Ideology and Landmarks of the U.S. Supreme Court: An Interview with Dr. Linda Greenhouse by The Humanist
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Unapologetic Atheism
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/17
Linda Greenhouse is a Senior Research Scholar in Law at Yale Law School. She covered the Supreme Court for The New York Times between 1978 and 2008 and continues to write regularly for the newspaper’s Opinion pages. Greenhouse received several major journalism awards during her 40-year career at the Times, including the Pulitzer Prize (1998) and the Goldsmith Career Award for Excellence in Journalism from Harvard University’s Kennedy School (2004). In 2002, the American Political Science Association gave her its Carey McWilliams Award for “a major journalistic contribution to our understanding of politics.” Her books include a biography of Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Becoming Justice Blackmun; Before Roe v. Wade: Voices That Shaped the Abortion Debate Before the Supreme Court’s Ruling (with Reva B. Siegel); The U.S. Supreme Court, A Very Short Introduction, published by Oxford University Press in 2012; The Burger Court and the Rise of the Judicial Right, with Michael J. Graetz, published in 2016; and a memoir, Just a Journalist: Reflections on the Press, Life, and the Spaces Between, published by Harvard University Press in 2017. Her latest book is Justice on the Brink: A Requiem for the Supreme Court (Random House, 2021). In her extracurricular life, Greenhouse served from 2017-2023 as president of the American Philosophical Society, the country’s oldest learned society, which in 2005 awarded her its Henry Allen Moe Prize for writing in jurisprudence and the humanities. From 2004-2023, she served on the Council of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. She is an honorary member of the American Law Institute, which in 2002 awarded her its Henry J. Friendly Medal. She has been awarded thirteen honorary degrees. She is a graduate of Radcliffe College (Harvard) and earned a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School, which she attended on a Ford Foundation fellowship.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Roe v. Wade and the story of Norma McCorvey represent a solid half-century or so of relative protection for women’s right to abortion, with some caveats, e.g., if the finances exist or immediate access existed for them, etc. Other than the contributions of the masses of ordinary citizens who were active in rights movements (who are all dead and forgotten). What did Roe v. Wade catalyze legally in the United States legal system for its about half-century existence?
Linda Greenhouse: It’s certainly possible to draw a line from Roe v. Wade to the trio of decisions that between 2003 and 2015 constitutionalized LGBTQ rights: Lawrence v. Texas, United States v. Windsor, and Obergefell v. Hodges (the same-sex marriage case). Like Roe, those decisions were based on the court’s (former) understanding of the meaning of “liberty” in the 14th Amendment.
Jacobsen: What are the social and political reasons for the overturning of Roe v. Wade?
Greenhouse: The underlying reason is religion, the belief that a fertilized egg is the moral equivalent of a born person. A powerful political and social movement, fueled by a partnership between the Catholic church and Christian evangelicals, propelled this fringe belief to political dominance in this country as in no other modern democracy. All five of the justices who voted to overturn Roe were raised in the Catholic church and it is no accident that all were appointed by Republican presidents with this outcome in mind.
Jacobsen: How has this impacted the legal context for women’s reproductive rights, as–first and foremost–a human right?
Greenhouse: The overturning of Roe destroyed the legal basis for reproductive rights, relegating the protection of reproductive rights to the political process.
Jacobsen: My first real time being interviewed was by the late Paul Krassner. It was clear to a foreigner–little ol’ Canadian me–that reproductive rights was the pivot issue for many Americans as it pivoted on ideas of generativity, legacy building, women’s status, women’s bodily autonomy, and women’s choice. Krassner was an activist in this space for far longer than me, then and now. What legal decisions have happened at the level of the Supreme Court of note since the overturning of Roe v. Wade?
Greenhouse: In its 2023-24 term, the Supreme Court took up two abortion-related cases but then dismissed both of them without decision. The most important Supreme Court decision in the 2 ½ years since Dobbs is undoubtedly Trump v. United States, the decision last June that immunized Donald Trump from prosecution for much of his behavior during his first term.
Jacobsen: When did the rise of the judicial right truly begin in the United States and become a substantial social and political force?
Greenhouse: The rise of the judicial right began in the 1970s and scored a triumph with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. During the Reagan years, the Right managed to build a powerful political infrastructure of foundations and organizations that have sustained its power ever since.
Jacobsen: How have involvement with the American Philosophical Society and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences help with engagement on broader issues in the humanities, jurisprudence, and politics, for you?
Greenhouse: These are two very different organizations. The American Academy is a broad-based organization with a focus on public policy. The American Philosophical Society is very small (fewer than 1,000 domestic and international members) and devotes its resources to pure research. As a purely personal matter, I have benefitted from my involvement with both by meeting people who work far outside my own silo and being exposed to active learning across the disciplines. I feel very fortunate to have had this enriching opportunity.
Jacobsen: What do you consider the three biggest secular and humanistic wins in U.S. Supreme Court history?
Greenhouse: I’m not sure of the boundary between “secular” and “humanistic.” Brown v. Board of Education should certainly be considered a humanistic victory because it interpreted the Constitution as requiring the government to treat all people as equals. I regard Roe v. Wade as both secular and humanistic, rejecting a theological basis for government control over women’s reproductive choices. As purely secular, I would choose a 1990 decision, Employment Division v. Smith, which held that religious practice is not entitled to an exemption from a neutral law that applies to everyone (i.e. a law that was not enacted for the purpose of disfavoring religion). The religious right has tried to get this decision overturned for the past 30+ years and I expect it will succeed.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Linda.
Greenhouse: You’re welcome. The country is in for a rough ride. May humanism thrive.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 