When David Souter first stepped onto the national stage in 1990, basically nobody knew who he was. He was the "stealth nominee." George H.W. Bush’s Chief of Staff, John Sununu, famously promised he’d be a "home run" for conservatives. They thought they were getting a reliable, quiet New England originalist who would help dismantle the liberal legacy of the Warren and Burger courts.
They were wrong. Very wrong.
By the time he retired in 2009, Souter had become one of the most reliable members of the Court's liberal wing. He didn't just drift left; he became a fundamental pillar of the moderate-to-liberal bloc. His story is a wild reminder that you can't always predict how a lifetime appointment will turn out. Honestly, it’s one of the reasons why today's confirmation hearings have become such a circus—the "Souter effect" made everyone terrified of a blank slate.
The Man From Weare
David Souter wasn't your typical D.C. power player. He was a bachelor who lived in a ramshackle farmhouse in Weare, New Hampshire, filled with so many books that he eventually had to move because he was worried the floors would collapse under the weight. He didn't use a computer. He didn't have a TV. He ate a cup of yogurt and an apple for lunch every single day.
He was brilliant. A Rhodes Scholar. A Harvard Law grad. But he was also a creature of habit who hated the spotlight.
👉 See also: Next States to Legalize Cannabis: The Massive Shifts Coming in 2026
When he was nominated to be a David Souter Supreme Court Justice, the vetting was surprisingly thin. He’d only been on the federal appeals court for a few months. Before that, he was a state judge and New Hampshire’s Attorney General. He didn't have a paper trail on things like abortion or civil rights, which made it easy to get him through a 90-9 Senate confirmation. Conservatives assumed his "New Hampshire values" meant he’d be a Scalia-lite.
The Shock of Planned Parenthood v. Casey
The turning point happened faster than anyone expected. In 1992, just two years after joining the bench, Souter was faced with Planned Parenthood v. Casey. This was the case everyone thought would finally kill Roe v. Wade.
Instead, Souter teamed up with Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy to write a joint plurality opinion. They saved the "essential holding" of Roe. Souter, specifically, is credited with writing the heavy-hitting sections on stare decisis—the legal principle of standing by things decided.
He argued that the Court’s legitimacy depends on its consistency. If the Court flips its most controversial rulings just because the personnel changes, people stop seeing it as a legal institution and start seeing it as a political one. He wrote about the "terrible price" the country would pay if the Court buckled under political pressure.
For the Republican base, this was a betrayal of the highest order. The mantra "No More Souters" became a rallying cry for the Federalist Society and every GOP president since.
Why He Stayed Glued to the Middle (Then the Left)
Souter wasn't a radical. If you look at his record, he was actually quite conservative when it came to things like government power and criminal procedure in his early years. But he had this deep, old-school belief in the "Majesty of the Law." He hated the idea of "originalism" if it meant ignoring how the world actually works.
Take a look at some of his other major moments:
- Bush v. Gore (2000): Souter was devastated by this case. He dissented, believing the Court shouldn't have stepped in to stop the Florida recount. Some reports say he actually considered resigning right then because he was so disillusioned by the perceived partisanship of his colleagues.
- Church and State: He was a hawk on the Separation of Church and State. He consistently voted against things like school vouchers or government-funded religious displays.
- The 4th Amendment: He had a soft spot for privacy. In Safford Unified School District v. Redding, he wrote a scathing opinion against a school that strip-searched a 13-year-old girl looking for ibuprofen. He basically said, look, you don't need a law degree to know this is a violation of human dignity.
The Quiet Exit and the Legacy of "Stealth"
Souter finally called it quits in 2009. He didn't want a big party. He just wanted to go home to New Hampshire. He told friends he would have left earlier, but he didn't want to give George W. Bush the vacancy. He waited for a Democrat, giving Barack Obama the chance to appoint Sonia Sotomayor.
He spent his retirement exactly how you’d expect: hiking, reading, and occasionally sitting on the First Circuit Court of Appeals to keep his mind sharp. He lived long enough to see Roe eventually overturned in Dobbs, which must have been a bitter pill for the man who spent his career defending the Court’s "institutional integrity."
David Souter passed away on May 8, 2025, at the age of 85.
His passing marks the end of an era where a president might pick someone based on their intellect and character rather than a 20-year history of ideological loyalty. He was a reminder that the law is messy, humans are unpredictable, and sometimes the best judges are the ones who don't tell you exactly what they're going to do before they do it.
Actionable Insights for Law Students and History Buffs
If you're trying to understand the modern Supreme Court, you can't skip David Souter. Here is how to actually study his impact:
- Read the joint opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Pay attention to the sections on stare decisis. It is the best explanation of why "precedent" matters even when you think the original case was wrongly decided.
- Look into the "No More Souters" movement. Research how the Federalist Society changed their vetting process after 1990. It explains why every nominee today comes with a massive, pre-vetted paper trail.
- Study his dissent in Bush v. Gore. It provides a window into the "intellectual heartbreak" that happens when a justice feels the Court has lost its way.
- Watch his 2010 Harvard Commencement Speech. He talks about the "Pemaquid Point" metaphor—how the law is like a tide that moves slowly but inevitably. It’s the closest he ever came to a manifesto on his judicial philosophy.
Understanding Souter is key to understanding why the Court looks the way it does today. He was the last of the "accidental" giants.