Stephen Breyer ’59, a former U.S. Supreme Court Justice, walked down memory lane to his Stanford days, decades-long legal career in public service and tenure as a Justice in a plenary event Thursday evening at the Memorial Auditorium. He called for individuals and institutions to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution, even in the face of resistance, to maintain a stable and just society.

The event was the second among the two spring quarter plenary events bringing together students currently enrolled in Global Perspective courses under the Civil, Liberal and Global Education Program (COLLEGE), a first-year requirement.

Provost Jenny Martinez — who moderated the event and once clerked for Breyer — asked him about his time on the Farm, where he studied philosophy, a field whose insights he says he regularly applied throughout his tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court. Sharing his advice to first-year students, especially those on a pre-law track, Breyer told the audience to “relax,” not overthink decisions and take courses that interest them rather than focusing solely on preparing for law school.

His biggest piece of advice was to learn a foreign language.

“If you know a foreign language, you have access to people you wouldn’t otherwise,” Breyer said. “You have access to civilizations and all kinds of things you would’ve never otherwise had the chance to know.”

According to Dan Edelstein, professor of French and the director of COLLEGE, he and other COLLEGE lecturers discussed bringing Breyer to campus for a COLLEGE event with Martinez. 

“We haven’t had regular plenaries beyond the Three Books,” Edelstein said. “But it’s something we’ve been looking to do more of, so we were excited to have this opportunity.”

Offered in the spring quarter, Global Perspective courses “investigate several different global phenomena,” ranging from the impact of viruses on culture and populations to the rules of war. COLLEGE lecturers teaching the Global Perspectives courses challenge their students to make comparative analyses and locate their actions within a global context.

Unlike the three plenaries hosted each year as part of COLLEGE’s Three Books program, which requires student attendance and discusses books and films covered in COLLEGE courses, the event with Breyer was optional but “strongly recommended” for students.

When transitioning from his time at Stanford to his clerkship with former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, Breyer said that clerking provided him a firsthand window into the challenges of enforcing civil rights decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned state-sponsored racial segregation in public schools. He said that the law can create broader societal change, but only gradually through persistent legal and social pressure.

Even when facing widespread social resistance, such as the backlash to Brown, individuals and institutions have an obligation to maintain the rule of law and the Constitution, Breyer said.

Alexis Jones ’28 told The Daily that she was “impressed” by Breyer’s deep understanding of the pivotal turning points in the United States’ history, such as the civil rights movement. She expressed her appreciation for his synthesis of legal theories with insights into the nuances that underlie judicial decision-making to explain how judges interpret the law.

During the plenary, Breyer said that although textualism and originalism, doctrines that premise judicial interpretations on plain legal text and its original meaning, held “great promises,” statutes and the Constitution should be understood in their full phrase and context and based on legislative intent. 

Widely known for his moderate and pragmatic approach to judicial interpretation, Breyer was instrumental in several high-profile decisions, particularly those on abortion rights. Referring to his dissent in Dobbs v. Jackson (2022), which overturned the constitutional right to abortion enshrined by Roe v. Wade, he said that judges should not overturn precedents solely based on textual interpretation and perceptions of whether a decision was “egregiously wrong” because doing so would invalidate most past decisions.

When asked about public cynicism surrounding the Court’s politicization and growing concerns about the erosion of legal institutions and the rule of law, Breyer emphasized the need to find common ground, a skill he says he developed in endeavoring to convene five justices to write majority opinions in decisions.

“Go to a person who disagrees with you. Listen to that person because they’ll eventually say something you agree with,” Breyer said, “And if you get thirty percent [agreement], take the thirty.”

COLLEGE Lecturer David Armenta Ph.D.’22 said that, as someone from a non-legal background, it was interesting to hear how Justice Breyer integrated his experiences with his understanding of judicial decisions throughout history. Armenta said that he hoped to bring forward Justice Breyer’s emphasis on active listening and finding common ground in facilitating discussions in his COLLEGE sections.

Hoyoon Song ’28 said that listening to Justice Breyer speak challenged his preconceived image of the U.S. Supreme Court as a “serious” institution, where judges wearing formal black robes decide on the law.

“I was very shocked by how charming [Justice Breyer] is, with his jokes and charisma,” Song said.

Song told The Daily that he was previously undecided on his career path, but listening to Justice Breyer speak about the law and the nature of compromise made him reconsider pursuing a legal career.

Breyer concluded the plenary by saying that he remains optimistic about the future of the courts, the Constitution and the U.S. legal system, a sentiment he derives from speaking to middle- and high-schoolers and observing their interest and engagement in understanding legal processes.

“America’s public schools are the nurseries of democracy,” Justice Breyer said.