Wafric News – May 9, 2025

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, passed away on Thursday at the age of 85, the Supreme Court confirmed on Friday. His death marks the end of a distinguished career that saw him evolve from a conservative appointee to one of the court’s most reliable liberal voices.

Souter, a reserved and unassuming figure known for his preference for privacy over the national spotlight, retired from the high court in 2009 after nearly two decades of service. His sudden shift toward the liberal side of the court during his tenure led many to label him the “stealth nominee,” with conservative hopes of a rightward shift quickly dashed.

Souter, who had been nominated by Bush to replace liberal stalwart William Brennan, became known for his dedication to judicial restraint and his scholarly approach to interpreting the Constitution. In a 2012 public discussion, Souter remarked that the application of the Constitution’s values is "an assignment that was left to the future," signaling his belief in the long-term nature of legal principles.

His tenure, however, was not without controversy. One of his most pivotal moments on the court came just two years after his confirmation, when he joined the majority opinion in defending Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision affirming the constitutional right to abortion. This decision marked a turning point, and from then on, Souter became a key figure in the court's liberal bloc, siding with progressive rulings on civil rights, affirmative action, and voting rights.

His positions often led to backlash from the right, spawning the phrase “No More Souters” and prompting more intense ideological scrutiny for future judicial nominations. Despite this, Souter remained firm in his belief that the law should be applied based on real-world implications, rather than abstract legal theory.

Though Souter rarely sought the limelight, his opinions often had a profound impact. One of his most cited rulings was a 1995 First Amendment decision that allowed the organizers of a Boston St. Patrick’s Day parade to deny a spot to an LGBTQ group. A decade later, he authored a 5-4 opinion against displaying the Ten Commandments in government buildings, emphasizing the need for government neutrality on religious issues.

Souter’s minimalistic style extended to his writing. Known for brevity and clarity, he once famously submitted a concurrence in a case involving Navajo Nation mineral rights that amounted to just two sentences, stating his regret over a prior legal position but agreeing with the prevailing decision.

Souter's retirement at the relatively young age of 69, after 19 years on the Supreme Court, was a departure from the usual pattern of justices serving well into their 70s or 80s. Opting to return to his beloved New Hampshire, where he had grown up, Souter kept a low profile, only occasionally stepping in to help fill vacancies in lower courts. His aversion to the politics of Washington and his desire for a contemplative life were evident throughout his career, as he famously avoided using technology and preferred to write his opinions by hand.

While Souter was a modest figure, his habits often sparked amusement among colleagues. It became well known that he preferred simple, solitary pleasures—like reading and hiking in the New Hampshire mountains—over the typical social gatherings of Washington, D.C. His famously humble lunch habits, consisting of plain yogurt and an apple, were even humorously noted by his colleagues, including Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

Despite his quiet nature, Souter’s judicial philosophy had a profound impact on the Supreme Court. His approach was not driven by ideology but by a deep commitment to the Constitution and the principles it enshrines. In a 2010 commencement speech at Harvard, Souter addressed the clash between liberty and equality, noting that courts are often required to decide which constitutional values have the “better claim” in specific cases.

David Souter’s time on the Supreme Court left an indelible mark, and his legacy is one of integrity, deep thought, and an unwavering commitment to the law—often in ways that defied expectations. His passing marks the end of a chapter in the Supreme Court's history, one that will not soon be forgotten.


By WafricNews Politics Desk