Content deleted Content added
m →Other issues: HTTP to HTTPS for Cornell University |
|||
Line 1:
{{Short description|US Supreme Court justice from 1988 to 2018}}
{{About|the associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court|the 19th-century United States senator|Anthony Kennedy (Maryland politician)}}
{{redirect|Justice Kennedy}}
{{Update|part=post Supreme Court tenure|date=February 2025}}
{{Use American English|date=March 2022}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=June 2018}}
{{Infobox officeholder
| name = Anthony Kennedy
| image = Anthony Kennedy official SCOTUS portrait.jpg
| caption = Official portrait, {{c.|2005}}
| office = [[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States]]
| nominator = [[Ronald Reagan]]
| term_start = February 18, 1988
| term_end = July 31, 2018
| predecessor = [[Lewis F. Powell Jr.]]
| successor = [[Brett Kavanaugh]]
| office1 = Judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]]
| nominator1 = [[Gerald Ford]]
| term_start1 = March 24, 1975
| term_end1 = February 18, 1988
| predecessor1 = [[Charles Merton Merrill]]
| successor1 = [[Pamela Ann Rymer]]
| birth_name = Anthony McLeod Kennedy
| birth_date = {{Birth date and age|1936|07|23}}
| birth_place = {{nowrap|[[Sacramento, California]], U.S.}}
| death_date =
| death_place =
| spouse = {{marriage|Mary Davis|1963}}
| children = 3
| education = {{ubli|[[Stanford University]] ([[Bachelor of Arts|BA]])|[[London School of Economics]]|[[Harvard University]] ([[Bachelor of Laws|LLB]])}}
| signature = Anthony Kennedy signature.svg
| signature_alt = Cursive signature in ink
| allegiance = United States
| branch = [[United States Army]]
| rank = [[Private first class#United States Army|Private first class]]
| serviceyears = 1961–1962
| unit = [[California Army National Guard]]
| module = {{Listen|pos=center|embed=yes|filename=Anthony Kennedy delivers the opinion of the Court in House v. Bell.ogg|title=Anthony Kennedy's voice|type=speech|description=Anthony Kennedy delivers the opinion of the Court in ''[[House v. Bell]]''<br />Recorded June 12, 2006}}
| awards = [[Henry J. Friendly Medal]] (2019)
}}
'''Anthony McLeod Kennedy''' (born July 23, 1936) is an American attorney and jurist who served as an [[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|associate justice]] of the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] from 1988 until his retirement in 2018. He was nominated to the court in 1987 by President [[Ronald Reagan]], and sworn in on February 18, 1988. After the retirement of [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] in 2006, he was considered the [[swing vote]] on many of the [[Roberts Court]]'s 5–4 decisions.
Born in [[Sacramento, California]], Kennedy took over his father's legal practice in Sacramento after graduating from [[Stanford University]] and [[Harvard Law School]]. Kennedy became a U.S. federal judge in 1975 when President [[Gerald Ford]] appointed him to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]]. In November 1987, after [[Ronald Reagan Supreme Court candidates|two failed attempts]] at nominating a successor to Associate Justice [[Lewis F. Powell Jr.]], President Reagan nominated Kennedy to the Supreme Court. Kennedy won unanimous confirmation from the [[United States Senate]] in February 1988. Following the death of [[Antonin Scalia]] in February 2016, Kennedy became the senior associate justice of the court; he remained the senior associate justice until his July 2018 retirement. Kennedy retired during the presidency of [[Donald Trump]] and was succeeded by his former law clerk, [[Brett Kavanaugh]]. Following O'Connor's death in 2023, Kennedy is the oldest living former Supreme Court justice as well as the oldest living member of the [[Rehnquist Court]].
Kennedy authored the majority opinion in several important cases—including ''[[Boumediene v. Bush]]'', ''[[Citizens United v. FEC]]'', and four major [[LGBT rights in the United States|gay rights]] cases: ''[[Romer v. Evans]]'', ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'', ''[[United States v. Windsor]]'', and ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''. He also co-authored the controlling opinion in ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'' along with Justices [[Sandra Day O'Connor|Sandra Day O’Connor]] and [[David Souter]].
== Early life and education ==
Kennedy was born and raised in a Catholic family in [[Sacramento, California]].<ref>{{cite book|author=William E. Watson and Eugene J. Halus, Jr|title=Irish Americans: The History and Culture of a People|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ujm2BQAAQBAJ&pg=PA114|year=2014|publisher=ABC-CLIO|page=114|isbn=9781610694674|access-date=October 16, 2015|archive-date=May 5, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210505211353/https://books.google.com/books?id=ujm2BQAAQBAJ&pg=PA114|url-status=live}}</ref> His ancestry was mainly Irish, with some Scottish, German, and English ancestry as well.<ref>https://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~battle/celeb/anthonykennedy.htm {{Bare URL inline|date=August 2024}}</ref> He was the son of Anthony J. Kennedy (1902–1963), an attorney with a reputation for influence in the [[California State Legislature]], and Gladys (''[[née]]'' McLeod; 1904–1981), who participated in many local civic activities.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.oyez.org/justices/anthony_kennedy/ |title=Anthony M. Kennedy |work=Oyez |access-date=June 20, 2010 |archive-date=April 20, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100420035817/http://www.oyez.org/justices/anthony_kennedy |url-status=live }}</ref> As a boy, Kennedy came into contact with prominent politicians of the day, such as [[California Governor]] and future [[Chief Justice of the United States]] [[Earl Warren]]. As a young man, Kennedy served as a page in the [[California State Senate]]. Kennedy attended [[C. K. McClatchy High School]], where he was an honors student and graduated in 1954.<ref name="supreme court">{{Cite book|title=The United States Supreme Court |author=Christopher L. Tomlins|publisher=[[Houghton Mifflin]]|year=2005|url=https://archive.org/details/unitedstatessupr00toml |url-access=registration |access-date=October 21, 2008 |isbn=0618329692}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Anthony M. Kennedy Biography and Interview|website=www.achievement.org|publisher=[[American Academy of Achievement]]|url=https://www.achievement.org/achiever/anthony-m-kennedy/#interview|access-date=February 6, 2020|archive-date=April 29, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200429040003/https://achievement.org/achiever/anthony-m-kennedy/#interview|url-status=live}}</ref>
Following in his mother's footsteps, Kennedy enrolled at [[Stanford University]] where he developed an interest in constitutional law. After spending his senior year at the [[London School of Economics]], Kennedy graduated [[Phi Beta Kappa]] from Stanford in 1958 with a [[Bachelor of Arts]] degree in [[political science]].<ref name="urlLII: US Supreme Court: Justice Kennedy">{{cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/kennedy.bio.html |title=LII: US Supreme Court: Justice Kennedy |access-date=January 10, 2009| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090221123757/https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/kennedy.bio.html| archive-date= February 21, 2009 | url-status= live}}</ref> Kennedy then attended [[Harvard Law School]], graduating in 1961 with a [[Bachelor of Laws]], ''[[Latin honors#United States|cum laude]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx|title=Biographies of Current Justices of the Supreme Court|publisher=[[Supreme Court of the United States]]|access-date=January 25, 2012|archive-date=July 22, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180722030612/https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx|url-status=live}}</ref>
==
Kennedy was in private practice in San Francisco from 1961 to 1963. In 1963, following his father's death, he took over his father's Sacramento practice, which he operated until 1975.<ref name="supreme court" /> From 1965 to 1988, he was a professor of constitutional law at [[McGeorge School of Law]], at the [[University of the Pacific (United States)|University of the Pacific]].<ref name="urlLII: US Supreme Court: Justice Kennedy" />
During Kennedy's time as a California law professor and attorney, he helped California Governor [[Ronald Reagan]] draft a state tax proposal.<ref name="supreme court" />
Kennedy served as a [[private first class]] in the [[California Army National Guard]] from 1961 to 1962 during the [[Cold War]]. He was on the board of the [[Federal Judicial Center]] from 1987 to 1988. He also served on two committees of the [[Judicial Conference of the United States]]: the Advisory Panel on Financial Disclosure Reports and Judicial Activities (subsequently renamed the Advisory Committee on Codes of Conduct) from 1979 to 1987, and the Committee on Pacific Territories from 1979 to 1990, which he chaired from 1982 to 1990.<ref>{{cite web |title=Hon.Anthony M.Kennedy |url=https://worldjusticeproject.org/about-us/who-we-are/honorary-chairs/anthony-m_kennedy |website=worldjusticeproject.org |publisher=World Justice Project |access-date=12 December 2019 |archive-date=December 12, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191212223959/https://worldjusticeproject.org/about-us/who-we-are/honorary-chairs/anthony-m_kennedy |url-status=live }}</ref>
==U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit==
On March 3, 1975, upon Reagan's recommendation,<ref name="supreme court" /> [[President of the United States|President]] [[Gerald Ford]] nominated Kennedy to the seat on the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] that had been vacated by [[Charles Merton Merrill]]. Kennedy was unanimously confirmed by the [[United States Senate|U.S. Senate]] on March 20 and received his commission on March 24, 1975.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Jacobs |first1=Ben |title=Who is Anthony Kennedy? Supreme court wildcard was critical 'swing vote' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jun/27/who-is-anthony-kennedy-supreme-court-justice-retires-profile |website=theguardian.com |date=June 28, 2018 |publisher=Guardian News & Media Limited |access-date=12 December 2019 |archive-date=December 12, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191212224402/https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jun/27/who-is-anthony-kennedy-supreme-court-justice-retires-profile |url-status=live }}</ref>
==Supreme Court of the United States==
{{Conservatism US|jurists}}
===
In July 1987, President Ronald Reagan [[Robert Bork Supreme Court nomination|nominated]] [[Robert Bork]] to the Supreme Court seat vacated by [[Lewis F. Powell Jr.]], who had announced his retirement in late June.<ref name="mjptlsc">{{cite news |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=c2MaAAAAIBAJ&pg=5664%2C2115092 |newspaper=Milwaukee Journal |agency=Associated Press |title=Powell to leave Supreme Court |date=June 26, 1987 |page=1A }}{{Dead link|date=December 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> However, he was rejected 42–58 by the Senate on October 23.<ref name="blbsv">{{cite news |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sOhVAAAAIBAJ&pg=5283%2C5697645 |newspaper=Eugene Register-Guard |___location=Oregon |agency=Associated Press |title=Bork loses by 58–42 Senate vote |date=October 24, 1987 |page=1A |access-date=February 23, 2021 |archive-date=May 31, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210531001823/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sOhVAAAAIBAJ&pg=5283%2C5697645 |url-status=live }}</ref> The president's next nominee, [[Douglas Ginsburg]],<ref>Greenburg, Jan Crawford. ''Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court''. 2007. Penguin Books. Pages 53-60.</ref><ref>Greenhouse, Linda. (November 30, 1987). [https://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/30/us/washington-talk-court-politics-nursing-the-wounds-from-the-bork-fight.html "Nursing the Wounds From the Bork Fight"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180718234640/https://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/30/us/washington-talk-court-politics-nursing-the-wounds-from-the-bork-fight.html |date=July 18, 2018 }}. ''The New York Times''.</ref> withdrew his name from consideration on November 7 after admitting to [[Cannabis (drug)|marijuana]] use,<ref name="gwacnmerg">{{cite news |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QehVAAAAIBAJ&pg=5388%2C1691294 |newspaper=Eugene Register-Guard |___location=Oregon |agency=wire service reports |title=Ginsburg withdraws as court nominee |date=November 8, 1987 |page=1A |access-date=February 23, 2021 |archive-date=May 31, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210531001147/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QehVAAAAIBAJ&pg=5388%2C1691294 |url-status=live }}</ref> and [[Senate Judiciary Committee]] member [[Patrick Leahy]] said that if Reagan's next nominee was unacceptable to Senate Democrats,{{efn|Several proposed nominees were noted as unacceptable immediately following Bork's rejection, with [[Pasco Bowman II]] and [[John Clifford Wallace]]<ref name="High">Epstein, Aaron; '3 High Court Hopefuls Deemed OK'; ''[[The Miami Herald]]'', October 28, 1987, p. 16</ref> most emphatically declared unacceptable.}} they would refuse hearings for any candidate until after [[1988 United States presidential election|the 1988 presidential election]].<ref>Yalof, David Alistair; ''Pursuit of Justices: Presidential Politics and the Selection of Supreme Court Nominees'', p. 164 {{ISBN|9780226945460}}</ref>[[File:President Ronald Reagan and Anthony Kennedy.jpg|thumb|left|240px|President Reagan and Kennedy meeting in the [[Oval Office]] on November 11, 1987]]On November 11, 1987, Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy to fill Powell's seat. Kennedy was then subjected to an unprecedentedly thorough investigation of his background,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-11-11-mn-13624-story.html|title=Reagan, on 3rd Try, Picks Californian for High Court: 'Bit Wiser' After Two Defeats|agency=Associated Press|date=November 11, 1987|access-date=June 27, 2018|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|archive-date=March 31, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170331024352/http://articles.latimes.com/1987-11-11/news/mn-13624_1_supreme-court|url-status=live}}</ref> which did not uncover any information that would hinder his nomination.
In a Ninth Circuit dissent that Kennedy wrote before joining the Supreme Court, he criticized police for bribing a child into showing them where the child's mother hid drugs. Considering such conduct offensive and destructive of the family, Kennedy wrote that "indifference to personal liberty is but the precursor of the state's hostility to it."<ref>Greenburg, Jan Crawford. ''Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court''. 2007. Penguin Books. Page 55.</ref> Kennedy wrote an article the year before, however, about judicial restraint, and the following excerpt from it was read aloud by Jeffrey Levi, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Taskforce, at his confirmation hearing:
{{blockquote|One can conclude that certain essential, or fundamental, rights should exist in any just society. It does not follow that each of those essential rights is one that we as judges can enforce under the written Constitution. The Due Process Clause is not a guarantee of every right that should inhere in an ideal system. Many argue that a just society grants a right to engage in homosexual conduct. If that view is accepted, the ''Bowers'' decision in effect says the State of Georgia has the right to make a wrong decision—wrong in the sense that it violates some people's views of rights in a just society. We can extend that slightly to say that Georgia's right to be wrong in matters not specifically controlled by the Constitution is a necessary component of its own political processes. Its citizens have the political liberty to direct the governmental process to make decisions that might be wrong in the ideal sense, subject to correction in the ordinary political process.<ref>{{cite web
| author=Kennedy, Anthony
| title = Unenumerated Rights and the Dictates of Judicial Restraint.
| work=Address to the Canadian Institute for Advanced Legal Studies, Stanford University. Palo Alto, California
| url =http://www.andrewhyman.com/1986kennedyspeech.pdf
| date = July 24 – August 1, 1986
| page = 13 |archive-url = https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20070622010515/http://www.andrewhyman.com/1986kennedyspeech.pdf |archive-date = June 22, 2007}} (Also quoted at p. 443 of Kennedy's 1987 [https://web.archive.org/web/20140225213945/http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CHRG-KENNEDY/content-detail.html confirmation transcript]).</ref>}}
Kennedy said about ''[[Griswold v. Connecticut]]'', a privacy case about the use of contraceptives, "I really think I would like to draw the line and not talk about the ''Griswold'' case so far as its reasoning or its result."<ref>[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh100-1037/164-165.pdf Kennedy Confirmation Hearing, page 164.] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100611051109/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh100-1037/164-165.pdf |date=June 11, 2010 }} (1987).</ref> He also discussed "a zone of liberty, a zone of protection, a line that's drawn where the individual can tell the Government, 'Beyond this line you may not go.{{'"}}<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/15/us/the-questions-begin-who-is-anthony-kennedy.html |title=The Questions Begin: 'Who Is Anthony Kennedy?' |work=The New York Times |date=December 15, 1987 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171102213206/http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/15/us/the-questions-begin-who-is-anthony-kennedy.html |archive-date=November 2, 2017 }}</ref><ref name="greenhouse 189">{{cite book |last=Greenhouse |first=Linda |title=Becoming Justice Blackmun |publisher=Times Books |date=2005 |page=189}}</ref>
His hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee began on December 14,<ref name=ldskhtb>{{cite news |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XjwpAAAAIBAJ&pg=1381%2C2982527 |newspaper=Lewiston Daily Sun |___location=Maine |agency=(Christian Science Monitor) |title=Kennedy hearings to begin
|date=December 14, 1987 |page=3}}</ref><ref name=npmks>{{cite news |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=dIhQAAAAIBAJ&pg=5300%2C3196647 |newspaper=Milwaukee Sentinel |agency=Associated Press |title=No promises made, Kennedy says |date=December 15, 1987 |page=3, part 1 }}{{Dead link|date=November 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> and lasted just three consecutive days.<ref name=pfchfk>{{cite news |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=yXw1AAAAIBAJ&pg=6975%2C4203187 |newspaper=Eugene Register-Guard |___location=Oregon |title=Panel finishes confirmation hearings for Kennedy |date=December 17, 1987 |page=7A |access-date=February 23, 2021 |archive-date=November 8, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211108153018/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=yXw1AAAAIBAJ&pg=6975%2C4203187 |url-status=live }}</ref> When the Senate voted on Kennedy's nomination, he received bipartisan support. Maureen Hoch of PBS wrote that he "virtually sailed through the confirmation process and was widely viewed by conservatives and liberals alike as balanced and fair".<ref>{{cite news|title=Justice Anthony Kennedy: In 1988, President Reagan needed a rock-solid Supreme Court Justice nominee after two previous nomination attempts failed.|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/law/jan-june07/kennedy.html|publisher=PBS|access-date=March 23, 2012|author=Hoch, Maureen|date=March 9, 2007|archive-date=March 23, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120323201317/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/law/jan-june07/kennedy.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> The U.S. Senate confirmed him on February 3, 1988, by a vote of 97 to 0; he is the most recent Supreme Court justice to be confirmed by a unanimous vote.<ref name="greenhouse 189" /><ref>{{cite journal|title=Senate|date=February 3, 1988|journal=[[Congressional Record]]|volume=134|issue=1|publisher=[[United States Government Publishing Office|U.S. Government Printing Office]]|page=739|edition=Bound|url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1988-pt1/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1988-pt1-7-1.pdf|access-date=July 8, 2025}}</ref> Absent from the vote were three Democrats: [[Paul Simon (politician)|Paul Simon]] and [[Al Gore]] were [[Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1988|campaigning]] and [[Joe Biden]] was ill.<ref name=sckndy>{{cite news |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=eWwaAAAAIBAJ&pg=7047%2C1189168 |newspaper=Milwaukee Journal |agency=Associated Press |title=Senate confirms Kennedy |date=February 3, 1988 |page=3A }}{{Dead link|date=December 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> Attorney General [[Edwin Meese]] presented Kennedy's [[Letters patent|commission]] to the court in a swearing-in ceremony on February 18, 1988.<ref name="AP1988">{{Cite news |date=February 19, 1988 |title=Kennedy sworn, court at full strength |url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/7135471/anthony_kennedy/ |newspaper=The Galveston Daily News |___location=Galveston, Texas |agency=[[Associated Press|AP]] |via=[[Newspapers.com]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190226030100/https://www.newspapers.com/clip/7135471/anthony_kennedy/ |archive-date=February 26, 2019 |url-status=live }} {{Open access}}</ref>
===Tenure and analysis===
Although appointed by a [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] president, Kennedy's decisions did not consistently align with a single ideological bloc and often varied depending on the case.<ref name="supreme court" /> ''[[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]]'' quoted several former Supreme Court clerks as indicating that they believe Kennedy was often swayed by the opinions of his clerks, including his ruling on ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]''.<ref name="VF2004"/> One clerk stated that "the premise is that he can't think by himself, and that he can be manipulated by someone in his second year of law school". This notion also led the [[Federalist Society]] to target Kennedy with more conservative clerks, believing this would make Kennedy more conservative. Two of his former clerks, [[Neil Gorsuch]] and [[Brett Kavanaugh]], eventually became Supreme Court justices. Conservative pundit [[George Will]] and [[Georgetown University Law Center]] professor [[Randy Barnett]] have described Kennedy's jurisprudence as "[[Libertarianism|libertarian]]",<ref>'This Week,' ABC, July 1, 2012 and [[Randy Barnett|Barnett, Randy]] (July 10, 2003) [http://article.nationalreview.com/269324/kennedys-libertarian-revolution/randy-barnett Kennedy's Libertarian Revolution] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100604104948/http://article.nationalreview.com/269324/kennedys-libertarian-revolution/randy-barnett |date=June 4, 2010 }}, ''[[National Review]]''. Retrieved April 9, 2010</ref> although other legal scholars have disagreed.<ref>Shapiro, Ilya, ''[http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/shapiro.pdf Book Review: A Faint-Hearted Libertarian At Best: The Sweet Mystery Of Justice Anthony Kennedy] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100721040153/http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/shapiro.pdf |date=July 21, 2010 }}'', 33 ''Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy'' 333 (Winter 2010).</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |last=Calabresi |first=Massimo |date=June 2012 |title=What Will Justice Kennedy Do? |url=https://swampland.time.com/2012/06/07/what-will-kennedy-do/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120610013101/http://swampland.time.com/2012/06/07/what-will-kennedy-do/ |archive-date=June 10, 2012 |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |url-status=live |access-date=June 10, 2012}}</ref>
Kennedy issued conservative rulings during most of his tenure, having voted with William Rehnquist as often as any other justice from 1992 to the end of the Rehnquist Court in 2005.<ref>{{cite book |last=Greenburg |first=Jan Crawford |year=2007 |title=Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court |___location=London |publisher=Penguin Books |page=162}}</ref> In his first term on the Court, Kennedy voted with Rehnquist 92 percent of the time—more than any other justice.<ref>{{cite book |last=Greenburg |first=Jan Crawford |year=2007 |title=Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court |___location=London |publisher=Penguin Books |page=85}}</ref> Before becoming the median justice on the court in 2006, Kennedy sided with conservatives during close rulings 75 percent of the time.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Thomson-DeVeaux |first=Amelia |date=July 3, 2018 |title=Justice Kennedy Wasn't A Moderate |url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/justice-kennedy-wasnt-a-moderate/ |access-date=March 19, 2021 |website=FiveThirtyEight |language=en-US |archive-date=February 16, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210216185416/https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/justice-kennedy-wasnt-a-moderate/ |url-status=live}}</ref> However, Kennedy was also known for siding with the court's liberal justices on high-profile social issues like same-sex marriage and abortion.<ref>{{cite news |last=Hurley |first=Lawrence |date=June 28, 2018 |title=Kennedy's departure puts abortion, gay rights in play at high court |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-kennedy-cases-idUSKBN1JN3AF |archive-date=April 25, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190425044209/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-kennedy-cases-idUSKBN1JN3AF |url-status=live |work=Reuters |access-date=May 2, 2019}}</ref> Kennedy was known as a swing vote on the court,<ref name=swing>{{cite web |last=Bravin |first=Jess |date=June 28, 2011 |title=Court Conservatives Prevail |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303627104576410051761796150 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200423160752/http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303627104576410051761796150.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsFifth |archive-date=April 23, 2020 |work=The Wall Street Journal |access-date=June 18, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Toobin |first=Jeffrey |year=2010 |title=The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court |title-link=The Nine (book) |___location=New York |publisher=Doubleday |page=198}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Bardes |first1=Barbara A. |last2=Shelley |first2=Mack C. |last3=Schmidt |first3=Steffen W. |year=2008 |title=American Government & Politics Today: The Essentials |___location=Boston, MA |publisher=Wadsworth Publishing |page=547}}</ref><ref>Jeffrey Rosen, [https://web.archive.org/web/20070701103612/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1638444,00.html "Courting Controversy"], ''Time'' June 28, 2007</ref> and this reputation became more pronounced after the 2006 retirement of Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] (who had previously been known as the court's primary swing vote).<ref>{{cite web |last=Williams |first=Pete |date=June 27, 2018 |title=Justice Kennedy to retire; Trump can cement court's conservative majority |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/justice-kennedy-retire-trump-can-solidify-court-s-majority-conservative-n887066 |archive-date=June 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180628093253/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/justice-kennedy-retire-trump-can-solidify-court-s-majority-conservative-n887066 |url-status=live |website=NBC News |access-date=April 25, 2019}}</ref> Kennedy, who was slightly more conservative than former Justice O'Connor was on issues of race, religion, and abortion, intensely disliked being labeled a "swing vote" in public.<ref>{{cite book |last=Greenburg |first=Jan Crawford |year=2007 |title=Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court |___location=London |publisher=Penguin Books |page=177}}</ref> However, interviews with former clerks indicate that, behind the scenes, he may have appeared undecided on certain cases despite having already formed an opinion.<ref name="VF2004"/>
On the Roberts Court, Kennedy often decided the outcome of cases. In the 2008–2009 term, he was in the majority 92 percent of the time. In the 23 decisions in which the justices split 5–4, Kennedy was in the majority in all but five. Of those 23 decisions, 16 were strictly along ideological lines, and Kennedy joined the conservative wing of the court 11 times; the liberals, five.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Liptak |first=Adam |date=July 1, 2009 |title=Roberts Court Shifts Right, Tipped by Kennedy |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/01scotus.html |archive-date=May 5, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110505211805/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/01scotus.html |url-status=live |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 30, 2010}}</ref> In the 2010–2011 term, 16 cases were decided by a 5–4 vote; Kennedy joined the majority in 14 of the decisions.<ref name=swing />
Following the death of [[Antonin Scalia]] in February 2016, Kennedy became the Senior Associate Justice of the court and the last appointed by President Reagan; he remained the Senior Associate Justice until his retirement.<ref name="afterscalia">{{cite magazine |last1=Toobin |first1=Jeffrey |date=October 3, 2016 |title=The Supreme Court After Scalia|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/03/in-the-balance |archive-date=September 22, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170922194351/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/03/in-the-balance |url-status=live |magazine=The New Yorker |access-date=September 22, 2017}}</ref> During his last few terms on the court, the justice became critical of [[administrative law]].<ref>METZGER, GILLIAN E. “THE ROBERTS COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.” ''The Supreme Court Review'', 2019, pp. 2-3. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/48778649 JSTOR website] Retrieved 1 Mar. 2025.</ref>
Kennedy retired from the Supreme Court and made the transition to [[senior status]] effective July 31, 2018.<ref>{{cite news |last=Barnes |first=Robert |date=June 27, 2018 |title=Justice Kennedy, the pivotal swing vote on the Supreme Court, announces his retirement |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/justice-kennedy-the-pivotal-swing-vote-on-the-supreme-court-announces-retirement/2018/06/27/a40a8c64-5932-11e7-a204-ad706461fa4f_story.html |archive-date=June 27, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180627181821/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/justice-kennedy-the-pivotal-swing-vote-on-the-supreme-court-announces-retirement/2018/06/27/a40a8c64-5932-11e7-a204-ad706461fa4f_story.html |url-status=live |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=June 27, 2018}}</ref>
He has the distinction of being the only Supreme Court Justice to have two former clerks of his be appointed to the Supreme Court, [[Neil Gorsuch]] and [[Brett Kavanaugh]].
==== Conservative criticism ====
According to legal reporter [[Jan Crawford]], Kennedy attracted the ire of conservatives when he did not vote with his more conservative colleagues.<ref name="Greenburg, Jan Crawford 2007. Page 86, 162">Greenburg, Jan Crawford. ''Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court''. 2007. Penguin Books. Pages 86, 162.</ref> In 2005, the U.S. House Majority Leader at the time, [[Tom DeLay]], criticized Kennedy for his reliance on international law and for conducting his own Internet research, calling him a [[judicial activism|judicial activist]].<ref>{{cite news |title=DeLay slams Supreme Court Justice Kennedy: Lashes out at other judges, calling them 'judicial activists'|url=http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7550959 |agency=Associated Press |website=NBC News|date=April 20, 2005 |access-date=February 28, 2012 |archive-date=June 18, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130618075544/http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7550959/|url-status=dead}}</ref> According to legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, some conservatives viewed Kennedy's pro-gay-rights and pro-choice rulings as betrayals.<ref name="swing shift" /> According to Crawford, the "bitter" quality of some movement conservatives' views on Kennedy stems from his eventual rethinking of positions on abortion, religion, and the death penalty (which Kennedy believes cannot be constitutionally applied to juveniles or intellectually disabled people).<ref name="Greenburg, Jan Crawford 2007. Page 86, 162" />
A short 2008 law review article by retired lawyer Douglas M. Parker in ''[[The Green Bag (1997)|The Green Bag]]''<ref>Justice Kennedy: The Swing Justice and his Critics, 11 Green Bag 317 (2008)</ref> charged that much of the criticism of Kennedy was based upon "[[Popular psychology|pop psychology]]" rather than careful analysis of his opinions. Kennedy himself responds to concerns about judicial activism this way: "An activist court is a court that makes a decision you don't like."<ref>{{cite web|author-first1=Matt|author-last1=Sedensky|url=https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iWhwP-GmuptNw-uw8t8Z_lb1YV2QD9FMQKRG0 |title=Justice questions way court nominees are grilled |access-date=June 5, 2010 |url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100605163057/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iWhwP-GmuptNw-uw8t8Z_lb1YV2QD9FMQKRG0 |archive-date=June 5, 2010|website=Associated Press|date=May 14, 2010}}</ref>
==== Internationalism ====
According to ''[[The New Yorker]]'' staff writer [[Jeffrey Toobin]], starting in 2003, Kennedy became a leading proponent of the use of foreign and international law as an aid to interpreting the United States Constitution.<ref name="swing shift" /> Toobin sees this consideration of foreign law as the biggest factor behind Kennedy's occasional breaking with his most conservative colleagues.<ref name="swing shift" /> The use of foreign law in Supreme Court opinions dates back to at least 1829, though according to Toobin, its use in interpreting the Constitution on "basic questions of individual liberties" began only in the late 1990s.<ref name="swing shift">{{cite magazine |last=Toobin |first=Jeffrey |date=September 12, 2005 |title=Swing Shift: How Anthony Kennedy's passion for foreign law could change the Supreme Court |url=https://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/09/12/050912fa_fact |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110430023239/http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/09/12/050912fa_fact| archive-date= April 30, 2011 |url-status=live |magazine=The New Yorker |access-date=May 4, 2011}}</ref>
Defending his use of international law, in 2005 Kennedy told Toobin, "Why should world opinion care that the American Administration wants to bring freedom to oppressed peoples? Is that not because there's some underlying common mutual interest, some underlying common shared idea, some underlying common shared aspiration, underlying unified concept of what human dignity means? I think that's what we're trying to tell the rest of the world, anyway."<ref name="swing shift"/>
A 2008 profile of Kennedy in the ''Los Angeles Times'' focused on his internationalist perspective. According to David Savage, Kennedy had become a strong proponent of interpreting the guarantees of liberty and equality in line with modern human rights law: "lawyers and judges have come to believe the basic principles of human rights are common to the peoples of world {{sic}}."<ref>{{cite news |last=Savage |first=David G. |date=June 14, 2008 |title=A justice's international view |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-jun-14-na-scotus14-story.html |archive-date=July 15, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120715033154/http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/14/nation/na-scotus14 |url-status=live |work=Los Angeles Times |access-date=April 11, 2012}}</ref>
==Jurisprudence==
=== Abortion ===
In ''[[Hodgson v. Minnesota]]'', 497 U.S. 417 (1990), Kennedy voted to uphold a restriction on abortion for minors that required both parents to be notified about the procedure.
Kennedy co-authored the [[plurality opinion]] in ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'' (1992), which reaffirmed in principle (though without many details) the ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' decision recognizing the right to abortion under the [[Due Process Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]]. The plurality opinion, signed jointly by three justices appointed by [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[George H. W. Bush]], ignited a firestorm of criticism from conservatives. Kennedy had stated at least as early as 1989 that, in order to uphold precedent, he might not vote to overturn ''Roe''.<ref>{{cite book |last=Greenburg |first=Jan Crawford |title=Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court |___location=New York |year=2007 |publisher=Penguin Press |page=[https://archive.org/details/supremeconflicti00gree/page/80 80] |isbn=978-1-59420-101-1 |url=https://archive.org/details/supremeconflicti00gree |url-access=registration }}</ref> According to Court insiders, Kennedy had reportedly considered overturning ''Roe'', but in the end decided to uphold restrictions while affirming the ''Roe'' precedent.<ref>{{cite book |first=David G. |last=Savage |title=Turning Right: The Making of the Rehnquist Supreme Court |___location=New York |publisher=Wiley |year=1993 |isbn=0-471-59553-5 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/turningrightmaki00sava/page/268 268–269, 288, 466–471] |url=https://archive.org/details/turningrightmaki00sava/page/268 }}</ref>
In later abortion decisions, it became apparent that Kennedy thought ''Casey'' had narrowed ''Roe'' and allowed more restrictions. Owing to the Court's altered composition under President Clinton, Kennedy was no longer the fifth vote to strike down abortion restrictions. Hence, O'Connor became the justice who defined the meaning of ''Casey'' in subsequent cases, while Kennedy often dissented, expressing his interpretation of ''Casey'' as allowing for certain restrictions. For example, Kennedy dissented in the 2000 decision in ''[[Stenberg v. Carhart]]'', which struck down laws criminalizing [[partial-birth abortion]].<ref>{{cite book |first=Frank J. |last=Colucci |title=Justice Kennedy's jurisprudence: the full and necessary meaning of liberty |___location=Lawrence |publisher=University of Kansas Press |year=2009 |page=58 |isbn=978-0-7006-1662-6 }}</ref>
After the judicial appointments made by President George W. Bush, Kennedy again became the needed fifth vote to strike down abortion restrictions.{{POV statement|date=September 2020}} Since Kennedy's conception of abortion rights was narrower than O'Connor's, the court became slightly more supportive of abortion restrictions after 2006. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in ''[[Gonzales v. Carhart]]'', 550 U.S. 124 (2007), which held that a federal law criminalizing partial-birth abortion did not violate ''Casey'' because it did not impose an "undue burden" upon the exercise of abortion rights. The decision did not expressly overrule ''Stenberg'', although many commentators saw it as having that effect.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf |title=05-380 – Gonzales v. Carhart ( April 18, 2007) |access-date=May 4, 2011 |archive-date=March 2, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110302162256/http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |first=Frank J. |last=Colucci |title=Justice Kennedy's jurisprudence: the full and necessary meaning of liberty |___location=Lawrence |publisher=University of Kansas Press |year=2009 |page=38 |isbn=978-0-7006-1662-6 }}</ref>
===First amendment rights of contractors===
O'Hare Truck Service, Inc. was a towing company employed under contract by the [[Northlake, Illinois|City of Northlake]] in northern [[Illinois]]. Northlake removed O'Hare from its list on towing companies because the company's owner did not support Northlake's [[Mayoralty in the United States|mayoral]] candidate in his reelection campaign: instead, the owner supported an opposition candidate. The [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] held, in a majority 7–2 opinion written by Kennedy (''O'Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake''), that independent [[government contractor|contractor]]s such as O'Hare are entitled to the same [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] protections as those afforded to government employees. Accordingly, Northlake could not base the towing company's employment on its political affiliations or beliefs unless the city could demonstrate that their political affiliations "had a reasonable and appreciable effect on its job performance". The Court held that Northlake neither attempted nor would it have been able to make such a demonstration. Therefore, Northlake's removal of O'Hare Truck Service from its employment list was unconstitutional.<ref>[https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/95-191 ''O'Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake''], opinion announced 28 June 1996, accessed 7 July 2022</ref>
=== Free speech ===
On May 30, 2006, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in ''[[Garcetti v. Ceballos]]'' relating to whether the First Amendment protects statements by public officials pursuant to their duties from employer discipline.<ref>{{cite web |last=Ellis |first=Elizabeth | url=https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/practice/law-reviews/ilr/pdf/vol41p187.pdf | title=GARCETTI V. CEBALLOS: PUBLIC EMPLOYEES LEFT TO DECIDE "YOUR CONSCIENCE OR YOUR JOB" | website=[[Indiana Law Review]] }}</ref> Kennedy utilized past precedents in ''[[Pickering v. Board of Education]]'' to determine whether or not an employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern or in the capacity of his office.<ref>{{cite web |last=Roosevelt III |first=Kermit | url=https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=jcl | title=Not as Bad as You Think: Why Garcetti v. Ceballos Makes Sense | website=University of Pennsylvania Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository | date=2012 }}</ref> Upon the identification that speech was said in an official capacity, Kennedy determined that a government entity, in its role as an employer, had the discretion to impose speech restrictions so long as they had the potential to affect its operations.<ref>{{cite web |last=Coffield |first=Tim | url=https://coffieldlaw.com/garcetti-v-ceballos-private-citizen-speech-public-employment-and-the-first-amendment/ | title=Garcetti v. Ceballos: Private Citizen Speech, Public Employment, and the First Amendment | website=Coffield Law |date=September 22, 2020 }}</ref> Kennedy emphasized this point by writing: "when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline".<ref>{{cite web |last=Hudson Jr. |first=David | url=https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/garcetti-v-ceballos/ | title=Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) | website=Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University }}</ref>
On June 28, 2012, Kennedy wrote the plurality opinion in ''[[United States v. Alvarez]]'' declaring the [[Stolen Valor Act of 2005|Stolen Valor Act]] unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.rcfp.org/supreme-court-rules-stolen-valor-act-unconstitutional/ | title=Supreme Court rules Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional | website=Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press | date=June 28, 2012 }}</ref> In doing so, Kennedy determined the Act supported a content-based restriction on speech - that being a nondefamatory falsehood of having received a [[Military awards and decorations|military decoration or medal]] - and that the government failed to provide a direct causal link between the restriction and a potential injury.<ref>{{cite web |last=Jones |first=Bruce | url=https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2012/6/supreme-court-decides-united-states-v-alvarez | title=Supreme Court Decides United States v. Alvarez | website=[[Faegre Drinker]] | date=June 28, 2012 }}</ref> Additionally, Kennedy wrote that such a restriction failed to meet the standards of [[strict scrutiny]], with the law acting to "[seek] to control and suppress all false statements on this one subject in almost limitless times and settings".<ref>{{cite web |last=Singh |first=Tejinder | url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/opinion-recap-stolen-valor-act-violates-the-first-amendment/ | title=Opinion analysis: Stolen Valor Act violates the First Amendment | website=[[SCOTUSblog]] | date=June 28, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Douek |first1=Evelyn |last2=Lakier |first2=Genevieve | url=https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/rereading-alvarez | title=Rereading Alvarez It turns out the government can regulate lies … sometimes | website=Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University | date=May 18, 2022 }}</ref>
On June 19, 2017, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in ''[[Packingham v. North Carolina]]'' ruling that a prohibition of [[sex offenders]] from social media is a violation of the First Amendment.<ref>{{cite web |last=Hudson Jr. |first=David | url=https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/packingham-v-north-carolina/ | title=Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) | website=Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University }}</ref> Kennedy noted that, while the restriction was tailored to suit a government interest in preventing child [[sex abuse]], the law did not pass strict scrutiny nor was it narrowly tailored for that purpose.<ref>{{cite news |last=Post |first=David | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/03/supreme-court-unanimously-overturns-north-carolinas-ban-on-social-media-use-by-sex-offenders/ | title=Supreme Court unanimously overturns North Carolina's ban on social-media use by sex offenders | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | date=July 3, 2017 }}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |last=Lapowsky |first=Issie | url=https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-facebook-supreme-court/ | title=The Supreme Court Just Protected Your Right to Facebook | magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] | date=June 19, 2017 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Jones |first=Bruce | url=https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2017/6/supreme-court-decides-packingham-v-north-carolina-no-151194 | title=Supreme Court Decides Packingham v. North Carolina, No. 15-1194. | website=[[Faegre Drinker]] | date=June 19, 2017 }}</ref> The barring of a substantial amount of online expression was therefore unrelated to its stated goal and acted "to foreclose access to social media altogether [and] to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights".<ref>{{cite web |last=Howe |first=Amy | url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2017/06/opinion-analysis-court-invalidates-ban-social-media-sex-offenders/ | title=Opinion analysis: Court invalidates ban on social media for sex offenders | website=[[SCOTUSblog]] | date=June 19, 2017 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Grossman |first=Perry | url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/03/packingham-v-north-carolina-is-a-first-amendment-test-case-in-the-age-of-trump.html | title=First, They Came for the Sex Offenders … | website=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] | date=March 1, 2017 }}</ref>
=== Capital punishment ===
With the Court's majority in ''[[Atkins v. Virginia]]'' and ''[[Roper v. Simmons]]'', Kennedy agreed that the execution of the mentally ill and those under 18 at the time of the crime was unconstitutional. In ''[[Kansas v. Marsh]]'', however, Kennedy did not join the dissent, which raised concerns about the administration of capital punishment.
In 2008, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in ''[[Kennedy v. Louisiana]]''. The opinion, joined by the court's four more liberal justices, held, "[t]he [[Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Eighth Amendment]] bars Louisiana from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim's death." The opinion went on to state that "there is a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and nonhomicide crimes against individual persons, even including child rape, on the other. The latter crimes may be devastating in their harm, as here, but in 'terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public' ... they cannot be compared to murder in their 'severity and irrevocability'."<ref>''[[Kennedy v. Louisiana]]'', 554 U.S. 407, 438 (citation omitted)</ref> The opinion concluded that in cases of crimes against individuals, "the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim's life was not taken".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-343.ZO.html |title=Opinion of the court, authored by Kennedy – Part IV-A paragraph 7 |publisher=Cornell University |access-date=May 4, 2011 |archive-date=June 28, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110628194833/http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-343.ZO.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
=== Environment ===
Kennedy wrote the majority decision in ''[[Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council]]'' (2009), which involved an Alaskan mining company that planned to extract new gold from a mine that had been closed for decades using a technique known as "froth-flotation". This technique would produce approximately 4.5 million tons of "slurry", a thick waste product laced with toxic elements such as lead and mercury. The company intended to dispose of the waste in a nearby lake, which would eventually decrease the depth of the lake by fifty feet and flood the surrounding land with contaminated water. While federal law forbids "[t]he use of any river, lake, stream or ocean as a waste treatment system", Kennedy's decision stated that pollutants are exempt from this law so long as they have "the effect of ... changing the bottom elevation of water". Justice Ginsburg's dissent stated that such a reading of federal law "strains credulity" because it allows "[w]hole categories of regulated industries" to "gain immunity from a variety of pollution-control standards".
=== Gay rights and homosexuality ===
Kennedy's concept of liberty has included protections for sexual orientation. While Kennedy was an appeals-court judge, he wrote a decision in ''Beller v. Middendorf'' (9th Cir. 1980) that noted that some homosexual behavior may be constitutionally protected – yet upheld the military's policy of discharging service members on the basis of homosexuality.<ref>[[Michael Klarman]], [http://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol127_klarman.pdf ''The Supreme Court, 2012 Term – Comment: Windsor and Brown: Marriage Equality and Racial Equality'', 127 ''Harvard Law Review'' 127, 138 (2013)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150325210536/http://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol127_klarman.pdf |date=March 25, 2015 }} citing [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8185195466571647567 ''Beller v. Middendorf'', 632 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1980)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211108153036/https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8185195466571647567 |date=November 8, 2021 }} (Finding the Navy could discharge sailors at [[Naval Air Station Alameda]] for engaging in homosexual acts).</ref> He later wrote the Supreme Court's opinion in ''[[Romer v. Evans]]'' (1996), invalidating a provision in the [[Colorado Constitution]] excluding homosexuals from any state or local anti-discrimination protections. He wrote the Court's opinion in ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'' (2003), which invalidated criminal laws against homosexual [[sodomy]] on the basis of the [[Due Process Clause]] of the [[United States Constitution]], overturning the Court's previous ruling in ''[[Bowers v. Hardwick]]'' (1986). In both cases, he sided with the more liberal members of the Court. He wrote that the Court had misread the historical record regarding laws criminalizing homosexual relations in ''Bowers'', stating that further research showed that American anti-sodomy laws had historically been directed at "nonprocreative sexual activity more generally", rather than specifically at homosexual acts. Combined with the fact that such laws had often gone unenforced, the Court saw this as constituting a tradition of avoiding interference with private sexual activity between consenting adults. He also said that the reasoning behind ''Bowers'' was not widely accepted in American law (pointing, for example, to the Model Penal Code's recommendations starting in 1955) and that it had been rejected by most other developed Western countries (as in the [[Wolfenden Report]] of 1957 and a 1981 decision of the [[European Court of Human Rights]] in Case 7525/76, ''[[Dudgeon v United Kingdom]]''). As a result, Kennedy stated that there was a jurisprudential basis for thinking that "an integral part of human freedom" is allowing consenting adults to choose to privately engage in sexual activity.<ref>{{harvp|Nowak|Rotunda|2012|loc=§18.28(b)}}, quoting ''Lawrence'', 539 U.S. at 566.</ref><ref>Colucci, ''Justice Kennedy's jurisprudence'' ch. 4</ref>
In the 2000 case of ''[[Boy Scouts of America v. Dale]]'', Kennedy voted, with four other justices, to uphold the [[Boy Scouts of America]]'s organizational right to ban homosexuals from being scoutmasters.<ref name="FindLaw">{{ussc|name=Boy Scouts of America v. Dale|link=|volume=530|page=640|pin=|year=2000}}.</ref>
On October 19, 2009, Kennedy temporarily blocked Washington state officials from releasing the names of people who signed petitions calling for a referendum ballot measure that would repeal a gay rights domestic partnership law, but joined the subsequent majority decision in ''[[Doe v. Reed]]'', which stated the Washington law permitting signature release was constitutional, but remanded the matter to the lower court to determine whether the release of this particular petition's signatures was constitutional.
In ''[[Christian Legal Society v. Martinez]]'' (2010), the Court held that a public law college's policy requiring that all student organizations allow any student to join was constitutional. The Christian Legal Society wanted an exemption from the policy because the organization barred students based on religion and sexual orientation. [[University of California, Hastings College of the Law|Hastings College of Law]] refused to grant the exemption. The court found that Hastings' policy was reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Kennedy wrote a concurrence joining the majority.
On June 26, 2013, Section 3 of the [[Defense of Marriage Act]] was held unconstitutional in ''[[United States v. Windsor]]''. In the majority opinion on this case, Kennedy wrote, "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."<ref>{{cite court|court=Supreme Court of the United States|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf|litigants=U.S. v. Windsor|date=2013|vol=570 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=744}}</ref>
Two years later, Kennedy authored the majority ruling in the decision of ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'', which holds that same-sex couples must be [[Same-sex marriage in the United States|allowed to marry]] nationwide.<ref name="autogenerated3">{{cite court |litigants=Obergefell v. Hodges |vol=576 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=644|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf |date=June 26, 2015|court=[[Supreme Court of the United States]] |access-date=June 26, 2015 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Liptak |first=Adam |title=Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules, 5–4 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html |date=June 26, 2015 |work=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=June 26, 2015 |archive-date=May 16, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190516211629/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The closing paragraph of Kennedy's ruling has been used by many couples in their marriage vows:<ref>{{cite news |last=Gresko |first=Jessica |title=Gay and straight couples alike say 'I do' with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's words |url=https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/08/26/gay-straight-couples-say-i-do-to-justice-kennedys-words |date=August 26, 2015 |work=[[U.S. News & World Report]] |access-date=August 26, 2015 |archive-date=September 5, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905194555/http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/08/26/gay-straight-couples-say-i-do-to-justice-kennedys-words |url-status=live }}</ref>
{{blockquote|No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.}}
=== Gun issues ===
On June 26, 2008, Kennedy joined the majority in ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller]]'', which struck down the ban on handguns in the [[District of Columbia]]. At issue was whether Washington, D.C.'s ban violated the right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals from having guns in their homes. Kennedy sided with the conservatives on the Court, holding that the [[Second Amendment to the United States Constitution|Second Amendment]] recognized an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Two years later, in ''[[McDonald v. Chicago]]'', Kennedy joined the majority opinion holding that the Second Amendment's protections for the [[Right to keep and bear arms in the United States|right to keep and bear arms]] are [[Incorporation of the Bill of Rights|incorporated]] against the states through the [[Due Process Clause]] of the Fourteenth Amendment.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Rose |first1=Veronica |title=SUMMARY OF THE RECENT MCDONALD V. CHICAGO GUN CASE |url=https://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htm |website=cga.ct.gov |access-date=11 December 2019 |archive-date=September 25, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150925105343/https://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>
=== Habeas corpus ===
On June 12, 2008, Kennedy wrote the 5–4 majority opinion in ''[[Boumediene v. Bush]]''. The case challenged the legality of Lakhdar Boumediene's detention at the Guantanamo Bay military base as well as the constitutionality of the [[Military Commissions Act of 2006|Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006]]. Kennedy was joined by the four more liberal justices in finding that the constitutionally guaranteed right of [[habeas corpus]] applies to persons held in Guantanamo Bay and to persons designated as enemy combatants on that territory. They also found that the [[Detainee Treatment Act of 2005]] failed to provide an adequate substitute for habeas corpus and that the MCA was an unconstitutional suspension of that right.<ref name=AssociatedPress20080612-a>{{cite news
|url=http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iS3b8PdQ_oVlJA2eFtDvhnnTUvFwD918J1QO0
|title=High Court: Gitmo detainees have rights in court
|agency=Associated Press
|author=Mark Sherman
|date=June 12, 2008
|access-date=June 12, 2008
|quote=The court said not only that the detainees have rights under the Constitution, but that the system the administration has put in place to classify them as enemy combatants and review those decisions is inadequate.
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080622111733/http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iS3b8PdQ_oVlJA2eFtDvhnnTUvFwD918J1QO0
|archive-date=June 22, 2008
|url-status=bot: unknown
}}</ref><ref name=GlobeAndMail20080612>{{Cite news
|url = https://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080612.wgitmo0612/BNStory/International/home
|title = Terror suspects can challenge detention: U.S. Supreme Court
|work = The Globe and Mail
|___location = Canada
|author = Mark Sherman
|date = June 12, 2008
|access-date = June 12, 2008
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080614225408/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080612.wgitmo0612/BNStory/International/home
|archive-date = June 14, 2008
|url-status = dead
|df = mdy-all
}}</ref><ref name="MontoreyHerald20080612">{{Cite news|url=http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_9562577 |title=High Court sides with Guantanamo detainees again |date=June 12, 2008 |newspaper=[[Monterey Herald]] |author=Mark Sherman |access-date=June 12, 2008 }}{{dead link|date=November 2019|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} <!-- --></ref><ref name=BaltimoreSun20080612>{{Cite news
|url=http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/court_sides_with_gitmo_detaine.html
|title=Court backs Gitmo detainees
|newspaper=[[The Baltimore Sun]]
|author=James Oliphant
|date=June 12, 2008
|access-date=June 12, 2008
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080614213437/http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/court_sides_with_gitmo_detaine.html
|archive-date=June 14, 2008
|url-status=bot: unknown
}}</ref>
The court also concluded that the detainees are not required to exhaust review procedures in the court of appeals before seeking habeas relief in the district court. In the ruling, Kennedy called the [[Combatant Status Review Tribunal]]s "inadequate".<ref name=AssociatedPress20080612-a /><ref name=GlobeAndMail20080612 /><ref name=MontoreyHerald20080612 /><ref name=BaltimoreSun20080612 /> He explained, "to hold that the political branches may switch the constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this court, 'say what the law is{{'"}}.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11585328 |title=Stuck with Guantánamo |newspaper=The Economist |date=June 19, 2008 |access-date=May 4, 2011 |archive-date=July 27, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080727172833/http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11585328 |url-status=live }}</ref> The decision struck down section seven of the MCA but left intact the Detainee Treatment Act. In a concurring opinion, Justice [[David Souter|Souter]] stressed the fact that the prisoners involved had been imprisoned for as long as six years.<ref>{{Cite news
| url=http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf
| title=Boumediene et al. v. Bush—No. 06–1195
| publisher=[[Supreme Court of the United States]]
| date=June 12, 2008
| access-date=June 15, 2008
| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080627111630/http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf| archive-date= June 27, 2008 | url-status= live}}</ref>
===Religious liberty===
On issues of religion, Kennedy held to a less separationist reading of the [[Establishment Clause]] than did his colleague, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor,{{citation needed|date=April 2019}} favoring a "Coercion Test" that he detailed in ''[[County of Allegheny v. ACLU]]''.<ref>''[[County of Allegheny v. ACLU]]'', 492 U.S. 573, 655–667 (1989) (Kennedy, J., dissenting and concurring in part). Found at [https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0492_0573_ZX2.html Cornell Law School website] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121017010030/http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0492_0573_ZX2.html |date=October 17, 2012 }} and [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=492&page=573 FindLaw.com] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060305173056/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=492&page=573 |date=March 5, 2006 }}. Both. Retrieved February 28, 2012.</ref> Kennedy authored the majority opinion in ''[[Town of Greece v. Galloway]]'', 572 U.S. 565 (2014), concluding, "The town of Greece does not violate the First Amendment by opening its meetings with prayer that comports with our tradition, and does not coerce participation by nonadherents."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Mears |first1=Bill |title=Justices allow public prayers at New York town's council meetings |url=https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/05/politics/scotus-new-york-public-prayer/index.html |website=cnn.com |date=May 5, 2014 |publisher=CNN |access-date=11 December 2019 |archive-date=December 11, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191211034424/https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/05/politics/scotus-new-york-public-prayer/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
=== Super PACs ===
{{See also|Citizens United v. FEC#Majority opinion}}
Justice Kennedy's majority opinion<ref name="autogenerated2">[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf Syllabus : Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170622070029/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf |date=June 22, 2017 }}, Supreme Court of the United States.</ref> in ''[[Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission|Citizens United]]'' found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."<ref name="TNY20120521">{{cite news|last=Toobin|first=Jeffrey|title=Money Unlimited: How Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated the Citizens United decision|url=https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/21/120521fa_fact_toobin?currentPage=all|access-date=October 16, 2012|newspaper=[[The New Yorker]]|date=May 21, 2012|archive-date=October 21, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121021084255/http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/21/120521fa_fact_toobin?currentPage=all|url-status=live}}</ref>
Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that because the First Amendment does not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.<ref name="LiptakJan2010">{{Cite news |last=Liptak |first=Adam |title=Justices, 5–4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html |work=The New York Times |date=January 21, 2010 |access-date=February 5, 2017 |archive-date=July 7, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180707022837/https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The court overruled ''[[Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce]]'' (1990), which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled that portion of ''[[McConnell v. FEC]]'' (2003) that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The Court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).<ref>{{cite web |last1=Dunbar |first1=John |title=The 'Citizens United' Decision and Why It Matters |url=https://publicintegrity.org/federal-politics/the-citizens-united-decision-and-why-it-matters/ |website=publicintegrity.org |date=October 18, 2012 |publisher=The Center for Public Integrity |access-date=11 December 2019 |archive-date=December 7, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191207074031/https://publicintegrity.org/federal-politics/the-citizens-united-decision-and-why-it-matters/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
On October 25, 2011, [[Richard L. Hasen]] wrote that in the 2012 election [[super PACs]] "will likely replace political parties as a conduit for large, often secret contributions, allowing an end run around the $2,500 individual contribution limit and the bar on corporate and labor contributions to federal candidates". According to Hasen, the rise of super PACs dates to a sentence in Kennedy's opinion in ''[[Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission|Citizens United]]'': "We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the [[appearance of corruption]]."<ref>{{cite web|title=Super-Soft Money|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/10/citizens_united_how_justice_kennedy_has_paved_the_way_for_the_re.html|work=Slate|access-date=April 6, 2012|first=Richard L. |last=Hasen|date=October 25, 2011|archive-date=April 5, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120405022129/http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/10/citizens_united_how_justice_kennedy_has_paved_the_way_for_the_re.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Kennedy also wrote in his opinion that he was not concerned if higher expenditures by people or corporations were viewed as leading to corruption, stating, "the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy."<ref>{{cite web|title=Shadowy Players in a New Class War|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/10/AR2010101003045.html|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=March 12, 2014|first=E. J. |last=Dionne|date=October 11, 2010|archive-date=October 4, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151004162754/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/10/AR2010101003045.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
=== Other issues ===
On the issue of the limits of free speech, Kennedy joined a majority to protect flag burning in the controversial case of ''[[Texas v. Johnson]]'' (1989).<ref>Eisler, Kim Isaac (1993). ''A Justice for All: William J. Brennan, Jr., and the decisions that transformed America''. Page 277. New York: Simon & Schuster. {{ISBN|0-671-76787-9}}</ref> In his concurrence, Kennedy wrote, "It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt." He took a very broad view of constitutional protection for speech under the First Amendment,{{citation needed|date=April 2019}} invalidating a congressional law prohibiting "virtual" child pornography in [[Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union|''Ashcroft v. ACLU'']] (2002).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-218 |title=Ashcroft, Attorney General v. American Civil Liberties Union et al.|date=June 29, 2004|work=FindLaw|access-date=May 4, 2011| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110515022358/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-218| archive-date= May 15, 2011 | url-status= live}}</ref>
Kennedy has joined with court majorities in decisions favoring [[states' rights]] and invalidating federal and state [[affirmative action]] programs. He ruled with the majority on Equal Protection grounds in the controversial 2000 ''[[Bush v. Gore]]'' case that halted continuing recounts in the [[U.S. presidential election, 2000|2000 presidential election]] and ended the legal challenge to the election of President [[George W. Bush]]. Although the decision was published without an author, Kennedy wrote the decision.<ref name="VF2004">{{Cite web |url=https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2004/10/florida-election-2000 |title=Behind the aftermath of the 2000 U.S. election {{!}} Vanity Fair<!-- Bot generated title --> |website=[[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]] |date=March 19, 2014 |access-date=July 3, 2019 |archive-date=January 26, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210126114100/http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2004/10/florida-election-2000 |url-status=live }}</ref> Behind the scenes, colleagues criticized his professionalism in this case, feeling that he inflated the numbers of his majority opinion by deciding, without consulting the dissenting justices, to implicate some of the dissenters as having joined his opinion in part.<ref name="VF2004"/>
In the 2005 ''[[Gonzales v. Raich]]'' case, he joined the liberal members of the Court (along with conservative [[Antonin Scalia|Justice Scalia]]) in permitting the federal government to prohibit the use of [[medical marijuana]], even in states where it is legal.<ref>Greenburg, Jan Crawford. ''Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court''. 2007. Penguin Books. Page 17.</ref> Several weeks later, in the controversial case of ''[[Kelo v. City of New London]]'' (2005), he joined the four more liberal justices in supporting the local government's power to take private property for economic development through the use of eminent ___domain.<ref>Greenburg, Jan Crawford. ''Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court''. 2007. Penguin Books. Page 18.</ref>
In ''Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Ayers'' (2003), Kennedy wrote a partial dissent in which he argued that railroad workers who had contracted asbestosis from their employment should not be entitled to recovery for the emotional pain and suffering from their increased risk of cancer.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-963.ZX.html |title=Norfolk & Western R. Co. V. Ayers |publisher=Cornell University Law School |access-date=May 4, 2011| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20070715162533/http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-963.ZX.html| archive-date=July 15, 2007| url-status= live}}</ref>
In ''[[Baze v. Rees]]'', Kennedy played a deciding role in the outcome of lethal injection. Some correspondents believed he would play a larger role, believing more than two judges would dissent.<ref>{{cite web|title=At The Supreme Court It's Kennedy's World|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/at-the-supreme-court-its-kennedys-world/|work=CBS News|access-date=April 11, 2012|author=Andrew Cohen|date=September 30, 2007 |archive-date=May 24, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130524081550/http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18567_162-3312314.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
A December 2011 article in the ''Huffington Post'' noted that Kennedy in ''[[Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts]]'' (2009) and ''[[Bullcoming v. New Mexico]]'' (2011) dissented on an interpretation of the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, where a lab tech who created a forensic report on a case is required to testify at trial if called. His dissents, joined by Roberts, Breyer, and Alito, claimed that the rule would place a burden on understaffed labs. However, in ''Williams v. Illinois'', Kennedy sided with Scalia's interpretation of the amendment.<ref>{{cite news|title=Justice Anthony Kennedy Confronts Sixth Amendment Case, Hints At Change Of Heart, Cites Hamlet|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/justice-anthony-kennedy-sixth-amendment-hamlet_n_1132620|work=The Huffington Post|access-date=April 11, 2012|author=Sacks, Mike|date=December 6, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201026133021/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/justice-anthony-kennedy-sixth-amendment-hamlet_n_1132620|archive-date=October 26, 2020}}</ref>
== Public speaking and teaching ==
Kennedy called for reform of overcrowded [[Prisons in the United States|American prisons]] in a speech before the [[American Bar Association]]. He has spent his summers in [[Salzburg]], Austria, where he teaches international and American law at the University of Salzburg for the [[McGeorge School of Law]] international program and has attended the large yearly international judges' conference held there.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.mcgeorge.edu/Anthony_Kennedy.htm|title= Anthony Kennedy|publisher= University of the Pacific|access-date= October 29, 2013|archive-date= October 25, 2014|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20141025074817/http://www.mcgeorge.edu/Anthony_Kennedy.htm|url-status= live}}</ref>
In 1994, Kennedy ran a series of mock trials of [[William Shakespeare|Shakespeare's]] character [[Hamlet]], for his murder of Polonius. [[Alan A. Stone|Alan Stone]] was a psychiatric witness for the prosecution, tasked with fighting against an insanity defense. The juries usually deadlocked.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Risen|first=Clay|date=2022-02-01|title=Alan A. Stone, 92, Dies; Challenged Psychiatry's Use in Public Policy|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/01/us/alan-stone-dead.html|access-date=2022-02-02|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>
In 2005, Kennedy received the Golden Plate Award of the [[Academy of Achievement|American Academy of Achievement]] presented by Awards Council member [[Roger Bannister|Sir Roger Bannister]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Golden Plate Awardees of the American Academy of Achievement|website=www.achievement.org|publisher=[[American Academy of Achievement]]|url=https://achievement.org/our-history/golden-plate-awards/#public-service|access-date=January 6, 2021|archive-date=December 15, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161215023909/https://achievement.org/our-history/golden-plate-awards/#public-service|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=2014 |title=Summit Overview Photo |url=https://achievement.org/summit/ |quote=Justice Anthony M. Kennedy addresses the Academy delegates at the 2014 Achievement Summit in San Francisco. |access-date=January 6, 2021 |archive-date=September 5, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210905051833/https://achievement.org/summit/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=2010 Summit Highlights Photo |url=https://achievement.org/summit/2010/ |quote=Awards Council member Justice Anthony M. Kennedy addresses the Academy delegates at the Supreme Court. |access-date=January 6, 2021 |archive-date=January 19, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210119050803/https://achievement.org/summit/2010/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
In January 2015, Kennedy recorded a short interview for [[Historic Mount Vernon]] about the vital role [[George Washington]] had played in the drafting and early interpretation of the Constitution.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mountvernon.org/videos-new/watch/justice-kennedy-on-george-washington|title=Justice Kennedy on George Washington|work=George Washington's Mount Vernon|access-date=January 21, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150124045113/http://www.mountvernon.org/videos-new/watch/justice-kennedy-on-george-washington|archive-date=January 24, 2015|url-status=dead|df=mdy-all}}</ref>
==Personal life==
On June 23, 1963, Kennedy married Mary Jeanne Davis from Sacramento, California. The Kennedys have three children: Justin, Gregory, and Kristin.<ref name=USNews2007-10-01>{{cite news|url=https://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2007/10/01/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-anthony-kennedy|title=10 Things You Didn't Know About Anthony Kennedy|date=October 1, 2007|work=[[US News]]|last=Burton|first=Danielle|access-date=November 12, 2018|archive-date=November 13, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181113025906/https://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2007/10/01/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-anthony-kennedy|url-status=live}}</ref> Mary Kennedy and the three Kennedy children are all graduates of [[Stanford University|Stanford]].<ref name=USNews2007-10-01/>
Mary Kennedy was a third grade teacher at the [[Sacramento City Unified School District|Golden Empire Elementary School]] in Sacramento.<ref name=GregMarriageNYT>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/10/style/weddings-victoria-reese-gregory-kennedy.html|title=Weddings; Victoria Reese, Gregory Kennedy|date=September 10, 1995|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=November 12, 2018|archive-date=November 13, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181113025646/https://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/10/style/weddings-victoria-reese-gregory-kennedy.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
Justin Kennedy worked for [[Goldman Sachs]], and then for [[Deutsche Bank]] from 1997 to 2009; he became its global head of real estate capital markets. During his time at Deutsche Bank he helped Donald Trump secure a $640 million loan for a Chicago real estate project.<ref name=NYT2017-07-19>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/business/big-german-bank-key-to-trumps-finances-faces-new-scrutiny.html|title=Big German Bank, Key to Trump's Finances, Faces New Scrutiny|date=July 19, 2017|newspaper=The New York Times|last1=Protess|first1=Ben|last2=Silver-Greenberg|first2=Jessica|last3=Drucker|first3=Jesse|access-date=November 12, 2018|archive-date=July 20, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170720003726/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/business/big-german-bank-key-to-trumps-finances-faces-new-scrutiny.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=NYT2018-06-28>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/us/politics/trump-anthony-kennedy-retirement.html|title=Inside the White House's Quiet Campaign to Create a Supreme Court Opening|date=June 28, 2018|newspaper=The New York Times|last1=Haberman|first1=Maggie|last2=Liptak|first2=Adam|access-date=November 12, 2018|archive-date=November 12, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181112135511/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/us/politics/trump-anthony-kennedy-retirement.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Enrich|first1=David|last2=Buettner|first2=Russ|last3=McIntire|first3=Mike|last4=Craig|first4=Susanne|date=2020-10-27|title=How Trump Maneuvered His Way Out of Trouble in Chicago|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/business/trump-chicago-taxes.html|access-date=2020-12-23|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=December 22, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201222233500/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/business/trump-chicago-taxes.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Enrich|first=David|title=Dark Towers: Deutsche Bank, Donald Trump, and an Epic Trail of Destruction|publisher=Custom House|year=2020|isbn=978-0062878816|___location=|pages=}}</ref>
Gregory attended [[Stanford Law School]] and was a president of the Stanford [[Federalist Society]].<ref name=Politico2017-04-06>{{cite news|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/donald-trump-supreme-court-236925|title=Trump's hidden back channel to Justice Kennedy: Their kids|date=April 7, 2017|work=[[Politico]]|last=Goldmacher|first=Shane|access-date=November 12, 2018|archive-date=January 5, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190105232558/https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/donald-trump-supreme-court-236925|url-status=live}}</ref> He was an associate at [[Sullivan & Cromwell]] in the 1990s, later worked at [[UBS]], and, since October 2016, is the chief operating officer at the investment bank Disruptive Technology Advisers, which works closely with [[Dropbox (service)|Dropbox]], [[23andMe]], and [[Peter Thiel]]'s [[Palantir Technologies]].<ref name=GregMarriageNYT/><ref name=NYT2016-10-18>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/business/dealbook/disruptive-technology-advisers-hires-two-veterans-of-finance.html|title=Disruptive Technology Advisers Hires Two Veterans of Finance|date=October 18, 2016|newspaper=The New York Times|last=de la Merced|first=Michael J.|access-date=November 12, 2018|archive-date=December 24, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181224073852/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/business/dealbook/disruptive-technology-advisers-hires-two-veterans-of-finance.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
Kennedy is one of 15 [[Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States#Catholic justices|Catholics]] to have served on the Supreme Court (out of a total of 116 justices).<ref name=LAT2020-10-12>{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-10-12/democrats-strategy-barrett-confirmation-hearing-republicans|title=What is the Democrats' strategy for Barrett's confirmation hearing and how will the GOP respond?|date=October 12, 2020|work=Los Angeles Times|last=Wire|first=Sarah|access-date=October 14, 2020|archive-date=October 14, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201014071448/https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-10-12/democrats-strategy-barrett-confirmation-hearing-republicans|url-status=live}}</ref>
== See also ==
{{colbegin}}
* [[List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States]]
* [[List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 1)]]
* [[List of United States Supreme Court justices by time in office]]
* [[List of United States federal judges by longevity of service]]
* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court|United States Supreme Court cases during the Rehnquist Court]]
* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Roberts Court|United States Supreme Court cases during the Roberts Court]]
{{colend}}
==Notes==
{{notelist}}
==References==
{{reflist}}
==Sources==
* {{cite book | last1=Nowak | first1=John E. | last2=Rotunda | first2=Ronald D. | title=Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure | year=2012 | ___location=Eagan, Minnesota | publisher=West Thomson/Reuters| edition= 5th | oclc = 798148265 }}
== Further reading ==
* Colucci, Frank J. ''Justice Kennedy's Jurisprudence: The Full and Necessary Meaning of Liberty'' (University Press of Kansas, 2009) {{ISBN|978-0-7006-1662-6}}. [https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=30454 online review]
* Knowles, Helen J. ''The Tie Goes to Freedom: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on Liberty'' (Rowman & Littlefield, 2009) {{ISBN|0-7425-6257-3}}.
* Schmidt, Patrick D. and David A. Yalof. "The 'Swing Voter' Revisited: Justice Anthony Kennedy and the First Amendment Right of Free Speech", ''Political Research Quarterly'', June 2004, Vol. 57, Issue 2, pp. 209–217.
* Toobin, Jeffrey. "Swing Shift: How Anthony Kennedy's passion for foreign law could change the Supreme Court", ''The New Yorker'' (2005). [https://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050912fa_fact online] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140209075643/http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050912fa_fact |date=February 9, 2014 }}
== External links ==
{{commons category}}
{{Wikiquote}}
{{wikisource|works=or}}
* {{FJC Bio|1256|nid=1383211|name=Anthony McLeod Kennedy<!--(1936–)-->}}
* {{Ballotpedia|Anthony_Kennedy}}
* {{C-SPAN|1367}}
* [http://www.ontheissues.org/Anthony_Kennedy.htm Issue positions and quotes] at [[OnTheIssues]]
* [[Jonah Goldberg]], [http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200503090749.asp "Justice Kennedy's Mind: Where the Constitution resides"], 2005.
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070304024618/http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6822 "Kennedy's Benchmarks"] by Mark Trapp, ''American Spectator'' (July 14, 2004).
* [[Time (magazine)|''Time'' magazine]] cover story: [https://web.archive.org/web/20120608021802/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2116699,00.html What Will Justice Kennedy Do?] also [https://swampland.time.com/2012/06/07/what-will-kennedy-do/ pre-article] June 7, 2012
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20060926003239/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh100-1037/browse.html Transcript of Senate Confirmation Hearing], 1987.
* [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CHRG-KENNEDY/pdf/GPO-CHRG-KENNEDY.pdf Supreme Court Associate Justice Nomination Hearings on Anthony McLeod Kennedy in December 1987] United States Government Publishing Office
{{s-start}}
{{s-legal}}
{{s-bef|before=[[Charles Merton Merrill]]}}
{{s-ttl|title=Judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|United States Court of Appeals <br /> for the Ninth Circuit]]|years=1975–1988}}
{{s-aft|after=[[Pamela Ann Rymer]]}}
{{s-bef|before=[[Lewis F. Powell Jr.]]}}
{{s-ttl|title=[[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|Associate Justice of the Supreme Court <br /> of the United States]]|years=1988–2018}}
{{s-aft|after=[[Brett Kavanaugh]]}}
{{s-break}}
{{s-prec|usa}}
{{s-bef|before=[[Ketanji Brown Jackson]]|as=Associate Justice of the Supreme Court}}
{{s-ttl|title=[[United States order of precedence|Order of precedence of the United States]]<br />''{{small|as Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court}}''|years=}}
{{s-aft|after=[[Stephen Breyer]]|as=Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court}}
{{s-end}}
{{SCOTUS Justices}}
{{Anthony Kennedy opinions}}
{{US Order of Precedence}}{{United States Semiquincentennial Commission}}{{Authority control}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Kennedy, Anthony}}
[[Category:1936 births]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:20th-century American lawyers]]
[[Category:20th-century Roman Catholics]]
[[Category:21st-century American judges]]
[[Category:21st-century American lawyers]]
[[Category:21st-century Roman Catholics]]
[[Category:Alumni of the London School of Economics]]
[[Category:American legal scholars]]
[[Category:American people of Irish descent]]
[[Category:California lawyers]]
[[Category:California National Guard personnel]]
[[Category:California Republicans]]
[[Category:Catholics from California]]
[[Category:Harvard Law School alumni]]
[[Category:Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]]
[[Category:Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States]]
[[Category:Lawyers from Sacramento, California]]
[[Category:People from McLean, Virginia]]
[[Category:Stanford University alumni]]
[[Category:United States Army soldiers]]
[[Category:United States court of appeals judges appointed by Gerald Ford]]
[[Category:United States federal judges appointed by Ronald Reagan]]
[[Category:University of the Pacific (United States) faculty]]
[[Category:Catholics from Virginia]]
| |||