Justice Sandra Day O’Connor died Friday, December 3, at the age of 93. She was the first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. She was 93. She was appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981. She would go on and write 645 opinions. These included landmark decisions that upheld gender equality (1982’s Mississippi University for Women V. Hogan), abortion rights (1992’s Planned Parenthood V. Casey (coauthored with Justices Kennedy & Souter) and affirmative actions (2003’s Grutterv. Bollinger). O’Connor served as an editor for the Stanford Law Review at SLS. She also received a marriage offer from William Rehnquist (BA/MA’48), LLB ’52. The SLS class of 1952 is the only class in law school history to produce two Supreme Court Justices. Stanford Law School faculty reflects on her legacy.
Deborah R. Hensler Judge John W. Ford professor of Dispute Resolution
The first time I met Justice O’Connor was when I worked at RAND. RAND’s Vice-President had arranged to have her speak to me regarding our research on tort litigation. It was probably in the late 1980s, when Congress was battling over tort reform. I remember being impressed by the Justice’s questions and her attentiveness to my answers. I think I expected the meeting to more formal, with the Justice agreeing to it for relationship-based reasons rather than substantive ones. I remember sitting next to her in a sitting room decorated with Western art, and I thought it was very ladylike. I had previously met with Justice Warren Burger, and I recall thinking that her question were more intelligent than those of his. A few years later, Justice O’Connor contacted me to ask about our research into punitive damages. I recall that she again asked logical questions about the results of our research. My favorite memory is of a different event: I was presenting the results of my research for the 9th Circuit Gender Bias Task Force. I was also a member of this task force. Justice O’Connor gave a keynote speech at the conference, as I remember. During a short break, I went to the ladies’ bathroom. There was a long queue and, as usual, in public places, the facilities were inadequate for women. Justice O’Connor was in line ahead of me. Justice O’Connor, as we waited for people to come out of the stalls with impatience, stepped up and bent down, just like many of us, to check if the stall was occupied. For the first time I thought that someone like me was on the Supreme Court bench.
Pamela S. Karlan is the Kenneth and Harle Montgomery professor of Public Interest Law, and co-director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.
Bob Woodward, Scott Armstrong and others could have published a book in 1979 about the Supreme Court with the title The Brethren. Justice O’Connor’s nomination changed all of that and more.
Justice O’Connor, as you know, was the first woman to serve on the Court. She was, for the moment, also a final: she was the last Justice who held an elective public position (as a senator and as first female majority leader in a state senate). Her sophisticated opinions – sometimes for the Court, and other times in separate writing – on pivotal issues of the law of democracy were reflected by her political experience. These ranged from political gerrymandering, minority vote dilution, to excessive race awareness in the political process. In a wonderful article on the History of the Women’s Suffrage Movement in 49 Vand. L. Rev. 657 (1996).)
Justice O’Connor knew that she made a difference on the Supreme Court, not just because she was often the swing vote but also because she is a woman. She was a little too polite to mention it directly, but she paid homage to her colleague Thurgood Marsh (Thurgood: The Influence Of A Raconteur 44 Stan. L. Rev. The point was made in a very elegant way by 1217 (1992).
Grutter v. Bollinger (539 U.S. 306 (2003)), which upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action plan, was a good example. The court affirmed the affirmative action program of the University of Michigan Law School in a 2003 decision, 306 (2003).
To cultivate leaders who are legitimate in the eyes the citizens, the path to leadership must be visible and open to all talented and qualified people of any race or ethnicity. All members of this heterogeneous community must be confident in the integrity and openness of the educational institutions who provide the training.
The fact that the Court turned its back on both her work in regard to affirmative actions and the women’s rights to decide whether or not to have a child is an indication of how much we lost. Her work will be remembered.
Bernadette M. Meyler JD ’03, Carl and Sheila Spaeth professor of law and associate dean for research and intellectual life
When I was a student, the legacy of Justice O’Connor had a strong impact on students who were involved in the Stanford Law Review. Her time as editor of the Stanford Law Review was a source of much legend, from her close association with Justice Rehnquist and how she met her future husband. I also thought it was no coincidence that the first woman to be appointed as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court attended Stanford. Stanford is one of only a few universities which has been open to men and women since its founding. It was only once that I had the opportunity to spend time with Justice O’Connor, during her visit in 2007 as Cornell Law School’s Distinguished Jurist-in-Residence. Justice O’Connor was retired when she visited Cornell Law School in 2007. She participated in an impressive lineup of events including a warm, enlightening “fireside talk” and other public discussions.
Justice O’Connor’s jurisprudence was moderate at a time the Supreme Court had already become divided. She is best known for two cases in which she played a key role and wrote the majority opinions. Grutter V. Bollinger (2003) arose from the affirmative action policy of the University of Michigan Law School and Planning Parenthood v. Casey (1992) confirmed a constitutional right of abortion. In the last two years the Supreme Court has broken with these precedents, ruling affirmative actions unconstitutional (Students for Fair Admissions 2023) and stating that abortion was not constitutionally grounded in Dobbs V. Jackson Women’s Health Organizations (2022). Although abandoning these precedents may suggest that Justice O’Connor’s impact has diminished, her defenses for both affirmative actions and abortions were at least partially responsible for their constitutional foundation for several more years.
I’ve always appreciated Justice O’Connor’s tendency to take into account the impact of her legal decisions on the real world. This approach has sometimes led to standards or balancing tests that are criticized for being too vague. It may be that it’s difficult to assess the full impact of legal doctrines on the ground. However, I think O’Connor’s effort was a step in right direction. In examining the First Amendment’s prohibitions on the establishment of religion, O’Connor considered whether a religious display could be interpreted by a reasonable observer as an endorsement of a religion. (Lynch v. Donnelly, 1984. O’Connor’s co-authored majority in the Casey case invalidated the requirement that a spouse be notified of an abortion decision. They did so based on social science evidence and other information about the seriousness of the domestic violence threat that could result. This recognition of the link between abortion and domestic abuse has opened the door for more scholarly research and advocacy.
Justice O’Connor’s voice has been missing on the Supreme Court since she retired, but her legacy lives on through scholarship, advocacy and judging.
Robert Weisberg, JD ’79, Interim Dean, Edwin E. Huddleson, Jr. Professor of law, and Faculty Director, Stanford Criminal Justice Center
Justice O’Connor occupied the seat of Justice Potter Stewart. As I was about to complete my year as his assistant, I became very interested in his successor. It was a great honor and delight to me, as well as Stanford Law School, when I found out that the new justice is one of us. Just a year after, as a junior SLS professor, I was thrilled to meet Justice O’Connor when she spoke at the commencement ceremony for the university and appeared at the law school’s ceremony. After this introduction, her obvious intellectual and moral grace, and her empathetic and professional judgment were all evident.