On This Day: The Swearing-In of Sandra Day O'Connor

On September 25, 1981, Sandra Day O’Connor stood on the steps of the United States Supreme Court and took an oath that would forever change the composition and trajectory of the nation’s highest judicial body. She was sworn in as the first woman to serve as a Supreme Court Justice, a monumental moment not only in the history of the Court but in the broader narrative of American progress toward gender equality. Her nomination by President Ronald Reagan fulfilled a campaign promise to place a woman on the Court, yet it was her jurisprudence and legacy, rather than the symbolism of her gender alone, that would leave a profound imprint on American law.

O'Connor’s confirmation was groundbreaking. It symbolized the shattering of one of the highest glass ceilings in American public life. Before her, all justices had been men, and the Court’s rulings, for better or worse, had reflected a predominantly male perspective on issues ranging from civil rights to reproductive health.

Her appointment was especially significant in the early 1980s—a period of increasing female participation in public and professional life. The women’s rights movement, having gained momentum during the previous two decades, saw O'Connor's confirmation as a watershed moment. Her presence on the bench signaled that women, who had long been excluded from the upper echelons of power, could now shape the nation's legal framework at the highest level. She was, for many, a symbol of progress and an example of how far the country had come in the struggle for gender equality.

Over her nearly 25 years on the Court, O'Connor became known as a pragmatic centrist. Her rulings often avoided ideological extremes, placing her at the heart of many of the Court's most contentious decisions. Though appointed by a conservative president, O’Connor was not beholden to any particular ideology. Her judicial philosophy was rooted in the principles of "judicial restraint" and "incrementalism," often emphasizing the importance of deferring to the political branches and deciding cases on the narrowest possible grounds.

One of the most defining aspects of her legacy is her role as the "swing vote" in a number of 5-4 decisions. Whether the issue involved reproductive rights, affirmative action, or states’ rights, O'Connor's moderate views often determined the Court’s final ruling. Most notably, she played a crucial role in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which reaffirmed the core holding of Roe v. Wade while allowing states more leeway in regulating abortion. O'Connor’s nuanced approach—balancing respect for precedent with a willingness to reconsider some aspects of earlier rulings—helped keep Roe intact for decades.

O'Connor’s pragmatism extended to other key cases as well. In Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), she upheld the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies, affirming that diversity in higher education served a compelling state interest. Yet, she noted that such policies should not be permanent, predicting that within 25 years, the use of racial preferences would no longer be necessary. Her opinions often reflected a broader vision of the law as a means of achieving stability and order, while cautiously acknowledging the complexities of social change.

Since O'Connor’s retirement in 2006, the Supreme Court has shifted significantly to the right. With the appointments of justices like Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, the Court now has a conservative supermajority. This transformation, particularly in the last decade, has led to a marked departure from the pragmatic and centrist decision-making that O'Connor was known for.

The Court's recent decisions reflect this rightward tilt. Most notably, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), the Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that had guaranteed a constitutional right to abortion. This ruling would likely not have happened during O'Connor’s tenure, given her pivotal role in preserving abortion rights in Casey. The Dobbs decision marked a significant departure from the Court's previous respect for precedent—what lawyers call "stare decisis"—a principle that O'Connor often invoked to maintain stability in the law.

In addition to Dobbs, the Court's current conservative majority has shown a willingness to revisit and potentially overturn long-standing precedents in areas such as affirmative action, voting rights, and religious liberty. These shifts have sparked debates about the future of the Court and whether its decisions are in step with the broader public’s views. As the Court continues to tackle divisive issues like gun control, environmental regulation, and LGBTQ+ rights, the absence of a moderating voice like O'Connor's is increasingly apparent.

The future of the Supreme Court is uncertain, but its direction seems clear. With a solid conservative majority, the Court is poised to continue reshaping American law in ways that could upend decades of precedent. Some argue that this shift is necessary to return the Court to its proper role as an interpreter of the Constitution, rather than a driver of social change. Others fear that the Court’s recent decisions signal a retreat from the progress made on civil rights, gender equality, and individual liberties.

There is also growing concern about the politicization of the Court. The contentious confirmation battles of recent years have eroded the public's trust in the judiciary as an impartial arbiter of the law. Polls show that public confidence in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low, with many Americans viewing it as an extension of the partisan divide that characterizes much of contemporary politics.

This raises the question of whether the Court will continue to function as an independent branch of government, or whether it will become increasingly entangled in political battles. Some have called for reforms such as term limits for justices or expanding the number of seats on the Court. While these ideas remain controversial, they underscore the growing sense that the Supreme Court is at a crossroads.

The swearing-in of Sandra Day O'Connor on this day in 1981 was a landmark moment in American history. Her tenure on the Court was defined by a commitment to pragmatism, judicial restraint, and the careful balancing of competing interests. O'Connor’s legacy endures not only in the rulings she shaped but in the example she set for future generations of women and jurists.

Yet, as the current Supreme Court moves further from the center, the absence of a moderating figure like O'Connor is keenly felt. The Court's direction will have profound implications for the future of American law and society, and whether it remains a stabilizing force or becomes a battleground for ideological conflict will define its legacy for years to come. As we reflect on O'Connor’s historic swearing-in, it is worth considering the path the Court is on and what role it should play in the evolving story of American democracy.