Peter Charles Hoffer, "The Supreme Court Footnote: A Surprising History" (NYU Press, 2024)

episode

New Books in American Studies not yet transcribed

▲ 0

Transcript

This episode hasn't been transcribed yet Upvotes decide what gets transcribed next — 0 so far. Sign in to upvote

More from New Books in American Studies

Lucas L. Johnson II, "Remembering Roots: How an American Classic Transformed the World" (Broadleaf Books, 2026) 44 min · 09 Sep 2026

Michelle Adams, "The Containment: Detroit, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for Racial Justice in the North " (FSG, 2025) 1h 4m · 09 Sep 2026

Claudia Verhoeven, "Love and Terror: The Helter-Skelter History of the Manson Murders" (Verso, 2026) 1h 3m · 08 Sep 2026

Terry Kirby, "The Newsmongers: A History of Tabloid Journalism" (Reaktion Books, 2024) 51 min · 20 Dec 2025

All episodes from New Books in American Studies →

Report any issue

Source

Recorded12 Aug 2024

Publisherfeeds.megaphone.fm

Handlerec:4810033

Show notes

When the draft majority decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health was leaked, the media, public officials, and scholars focused on the overturning of Roe v. Wade. They noted Justice Alito’s strident tone and radical use of originalism to eliminate constitutional protection for reproductive rights. My guest today has written a book that asks us to also notice over 140 footnotes in the majority opinion and dissent. Are these notes part of the law? In his new book, The Supreme Court Footnote: A Surprising History (NYU Press, 2024), Dr. Peter Charles Hoffer insists that these notes are significant. The footnotes reveal the justices' beliefs about the Constitution's essence, highlight their controversial reasoning, and expose “vastly different interpretations of the role of Supreme Court Justice.” Using a comprehensive qualitative analysis, The Supreme Court Footnote, offers a history of the evolution of footnotes in US Supreme Court opinions and a thoughtful set of case studies to reveal the particular ways that the footnote has affected Supreme Court decisions. Hoffer argues that justices alter the course of history through their decisions and the footnote is the way in which they push their own understanding of the Constitution. Eight case studies show how the footnote has evolved over time. He begins with Chisholm v. Georgia in 1792 and ends with Dobbs v. Jackson case in 2022. Using Dred Scott, Viterbo v. Friedlander, Muller v. Oregon, United States v. Carolene Products, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, and District of Columbia v. Heller, Hoffer demonstrates how the footnotes reflect the changing role of the Supreme Court justice and the manner in which they interpret the Constitution. Dr. Hoffer looks back in order to look forward. He offers a study of the footnote that is relevant to contemporary debates over the Supreme Court, methods of interpretation, and politics. Dr. Peter Charles Hoffer is Distinguished Research Professor of History at the University of Georgia. Hoffer went to University of Rochester and Harvard and has taught at Ohio State, Notre Dame, and UGA (since 1978). He has written books on the Supreme Court, the Federal Court System, infanticide, impeachment, abortion, early American history, slave rebellions, and historical methods. During the podcast, we mentioned: Anthony Grafton’s The Footnote: A Curious History (Harvard, 1999) My NBN conversation with Laura F. Edward’s on her book (The People and their Peace), originalism and domestic violence The University of Kansas’s Landmark Law Series Peter’s book Reading Law Forward: The Making of a Democratic Jurisprudence from John Marshall to Stephen G. Breyer (University of Kansas, 2023) The June 2024 recording of Justices Roberts and Alito on godliness Susan’s “Sensitive Places?: How Gender Unmasks the Myth of Originalism in District of Columbia v. Heller” (Polity, 2021) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.