Constitutional Law Reporter
Award
Menu
  • Home
  • US Constitution
  • Supreme Court Cases
  • Justices
    • Chief Supreme Court Justices
    • Current Supreme Court Justices
    • Past US Supreme Court Justices
  • American Biographies
    • General
    • Presidents
    • Vice-Presidents
  • Articles
    • Current Cases
    • Historical Cases
    • Impeachment
  • Videos
  • Links
Hot-Topics

May 21, 2025 | Supreme Court Sides With FDA on Flavored Vape Denials

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
<< Back

Abe Fortas

Abe Fortas

Early life

Abraham “Abe” Fortas was born on June 19, 1910 in Memphis, Tennessee to Jewish immigrants from England. He enjoyed a modest upbringing as his father was a cabinetmaker. Fortas loved music. He was a talented violin player and he formed his own jazz band in high school.

In 1926, at age sixteen, Fortas enrolled in Southwestern College (now renamed Rhodes College) in Memphis. After graduating at the top of his class, he attended Yale Law School where he became editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal. At Yale, Fortas found a mentor in future Supreme Court Justice, William O. Douglas, whom he shadowed in his early career.

In 1935, he married Carol Agger, with whom he had no children.

Career

Shortly after graduating in 1933, Fortas joined Douglas at Yale and became an associate professor. In 1937, Fortas became the assistant director of the newly established Securities and Exchange Commission after Douglas was appointed Chairman.

Fortas held other public sector positions. In 1939, he worked as general counsel to the Public Works Administration. In 1941, he became director of the Power Division in the Department of the Interior. One year later, he took the position of the undersecretary in the department.

In 1946, Fortas left the public sector and co-founded the firm Arnold, Fortas & Porter (now Arnold & Porter, LLC) in Washington, D.C. In 1963, Fortas successfully argued Gideon v. Wainwright in front of the United States Supreme Court, which found the accused right to counsel in a criminal trial regardless of their ability to pay.

Fortas also had his hand in politics. He provided advice to Democratic politicians, leading to his friendship with Lyndon B. Johnson. Two years after becoming president, Johnson appointed Fortas to replace Justice Arthur Goldberg on the United States Supreme Court.

Supreme Court

Fortas was active in protecting individual rights during his time on the Supreme Court. In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), Fortas sided with the majority, which made it mandatory for the police to inform suspects in custody of their rights.

Additionally, in Epperson v. Anderson, 393 U.S. 97 (1938), Fortas penned the majority that struck down an anti-evolution law because it violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. Fortas found the state’s use of power to restrict the teaching of a subject objectionable to a certain region was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Further, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), Fortas wrote the majority opinion defining the constitutional rights of students in public schools; specifically, finding the First Amendment applied to public schools.

Fortas was also a staunch proponent of children’s rights. In Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966), Fortas wrote the narrowly construed majority finding a child was not given a proper hearing before being transferred to adult criminal court; therefore violated his due process. A years later, Fortas furthered his position by penning the majority for In Re Gaul, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). Fortas’ majority opinion extended the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment and Due Process to juvenile proceedings. Fortas noted that the state should act in a “parental” role when in custody of the children; therefore, special protections afforded to a child in criminal court are just.

In 1968, President Johnson nominated Fortas to replace retiring Chief Justice Earl Warren. However, during the Senate Confirmation hearing, Fortas struggled to find support, a filibuster ensued, and Fortas withdrew his name from consideration. Fortas is the first nominee for the Chief Justice position to fail to receive Senate approval since 1795.

Unfortunately, Fortas encountered more controversy in 1969. A magazine uncovered that Fortas received $20,000, and later returned, from an indicted financier. An alleged agreement between the parties provided Fortas $20,000 annually until death for providing legal advice. Under threat of impeachment, on May 14, 1969, Fortas resigned from the Supreme Court while maintaining his innocence.

Later years

After resigning from the Supreme Court, Fortas returned to private practice He attempted to rejoin the firm he helped create but was unsuccessful. Therefore, he started a new law firm in Washington, D.C. Fortas worked in private practice until his death on April 5, 1982 at 71 years of age.

Previous Articles

SCOTUS Agrees to Consider Birthright Citizen Cases
by DONALD SCARINCI on May 21, 2025

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s execut...

Read More
SCOTUS Rules Non-Citizens Must Challenge Removal Under Alien Enemies Act
by DONALD SCARINCI on May 6, 2025

In Trump v. J.G.G., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that non-citizens challenging their removal under ...

Read More
Causing Physical Harm Always Involves “Use of Force”
by DONALD SCARINCI on April 29, 2025

In Delligatti v. United States, 604 U.S. ____ (2025), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the knowing ...

Read More
All Posts

The Amendments

  • Amendment1
    • Establishment ClauseFree Exercise Clause
    • Freedom of Speech
    • Freedoms of Press
    • Freedom of Assembly, and Petitition
    Read More
  • Amendment2
    • The Right to Bear Arms
    Read More
  • Amendment4
    • Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
    Read More
  • Amendment5
    • Due Process
    • Eminent Domain
    • Rights of Criminal Defendants
    Read More

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Read More

More Recent Posts

  • SCOTUS Clarifies Bruen in Upholding Federal Gun Law
  • SCOTUS Rules Challenged South Carolina District Is Not a Racial Gerrymander
  • Supreme Court Rejects Strict Criminal Forfeiture Timelines
  • Supreme Court Clarifies “Safety Valve” in Federal Criminal Sentencing Laws

Constitutional Law Reporter Twitter

A Twitter List by S_H_Law

Constitutional Law Reporter RSS

donald scarinci constitutional law attorney

Editor

Donald Scarinci

Managing Partner

Scarinci Hollenbeck

(201) 806-3364

Awards


Follow me

© 2018 Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC. All rights reserved.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney Advertising