Melville Fuller

Melville Fuller
Fuller, c. 1890s
Melville Fuller
Born	Melville Weston Fuller 11 2, 1833
Birthplace	Augusta, Maine, U.S.
Died	Template:Death date and age Sorrento, Maine, U.S.
Nationality	American
Occupation	Jurist, attorney, politician
Known for	8th Chief Justice of the United States; opinions in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. and United States v. E. C. Knight Co.
Education	Bowdoin College (AB) Harvard University
Children	10

Melville Weston Fuller (February 11, 1833 – July 4, 1910) was an American politician, attorney, and jurist who served as the eighth Chief Justice of the United States from 1888 until his death in 1910. Born in the capital city of Maine and educated at Bowdoin College and Harvard University, Fuller built a distinguished legal career in Chicago during the tumultuous decades of the American Civil War and the Gilded Age. Nominated by President Grover Cleveland, he led the Supreme Court of the United States for more than two decades through a period of profound economic and social transformation. Fuller's tenure on the Court was marked by a staunch conservatism that favored unfettered free enterprise, states' rights, and limited federal power. He authored major opinions on the federal income tax, the Commerce Clause, and citizenship law, and he participated in landmark decisions concerning racial segregation and the liberty of contract. Many of those rulings faced sustained criticism during and after Fuller's time, and several were later overruled or superseded by constitutional amendments. The legal academy has generally assessed Fuller's legacy unfavorably, though a revisionist minority of scholars has offered a more sympathetic evaluation of his jurisprudence.

Early Life

Melville Weston Fuller was born on February 11, 1833, in Augusta, Maine. He grew up in a family with deep roots in New England's professional class. His father, Frederick Augustus Fuller, was an attorney, and his maternal grandfather, Nathan Weston, had served as Chief Justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. The legal tradition in his family exerted a formative influence on the young Fuller, who was exposed to the practice of law and judicial reasoning from an early age.

Fuller's parents separated when he was young, and he was raised largely by his mother and maternal grandparents in Augusta. Despite the disruption of his family life, he received a solid education in Maine's capital city. The intellectual environment of his upbringing, combined with the example of his grandfather's judicial career, instilled in Fuller an ambition to pursue the law. Augusta in the 1830s and 1840s was a small but politically active city, and Fuller grew up steeped in the political debates of antebellum America.

After completing his preparatory education, Fuller enrolled at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine, where he proved to be an able student. He graduated from Bowdoin in 1853 with an A.B. degree. Following his undergraduate studies, Fuller briefly read law in the office of his uncle in Bangor before attending Harvard Law School for a period, though he did not complete a formal law degree there. The combination of his family's legal connections, his Bowdoin education, and his time at Harvard prepared Fuller for a legal career, though the direction of that career would ultimately take him far from Maine.

Education

Fuller's formal education began at Bowdoin College, where he matriculated and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1853. Bowdoin at that time was one of the leading colleges in New England, having produced notable alumni including Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, and future President Franklin Pierce. Fuller's time at the college provided him with a classical education and connections that would serve him throughout his career.

After Bowdoin, Fuller studied law briefly at Harvard University, gaining exposure to the more rigorous and systematic legal education that Harvard was beginning to develop in the mid-nineteenth century. He did not complete a degree at Harvard, instead choosing to enter legal practice. He initially practiced law in Augusta for a short period before making the consequential decision to relocate westward to Chicago, Illinois, where he saw greater professional opportunity in the rapidly growing city.

Career

Early Legal and Political Career in Chicago

Fuller established himself in Chicago's legal community during the late 1850s, a period of rapid urban growth and economic expansion. He built a practice focused on commercial and real estate law, areas that were in high demand in a city undergoing extraordinary development. His legal abilities and his capacity for hard work quickly earned him recognition among Chicago's bar.

A committed member of the Democratic Party, Fuller became involved in politics shortly after his arrival in Chicago. He was an active campaigner for Stephen A. Douglas during the 1860 presidential election, aligning himself with Douglas's position of popular sovereignty on the question of slavery in the territories. This political alignment placed Fuller squarely within the Northern Democratic mainstream, distinct from both the Republican supporters of Abraham Lincoln and the Southern Democrats who backed John C. Breckinridge.

During the Civil War, Fuller served a single term in the Illinois House of Representatives, representing his district from 1863 to 1865. In the state legislature, he opposed many of the wartime policies of President Abraham Lincoln, reflecting his Democratic Party loyalties and his skepticism toward the expansion of federal executive power. His opposition to Lincoln's policies included resistance to certain wartime measures that Fuller and other Democrats viewed as overreach. This period of political service, though brief, would later become a point of controversy during his nomination to the Supreme Court.

After the Civil War, Fuller returned his primary attention to the practice of law. He became one of Chicago's most prominent attorneys over the next two decades, handling significant commercial litigation and building a reputation for thorough legal scholarship and persuasive advocacy. He navigated the extraordinary challenges that followed the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, which devastated the city and generated an enormous volume of legal disputes over property and insurance claims.

Fuller also maintained his involvement in Democratic Party politics at the national level. He served as a delegate to several Democratic National Conventions over the years, becoming a respected figure within the party's organizational structure. His combination of legal distinction and political loyalty brought him to the attention of national party leaders, including President Grover Cleveland.

Nomination and Confirmation as Chief Justice

President Grover Cleveland offered Fuller three separate federal appointments before the chief justiceship, all of which Fuller declined. When Chief Justice Morrison Waite died in March 1888, Cleveland turned to Fuller as his nominee for the position. The nomination reflected Cleveland's confidence in Fuller's legal abilities and his alignment with the Democratic Party's political philosophy of limited government and states' rights.

Fuller's confirmation was not without controversy. Some senators raised objections related to his political activities during the Civil War, particularly his opposition to President Lincoln's wartime policies. Critics questioned whether Fuller's record demonstrated sufficient commitment to the Union cause and to the constitutional amendments that had been adopted during and after the war. Despite these objections, the United States Senate confirmed Fuller's nomination in 1888, and he took the oath of office as the eighth Chief Justice on October 8, 1888.

At the time of his appointment, Fuller was fifty-five years old. He was not widely known outside of Chicago legal circles and Illinois Democratic politics, and his nomination surprised many observers who had expected Cleveland to select a more nationally prominent figure.

The Fuller Court: Major Decisions

Fuller served as Chief Justice for more than twenty-one years, from 1888 until his death in 1910. His tenure coincided with the Gilded Age and the early years of the Progressive Era, a period characterized by rapid industrialization, the rise of large corporate trusts, intense labor disputes, and growing public demands for government regulation of the economy. The Supreme Court under Fuller's leadership addressed these issues in a series of landmark cases that reflected the Chief Justice's conservative judicial philosophy.

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895)

One of the most consequential decisions of Fuller's chief justiceship was Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895), in which Fuller wrote the majority opinion striking down a federal income tax as unconstitutional. Fuller's opinion held that the income tax was a direct tax that had not been apportioned among the states according to population as required by the Constitution. The decision effectively prevented the federal government from imposing a general income tax and was widely criticized by progressives and reformers who viewed an income tax as a necessary tool for addressing economic inequality. The decision was ultimately superseded by the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, which explicitly authorized Congress to levy an income tax without apportionment among the states.

United States v. E. C. Knight Co. (1895)

In United States v. E. C. Knight Co. (1895), Fuller authored another landmark majority opinion that narrowly interpreted Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause. The case involved the American Sugar Refining Company, which had acquired a near monopoly over sugar refining in the United States. Fuller's opinion drew a sharp distinction between manufacturing and commerce, holding that manufacturing was a local activity not subject to federal regulation under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The decision significantly limited the federal government's ability to prosecute antitrust cases and was viewed as a setback for efforts to regulate the power of large industrial trusts. The narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause articulated in E. C. Knight was gradually eroded by subsequent Supreme Court decisions over the following decades.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Fuller joined the majority in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), one of the most infamous decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. The Court held that state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities were constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, provided that the separate facilities were nominally equal. This articulation of the "separate but equal" doctrine provided constitutional sanction for Jim Crow laws across the Southern United States and was not overturned until the Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Fuller's participation in the Plessy majority has been a significant factor in the negative assessment of his legacy by subsequent generations of legal scholars and historians. In 2022, a statue of Fuller was removed from the grounds of the Kennebec County courthouse in Augusta, Maine, in part because of his role in the Plessy decision.

Lochner v. New York (1905)

In Lochner v. New York (1905), Fuller joined the majority in holding that a New York state law limiting the working hours of bakers violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion, written by Justice Rufus Peckham, held that the law impermissibly interfered with the liberty of contract between employers and employees. Fuller's agreement with the majority reflected his broader commitment to the principle that the Due Process Clause prevents government infringement on an individual's liberty to control property and business affairs. The Lochner decision became the defining case of what is known as the "Lochner era," a period in which the Court struck down numerous state and federal economic regulations. The decision was effectively repudiated during the New Deal era, when the Court adopted a more deferential approach to economic legislation.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court held that a person born in the United States to parents of Chinese descent was a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, regardless of the nationality of the parents. Fuller dissented from this decision, arguing against the majority's interpretation of birthright citizenship. His dissent reflected a restrictive view of citizenship that was at odds with the expansive reading of the Fourteenth Amendment adopted by the majority. The Wong Kim Ark decision established a precedent for birthright citizenship that has endured.

The Insular Cases

Fuller participated in the Insular Cases, a series of decisions addressing the constitutional status of territories acquired by the United States following the Spanish–American War, including Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. In these cases, Fuller argued that residents of the territories were entitled to constitutional rights, placing him in opposition to those on the Court who held that the Constitution did not fully apply in the new territories. This position represented one of the instances in which Fuller's jurisprudence aligned with a more rights-protective stance, although his reasoning was grounded in a strict textualist reading of the Constitution rather than a progressive political philosophy.

Administrative Leadership

Beyond his judicial opinions, Fuller gained recognition for his administrative leadership of the Court. He was noted for his collegiality and his ability to manage the interpersonal dynamics among the justices, maintaining cordial relations even with those who frequently disagreed with his legal views. Fuller's capacity for administrative management helped the Court function effectively during a period when its caseload was growing and the issues before it were becoming increasingly complex. His personal courtesy and diplomatic skill were acknowledged even by those who criticized his substantive judicial philosophy.

Personal Life

Fuller was married twice. His first wife, Calista Ophelia Reynolds, whom he married in 1858, died in 1864. He subsequently married Mary Ellen Coolbaugh in 1866. Fuller had a total of ten children from his two marriages.

Fuller maintained his residence in Chicago throughout his tenure as Chief Justice, reflecting his deep attachment to the city where he had built his legal career. He was a member of Chicago's social and professional elite and maintained connections to a wide network of attorneys, politicians, and business leaders.

Fuller died on July 4, 1910, in Sorrento, Maine, at the age of seventy-seven. He had served as Chief Justice for nearly twenty-two years, one of the longer tenures in the history of the position. He was buried at Graceland Cemetery in Chicago, Illinois.

Recognition

Fuller's recognition during his lifetime was substantial, reflecting the prestige of the chief justiceship and his long tenure in the position. He was a prominent figure in American legal and political circles for more than two decades and received honorary degrees and other formal acknowledgments from various institutions.

In addition to his service on the Supreme Court, Fuller served as a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, where he participated in international arbitration proceedings. This role reflected the international standing he had achieved as Chief Justice and the respect he commanded in diplomatic and legal circles beyond the United States.

A statue of Fuller was erected on the grounds of the Kennebec County courthouse in Augusta, Maine, his birthplace. However, the statue became a subject of controversy due to Fuller's participation in the Plessy v. Ferguson decision, which upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation. The statue was removed from the courthouse grounds in February 2022.

In modern assessments, Fuller has been listed among the less favorably regarded chief justices. A 2025 commentary in Public Notice invoked Fuller's name alongside that of Roger Taney in a critical discussion of the chief justiceship, reflecting the ongoing negative perception of his legacy among legal commentators.

Legacy

Melville Fuller's legacy is defined by the tension between his administrative effectiveness as Chief Justice and the substantive content of his jurisprudence, much of which was later repudiated. His majority opinions in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. and United States v. E. C. Knight Co. represented significant obstacles to federal regulatory power that were eventually overcome by constitutional amendment and subsequent judicial reinterpretation. His participation in Plessy v. Ferguson and Lochner v. New York placed him on the wrong side of what later generations came to regard as fundamental questions of racial equality and economic justice.

The legal academy has generally assessed Fuller's tenure negatively. Scholars have criticized the Fuller Court's narrow interpretation of federal power, its hostility to economic regulation, and its acquiescence in racial segregation. These criticisms have intensified over time as the constitutional principles that Fuller championed—unfettered economic liberty, strict limits on the Commerce Clause, and a restrictive view of federal authority—fell out of favor during the New Deal and the Civil Rights Movement.

However, a revisionist minority of legal scholars has offered a more sympathetic assessment of Fuller's jurisprudence. These scholars have argued that Fuller's commitment to limited government and economic liberty represented a coherent and principled constitutional philosophy, even if it ultimately proved politically unpopular. Some revisionists have contended that Fuller's approach to federalism and the separation of powers has renewed relevance in contemporary debates about the scope of federal authority.

Fuller's administrative contributions to the Court have been more uniformly praised. His ability to maintain collegiality among the justices, manage the Court's growing docket, and conduct oral arguments and conferences with efficiency and fairness earned him respect from contemporaries across the political spectrum. In this administrative dimension, Fuller's chief justiceship is regarded as competent and effective, even by those who criticize the substance of the decisions rendered during his tenure.

The removal of Fuller's statue in Augusta, Maine, in 2022 symbolized the broader reassessment of his legacy that has taken place in the twenty-first century. As American society has continued to reckon with the legacies of racial segregation and economic inequality, Fuller's role in providing constitutional sanction for both has made him a figure of enduring controversy.