ABSTRACT
In the ten-year period between Whitney v. California of 1927 and Herndon v. Lowry of 1937, the Court acted to protect civil rights and liberties in several important cases. This was the tribunal presided over by Taft’s successor, Charles Evans Hughes, a clear-headed legal scholar who had resigned in 1916 after serving as Associate Justice and in 1930, at age sixty-eight, returned to the tribunal as Chief Justice after being nominated by Herbert Hoover and remained in this post until July 1941. Unlike the Taft Court decisions, many of those of the Hughes Court overturned convictions of political and social radicals, shoring up precedents that the Warren Court would rely upon. Frankfurter would recall “the mastery and distinction with which he [Hughes] presided,” which found the Chief Justice generally prevailing in civil liberties cases coming before Court. 1 From the outset, his tribunal established a liberal record on First Amendment issues. It reverted to the clear and present danger rule on only one occasion, relying instead on prior restraint, constitutional vagueness, due process, and the “bad tendency” test.
