Stephen Breyer, a U. S. Supreme Court Justice since 1994, divides the history of administrative law in the United States into six discrete periods, according to his book, Administrative Law & Regulatory Policy ( 3d Ed., 1992 ):

United States Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has a vacation home on Nevis.

Justice Breyer, who dissented, wrote in his most recent book that if he could change three of his dissenting opinions ( while on the Supreme Court ) into a majority, this would be one of them.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O ' Connor wrote the majority opinion ; they were joined by David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, and opposed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia.

Justice Breyer argued in his dissent that it is highly unlikely any artist will be more inclined to produce work knowing their great-grandchildren will receive royalties.

In 2011, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer ( who worked with Senator Kennedy on airline deregulation in the 1970s ) wrote:

* Seven justices ( the five Justice majority plus Breyer and Souter ) agreed that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties.

Justice Stevens ' dissent ( joined by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg ) concluded as follows: The per curiam opinion in Bush v. Gore did not technically dismiss the case, and instead " remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O ' Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

For example, past invitees include Justice Stephen Breyer and law professor Alan Dershowitz, two legal authorities who disagree with many of the Society's views.

Justice Stevens wrote a dissent in which Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined.

Some 149 sitting United States federal judges are Harvard Law School graduates ; six of the nine sitting justices of the Supreme Court of the United States attended the law school ( Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and Elena Kagan ).

Six of the current nine members of the court attended HLS: Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, who also served as the Dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009.

Eagle Scouts can be found in prominent public offices, as recipients include 38th President of the United States Gerald R. Ford, 22nd U. S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, 13th and 21st U. S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Associate Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court Stephen Breyer.

Prominent NFL alumni include Senators Russ Feingold, Richard Lugar and William Frist, media visionary Ted Turner, Academy Award winners Patricia Neal and Don Ameche, Emmy award winners Kelsey Grammer and Shelley Long, television host Oprah Winfrey, news anchors Jane Pauley and the late David Bloom, C-SPAN founder Brian Lamb, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, Federal National Mortgage CEO Franklin Delano Raines, actors Brad Pitt and Zac Efron, and musician David Cook.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion which Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer joined.

The court's 5-4 decision was written by Justice Kennedy and joined by Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Souter, and cited international law, child developmental science, and many other factors in reaching its conclusion.

* It could be argued ( as, for example, Justice Breyer has ) that constitutions are meant to endure over time, and in order to do so, their interpretation must therefore be more flexible and responsive to changing circumstances than the amendment process.

" The Uneasy Case for Copyright: A Study of Copyright in Books, Photocopies, and Computer Programs " was an article in the Harvard Law Review by future United States Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in 1970, while he was still a legal academic.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, in particular, has adopted Meiklejohn's interpretation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In Jeremiah Nixon v. Shrink Misouri et al., 528 U. S. 377 ( 2000 ), at 401, Justice Breyer ( joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ) wrote a concurring opinion in support of such regulation.

Justice Souter, however, joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, argued that enacting VAWA was well within congressional power under the Commerce Clause, and stated that the majority was reviving an old and discredited interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, argued that it was primarily the responsibility of Congress, and not the courts, to put limits on Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.

Sensing danger to Boyd's broad definition of individual rights, Justice McKenna dissented in Wilson, declaring that Hughes's distinction between personal and corporate papers was " a limitation by construction " on an important " constitutional security for personal liberty.

Chief Justice Holt dissented in this case, because he believed that the commitment had not in fact been by a legal authority.

Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, dissented, accepting the Act's stated purpose of " protecting academic freedom " as a sincere and legitimate secular purpose.

In Abrams, Holmes and Justice Brandeis dissented and encouraged the use of the clear and present test, which provided more protection for speech .< ref > Killian, p. 1094. Rabban, p 346 .</ br > Redish, p 102 .</ ref > In 1925's Gitlow v. New York, the Court extended the First Amendment to the states, and upheld the conviction of Gitlow for publishing the " Left Wing Manifesto ".

Yet both Justice Black and Justice Douglas dissented from the Supreme Court's 1957 decision in United States v. United Auto Workers, 352 U. S. 567 ( 1957 ), in which the Court, on procedural grounds, overruled a lower court decision striking down the prohibition on corporate and union political expenditures:

Justice O ' Connor also dissented, arguing that " the regulation of the age of the purchasers of liquor, just as the regulation of the price at which liquor may be sold, falls squarely within the scope of those powers reserved to the States by the Twenty-first Amendment.

In a 4 to 1 decision, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, with Chief Justice John Jay and Associate Justices John Blair, James Wilson, and William Cushing constituting the majority ; only Justice Iredell dissented.

Justice Samuel F. Miller dissented, but only because he believed the respondent was not entitled to the property under the acts passed by Congress and the President's pardons.

Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented.

The Court's decision was nearly unanimous ; only Justice Harlan F. Stone dissented.

Justice Hugo Black dissented.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas, dissented, arguing that the University's " plus " system was, in fact, a thinly veiled and unconstitutional quota system.

Justice Kennedy also dissented separately, arguing that the Court failed to apply, in fact, strict scrutiny as required by Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke.

Both Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas also dissented separately.

Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas dissented.

Frankfurter, joined by Justice John Marshall Harlan II, dissented vigorously and at length, arguing that the Court had cast aside history and judicial restraint, and violated the separation of powers between legislatures and Courts.

Finally, Justice Black cited Areopagitica when, in Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, he dissented from the Court's upholding of restrictions on the Communist Party of the United States against a free speech and free association challenge.

" Justice Blackmun, joined by Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens, dissented, citing that " his case is no more about a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy ," as the Court purports to declare, ante at 191, that Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557 ( 1969 ), was about a fundamental right to watch obscene movies, or Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 ( 1967 ), was about a fundamental right to place interstate bets from a telephone booth.