Talk:Stephen Breyer

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Issues appear to have been resolved. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Uncited statements, especially in the "Active Liberty" section. I also think the article could use a copyedit to merge and reword the shorter paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This is in pretty rough shape: a lot of it is just a grab bag of random cases without any effort to integrate them into something encyclopedic. When the main sources are slip opinions and day-of-decision news coverage, you end up with whole paragraphs on obscure criminal-procedure decisions and not a word on affirmative action (e.g., Parents Involved) or religion (e.g., McCreary County/Van Orden). It'd take a lot of work to save this one, and I know I at least would be reluctant to put in all that work now when there's inevitably going to be a full-length biography at some point (although there's definitely some good scholarship out there already, like ). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I have read all of Breyer's books and am fairly familiar with the commentary on his jurisprudence, so I will take this on. Agree that this would be easier with a biography, but considering that his predecessor, Harry Blackmun, did not get a biography until Linda Greenhouse's 2005 book was published eleven years after his retirement, I would not count on such a source emerging anytime soon. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 16:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Great—looking forward to seeing what you do with it! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, addressed all uncited statements and other maintenance tags, added multiple book citations to supplement claims, and removed extraneous details. I have added a section on "Religion" because multiple sources refer to Breyer's 2005 votes in Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union as the high point of his career, and Extraordinary Writ clearly feels the same. I will take a bit longer to think on how to integrate his views on affirmative action, trim unwarranted focus on niche CrimPro decisions, and similar considerations of WP:DUE weight. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 01:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know that it was the high point in his career—the Dalin book just says it was the high point in his influence on the Court (because he got to be the swing vote for once). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Definitely moving in the right direction. Some thoughts in case they're helpful:

• Abortion: explain what the benefits and burdens test from Whole Woman's Health actually is; I think that was his main contribution in this area. Not sure why it talks about June Medical first and then circles back to Whole Woman's Health.
• Census: I'd just axe this. Department of Commerce might fit if you wanted to write an admin law section (other cases), but that's not necessary for GA purposes.
• Death penalty: probably could use more than three sentences
• Environment: I'd just rewrite this based on the Lazarus article. The FOIA case doesn't need to be here, and the border wall case isn't very environmental either.
• Free speech: ideally you'll want to base this on better sources than press coverage, e.g. Mark Tushnet here (WP:TWL has Springer), Alexander Tsesis here, etc.
• Intellectual property and Native American law: these are both just grab bags that don't give much information about what Breyer's approach to the area was. Feel free to just cut them if there's not a lot of sourcing out there.
• Partisan gerrymandering: maybe combine with voting rights
• Religion: Is there a source for "widely praised"? Klarman liked it, but Erwin Chemerinsky for instance hated it (), although he had a horse in the race. says it "received, not surprisingly, both praise and criticism", which sounds about right. Anyways, Breyer has lots of other religion cases that might be worth mentioning—I'd just check what the scholarly sources think is important.
• Probably worth a section on federalism/federal power, e.g., his dissents in Lopez and Morrison (which get a passing mention in the judicial philosophy section). Also separation of powers and the like (NLRB v. Noel Canning comes to mind). But this isn't FAC, so you don't have to cover everything—feel free to remind me of that if I forget, as I am wont to do.
• I like to go over the judicial philosophy stuff early in the Supreme Court section, since it sort of sets the stage for the topic-by-topic analysis. That's up to you, though.
• Gotta say something about his oral-argument hypotheticals! I'd also mention (when talking about his pragmatism) his preference for multi-factor balancing tests over bright-line rules.

Hopefully some of that is useful. I think the main thing is just bringing in more of the scholarly/analytical/retrospective sources and cutting back on opinion quotes and same-day news coverage, as you've already been doing. Glad to see you're using the Kersch Biographical Encyclopedia piece—I think that's a good guide to what's due weight (at least through 2006). If you haven't seen it, Kersch also has a chapter in this book (plus the cited Mandarin Liberty article). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I still plan to do a bit more editing today, but as I have tackled a few of your points already, I figured that I should do a write-up of my work so far:

• "The high point" was definitely excessive on my part to describe the Van Orden/McCreary split, and "widely praised" is probably too much too, so I have toned it down to "praised" in the article. The only criticism that Garnett cited in his "both praise and criticism" line is from Chemerinsky, who as you noted, was counsel of record for the petitioner in Van Orden. I have added another source that is fairly positive on Breyer's position there.
• I think the "Death penalty" section can remain short. The hullabaloo around Glossip v. Gross was that the dissent alluded to the across-the-board unconstitutionality of the death penalty, but considering that the liberals are still yet to explicitly embrace that position and are not dissenting to all denials of death penalty stays like Brennan and Marshall, I am sour on framing Breyer as doing more than what is already captured by these three sentences.
• Reworked the "Environment" section using Lazarus (2023) and a few other sources. There's an interesting connection between McGarity's pre-confirmation criticism of Breyer as favoring natural gas and his vote in PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, but alas, Lazarus did not make the connection.
• Combined the "Partisan gerrymandering" and "Voting rights" sections per your suggestion.
• I think keeping the "Judicial philosophy" section to the end is best since it is a segue to explaining his books that set forth that philosophy. While Kersch claims that Lopez and Morrison show Breyer embracing cooperative federalism, secondary sources sparingly use that phrase to describe his jurisprudence. Freed 2009 and Krotoszynsky 2012 use the phrase to describe his dissents in Schaffer v. Weast and Stern v. Marshall, respectively, but those cases dealt with such minor statutory interpretation that I find it a stretch to use them for any broad claim of his view on federal power beyond the Commerce Clause. I will definitely add some info on Noel Canning though!
• Added info on his hypotheticals and multi-factor balancing tests to the "Judicial philosophy" section.

Thanks for all the guidance so far! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 00:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Those all sound like good calls. Let me know once you've wrapped up everything you're planning to do. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Pretty sure I am wrapped up! Building on my last update:

• Kept the "Intellectual property" and "Native American law" sections since there were sources which united his major decisions in each field. I am especially inclined to retain the former, given that Breyer's "The Uneasy Case for Copyright" article made him known as an IP law scholar well before coming to the Supreme Court.
• Overhauled the "Abortion" and "Free speech" sections to summarize key decisions. For the latter, there was a fair amount of criticism that balancing tests are inappropriate for the First Amendment context, which I figured was best presented there.
• Axed the "Census" section since Biden's Executive Order 13986 mooted all decisions on whether the 2020 United States census could exclude non-citizens.
• Added an "Affirmative action" to cover his dissent in Parents Involved and concurrences in Gratz v. Bollinger and Schuette v. BAMN.
• Added a sentence on NLRB v. Noel Canning to the "Judicial philosophy" section
• Added some info on Breyer's decisions on the First Circuit and United States Sentencing Commission.
• Scrapped the "Defendant protections" section. While it was well-sourced with news coverage of three cases, the secondary sources did not recognize them as forming a distinct part of Breyer's jurisprudence. His work in criminal procedure is generally recognized as limited to the United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which is covered elsewhere in the article.

Thanks for the Friedman (2013) book chapter! It was comprehensive on his 1994-2013 decisions but perhaps too much so, such that I was not able to discern which cases it considered more important. Luckily, I think that info was available from the other sources that I added, many on your advice. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 06:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Great, I'll give it a read-through when I get a chance. Z1720, this is probably ready for you to take a look too. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at the 25-page entry by Leon Friedman in the 2013 edition of this book. I've found it to be an extremely useful source in the past, although I don't know if that holds true for the more recent justices. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2025 (UTC)