Justice John Paul Stevens, who served on the Supreme Court for 32 years, was known for his ability to maintain collegiality and significantly influence the court's direction, particularly during its most divisive moments. Despite his self-identification as a "judicial conservative" who had not changed his views since his appointment in 1975 by President Gerald Ford, Stevens became an improbable liberal icon during his tenure. He often found himself leading the liberal opposition, especially after the court became more polarized with the arrival of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Stevens leveraged his position as the senior associate justice, second in authority only to the Chief Justice, to strategically assign majority opinions. When in the minority, he decided who would write the principal dissent, and when in the majority, he assigned the majority opinion. This power allowed him to court swing justices, notably Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, to build majorities, even assigning opinions to Kennedy to secure his vote on crucial cases. For instance, he assigned the landmark gay rights opinion in Lawrence v. Texas to Kennedy, reflecting a constitutional conclusion Stevens had reached decades prior.
His approach was characterized by patience and intellectual persuasion rather than personal appeals. Stevens was praised by colleagues, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for his administrative skills and sensitivity to colleagues' feelings, echoing similar sentiments about former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. While Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. initially aimed for unanimity, Stevens believed it would be challenging for one person to achieve given the court's composition, although he noted Roberts had a "honeymoon period" where justices leaned toward avoiding separate opinions.
Stevens was also a keen observer of the court's dynamics. He believed that while a justice could sometimes change their vote after private conferences, it was "very rare" to win votes if the majority wasn't already persuaded. He once famously told Tony Mauro that "Impassioned rhetoric doesn't work with the Supreme Court," and if it did, he would become impassioned. His influence stretched to significant cases, including those ruling against the Bush administration's treatment of suspected enemy combatants.
In his final years, Stevens often found himself writing more dissents and separate opinions than his colleagues, becoming the leading defender of judicial oversight of executive power. He successfully built majorities by appealing to moderate-conservative swing voters like Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Kennedy, demonstrating his skill in shaping jurisprudence from behind the scenes.
