Peter Irons is an ardent patriot. He believes passionately in the founding promises of America as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights: "all men are created equal" - "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for all people - "justice for all" - "promote the General welfare" - "no law respecting an establishment of religion....or abridging the freedom of speech." With these ideals always in mind, Irons is not hesitant about passing judgement on America and the Americans, in this book on the Supreme Court, when actions are committed or decisions made which fail to fulfill these promises. In other words, Irons is not an impartial, neutral historian. If the reader has dissimilar understandings of the founding promises, she or he may react hostilely to A People's History of the Supreme Court. But that reader especially should make the effort to suspend judgement and read on. This is a very fine book even if you disagree with it. Irons knows his judicial history well, and he explains the issues of important Supreme Court decisions with amazing clarity. He also treats the key personalities of Supreme Court history with respect, recognizing the greatness even of Justices whose opinions had unfortunate consequences. The only justices he scorns are those who made no contribution.

The first seven chapters of the book describe the battles and compromises that went into the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and thereafter into the establishment of the first Supreme Court. We hear a lot about the "intentions" of the founding fathers these days; Irons analyzes what we can and can't be sure of, concerning those intentions, with masterful support from the available sources. He establishes very convincingly that from the start America has been polarized over the intertwined issues of racism and the proper balance of federal authority versus states' rights. Irons clearly defends his interpretation of the Constitution as a document establishing federal authority, but yielding fatal compromises with the usually less-than-admirable demands of states with peculiar institutions. Slavery is of course the biggest and most fatal such compromise, the one that most threatened to destroy the efforts of the Constitution-writers, and the one that the Supreme Court failed to resolve in keeping with the founding promises for the longest time - not making much progress until the Warren Court.

Irons plainly believes that "states' rights" has most frequently been a pretext for reneging on those founding promises of justice and equality. He makes a very good case throughout the book that the federal government has frequently operated just as Madison hoped in his Federalist essays, eventually though painfully imposing justice for all when one or several states denied justice to some. The implication is that the federal government, with its awkward checks and balances, is indeed the guardian of the Constitution and of the American aspirations of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The very best section of the book is Section IV: Liberty in a Social Organization. These seven chapters deal with economic justice, beginning with the distressing misuse of the 14th Amendment by the courts and the Supreme Court to impose a feudal system of employer/employee relations on the whole country, to legislate a "laissez-faire" ideology from the bench. Irons makes no bones, by the way, in finding that the Court has always been staffed with "activist" justices. The turning point in modernizing economic democracy - in fulfilling the promise of promoting the General welfare - comes in the New Deal court confrontations between the "horsemen of reaction" and the agents of reform. FDR's threat of `stacking the court' is usually portrayed as one of his most embarrassing failures, but Irons sees it rather as a piece of the drama, an effective tactic perhaps, of compelling the Court to change its ways, to stop representing only the economic interests of capitalists and to address the needs of the whole American people. Irons is not waging a propaganda campaign, however. His accounts of the crucial Court decisions of the 1930s outline the arguments for both sides with precision and balance.

Section V presents the remarkable tale of the Supreme Court turning its attention from issues of property and labor rights to issues of civil liberties. This is the drama of our lifetimes, isn't it? Obviously Irons is fully partisan to the promise of "liberty and justice for all, but once again he depicts the conflicts on the Supreme Court with marvelous clarity.

Section VI will inevitably offend those readers who define themselves as conservative. It narrates the demise of the great consensus of the Warren Court and the subsequent bitter division of the Supreme Court from Nixon to Clinton. Irons quite openly regards the Republican appointed reactionary justices as attempting to renege once more on those lovely founding promises. Still I urge conservative readers to let Irons make his case before ranting against it. He writes very well. It's an entertaining book to hate, if that's your choice after reading it.

I found this book to be very enjoyable for the most part. I particularly liked his coverage of the Marshall and Taney courts. I also like that he is very clear about his political beliefs thus allowing the reader the chance to properly frame his opinions.

I do think that he started to allow his personal biases to overcome his scholarly work once he reached his own professional experience. By the end of the Warren Court it became difficult to read much of it.

None the less an enjoyable book for anyone who is interested in the topic.

Don't kid yourself into thinking that this is a disinterested history of the Supreme Court of the United States. It isn't, it is a highly politicized look at the history of the cases heard before the highest court in the land, with a special emphasis on the cases that dealt directly with individual rights. The Dred Scott decision, which reinforced the slavery and Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion both get a lot of play in this book. As do lesser known cases involving the internment of American's of Japanese decent, and early cases involving slavery issues such as the little known Antelope case.

It's a well written book, full of telling details about not only the justices who heard these cases, but also the people behind the case names. We learn what Earl Warren, the Chief Justice during some of the most important years in the court's history was like as a person. But we also learn about Earl Gideon, the man whose case created the right to an attorney for anyone arrested for a crime.

Still, while I appreciate the need for a progressive history of the Supreme Court, I wish Iron's had played down his politics a little more. A more evenhanded approach that did not disparage everyone who does not share Iron's politics would have made for a better, and more convincing book.

I think that most of the reviewers of this book must be lawyers who are accustomed to over developed and complicated sentence structure. This is a writing technique well practiced by the legal profession and insurance policy writers.



Slogging through this book is just plain tortuous. It is very detailed and is probably a good book for pre-law or first year law students. Anyone else will find it to be painful.



The author is definitely a lefty but presents his viewpoints honestly and very well. The subject matter is fascinating but the execution is excruciating.

I think that most of the reviewers of this book must be lawyers who are accustomed to over developed and complicated sentence structure. This is a writing technique well practiced by the legal profession and insurance policy writers.

Slogging through this book is just plain tortuous. It is very detailed and is probably a good book for pre-law or first year law students. Anyone else will find it to be painful.

The author is definitely a lefty but presents his viewpoints honestly and very well. The subject matter is fascinating but the execution is excruciating.

Although it drags a little at the beginning, once you get to the
history and the cases, it gets interesting. It's writtin in plain
english, except for the legal terms which are usually explained.
Someone not interested in the Supreme court probably would find
it rather boring, but then why would they be reading it? Author
writes with a pro-civil rights anti-business sentiment which
is most often justified (considering past civil rights abuses),
but it is not too overly done.
Just be ready for this slant on the cases (an opposing opinion
is not presented). All in all I enjoyed the book and think it is
well written.

As a retired Judicial Officer I was very pleased with the presentation by Professor Irons. The book is written in a manner that regardless of your understanding of the law and Supreme Court decisions it will hold your interest. Since that reading I have bought his other books and even a course of his on DVD through The Teaching Company.

We are not only presented with crucial decisions but the reasons, good or bad, for that conclusion. This occurs with the additional reward of what social and poltical forces help shape these decisions.

The book is easily readible and extremely informative. I suggest this for those interested in quality writing, history, sociology and the law..
I wish this was required reading for all high school students.......

As a retired Judicial Officer I was very pleased with the presentation by Professor Irons. The book is written in a manner that regardless of your understanding of the law and Supreme Court decisions it will hold your interest. Since that reading I have bought his other books and even a course of his on DVD through The Teaching Company.

We are not only presented with crucial decisions but the reasons, good or bad, for that conclusion. This occurs with the additional reward of what social and poltical forces help shape these decisions.

The book is easily readible and extremely informative. I suggest this for those interested in quality writing, history, sociology and the law..
I wish this was required reading for all high school students.......

Irons does a decent job of relating the history of the U.S. Supreme Court in an "easy to understand" manner. What this means is that he tries to paint a folksy picture of the people and issues surrounding the major court decisions of the past two centuries--he basically summarizes the major decisions, briefly explains why they're important, and then tells you his opinion and why it is correct. The book gives the reader nothing that your standard constitutional law reader does not--in fact, it gives less historical substance, compared with Kutler's book--but the appeal of this book is that it reads more like a novel and less like a history. Apparently some people like others to do their thinking for them. I do not, so I only found this book to be of minimal use. I wish that someone would have warned me about the book before I wasted my time on it, so hopefully I can prevent similar disappointment to someone else.

Irons does a decent job of relating the history of the U.S. Supreme Court in an "easy to understand" manner. What this means is that he tries to paint a folksy picture of the people and issues surrounding the major court decisions of the past two centuries--he basically summarizes the major decisions, briefly explains why they're important, and then tells you his opinion and why it is correct. The book gives the reader nothing that your standard constitutional law reader does not--in fact, it gives less historical substance, compared with Kutler's book--but the appeal of this book is that it reads more like a novel and less like a history. Apparently some people like others to do their thinking for them. I do not, so I only found this book to be of minimal use. I wish that someone would have warned me about the book before I wasted my time on it, so hopefully I can prevent similar disappointment to someone else.

I give the author credit for explicitly revealing his biases in the book's opening pages. The author is a war protesting, left-leaning, liberal, and is a proponent of a "living Constitution" that conforms to his own ideas of a perfect society, rather than a view that treats the Constitution as a legal text. I strongly disagree with his views, but because he does not present his biases as fact, but instead openly warns the reader, I was able to continue reading.

The book's best feature is its compelling and detailed treatment of the Supreme Court's history. The author undoubtedly spent many hours parsing through obscure legal and historical materials to present the reader with a view of the factual circumstances surrounding the major legal developments of the past 200 years. As someone not very well-versed in American history, I appreciated the author's sensitive treatment of that subject.

Perhaps because of the author's biases, the first half of the book reads better than the latter half. I got the impression that I was reading a fairly objective account of the Constitution's framing and of the Civil War era. However, when discussing more recent developments, the author does not resist his urge to launch into juvenile tirades against those who have viewpoints diverse from his.

His legal analysis is generally flawed, and suffers from overt biases. He argues that it is a "dubious proposition" that the 14th amendment only applies to state action. This is strange, given that that amendment plainly states, "No *state* shall..." Scholars on both sides of the ideological debate understand that the 14th amendment was passed to bar only states from denying persons the equal protection of the law, but the author is not happy about that. Thus, he explodes into a meaningless rant about how anyone who thinks that that amendment is limited to state (as opposed to federal action as well) is a deceptive liar. As the book progresses to speak of the more controversial issues of the day, the author's biases speak louder and louder; I found myself skimming the last 150 pages, not trusting a single word that was coming out of his mouth.

That being said, I am quite happy that I read the book. It is not a great book, but it is well worth reading for its extensive historical analysis. And when the author does not launch into attacks against conservatives, he does add considerable insight to an important subject.

Three stars.

I give the author credit for explicitly revealing his biases in the book's opening pages. The author is a war protesting, left-leaning, liberal, and is a proponent of a "living Constitution" that conforms to his own ideas of a perfect society, rather than a view that treats the Constitution as a legal text. I strongly disagree with his views, but because he does not present his biases as fact, but instead openly warns the reader, I was able to continue reading.

The book's best feature is its compelling and detailed treatment of the Supreme Court's history. The author undoubtedly spent many hours parsing through obscure legal and historical materials to present the reader with a view of the factual circumstances surrounding the major legal developments of the past 200 years. As someone not very well-versed in American history, I appreciated the author's sensitive treatment of that subject.

Perhaps because of the author's biases, the first half of the book reads better than the latter half. I got the impression that I was reading a fairly objective account of the Constitution's framing and of the Civil War era. However, when discussing more recent developments, the author does not resist his urge to launch into juvenile tirades against those who have viewpoints diverse from his.

His legal analysis is generally flawed, and suffers from overt biases. He argues that it is a "dubious proposition" that the 14th amendment only applies to state action. This is strange, given that that amendment plainly states, "No *state* shall..." Scholars on both sides of the ideological debate understand that the 14th amendment was passed to bar only states from denying persons the equal protection of the law, but the author is not happy about that. Thus, he explodes into a meaningless rant about how anyone who thinks that that amendment is limited to state (as opposed to federal action as well) is a deceptive liar. As the book progresses to speak of the more controversial issues of the day, the author's biases speak louder and louder; I found myself skimming the last 150 pages, not trusting a single word that was coming out of his mouth.

That being said, I am quite happy that I read the book. It is not a great book, but it is well worth reading for its extensive historical analysis. And when the author does not launch into attacks against conservatives, he does add considerable insight to an important subject.

Three stars.

This is the book that provides an immense and readable amount of historical and political background information on the evolution of the interpretation of the US Constitution from its very beginning until the end of the XX century. Constitutional law is seen through its cases throughout history and its main protagonists: the judges of the Supreme Court and those who brought their cases. It also shows that legalist interpretation of the Constitution has not followed the pedant use of syllogistic reasoning from the precedential principles set forth in previous similar cases, like Christopher Columbus Langdell, instead, had taught at Harvard Law School in the XIX century. When the Constitution was interpreted as if it were a pure and independent science, leaving nothing to the political context or the common sense, it created monsters that today look embarrassing. However, since the law was interpreted according to the sensitivities of the ruling class at the time, too, the output still remains curious today. Both ways, the Constitution was read for the benefit of the privileged. The book does not deal only with famous cases such as "Dred Scott v. Sandford", "Plessy v. Ferguson", "Brown v. Board of Education", "Miranda v. Arizona", "Roe v. Wade", but it deals with many more that cover many controversial political subjects of the last 200 years. Here an anecdote in the book that look funny in itself. Lawyers from the Dept. of Justice brought two thousand prosecutions under the Espionage Act. The most ironic is United States v. Spirit of '76, against the producer of a movie about the American Revolution, Robert Goldstein, because his depiction of British atrocities against the colonists tended "to question the good faith of our ally, Great Britain", according to the judge, who imposed a ten-year sentence on the producer. It is a highly recommended book for historians, political scientists, and, why not, lawyers and filmmakers.

This is the book that provides an immense and readable amount of historical and political background information on the evolution of the interpretation of the US Constitution from its very beginning until the end of the XX century. Constitutional law is seen through its cases throughout history and its main protagonists: the judges of the Supreme Court and those who brought their cases. It also shows that legalist interpretation of the Constitution has not followed the pedant use of syllogistic reasoning from the precedential principles set forth in previous similar cases, like Christopher Columbus Langdell, instead, had taught at Harvard Law School in the XIX century. When the Constitution was interpreted as if it were a pure and independent science, leaving nothing to the political context or the common sense, it created monsters that today look embarrassing. However, since the law was interpreted according to the sensitivities of the ruling class at the time, too, the output still remains curious today. Both ways, the Constitution was read for the benefit of the privileged. The book does not deal only with famous cases such as "Dred Scott v. Sandford", "Plessy v. Ferguson", "Brown v. Board of Education", "Miranda v. Arizona", "Roe v. Wade", but it deals with many more that cover many controversial political subjects of the last 200 years. Here an anecdote in the book that look funny in itself. Lawyers from the Dept. of Justice brought two thousand prosecutions under the Espionage Act. The most ironic is United States v. Spirit of '76, against the producer of a movie about the American Revolution, Robert Goldstein, because his depiction of British atrocities against the colonists tended "to question the good faith of our ally, Great Britain", according to the judge, who imposed a ten-year sentence on the producer. It is a highly recommended book for historians, political scientists, and, why not, lawyers and filmmakers.

In this book, Peter Irons offers a refreshingly stimulating interpretation of the history of the Supreme Court. His approach, which focuses on understanding the personalities on the bench and behind the cases, serves as an invaluable reminder that laws and created and interpreted by people who bring their views and experiences into this process. Irons begins this process with himself; in the introduction he expresses his belief that "the Constitution's basic command is that every person must be accorded the dignity he or she deserves as a human being."(xv) This view serves as the basis for his analysis in the book.

Irons divides the history of the Court into six parts. The first section looks at the prehistory of American law, the period before the ratification of the American constitution. He starts with the colonial era, focusing on the New England region to the exclusion of the other areas. While this distorts a more complete understanding of the broader background, it does allow Irons to more clearly identify ideas and doctrines that are relevant to today's jurisprudential issues. His account of the Constitutional Convention is more rote; all the classic debates are recounted, from the Great Compromise to the arguments over the enumerated powers of the government.

It is with the discussion of the beginning of the Court that Irons' narrative comes to life and the pattern of the remainder of the book emerges. In presenting the history of the Court Irons concentrates his account on specific cases that best illustrate his argument. Though episodic, this provides for a clearer presentation of the evolution of the Court's overall jurisprudence over time. This is evident from the first with his analysis of John Marshall. Irons sees the Court initially focusing on questions of property rights, of which Marshall was a stanch defender. Such defense often came at the expense of the rights of debtors, farmers, and African Americans, though Marshall excelled at writing opinions that advanced his interpretations while depriving opponents of any grounds on which to launch political challenges.

The enshrining of property rights also provided critical legal support in defending the institution of slavery. The legal battles surrounding slavery and its aftermath occupied the Court for most of the middle third of the 19th century and comprise the third section of Irons' book. Here the author focuses on Marshall's replacement, Roger B. Taney, as the main character in his account, stressing the fundamentally racist (and in Irons' opinion, unexamined) views that lay behind Taney's flawed legal defense of slavery. Irons' account of the Dred Scott case is one of the best parts of the book, offering a good introduction to the people behind one of the most controversial decisions in the Court's history. By contrast, his discussion of the Court's jurisprudence stemming from the Civil War is one of the its most disappointing sections, while his analysis of the Reconstruction-era cases over civil rights focuses more on the legislative efforts and constitutional amendments passed than on the Court's role in limiting the extension of the rights supposedly granted by these measures.

With the Civil War resolving the issue of slavery (if not that of the role of blacks in American life), the Court's docket was increasingly occupied with cases involving economic rights. Irons' coverage of these issues comprises the fourth section of his book. The Court he chronicles during this period was comprised of unabashed defenders of business interests who consistently limited government's ability to regulate economic activity. Irons attributes these views to the backgrounds and connections of the justices of the period, most of whom were former railroad attorneys who maintained (unethical) connections with private interests. The generally conservative mentality also prevailed in matters of civil liberties, where opponents of unabashed capitalism fell victim to laws passed during World War I that made disloyal speech illegal - laws that were generally upheld by the Court.

It was only during the New Deal of the 1930s and the aftermath of President Franklin Roosevelt's "court-packing" plan that the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court changed course and endorsed governmental regulation of the economy. This opened a new era in Supreme Court jurisprudence, one focusing more on cases involving individual rights rather than on economic matters, and is the subject of the final two sections of his book. Here the author is in his element, having written on civil liberties before (and even being directly involved in the history of one of the topics he chronicles, that of the Japanese internments) and his solid narrative ends the book on a strong note.

Irons' interpretative lens offers a refreshingly different account of the history of the Court. Whereas previous historians have often written about the Court as if it were a faceless entity dispensing legal philosophy, Irons shows how the justices' preconceived legal and political ideologies often shaped the law. While some readers may disagree with Irons' ideological perspective, it does introduce a much-needed perspective into examining the impact of the Court in the context of its times. Yet Irons' work is undermined by the poor editing of the book. The text is plagued with historical inaccuracies which, though minor, often create doubts as to the veracity of the broader argument. Even more egregious is the poor job in checking the endnotes, with the reader often forced to comb through the bibliography in search of the full listing of the work cited. Again, while relatively minor, it suggests a slapdash quality that can undermine the broader insights of the book.

Such problems require the reader to treat this book with a degree of wariness. Nonetheless, Irons has written an engaging account of the history of the Supreme Court, one that stimulates the reader and helps them to better understand the role of the Court in shaping the development of the nation - and how it continues to influence us today.