Stephen Breyer

Stephen Breyer, born on August 15, 1938, in San Francisco, is a distinguished American jurist and lawyer who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1994 until his retirement in 2022. Nominated by President Bill Clinton, he succeeded retiring justice Harry Blackmun and became known for his association with the Court's liberal wing. Following his retirement, Breyer took on the role of Byrne Professor of Administrative Law and Process at Harvard Law School.

Breyer's academic journey began at Stanford University, followed by the University of Oxford, culminating in his graduation from Harvard Law School in 1964. He gained valuable experience as a law clerk for Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg during the 1964-1965 term. Breyer then transitioned into academia, serving as a law professor and lecturer at Harvard Law School from 1967 to 1980, where he specialized in administrative law and authored influential textbooks still in use today.

Before his Supreme Court nomination, Breyer held several prominent positions, including special assistant to the United States assistant attorney general for antitrust and assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force in 1973. He became a federal judge in 1980 when he was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In his 2005 book, Active Liberty, Breyer articulated his legal philosophy, advocating for a judiciary that promotes public participation in governmental decisions.

On January 27, 2022, Breyer announced his intention to retire from the Supreme Court, a decision made in conjunction with President Joe Biden. Biden nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of Breyer's former law clerks, to succeed him. Breyer remained on the Court until June 30, 2022, when Jackson officially took over. Throughout his tenure, he authored majority opinions in landmark cases such as Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., United States v. Lara, and Google v. Oracle, while also voicing notable dissents regarding the constitutionality of the death penalty in cases like Glossip v. Gross.