Cardozo, Benjamin (Nathan)

Benjamin Cardozo.

(credit: Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.)

(born May 24, 1870, New York, N.Y., U.S.—died July 9, 1938, Port Chester) U.S. jurist. Born into a distinguished Jewish family, he was admitted to the New York bar in 1891 and became a successful courtroom lawyer. Elected to the state Supreme Court as a reform candidate (1913), he was quickly promoted to the Court of Appeals. During his tenure many thought the quality of the appellate bench exceeded that of the U.S. Supreme Court. He influenced the trend in U.S. appellate judging toward greater involvement in public policy and consequent modernization of legal principles. He was both a creative common-law judge and a notable legal essayist. Appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1932, he usually voted with liberals Louis Brandeis and Harlan Fiske Stone. He wrote the majority opinion upholding the constitutionality of the Social Security Act (1937). In a 1937 case on double jeopardy, he held that the states were not required to implement all the provisions of the Bill of Rights, a position that became known as “selective incorporation.” He served on the Supreme Court until 1938. The law school at Yeshiva University is named for him.

Cardozo, Benjamin (Nathan) (1870–1938) Supreme Court justice; born in New York City. After attending Columbia Law School (although he never bothered taking a law degree), he began to practice in 1891 and was highly regarded among the legal community when he was elected to the New York Supreme Court (1913). Only six weeks later he was named to the New York Court of Appeals, becoming its chief judge in 1926. His genius at combining a mastery of the law with a philosophic bent was apparent not only in his legal opinions but also in a series of books such as The Nature of the Judicial Process (1921) and Law and Literature (1931). By the time President Hoover appointed him to the U.S. Supreme Court (1932–38) he was one of the most admired legal minds in the nation. Broad in his approach to the law, generous in his interpretation of the Constitution, and sensitive to social contexts, he was often in dissent as the Court resisted the sweeping agenda of President Franklin Roosevelt's administration. Seemingly shy, even humble in his manner, he would go down in history as one of the truly great individuals to have served on the Supreme Court.