at the
White House in 1986, as his wife, Natalie, holds a Bible, President
Ronald Reagan and Justice
Antonin Scalia look on
Nomination and confirmation as chief justice When Burger retired in 1986, President
Ronald Reagan nominated Rehnquist for chief justice. Although Rehnquist was far more conservative than Burger, "his colleagues were unanimously pleased and supportive", even his "ideological opposites". During the hearing, Senator
Ted Kennedy challenged Rehnquist on his unwitting ownership of property that had a
restrictive covenant against sale to Jews (such covenants were held to be unenforceable under the 1948 Supreme Court case
Shelley v. Kraemer). Along with senators
Joe Biden and
Howard Metzenbaum, Kennedy called Rehnquist "insensitive to minorities and women's rights while on the court." Rehnquist also drew criticism for his membership in the Washington, D.C.
Alfalfa Club, which at the time did not allow women to join. On August 14, the Judiciary Committee voted 13–5 to report the nomination to the Senate with a favorable recommendation. He took office on September 26, becoming the first person since
Harlan F. Stone to serve as both an associate justice and chief justice. Rehnquist's associate justice successor,
Antonin Scalia, was sworn into office that same day. Rehnquist ruled for the plaintiffs in a number of motions, allowing the case to go to the jury. When the jury found for the plaintiffs and awarded damages, the defendants appealed. The appeal was argued before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 4, 1986–16 days before Rehnquist was nominated as chief justice. Forty-three days after Rehnquist was sworn in as chief justice, the Fourth Circuit reversed the judgment, overruling Rehnquist, and concluding that there was insufficient evidence to have sent the matter to the jury.
Tenure as chief justice Presidential oaths administered In his capacity as chief justice, Rehnquist administered the
Oath of Office to the following presidents of the United States: •
George H. W. Bush in 1989 •
Bill Clinton in 1993 and 1997 •
George W. Bush in 2001 and 2005
Leadership of the Court Rehnquist tightened up the justices' conferences, keeping justices from going too long or off track and not allowing any justice to speak twice until each had spoken once, and gained a reputation for scrupulous fairness in assigning opinions: Rehnquist assigned no justice (including himself) two opinions before everyone had been assigned one, and made no attempts to interfere with assignments for cases in which he was in the minority. Most significantly, he successfully lobbied Congress in 1988 to give the Court control of its own docket, cutting back on mandatory appeals and certiorari grants in general. Rehnquist added four yellow stripes to the sleeves of his robe in 1995. A lifelong fan of
Gilbert and Sullivan operas, he liked the
Lord Chancellor's costume in a community theater production of
Iolanthe, and thereafter appeared in court with the same striped sleeves. His successor, Chief Justice
John Roberts, chose not to continue the practice.
Federalism doctrine Scholars expected Rehnquist to push the Supreme Court in a more conservative direction during his tenure. Many commentators expected to see the federal government's power limited and state governments' power increased. However, legal reporter Jan Crawford has said that some of Rehnquist's victories toward the federalist goal of scaling back congressional power over the states had little practical impact. Rehnquist voted with the majority in
City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), and referred to that decision as precedent for requiring Congress to defer to the Court when interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment (including the Equal Protection Clause) in a number of cases.
Boerne held that any statute that Congress enacted to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment (including the Equal Protection Clause) had to show "a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end". The Rehnquist Court's congruence and proportionality theory replaced the "ratchet" theory that had arguably been advanced in
Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966). According to the ratchet theory, Congress could "ratchet up" civil rights beyond what the Court had recognized, but Congress could not "ratchet down" judicially recognized rights. According to the majority opinion of Justice
Anthony Kennedy, which Rehnquist joined in
Boerne: The Rehnquist Court's congruence and proportionality standard made it easier to revive older precedents preventing Congress from going too far in enforcing equal protection of the laws. One of the Rehnquist Court's major developments involved reinforcing and extending the doctrine of
sovereign immunity, which limits the ability of Congress to subject non-consenting states to lawsuits by individual citizens seeking money damages. In both
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (2000) and
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett (2001), the Court held that Congress had exceeded its power to enforce the Equal Protection Clause. In both cases, Rehnquist was in the majority that held discrimination by states based upon age or disability (as opposed to race or gender) need satisfy only
rational basis review as opposed to
strict scrutiny. Though the
Eleventh Amendment by its terms applies only to suits against a state by citizens of another state, the Rehnquist Court often extended this principle to suits by citizens against their own states. One such case was
Alden v. Maine (1999), in which the Court held that the authority to subject states to private suits does not follow from any of the express enumerated powers in Article I of the Constitution, and therefore looked to the
Necessary and Proper Clause to see whether it authorized Congress to subject the states to lawsuits by the state's own citizens. Rehnquist agreed with Kennedy's statement that such lawsuits were not "necessary and proper": Rehnquist also led the Court toward a more limited view of Congressional power under the
Commerce Clause. For example, he wrote for a 5-to-4 majority in
United States v. Lopez, , striking down a federal law as exceeding congressional power under the Clause.
Lopez was followed by
United States v. Morrison, , in which Rehnquist wrote the Court's opinion striking down the civil damages portion of the
Violence Against Women Act of 1994 as regulating conduct that has no significant direct effect on interstate commerce. Rehnquist's majority opinion in
Morrison also rejected an
Equal Protection argument on the Act's behalf. All four dissenters disagreed with the Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause, and two dissenters, Stevens and Breyer, also took issue with the Court's Equal Protection analysis.
David Souter asserted that the Court was improperly seeking to convert the judiciary into a "shield against the commerce power". Rehnquist's majority opinion in
Morrison cited precedents limiting the Equal Protection Clause's scope, such as
United States v. Cruikshank (1876), which held that the Fourteenth Amendment applied only to state actions, not private acts of violence. Breyer, joined by Stevens, agreed with the majority that it "is certainly so" that Congress may not "use the Fourteenth Amendment as a source of power to remedy the conduct of private persons", but took issue with another aspect of the
Morrison Court's Equal Protection analysis, arguing that cases that the majority had cited (including
United States v. Harris and the
Civil Rights Cases, regarding lynching and segregation, respectively) did not consider "this kind of claim" in which state actors "failed to provide adequate (or any) state remedies". In response, the
Morrison majority asserted that the Violence Against Women Act was "directed not at any State or state actor, but at individuals who have committed criminal acts motivated by gender bias". The federalist trend
Lopez and
Morrison set was seemingly halted by
Gonzales v. Raich (2005), in which the Court broadly interpreted the Commerce Clause to allow Congress to prohibit the intrastate cultivation of
medicinal cannabis. Rehnquist, O'Connor and Justice
Clarence Thomas dissented in
Raich. Rehnquist authored the majority opinion in
South Dakota v. Dole (1987), upholding Congress's reduction of funds to states not complying with the national 21-year-old drinking age. Rehnquist's broad reading of Congress's spending power was also seen as a major limitation on the Rehnquist Court's push to redistribute power from the federal government to the states. According to law professor
Erwin Chemerinsky, Rehnquist presided over a "federalist revolution" as chief justice, but
Cato Institute scholar
Roger Pilon has said that "[t]he Rehnquist court has revived the doctrine of federalism, albeit only at the edges and in very easy cases."
Stare decisis Some commentators expected the Rehnquist Court to overrule several controversial decisions broadly interpreting the Bill of Rights. The Court decided another abortion case, this time dealing with
partial birth abortion, in
Stenberg v. Carhart (2000). Again, the vote was 5–4, and again Rehnquist dissented, urging that
stare decisis not be the sole consideration: "I did not join the joint opinion in
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), and continue to believe that case is wrongly decided."
LGBT rights In a 1977 dissent in the case of Ratchford v. Gay Lib, Rehnquist gave weight to the
pseudoscientific notion that homosexuality is contagious. Rehnquist joined the majority opinion in
Bowers v. Hardwick upholding the outlawing of gay sex acts as constitutional, and did not join Chief Justice Burger's concurrence. In
Romer v. Evans (1996), Colorado adopted an amendment to the state constitution that would have prevented any municipality within the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action to protect citizens from discrimination on the basis of their
sexual orientation. Rehnquist joined Scalia's dissent, which argued that since the Constitution says nothing about this subject, "it is left to be resolved by normal democratic means". The dissent argued as follows (some punctuation omitted): The dissent mentioned the Court's then-existing precedent in
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), that "the Constitution does not prohibit what virtually all States had done from the founding of the Republic until very recent years—making homosexual conduct a crime." By analogy, the
Romer dissent reasoned that: The dissent listed murder,
polygamy, and cruelty to animals as behaviors that the Constitution allows states to be very hostile toward, and said, "the degree of hostility reflected by Amendment 2 is the smallest conceivable." It added: In
Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court overruled
Bowers. Rehnquist again dissented, along with Scalia and Thomas. The Court's result in
Romer had described the struck-down statute as "a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which we could discern a relationship to legitimate state interests". The sentiment behind that statute had led the Court to evaluate it with a "more searching" form of review. Similarly, in
Lawrence, "moral disapproval" was found to be an unconstitutional basis for condemning a group of people. to allow same-sex
sexual harassment claims to be adjudicated, and to allow the
University of Wisconsin–Madison to require students to pay a mandatory fee that subsidized gay groups along with other student organizations. Because of his votes in gay rights cases,
ACT UP included Rehnquist alongside
Ronald Reagan,
George H. W. Bush,
Jerry Falwell, and
Jesse Helms in a series of posters denouncing what it regarded as leading figures in the anti-gay movement in America.
Civil Rights Act In
Alexander v. Sandoval (2001), which involved the issue of whether a citizen could sue a state for not providing
driver's license exams in languages other than English, Rehnquist voted with the majority in denying a private right to sue for discrimination based on race or national origin involving disparate impact under Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Sandoval cited
Cannon v. University of Chicago (1979) as precedent. The Court ruled 5–4 that various facts (regarding disparate impact) mentioned in a footnote of
Cannon were not part of the holding of
Cannon. The majority also viewed it as significant that §602 of Title VI did not repeat the rights-creating language (race, color, or national origin) in §601.
Religion clauses In 1992, Rehnquist joined a dissenting opinion in
Lee v. Weisman arguing that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment only forbids government from preferring one particular religion over another. Souter wrote a separate concurrence specifically addressed to Rehnquist on this issue. Burger was 1.8 times more likely to vote in favor of the First Amendment; Scalia, 1.6 times; Thomas, 1.5 times. but declined to join the majority opinion's basis for using the
Fourteenth Amendment, writing: This rationale supported facilities separated on the basis of gender: Rehnquist remained skeptical about the Court's Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence; some of his opinions most favorable to equality resulted from statutory rather than constitutional interpretation. For example, in
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), Rehnquist established a hostile-environment sexual harassment cause of action under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, including protection against psychological aspects of harassment in the workplace.
Bush v. Gore In 2000, Rehnquist wrote a concurring opinion in
Bush v. Gore, the case that ended the
presidential election controversy in Florida, agreeing with four other justices that the
Equal Protection Clause barred the "standardless" manual recount ordered by the
Florida Supreme Court.
Presiding officer of the Clinton impeachment trial In 1999, Rehnquist became the second chief justice (after
Salmon P. Chase) to preside over a presidential
impeachment trial, during the proceedings against President
Bill Clinton. He was a generally passive presiding officer, once commenting on his stint as presiding officer, "I did nothing in particular, and I did it very well." In 1992, Rehnquist wrote
Grand Inquests, a book analyzing both
the impeachment of
Andrew Johnson and
the impeachment of
Samuel Chase. ==Legacy==