Sandra Day O’Connor, a self-described Arizona cowgirl, made history as the first woman to serve as a Supreme Court justice. She died on Friday in Phoenix, Arizona, at the age of 93 due to complications related to advanced dementia, likely Alzheimer’s disease, and a respiratory illness, as announced by the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice John Roberts stated in a press release that O’Connor blazed a historic trail as the Nation’s first female Justice.
Nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, O’Connor served 24 years on the court before stepping down to care for her husband, who also battled Alzheimer’s. During her tenure, she was the court’s key vote on a wide range of issues, including abortion, affirmative action, and religion. Her opinions were often narrow and practical, sometimes disappointing conservatives.
Conservatives were delighted with her successor, Justice Samuel Alito, whose confirmation in 2006 marked a shift to the right in the court. This shift accelerated with the arrival of Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, nominated by former President Donald Trump. In the 17 years following O’Connor’s retirement, the court overturned some of her best-known decisions, impacting her judicial legacy.
O’Connor’s formative childhood was spent on the Lazy B Ranch, which she proudly described in her 2002 memoir, co-authored with her brother, Alan Day. The ranch, situated on the border between Arizona and New Mexico, covered about 250 square miles and was an unforgiving environment with scarce rainfall. The land was rocky, and the wildlife included coyotes, bobcats, and rattlesnakes. O’Connor’s father, Harry Day, was described as exceedingly kind but also a perfectionist who could be critical.
An incident from her youth exemplified the tough environment and her father’s expectations. Sandra got a flat tire while driving the ranch’s pick-up truck to deliver lunch to a round-up crew. It took her over an hour to change the tire alone in the hot sun, making her late. When she explained the situation to her father, he responded that she should have started earlier, emphasizing the need to expect anything in such a harsh landscape.
Sandra Day O’Connor, a former Supreme Court justice, grew up on the Lazy B ranch in Texas. She wrote in her memoir, Lazy B, that despite her expectations of praise for changing a tire, she learned that the only expectation was an on-time lunch, with no excuses accepted.
Sandra’s mother, Ada Mae, was a college-educated daughter of a prosperous Texas merchant and rancher. Ada Mae Day worked as hard as her husband in a household without running water and electricity until Sandra was seven, yet she always strived to dress well and take care of herself.
Sandra’s first babysitters were cowboys, who introduced her to horseback riding at a young age. She developed a love for the land and ranch life on Lazy B, which stayed with her throughout her life. Ranch life also prepared her for future experiences, including breaking into the male-dominated world of cattle drives. The remoteness of Lazy B meant that Sandra’s parents sent her to live with her grandparents in El Paso, Texas, to attend school. She began in first grade and continued, except for one year, through high school. Sandra was always homesick when away from the ranch. In September 1946, 16-year-old Sandra Day enrolled at Stanford, feeling poorly prepared compared to other freshmen. However, she was admitted to a program that allowed her to start law school in her senior year, as one of only four women in her class. At Stanford, Sandra excelled, earning a place on the law review and finishing as the runner-up in the school’s moot court competition with her partner, William Rehnquist. Rehnquist would later become a justice and then the chief justice of the United States. Sandra and Rehnquist dated, and she even brought him home to Lazy B before breaking up in December 1950. Sandra married John O’Connor, another fellow law student, in December 1952. John proved to be an extraordinarily supportive spouse, allowing Sandra to pursue her career ambitions in an era when married women with children were not expected to have such aspirations. This support was similar to that of Marty Ginsburg, the husband of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who joined Sandra on the court as the second female justice in 1993.Sandra Day O’Connor, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, faced significant challenges in her early legal career. Despite being at the top of her class and an editor of the law review, she could not secure a position at a law firm. One California-based firm, Gibson Dunn, offered her a job as a legal secretary, which she declined. Instead, she chose to work for the San Mateo County government without pay until they could find funding for her position.
O’Connor stayed with the county until 1954, when she moved to Germany with her husband, who was an Army lawyer. In Germany, she worked as a civilian lawyer for the Army Quartermaster Corps. The couple returned to the United States in 1957, and while her husband found work at a law firm in Phoenix, O’Connor once again struggled to find a position at a firm.
Undeterred, she opened her own practice at a shopping center, taking on a variety of cases. O’Connor and her husband had three sons, and despite the challenges of balancing work and family, she managed to juggle childcare with a mix of legal jobs and volunteer work. She even took a break from full-time work after her second child was born due to a lack of childcare options.
O’Connor’s involvement in local politics proved beneficial when she returned to full-time work in 1965. She served as an assistant state attorney general for four years before being appointed to the Arizona State Senate. In 1970, she won her own seat and was re-elected in 1972, becoming the first woman in the country to serve as the Republican majority leader.
O’Connor did not seek re-election in 1974, instead running for and winning a trial-court judgeship in Maricopa County. In 1979, she was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals by Governor Bruce Babbitt. When President Ronald Reagan sought to fulfill his campaign promise of nominating a woman to the Supreme Court, O’Connor’s diverse career and political experience made her a compelling choice, despite her being a relatively unknown judge at the time.
During her tenure, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was a pivotal figure in the Supreme Court. Despite being one of the few conservative female judges, she had influential friends, including Chief Justice Warren Burger, whom she met during a vacation. Her meeting with President Reagan, a fellow westerner, left a strong impression, leading to her nomination. Reagan praised O’Connor’s temperament, fairness, intellectual capacity, and devotion to the public good, qualities he believed were essential for a Supreme Court justice.
Reagan faced questions about O’Connor’s stance on abortion and opposition from anti-abortion groups. He assured reporters that he was satisfied with her right-to-life position after a personal interview. O’Connor’s confirmation hearing, the first to be televised, began on September 9, 1981, and she was confirmed with a unanimous 99-0 vote.
O’Connor’s nearly quarter-century on the bench saw her write 645 opinions. In an interview with the Harvard Business Review, she emphasized the importance of drafting opinions with agreement among colleagues and the need to write narrowly to avoid sweeping rulings that could have unforeseen consequences. Despite this approach, some, including her colleagues, criticized her for a lack of consistent principles, making it difficult to predict her decisions.
In 1992, O’Connor reaffirmed the constitutional right to an abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, joining two other Republican appointees. This case challenged a Pennsylvania law with various restrictions on abortion. Justice John Paul Stevens believed the court would use this case to overrule Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision establishing a fundamental right to abortion. However, O’Connor, along with Justices Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, surprised many with a joint opinion that upheld the essential holding of Roe v. Wade.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Wade should be retained and affirmed. This decision made it easier for states to regulate abortions by eliminating the trimester framework that previously barred states from regulating the first trimester of pregnancy. The court emphasized that not every law making a right more difficult to exercise is a violation of that right; rather, regulations would be unconstitutional only if they imposed an undue burden on a woman’s right to choose an abortion.
Applying this new test, the court struck down Pennsylvania’s spousal-notification provision but upheld other provisions of the law.Casey’s stance stood for 30 years, until June 2022 when, in an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court’s conservative majority ruled that the Constitution does not protect a right to obtain an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Alito wrote in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that Roe and Casey represented an error that could not be allowed to stand.
Justice O’Connor was a strong proponent of states’ rights and played a key role in limiting the power of the federal government. Law professor Stephen Wermiel noted in 1991 that federalism was a unifying theme for O’Connor, who was motivated by her faith in good state-level governance and the belief that the Constitution’s Framers envisioned a partnership of shared powers. O’Connor’s experience as a state legislator and judge gave her a degree of trust in state government and courts that exceeded that of her colleagues.
During her tenure, O’Connor was Rehnquist’s loyal ally in the court’s reappraisal of the relationship between states and the federal government. This reappraisal began in 1992 when O’Connor authored the court’s opinion in New York v. United States, challenging a federal law requiring states to handle radioactive waste. The court agreed 6-3 that Congress cannot compel states to take responsibility for the waste, as the Constitution does not grant Congress such power.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a pivotal figure in U.S. Supreme Court history, had a significant impact on federalism and campaign finance cases. Indeed, O’Connor continued, requiring the states to take action would reduce the accountability of both federal officials who are responsible for the obligation but would not face any political fallout for doing so and state officials, who would face political repercussions even though they had no role in creating the obligation. O’Connor later provided the key vote in two more important federalism cases. In 1995, she joined Rehnquist’s 5-4 decision in United States v. Lopez striking down a federal law that made it a crime to have a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. The ruling was the first time in nearly six decades that the court invalidated a federal law on the ground that it exceeded Congress’ powers under the commerce clause. And five years later, in United States v. Morrison, O’Connor joined Rehnquist’s 5-4 decision striking down the federal Violence Against Women Act, which allowed private lawsuits for gender-based violent crimes. O’Connor’s stint as a legislator also may have influenced her decision in the 2003 campaign-finance case McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a challenge to the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act. O’Connor co-authored an opinion with Stevens that largely upheld two titles of the act, including a provision that limited campaign spending by corporations and unions. O’Connor and Stevens pushed back against the suggestion, made by Kennedy, that Congress should be able to regulate only the kind of quid pro quo corruption that arises from direct contributions or coordinated expenditures. Kennedy, O’Connor and Stevens stressed, would not allow Congress to regulate any other spending or contribution regardless of its size, the recipient’s relationship to the candidate or officeholder, its potential impact on a candidate’s election, its value to the candidate, or its unabashed and explicit intent to purchase influence. This crabbed view of corruption, O’Connor and Stevens concluded, ignores precedent, common sense, and the realities of political fundraising exposed by the record in this litigation. Just seven years later, Kennedy’s view would prevail. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court overruled McConnell (as well as a 1990 campaign-finance decision, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce) and struck down the federal ban on political spending by corporations and unions. Independent expenditures by outside groups like corporations and unions, Kennedy explained, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. The normally disciplined O’Connor had a momentary lapse during an election-night party in 2000 that led to public attention and criticism after the Supreme Court became involved in a post-election dispute. When the networks initially called Florida for Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore, O’Connor reportedly declared that this is terrible and walked away.
In a 2013 interview with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, seven years after she left the court, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor suggested that the justices should have declined to intervene in Bush v. Gore. She observed that the dispute stirred up the public and gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation, stating that maybe the court should have said, ‘We’re not going to take it, goodbye.’
Her husband told party guests that she was upset because she wanted to step down so that the couple could return to Arizona, but she wouldn’t be able to do that with a Democratic president in office. In their unsigned opinion in Bush v. Gore, the justices stopped the manual recount of ballots in Florida, over a month after the election. The court divided along ideological lines, with five conservative justices (including O’Connor) voting to halt the recount, which settled the election in favor of George W. Bush. O’Connor’s signature achievement as a justice was probably her landmark opinion that retained affirmative action in higher education, albeit temporarily and in a limited form. In 2003, she wrote for a divided court in Grutter v. Bollinger, upholding the University of Michigan Law School’s consideration of race in its admissions process. In an opinion joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Justice Stephen Breyer, O’Connor explained that having a diverse student body creates educational benefits and is the kind of essential interest that can justify a university’s consideration of race. The law school’s admissions process, O’Connor added, merely considers race as one factor among many, in an effort to assemble a student body that is diverse in ways broader than race. However, O’Connor reached a different result in Gratz v. Bollinger, a case decided on the same day involving the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy. In that case, O’Connor joined Rehnquist’s majority opinion striking down the policy, and in a concurring opinion, she explained how it differed from Grutter. The undergraduate policy, unlike the law school’s, did not provide for a meaningful individualized review of each applicant but instead gave each minority applicant the same, automatic 20-point bonus, without consideration of the particular background, experiences, or qualities of each individual applicant, O’Connor wrote. Even Grutter itself was not an unmitigated endorsement of individualized and holistic race-conscious admissions. Rather, O’Connor emphasized that the use of race in higher education should not continue indefinitely. Because the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits states from denying equal protection of the laws, was intended to do away with all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race, she reasoned, race-conscious policies like the law school’s must be limited in time. O’Connor observed that it had been 25 years since the court first upheld a race-based admissions policy in University of California Board of Regents v. Bakke.In a significant decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the race-conscious admissions programs used by the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violate the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts stated that the core purpose of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause is to abolish all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race.
Despite not explicitly overruling O’Connor’s decision in Grutter, the court made it clear that programs similar to those at North Carolina and Harvard would not survive. The ruling emphasized that the admissions policies used by these institutions did not meet the required standards. Roberts highlighted that these programs incorrectly concluded that the defining characteristic of an individual is the color of their skin, rather than their achievements, skills, or experiences. Justice O’Connor had previously noted an increase in the number of minimum applicants with high grades and test scores, suggesting that racial preferences might eventually become unnecessary. Less than 25 years later, the court’s decision effectively ended the use of race in college admissions. Justice Ginsburg emphasized O’Connor’s role in promoting collegiality among the court’s members, stating that O’Connor had done more to foster unity than any other Justice. Justice Clarence Thomas also acknowledged O’Connor’s influence, noting her responsibility for the justices’ practice of having lunch together after oral arguments, which he initially resisted but eventually joined due to her insistence. O’Connor welcomed Ginsburg, the second woman on the court, when she was confirmed in 1993. Ginsburg recalled turning to O’Connor for advice on a complex pension case, which was her first assignment. O’Connor’s response was straightforward and supportive, encouraging Ginsburg to complete the task and share her draft with the rest of the court.In the spring of 2005, Sandra Day O’Connor authored a pivotal 5-4 ruling in Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education. The case involved an Alabama physical education teacher and basketball coach who claimed that the school system had retaliated against him for complaining about unequal treatment of the girls’ basketball team. Lower courts had dismissed the lawsuit, arguing that federal laws against gender discrimination in federally funded schools did not permit private lawsuits about retaliation. However, the Supreme Court reinstated the teacher’s case, with O’Connor asserting that retaliation for gender discrimination complaints is a form of intentional sex discrimination covered by the law.
O’Connor announced her retirement in a letter to President George W. Bush on July 1, 2005, stating it would be effective upon the nomination and confirmation of her successor. She expressed her gratitude for serving as a justice and her respect for the Court’s integrity and role within the Constitutional framework. Her retirement was unexpected, as she was only 75 years old, which is considered relatively young for a Supreme Court justice. The decision to retire was influenced by her husband John O’Connor’s Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. Sandra often brought him to court as his condition worsened, and eventually, she decided to leave her position to care for him full-time. In June 2005, O’Connor had anticipated Chief Justice Rehnquist’s retirement due to his battle with thyroid cancer, planning to serve one more term before retiring. However, when Rehnquist opted to stay for another year, O’Connor submitted her retirement letter. President Bush initially nominated John Roberts to succeed O’Connor, but after Rehnquist’s death, Roberts was nominated to replace him. Bush then nominated Harriet Miers for O’Connor’s seat, but she withdrew her nomination, leading to the nomination of Samuel Alito. O’Connor remained on the court until Alito’s confirmation in January 2006. Despite stepping down to care for her husband, it was too late, as noted by Evan Thomas. O’Connor’s departure marked a significant moment in the Supreme Court’s history, influenced by both her family responsibilities and the weight of her judicial decisions.Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman on the U.S. Supreme Court, left a significant impact both during and after her tenure. By July 2006, John O’Connor, her husband, moved into an Alzheimer’s care facility in Arizona. In 2007, it was reported that he had formed a romantic relationship with another patient there. Their son, Scott, expressed that Sandra was pleased with John’s comfort and happiness in the facility.
In 2009, Justice O’Connor lent her voice to the fight against Alzheimer’s disease, serving as an honorary chair of a nonpartisan panel to create a plan to combat the disease. She testified before Congress, warning of a significant increase in Alzheimer’s cases and advocating for action. Sadly, John O’Connor passed away in November 2009.
Post-retirement, O’Connor was actively involved in advocacy.
She was distressed by the politicization of the judiciary and spearheaded a plan in 2014 for the selection and retention of state judges. This plan aimed to replace partisan judicial elections with a four-step process to balance impartiality and accountability.Another major project of O’Connor’s retirement was iCivics, a program supporting civics education with free interactive lesson plans and video games.
She emphasized the importance of educating young people about their role in government, considering iCivics her most significant work and legacy, reaching over 5 million students across all 50 states.As a retired justice, O’Connor continued to serve as a judge on federal courts of appeals, writing 33 decisions and sitting approximately 180 times. Six of her decisions were appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined to review them.
She appeared to stop sitting on appellate panels after June 2014.With O’Connor’s retirement and the confirmation of the more conservative Alito, the Supreme Court shifted to the right. In 2000, O’Connor provided the key vote in Stenberg v. Carhart to strike down Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortions. However, in 2007, Alito joined the court’s four other conservatives to uphold a federal ban on the procedure in Gonzalez v.
Carhart.Two months later, the court began carving a new path on the issue of racial diversity in education. In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, the court held that public school systems could not use race as a factor to assign students to a school as part of their efforts to promote integration. In his opinion for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts famously concluded that ‘the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race’.
In a part of his dissent from the bench that did not appear in his written opinion, Breyer alluded to the impact of Alito and Roberts. He stated, ‘It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much.’ At a 2009 event, O’Connor faced questions about the court’s rightward shift, away from decisions in which she had played a pivotal role. Her response was pragmatic but, for O’Connor, also telling. She answered, ‘What would you feel? I’d be a little bit disappointed. If you think you’ve been helpful, and then it’s dismantled, you think, Oh, dear. But life goes on. It’s not always positive.’
Thirteen years later, the sea change on the court that Reagan and his supporters had envisioned finally came to fruition. Reagan appointees O’Connor and Kennedy, along with George H.W. Bush appointee Souter, had voted to reaffirm Roe. But in Dobbs, three justices appointed by President Donald Trump – Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett – joined Thomas and Alito in voting to overrule Roe and Casey. One year later, those same justices, along with Roberts, would effectively overturn
