff in historical journals, too? Like The American Historical Review might have some stuff (since they published broadly across history fields). That might give you a better idea on what scholarship is out there on him.
One thing I really want to dig into concerns Brown. One of Jackson’s clerks at that time was a law school student from Stanford by the name of William Rehnquist. Rehnquist wrote a memo to Jackson about the case, arguing that Plessy was correctly decided and shouldn’t be overturned. That memo came up when Rehnquist was nominated to the Court in 1971 and again when he was nominated as Chief Justice in 1986. Both times, Rehnquist insisted that the memo reflected Jackson’s views and not his, that he was just writing Jackson’s own opinion for him. Which, to be fair, is a thing law clerks do sometimes. However, Jackson’s long time secretary called bullshit on that, insisting that the memo reflected Rehnquist’s opinion, not Jackson’s. Jackson was, apparently, initially reluctant to overturn Plessy, but it seems like it was mostly because he opposed judicial activism, Plessy had been the law of the land for 50+ years, and he wasn’t convinced there was a Constitutional reason to overturn it, not because he thought Plessy was decided correctly and certainly not because he supported segregation, because he absolutely did not.
ETA: I don’t think I have access to much of anything anymore, since I’m no longer a student, but if I decide to commit to doing this, I will get access to something.
That does sound like an interesting historical knot to untie! One wonders if Rehnquist was just trying to save his own ass or if he remembered it that way years later (time doing funny things to our memories and all). But following the thread of how Jackson wrestled with Plessy and how that informed Rehnquist as a jurist could be a very interesting thread to follow from the 50s to the 80s.
Check with your local public library and see what they have access to, or maybe check with the nearest college and see if you can get access there (either through the library or law school). Sometimes independent scholars can get help with research access. Any idea who might have his papers? National archives would probably have his SCOTUS stuff (and those from when he was in government in other capacities) but you might have to go elsewhere for other stuff…
Jackson also dissented in Korematsu, which I really like.
ETA: I like that he dissented, to be clear.
That says a lot about his views, then. Seems like he was a pretty straight guy with regards to wanting to uphold the constituion and all. Seems like he deserves the biography treatment!
In his dissent, he said this:
A military order, however unconstitutional, is not apt to last longer than the military emergency. Even during that period, a succeeding commander may revoke it all. But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of racial discrimination in criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens. The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need. Every repetition imbeds that principle more deeply in our law and thinking and expands it to new purposes.
I mean…
Do you have a (relatively active) Wikipedia account? There’s a Wikipedia Library via which you can request access (tho perhaps not to everything you seek).
I will check that out. Thanks!
Kinda a moot point since Biden says he won’t enforce the ban and Trump invited the CEO to his inauguration as an honored guest. “Law? What law?”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/01/16/tiktok-trump-inauguration/
Congress passes a law, SCOTUS upholds it, two Presidents from different parties say “meh…no.” This could actually be the start of a Constitutional crisis.
Personally, I think the law is stupid and I think SCOTUS is wrong, but the executive branch ignoring the other two branches is not a good sign for the future of our democracy.
Ok, let’s go, motherfuckers!
Is it? The executive is responsible for enforcing, so just saying “meh” seems within their powers.
Ah, the Andrew Jackson philosophy on executive power. (After a SCOTUS decision that he didn’t agree with he was widely reported, perhaps apocryphally, as saying “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”)
Yeah and he backed off if that just a few months later when the implications of that became clear.
Schools require students to attend science classes; which are also against their religious beliefs.
And they made me attend gym classes; which were against my strongly held beliefs.
Always nice these days to read a bit of good news!