This book was a very informational and detailed novel. The detail and very left-brained writing style of Peter Irons has pros and cons to it. On the pro side, the book lays out all of the facts of each major case and provides a backstory for most of the courts and justices who write the decisions of cases. Having this background helps the reader understand what the political setting was at the time, as well as where the justices were coming from when they made a decision. On the con side, however, this extra detail and background can be overwhelming or boring to the reader. After a while of reading the book, the amount of tedious information regarding each justice starts to numb the reader’s interest level and, at times, seemed a bit unnecessary. One of the major cons for me when reading this book was the lack of connection to the Native American tribes involved. Comparatively, to a book such as In the Courts of the Conqueror, where the text is almost entirely about how Native tribes were affected by the decisions or how the tribes reacted and felt, this book had very little information relating back to the tribes involved. Although the book is about exactly what the title infers (the history of the court and the court only) it was very hard for me to get interested in the book. I personally was more intrigued by the tribes and their history under the Supreme Court, than the court’s history by itself.
The factual accuracy of Irons’ work, along with his great amount of resources and references to check back to, makes up for some of the lack of Indian information. One of the things I did like about the backstories of justices and courts is that it showed what kinds of people were making the laws. For example, many people assume James Madison was a leader of the Continental Congress who wanted liberty and freedom for all, yet in chapters 6 and 7, Irons shows that Madison was very opposed to having a Bill of Rights for the country and wanted very limited freedoms for all those under his social status. In chapter 5, Peter Irons illuminated the fact that the members of the Continental Congress and writers of the Constitution could only get 9 out of the 13 states to vote and agree on having that Constitution, so the Congress decided it would only need 9 votes to pass a bill or motion. These are little details about the courts and justices that don’t seem hugely important in the big scheme of things, but end up playing a pretty significant role in understanding why certain decisions were made and how specific laws ended up passing.
One section I felt was well written was chapters 17 and 18 in Section III. These chapters discussed the Plessy v Ferguson case and the suits that led up to it. The reason I feel this section was well done is because Irons does a great job of going back to smaller, lesser known cases, especially ones referenced in the Plessy decision, and explaining them and their background. This is similar, to me, in the way Walter Echo-Hawk goes back and explains the culture or tradition of Native Americans that is at-risk in a specific trial. This writing style is not only informative, it creates or aides in an understanding of the people involved and draws a more complex picture of those on trial; rather than a cut-and-dry good side and bad side. Even before getting to this part of the book, Peter Irons shows this skill in chapter 13 when he reviews the Dred Scott v Sandford case. In chapter 17, specifically on page 209, Irons explains how the outcome of the “Stolen Election of 1876” led directly to the picking of a different political kind of Justices. This, in turn, led to a different outcome than what would’ve been expected had the same political party been in the majority. Likewise, from page 224-227, Irons not only goes over the history of the Plessy case and how it ended up in the Supreme Court as Plessy v Ferguson, but he also provides information about the general social feeling and tension during that time in the south. Irons’ explanation for how the environment around the case came to be provides a window for understanding why the Justices ruled the way they did.
On the contrary to these positives, I was somewhat upset that this book did not cover many of the big Native American cases brought to the Supreme Court over its history. Peter Irons did a great job of including information about the beginnings of the Supreme Court, the first cases brought to it from white men, and cases related to slavery and Jim Crow. These sections are all very important and it is good to have knowledge of these cases and their outcomes; however, by omitting cases brought forth by, or involving Native Americans, it created a lack of interest for me and is a detriment to those who would normally forget about Indians in the Court’s history anyway. In my personal opinion, it would have been a more encompassing review of the court’s history if Peter Irons included cases such as Worcester v Georgia, Lone Wolf v Hitchcock, or the Tee-Hit-Ton vs U.S. These cases completely reshaped the way the government, both state and federal, interacted with Native Americans and Native American tribes. In many ways, these huge Indian Law cases determined how far the U.S. would be able to expand out, what resources it could get, and whether it would go to war or kill.
The book A People’s History of the Supreme Court does an excellent scholarly job of relaying the history of certain cases brought forth, but unfortunately at the same time, misses some key cases. This book is a good choice for an academic reference and does enhance one’s understanding of the amount and complexities of cases brought to the Supreme Court.