by David H. Gans and Xan White, Constitutional Accountability Center

Many Supreme Court Justices retire having issued a significant number of important decisions, but none can match Justice Stevens’ record of landmark decisions penned since he reached the age of 80 years old.  It is perhaps true to say that no American in his 80s since Benjamin Franklin has played such an important role in our country’s public life as Justice Stevens has played in the last decade.  In these ten years alone, Justice Stevens has accomplished more than most Justices do in their lifetime, authoring numerous landmark opinions of the Court.  Even with the Court’s turn to the right, Justice Stevens has consistently found a way to vindicate our Constitution’s most enduring values, whether they be broad protections for individual liberty, access to courts and fair trial guarantees, Congress’ powers to solve national problems, protect our democracy, and secure the civil rights of all Americans, or respect for federalism.  Here, in chronological order, are just some of the momentous opinions authored in the past decade by Justice Stevens in closely divided cases.

• Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000): Justice Stevens wrote for a six-Justice majority that a school district’s policy of permitting student- led prayers broadcast over a school’s public address system at football games violated the Establishment Clause.
• Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000): Justice Stevens wrote for a five-Justice majority that the Due Process Clause requires that a factual determination authorizing an increase in the maximum prison sentence for a criminal offense must be made by the jury.
• Ferguson v. City of Charleston (2001): Justice Stevens wrote for a six-Justice majority that a state hospital violated the Fourth Amendment by performing warrantless drug tests on pregnant women admitted for childbirth.
• Atkins v. Virginia (2002): Justice Stevens wrote for a six-Justice majority that the Eighth Amendment forbids the execution of a mentally-retarded person.
• Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002): Justice Stevens wrote for a six-Justice majority  that a moratorium on development imposed as part of a comprehensive land-use plan does not constitute a taking of property requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.
• McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003): Justice Stevens and Justice O’Connor wrote for a five-Justice majority upholding the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act against a First Amendment challenge.
• Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington (2003): Justice Stevens wrote for a five-Justice majority preserving interest on lawyers’ trust account (IOLTA) programs – a source of $100 million annually in funding for legal services for low-income persons – against a Takings Clause challenge.
• Tennessee v. Lane (2004): Justice Stevens wrote for a five-Justice majority   upholding Congress’ power under the Fourteenth Amendment to protect the rights of Americans with disabilities from being discriminatorily denied access to the courts and cutting back on prior rulings limiting Congress’ civil rights enforcement authority.
• Rasul v. Bush (2004): Justice Stevens wrote for a six-Justice majority that United States courts have jurisdiction to hear constitutional and other federal challenges to the detention of war-on-terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay.
• Gonzales v. Raich (2005): Justice Stevens wrote for a six-Justice majority upholding Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause to prohibit personal use and cultivation of marijuana.
• Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006): Justice Stevens wrote for a five-Justice majority that the military commissions convened by President Bush to try war-on-terror detainees held at Guantanamo Bay violated the U.S. Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Conventions, and constitutional separation of powers principles.
• Massachusetts v. EPA (2007): Justice Stevens wrote for a five-Justice majority that recognized EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act.
• Danforth v. Minnesota (2008): Justice Stevens wrote for a seven-Justice majority that states have authority to provide broader remedies for federal constitutional violations than federal habeas law mandates.
• Wyeth v. Levine (2009): Justice Stevens wrote for a six-Justice majority that a state-court damages action for failure to warn about catastrophic risks associated with administration of a drug was not pre-empted by the Food and Drug Act and the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
• Padilla v. Kentucky (2010): Justice Stevens wrote for a five-Justice majority that counsel in a criminal case has a constitutional obligation under the Sixth Amendment to inform his or her client that a criminal charge carries a risk of deportation.