Supreme Court mystery unlocked from BYU's vaults 75 years later

September 7, 2012, Brigham Young University
A notebook containing notes from a 1946 interview with Justice Owen J. Roberts

(—The explanation for a Supreme Court justice's motivations in one of the most mysterious and important decisions in U.S. history has been hiding deep in the vaults of BYU's Special Collections.

It's been tucked away for decades, but no one knew it until now.

This spring, communications professor Ed Carter unearthed the key to the mystery while digging through materials from the late Merlo J. Pusey, a Mormon -winning journalist.

"I came upon a notebook marked 'Confidential' and, obviously, I got excited," Carter said. "I wanted to find out what was in that notebook that Pusey didn't want to have publicly known."

The unpublished notes of an interview with Justice Owen J. Roberts provide a previously unknown account for a landmark, left-shifting 1937 vote by the conservative Roberts. The vote is credited with subduing President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's threat to increase the court to as many as 15 judges in order to move forward his New Deal legislation.

It's called "the switch in time that saved nine," and it's a phrase legal scholars, lawyers and judicial junkies have long been familiar with.

"It's just a marvelous, enormously important find," said University of Michigan law professor Richard D. Friedman, a history expert. "When Professor Carter sent the notes to me, I had a lot of work I should have been doing, but instead I read through the notes with great interest. It was just fascinating. I'm jealous because I wish I had found them."

Communications professors Ed Carter and Ed Adams review the notebooks of Merlo J. Pusey.

Many scholars presume Owen Roberts shifted on the case in question simply to appease FDR and keep him from meddling with the court. In fact, Roberts' only previously known public statements gave purely legal reasons. But Pusey's notes from a May 21, 1946, interview with Roberts indicate he had mixed motivations involving political, strategic and legal considerations.

"Roberts did not wilt under political pressure from Roosevelt, but he also did not ignore public opinions and circumstances," Carter said. "Roberts recognized that being set apart from politics does not mean being ignorant of contemporary events and attitudes."

Pusey's notes indicate Roberts' switch may have been influenced more by non-political factors.

"It is difficult to say what makes a judge decide as he does," Roberts says, according to Pusey. "Public outcry against an opinion is bound to have some effect on a man's thinking when it is a question of degree – of how far we can go."

Carter and fellow communications professor Ed Adams detail the contents of the Pusey notes and the implications of the revelations in the current issue of legal journal The Green Bag.

Carter said he wasn't looking for anything in particular when he started digging through Pusey's boxes, but just "got lucky."

Pusey, an editorial writer for the Washington Post from 1928 to 1971, interviewed Roberts for his Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, whom Roberts served with on the court.

Pusey grew up in Woodruff, Utah, but spent most of his professional life in Washington D.C. He did maintain connections to Utah, and was once offered a job as a journalism professor by former BYU President Ernest L. Wilkinson. He donated materials to BYU's library prior to his death in 1985.

Though he wasn't overtly Mormon in his writing, Pusey's faith influenced him, Carter said. In fact, he served as the ward historian in the Chevy Chase Ward in Maryland.

Carter and Adams believe there is much more to be found in Pusey's archives and plan to publish additional research in the months to come.

"I think people will study these [notes] for some time," Friedman said. "It really is a historian's dream."

Explore further: Roberts 'wrote both sides of US health care ruling'

Related Stories

Roberts 'wrote both sides of US health care ruling'

July 4, 2012

Chief Justice John Roberts flipped late in the game on the Supreme Court ruling on "Obamacare" and ended up writing both the majority opinion and most of the opposing dissent, sources said Tuesday.

Obamacare ruling restores faith in US Supreme Court

July 1, 2012

With Chief Justice John Roberts' decisive swing vote to uphold "Obamacare," the conservative-majority US Supreme Court has seen its reputation as an independent final arbiter restored, experts say.

Experts unlike ruling in Facebook speech case

May 4, 2012

(AP) -- The "like" button on Facebook seems like a relatively clear way to express your support for something, but a federal judge says that doesn't mean clicking it is constitutionally protected speech.

Justices meet Friday to vote on health care case

March 29, 2012

(AP) -- While the rest of us have to wait until June, the justices of the Supreme Court will know the likely outcome of the historic health care case by the time they go home this weekend.

Recommended for you

Archaeologists find ancient necropolis in Egypt

February 24, 2018

Egypt's Antiquities Ministry announced on Saturday the discovery of an ancient necropolis near the Nile Valley city of Minya, south of Cairo, the latest discovery in an area known to house ancient catacombs from the Pharaonic ...

A statistical look at the probability of future major wars

February 22, 2018

Aaron Clauset, an assistant professor and computer scientist at the University of Colorado, has taken a calculating look at the likelihood of a major war breaking out in the near future. In an article published on the open ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (2) Sep 07, 2012
A number of critical points about this account.
Among other things, if the material was "confidential", why was Pusey thinking of publishing it? And he had to be thinking of publishing it, since he was taking the notes. Any why didn't he publish the notes or have someone else publish them?
In actually a related vein, note how "legal scolars, lawyers and judicial junkies" know about the "switch in time that saved nine", but how many among the "rank and file" know about it? Something that involed the entire Supreme Court, which presumably can affect the populace, which was intended to affect them, and how many even know it took place?
How many other things are going on right now, even so close to the surface, that affect the people, that the people don't know about? How many clandestine things don't the people know about?
not rated yet Sep 07, 2012
Maybe the Kennedy assassination files sealed until 2017. or the Martin Luther King tapes sealed until 2027.
not rated yet Sep 08, 2012
Confidential is worth only the confidence in its classifier. A personal notation of confidential is utterly worthless.

Anyone involved in maintaining the legal bulwarks against progressive-leftism knows of the threat, including the contemporary threat, to manipulate and reconfigure SCOTUS. Who ever imagined such justices as Sotomayor and Kagen? What, Julian, do you imagine was the threat that forced their confirmation?
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2012
How ironic that a Supreme Court justice named Roberts switched his vote to appease FDR's leftwing demagogic machinations. History really does repeat itself.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.