Source: https://thcscience.wiki/colab/term/cannabaceae/cannabis/cannabis-sativa/?rdp_we_resource=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHugo_Black
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 16:20:04+00:00

Document:
The fifth longest-serving justice in Supreme Court history, Black was one of the most influential Supreme Court justices in the 20th century. He is noted for his advocacy of a textualist reading of the United States Constitution and of the position that the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights were imposed on the states (“incorporated”) by the Fourteenth Amendment. During his political career, Black was regarded as a staunch supporter of liberal policies and civil liberties.
However, Black wrote the majority opinion in Korematsu v. United States (1944), during World War II, which upheld the Japanese-American internment that had taken place. Black also consistently opposed the doctrine of substantive due process (the anti-New Deal Supreme Court’s interpretation of this concept made it impossible for the government to enact legislation that interfered with the freedom of business owners) and believed that there was no basis in the words of the Constitution for a right to privacy, voting against finding one in Griswold v. Connecticut.
In the early 1920’s, Black became a member of the Robert E. Lee Klan No. 1 in Birmingham, before resigning in 1925. In 1937, after his confirmation to the supreme court, it was reported he had been given a “grand passport” in 1926, granting him life membership to the Ku Kluk Klan.
Senator Black gained a reputation as a tenacious investigator. In 1934, he chaired the committee that looked into the contracts awarded to air mail carriers under Postmaster General Walter Folger Brown, an inquiry which led to the Air Mail scandal. In order to correct what he termed abuses of “fraud and collusion” resulting from the Air Mail Act of 1930, he introduced the Black-McKellar Bill, later the Air Mail Act of 1934. The following year he participated in a Senate committee’s investigation of lobbying practices. He publicly denounced the “highpowered, deceptive, telegram-fixing, letterframing, Washington-visiting” lobbyists, and advocated legislation requiring them to publicly register their names and salaries.
In 1935, during the Great Depression, Black became chairman of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, a position he would hold for the remainder of his Senate career. In 1937 he sponsored the Black-Connery Bill, which sought to establish a national minimum wage and a maximum workweek of thirty hours. Although the bill was initially rejected in the House of Representatives, an amended version of it, which extended Black’s original maximum workweek proposal to forty-four hours, was passed in 1938 (after Black left the Senate), becoming known as the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Black was an ardent supporter of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal. In particular, he was an outspoken advocate of the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, popularly known as the court-packing bill, FDR’s unsuccessful plan to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court in his favor.
Soon after the failure of the court-packing plan, President Roosevelt obtained his first opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice when conservative Willis Van Devanter retired. Roosevelt wanted the replacement to be a “thumping, evangelical New Dealer” who was reasonably young, confirmable by the Senate, and from a region of the country unrepresented on the Court. The three final candidates were Solicitor General Stanley Reed, Sherman Minton, and Hugo Black. Roosevelt said Reed “had no fire,” and Minton did not want the appointment at the time. The position would go to Black, a candidate from the South, who, as a senator, had voted for all 24 of Roosevelt’s major New Deal programs. Roosevelt admired Black’s use of the investigative role of the Senate to shape the American mind on reforms, his strong voting record, and his early support, which dated back to 1933. Both Reed and Minton were later appointed to the Supreme Court; Reed was the next Justice appointed by Roosevelt, while Minton was appointed by Harry Truman in 1949.
The Judiciary Committee recommended Black’s confirmation by a vote of 13–4 on August 16 of that year. The next day the full Senate considered Black’s nomination. Rumors relating to Black’s involvement in the Ku Klux Klan surfaced among the senators, and two Democratic senators tried defeating the nomination. However, no conclusive evidence of Black’s involvement was available at the time, so after six hours of debate, the Senate voted 63–16 to confirm Black. Ten Republicans and six Democrats voted against Black.
Alabama Governor Bibb Graves appointed his own wife, Dixie B. Graves, to fill Black’s vacated seat. On Black’s first day on the bench, three lawyers contested Black’s appointment on the basis of the Ineligibility Clause. The Court dismissed this concern in the same year in Ex parte Levitt.
As soon as Black started on the Court, he advocated judicial restraint and worked to move the Court away from interposing itself in social and economic matters. Black vigorously defended the “plain meaning” of the Constitution, rooted in the ideas of its era, and emphasized the supremacy of the legislature; for Black, the role of the Supreme Court was limited and constitutionally prescribed.
During his early years on the Supreme Court, Black helped reverse several earlier court decisions taking a narrow interpretation of federal power. Many New Deal laws that would have been struck down under earlier precedents were thus upheld. In 1939 Black was joined on the Supreme Court by Felix Frankfurter and William O. Douglas. Douglas voted alongside Black in several cases, especially those involving the First Amendment, while Frankfurter soon became one of Black’s ideological foes. From 1946 until 1971, Black was the Senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
In the mid-1940s, Justice Black became involved in a bitter dispute with Justice Robert H. Jackson as a result of Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. v. Local 6167, United Mine Workers (1945). In this case the Court ruled 5–4 in favor of the UMW; Black voted with the majority, while Jackson dissented. However, the coal company requested the Court rehear the case on the grounds that Justice Black should have recused himself, as the mine workers were represented by Black’s law partner of 20 years earlier. Under the Supreme Court’s rules, each Justice was entitled to determine the propriety of disqualifying himself. Jackson agreed that the petition for rehearing should be denied, but refused to give approval to Black’s participation in the case. Ultimately, when the Court unanimously denied the petition for rehearing, Justice Jackson released a short statement, in which Justice Frankfurter joined. The concurrence indicated that Jackson voted to deny the petition not because he approved of Black’s participation in the case, but on the “limited grounds” that each Justice was entitled to determine for himself the propriety of recusal. At first the case attracted little public comment. However, after Chief Justice Harlan Stone died in 1946, rumors that President Harry S. Truman would appoint Jackson as Stone’s successor led several newspapers to investigate and report the Jewell Ridge controversy. Black and Douglas allegedly leaked to newspapers that they would resign if Jackson were appointed Chief. Truman ultimately chose Fred M. Vinson for the position.
In 1948, Justice Black approved an order solicited by Abe Fortas that barred a federal district court in Texas from further investigation of significant voter fraud and irregularities in the 1948 Democratic primary election for United States Senator from Texas. The order effectively confirmed future President Lyndon Johnson‘s apparent victory over former Texas Governor Coke Stevenson.
Black’s most prominent ideological opponent on the Warren Court was John Marshall Harlan II, who replaced Justice Jackson in 1955. They disagreed on several issues, including the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the states, the scope of the due process clause, and the one man, one vote principle.
Black’s jurisprudence is among the most distinctive of any members of the Supreme Court in history and has been influential on justices as diverse as Earl Warren, William Rehnquist, and Antonin Scalia.
Second, Black’s commitment to literalism involved using the words of the Constitution to restrict the roles of the judiciary—Black would have justices validate the supremacy of the country’s legislature, unless the legislature itself was denying people their freedoms. Black wrote: “The Constitution is not deathless; it provides for changing or repealing by the amending process, not by judges but by the people and their chosen representatives.” Black would often lecture his colleagues, liberal or conservative, on the Supreme Court about the importance of acting within the limits of the Constitution.
I cannot consider the Bill of Rights to be an outworn 18th century ‘strait jacket’ … Its provisions may be thought outdated abstractions by some. And it is true that they were designed to meet ancient evils. But they are the same kind of human evils that have emerged from century to century wherever excessive power is sought by the few at the expense of the many. In my judgment the people of no nation can lose their liberty so long as a Bill of Rights like ours survives and its basic purposes are conscientiously interpreted, enforced, and respected … I would follow what I believe was the original intention of the Fourteenth Amendment—to extend to all the people the complete protection of the Bill of Rights. To hold that this Court can determine what, if any, provisions of the Bill of Rights will be enforced, and if so to what degree, is to frustrate the great design of a written Constitution.
Black intensely believed in judicial restraint and reserved the power of making laws to the legislatures, often scolding his more liberal colleagues for what he saw as judicially created legislation. Conservative justice John M. Harlan II would say of Black: “No Justice has worn his judicial robes with a keener sense of the limitations that go with them.” Conservative Judge Robert Bork wrote, “Justice Black came to have significantly more respect for the limits of the Constitution than Justice Douglas and the other leading members of the Warren majorities ever showed.” One scholar wrote, “No Justice of the Court conscientiously and persistently endeavored, as much as Justice Black did, to establish consistent standards of objectivity for adjudicating constitutional questions.” Black advocated a narrow role of interpretation for justices, opposing a view of justices as social engineers or rewriters of the Constitution. Black opposed enlarging constitutional liberties beyond their literal or historic “plain” meaning, as he saw his more liberal colleagues do. However, he also condemned the actions of those to his right, such as the conservative Four Horsemen of the 1920s and 1930s, who struck down much of the New Deal’s legislation.
Black forged the 5–4 majority in the 1967 decision Fortson v. Morris, which cleared the path for the Georgia State Legislature to choose the governor in the deadlocked 1966 race between Democrat Lester Maddox and Republican Howard Callaway. Whereas Black voted with the majority under strict construction to uphold the state constitutional provision, his colleagues Douglas (joined by Warren, Brennan, and Fortas) and Fortas (joined by Warren and Douglas) dissented. According to Douglas, Georgia tradition would guarantee a Maddox victory though he had trailed Callaway by some three thousand votes in the general election returns. Douglas also saw the issue as a continuation of the earlier decision Gray v. Sanders, which had struck down Georgia’s County Unit System, a kind of electoral college formerly used to choose the governor. Black argued that the U.S. Constitution does not dictate how a state must choose its governor. “Our business is not to write laws to fit the day. Our task is to interpret the Constitution,” Black explained.
Black was noted for his advocacy of a textualist approach to constitutional interpretation. He took a “literal” or absolutist reading of the provisions of the Bill of Rights and believed that the text of the Constitution is absolutely determinative on any question calling for judicial interpretation, leading to his reputation as a “textualist” and as a “strict constructionist“. While the text of the constitution was an absolute limitation on the authority of judges in constitutional matters, within the confines of the text judges had a broad and unqualified mandate to enforce constitutional provisions, regardless of current public sentiment, or the feelings of the justices themselves.
I realize that many good and able men have eloquently spoken and written, sometimes in rhapsodical strains, about the duty of this Court to keep the Constitution in tune with the times. The idea is that the Constitution must be changed from time to time, and that this Court is charged with a duty to make those changes. For myself, I must, with all deference, reject that philosophy. The Constitution makers knew the need for change, and provided for it. Amendments suggested by the people’s elected representatives can be submitted to the people or their selected agents for ratification. That method of change was good for our Fathers, and, being somewhat old-fashioned, I must add it is good enough for me.
Thus, some have seen Black as an originalist. David Strauss, for example, hails him as “[t]he most influential originalist judge of the last hundred years.” Black insisted that judges rely on the intent of the Framers as well as the “plain meaning” of the Constitution’s words and phrases (drawing on the history of the period) when deciding a case.
… by providing that some of the States cannot pass state laws or adopt state constitutional amendments without first being compelled to beg federal authorities to approve their policies, so distorts our constitutional structure of government as to render any distinction drawn in the Constitution between state and federal power almost meaningless.
Black was an early supporter of the “one man, one vote” standard for apportionment set by Baker v. Carr. He had previously dissented in support of this view in Baker’s predecessor case, Colegrove v. Green.
Black also tended to favor law and order over civil rights activism. This led him to read the Civil Rights Act narrowly. For example, he dissented in a case reversing convictions of sit-in protesters, arguing to limit the scope of the Civil Rights Act. In 1968 he said, “Unfortunately there are some who think that Negroes should have special privileges under the law.” Black felt that actions like protesting, singing, or marching for “good causes” one day could lead to supporting evil causes later on; his sister-in-law explained that Black was “mortally afraid” of protesters. Black opposed the actions of some civil rights and Vietnam War protesters and believed that legislatures first, and courts second, should be responsible for alleviating social wrongs. Black once said he was “vigorously opposed to efforts to extend the First Amendment’s freedom of speech beyond speech,” to conduct.
Black’s majority opinion in McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) held that the government could not provide religious instruction in public schools. In Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), he delivered an opinion which affirmed that the states could not use religious tests as qualifications for public office. Similarly, he authored the majority opinion in Engel v. Vitale (1962), which declared it unconstitutional for states to require the recitation of official prayers in public schools.
In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. … The word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.
He rejected the idea that the government was entitled to punish “obscene” speech. Likewise, he argued that defamation laws abridged the freedom of speech and were therefore unconstitutional. Most members of the Supreme Court rejected both of these views; Black’s interpretation did attract the support of Justice Douglas.
As a Justice, Black held the view that the Court should literally enforce constitutional guarantees, especially the First Amendment free speech clause. He was often labeled an ‘activist’ because of his willingness to review legislation that arguably violated constitutional provisions. Black maintained that literalism was necessary to cabin judicial power.
Anastaplo has not indicated, even remotely, a belief that this country is an oppressive one in which the ‘right of revolution’ should be exercised. Quite the contrary, the entire course of his life, as disclosed by the record, has been one of devotion and service to his country—first, in his willingness to defend its security at the risk of his own life in time of war and, later, in his willingness to defend its freedoms at the risk of his professional career in time of peace.
Black adopted a narrower interpretation of the Fourth Amendment than many of his colleagues on the Warren Court. He dissented from Katz v. United States (1967), in which the Court held that warrantless wiretapping violated the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. He argued that the Fourth Amendment only protected tangible items from physical searches or seizures. Thus, he concluded that telephone conversations were not within the scope of the amendment, and that warrantless wiretapping was consequently permissible.
In other instances Black took a fairly broad view of the rights of criminal defendants. He joined the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which required law enforcement officers to warn suspects of their rights prior to interrogations, and consistently voted to apply the guarantees of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments at the state level.
One of the most notable aspects of Justice Black’s jurisprudence was the view that the entirety of the federal Bill of Rights was applicable to the states. Originally, the Bill of Rights was binding only upon the federal government, as the Supreme Court ruled in Barron v. Baltimore (1833). According to Black, the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, “incorporated” the Bill of Rights, or made it binding upon the states as well. In particular, he pointed to the Privileges or Immunities Clause, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” He proposed that the term “privileges or immunities” encompassed the rights mentioned in the first eight amendments to the Constitution.
Black’s theory attracted the support of Justices such as Frank Murphy and William O. Douglas. However, it never achieved the support of a majority of the Court. The most prominent opponents of Black’s theory were Justices Felix Frankfurter and John Marshall Harlan II. Frankfurter and Harlan argued that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights per se, but merely protected rights that are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” which was the standard Justice Cardozo had established earlier in Palko v. Connecticut.
The Supreme Court never accepted the argument that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the entirety of the Bill of Rights. However, it did agree that some “fundamental” guarantees were made applicable to the states. For the most part, during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, only First Amendment rights (such as free exercise of religion and freedom of speech) were deemed sufficiently fundamental by the Supreme Court to be incorporated.
However, during the 1960s, the Court under Chief Justice Warren took the process much further, making almost all guarantees of the Bill of Rights binding upon the states. Thus, although the Court failed to accept Black’s theory of total incorporation, the end result of its jurisprudence is very close to what Black advocated. Today, the only parts of the first eight amendments that have not been extended to the states are the Third and Seventh Amendments, the grand jury clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment‘s protection against excessive bail, and the guarantee of the Sixth Amendment, as interpreted, that criminal juries be composed of 12 members and be unanimous in their verdicts.
Justice Black was well known for his rejection of the doctrine of substantive due process. Most Supreme Court Justices accepted the view that the due process clause encompassed not only procedural guarantees, but also “fundamental fairness” and fundamental rights. Thus, it was argued that due process included a “substantive” component in addition to its “procedural” component.
Black’s view on due process drew from his reading of British history; to him, due process meant all persons were to be tried in accordance with the Bill of Rights’ procedural guarantees and in accordance with constitutionally pursuant laws. Black advocated equal treatment by the government for all persons, regardless of wealth, age, or race. Black’s view of due process was restrictive in the sense that it was premised on equal procedures; it did not extend to substantive due process. This was in accordance with Black’s literalist views. Black did not tie procedural due process exclusively to the Bill of Rights, but he did tie it exclusively to the Bill of Rights combined with other explicit provisions of the Constitution.
None of Black’s colleagues shared his interpretation of the due process clause. His chief rival on the issue (and on many other issues) was Felix Frankfurter, who advocated a substantive view of due process based on “natural law”—if a challenged action did not “shock the conscience” of the jurist, or violate British concepts of fairness, Frankfurter would find no violation of due process of law. John M. Harlan II largely agreed with Frankfurter, and was highly critical of Black’s view, indicating his “continued bafflement at … Black’s insistence that due process … does not embody a concept of fundamental fairness” in his Winship concurrence.
Black was one of the Supreme Court’s foremost defenders of the “one man, one vote” principle. He delivered the opinion of the court in Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), holding that the Constitution required congressional districts in any state to be approximately equal in population. He concluded that the Constitution’s command “that Representatives be chosen ‘by the People of the several States’ means that as nearly as is practicable one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s.” Likewise, he voted in favor of Reynolds v. Sims (1964), which extended the same requirement to state legislative districts on the basis of the equal protection clause.
At the same time, Black did not believe that the equal protection clause made poll taxes unconstitutional. During his first term on the Court, he participated in a unanimous decision to uphold Georgia’s poll tax in the case of Breedlove v. Suttles. Then, twenty-nine years later, he dissented from the Court’s ruling in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), invalidating the use of the poll tax as a qualification to vote, in which Breedlove was overturned. He criticized the Court for exceeding its “limited power to interpret the original meaning of the Equal Protection Clause” and for “giving that clause a new meaning which it believes represents a better governmental policy.” He also dissented from Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15 (1969), in which a majority struck down a statute that prohibited registered voters from participating in certain school district elections unless they owned or rented real property in their local school district, or were parents or guardians of children attending the public schools in the district.
Services were held at the National Cathedral, and over 1,000 persons attended. Pursuant to Justice Black’s wishes, the coffin was “simple and cheap” and was displayed at the service to show that the costs of burial are not reflective of the worth of the human whose remains were present.
His remains were interred at the Arlington National Cemetery. He is one of twelve Supreme Court justices buried at Arlington. The others are Harry Andrew Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Arthur Joseph Goldberg, Thurgood Marshall, Potter Stewart, William O. Douglas, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Chief Justice William Howard Taft, Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chief Justice Warren Burger, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Justice Black is buried to the right of the main cemetery entrance, and up a hill, 200 yards behind the Taft monument. Black’s headstone is “identical in size and shape to the tens of thousands of military headstones in Arlington.” It says simply, “Hugo Lafayette Black, Captain, U. S. Army”.
Roosevelt denied knowledge of Black’s KKK membership.
Black was one of the nine justices of the Supreme Court who in 1955 ruled unanimously in Brown v. Board of Education that segregation in public schools is unconstitutional. The plaintiffs were represented by Thurgood Marshall. A decade later, on October 2, 1967 Marshall became the first African American to be appointed to the Supreme Court, and served with Black on the Court until Black’s retirement on September 17, 1971.
An extensive collection of Black’s personal, senatorial, and judicial papers is archived at the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, where it is open for research.
Black served on the Supreme Court for thirty-four years, making him the fifth longest-serving Justice in Supreme Court history. He was the senior (longest serving) justice on the court for an unprecedented twenty-five years, from the death of Chief Justice Stone on April 22, 1946 to his own retirement on September 17, 1971. As the longest-serving associate justice, he was acting Chief Justice on two occasions: from Stone’s death until Vinson took office on June 24, 1946; and from Vinson’s death on September 8, 1953 until Warren took office on October 5, 1953. There was no interregnum between the Warren and Burger courts in 1969.
^ “Federal Judicial Center: Hugo Black”. 2009-12-12. Archived from the original on May 13, 2009. Retrieved 2009-12-12.
^ “List of Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court”. Archived from the original on 2013-10-12. Retrieved 2008-04-29.
^ “The Digs: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette : Photo”. pgdigs.tumblr.com. Retrieved 2017-07-07.
^ “I QUIT KLAN: BLACK’S DEFENSE (October 2, 1937)”. Retrieved 2017-07-07.
^ “Redirecting…” heinonline.org. Retrieved 2019-04-20.
^ “Carr, Adam. “Direct Elections to the United States Senate 1914–98”.
^ “U.S. Senate: Lobbyists”. www.senate.gov.
^ a b c “U.S. Department of Labor—History—Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938:”. Dol.gov. Retrieved 2019-03-21.
^ “Foes Seek to Block Mob Law,”, The Evening Independent(St. Petersburg: Nov. 15, 1937) at p. 22. Retrieved March 22, 2014.
^ Baker,“What Reconstruction Meant: Historical Memory in the American South,” at p. 99 (University of Virginia Press: 2007). Retrieved March 22, 2014.
^ Hamm, Andrew (9 October 2018). “A look back at Justice Hugo Black’s first day on the bench – SCOTUSblog”. SCOTUSblog.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions”. Findlaw.
^ “Engel v. Vitale”. Tourolaw.edu. Retrieved 2008-09-06.
^ a b “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions”. Findlaw.
^ Strauss, “The Death of Judicial Conservatism,” 4 Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol’y 1, 4 (2009).
^ “In re George ANASTAPLO, Petitioner”. Open Jurist.
^ “The Fourteenth Amendment and the Incorporation Debate”. Law.umkc.edu. Archived from the original on 2008-10-19. Retrieved 2008-09-06.
^ “The Supreme Court Under Earl Warren, 1953–1969”. Bsos.umd.edu. Archived from the original on 2009-08-12. Retrieved 2008-09-06.
^ “BRI”. Billofrightsinstitute.org. Archived from the original on 2008-08-03. Retrieved 2008-09-06.
^ “Due Process of Law—Substantive Due Process, Procedural Due Process, Further Readings”. Law.jrank.org. Retrieved 2008-09-06.
^ “Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937)”.
^ “Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 15, 395 U.S. 621 (1969)”.
^ Black had signed an undated letter of resignation on August 26, the day before his August 27 admission to Bethesda. The letter was delivered to President Nixon by Black’s messenger on September 17; Bob Woodward; Scott Armstrong (1981). The Brethren: inside the Supreme Court. Avon Books. pp. 183–184. ISBN 978-0-380-52183-8.
^ Pesaresi, Josephine Black “Simple and Cheap” My Father Said, Monday, 26 November 2007 Archived 2 April 2010 at the Wayback Machine Funeral Consumers Alliance.
^ Christensen, George A. (1983), “Here Lies the Supreme Court: Gravesites of the Justices”. Archived from the original on September 3, 2005. Retrieved 2013-11-24. , Yearbook, Supreme Court Historical Society.
^ “The Digs: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette : Photo”. pgdigs.tumblr.com. Retrieved 2016-11-08.
^ “FDR Press Conference #398” (PDF). September 14, 1937. Retrieved November 8, 2016 – via FDR Presidential Library & Museum.
^ “HD Stock Video Footage – Justice Hugo Black admits his membership in Ku Klux Klan in an address to the nation through radio in Washington D.C.” www.criticalpast.com. Retrieved 2016-11-08.
^ “The Supreme Court . Transcript | PBS”. www.pbs.org. Retrieved 2016-11-08.
^ See “Harvard Jew Appointed by Hugo Black To Be Law Clerk,” The Harvard Crimson(October 5, 1937). Retrieved 22 March 2014.
^ “Time Magazine cover, Hugo L. Black, United States Senator”. Time Magazine. August 26, 1935. Retrieved August 27, 2011.
^ “Time Magazine cover, Hugo L. Black, United States Justice”. Time Magazine. October 9, 1964. Retrieved August 27, 2011.
Atkins, Burton M.; Sloope, Terry (1986). “The ‘New’ Hugo Black and the Warren Court”. Polity. 18 (4): 621–637. JSTOR 3234885. Argues that in the 1960s Black moved to the right on cases involving civil liberties, civil rights, and economic liberalism.
Ball, Howard; Cooper, Phillip (1994). “Fighting Justices: Hugo L. Black and William O. Douglas and Supreme Court Conflict”. American Journal of Legal History. 38 (1): 1–37. JSTOR 845321.
Ball, Howard. (1992). Of Power and Right : Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, and America’s Constitutional Revolution. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-504612-0; ISBN 0-19-504612-9.
Ball, Howard and Phillip J. Cooper. (1992) . Of Power and Right: Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, and America’s Constitutional Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hockett, Jeffrey D. (1992). “Justices Frankfurter and Black: Social Theory and Constitutional Interpretation”. Political Science Quarterly. 107 (3): 479–499. JSTOR 2152441.
Yarbrough, Tinsley E. (1971). “Mr. Justice Black and Legal Positivism”. Virginia Law Review. 57 (3): 375–407. JSTOR 1072096.
United States Congress. “Hugo Black (id: B000499)”. Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
Goldman, Jeremy. “Hugo L. Black.” Oyez Project.
Pesaresi, Josephine Black. “”Simple and Cheap” My Father Said”—preparations for her father’s funeral.
Reich, Charles A. (2010). “A Passion for Justice” (PDF). Touro Law Review. 26: 393–431.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.