Joseph P. Bradley

Joseph P. Bradley
Bradley, circa 1870s
Joseph P. Bradley
Born	Joseph Philo Bradley 14 3, 1813
Birthplace	Berne, New York, U.S.
Died	Template:Death date and age Washington, D.C., U.S.
Nationality	American
Occupation	Jurist
Known for	Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; member of the Electoral Commission of 1877
Education	Rutgers University
Spouse(s)	Mary Hornblower

Joseph Philo Bradley (March 14, 1813 – January 22, 1892) was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1870 until his death in 1892. Nominated by President Ulysses S. Grant, Bradley occupied a seat on the nation's highest court for nearly twenty-two years, a tenure that encompassed some of the most consequential legal questions of the post–Civil War era, including the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment, the reach of federal civil rights legislation, and the limits of congressional power under the Reconstruction Amendments. Born into modest circumstances in rural New York, Bradley rose through self-education, academic achievement at Rutgers University, and a distinguished career as a railroad attorney in New Jersey before ascending to the Supreme Court. He is perhaps best remembered for two controversial roles: his decisive vote on the Electoral Commission that resolved the disputed 1876 presidential election in favor of Rutherford B. Hayes, and his authorship of the majority opinion in the Civil Rights Cases (1883), which struck down key provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1875. His concurrence in Bradwell v. Illinois (1873), in which he argued that women were not entitled to practice law based on their "natural" domestic role, has also attracted sustained scholarly criticism. Bradley's legacy remains a subject of debate, and in 2021, Rutgers University voted to remove his name from a campus building due to his judicial record on racial and gender equality.

Early Life

Joseph Philo Bradley was born on March 14, 1813, in Berne, a small town in Albany County, New York. He was the eldest of eleven children born to Philo Bradley and Mary Gardner. The Bradley family was of modest means; his father was a farmer, and the family's resources were limited. Despite these constraints, the young Bradley displayed an early aptitude for learning. He attended local schools in Berne, where he excelled academically, and supplemented his formal schooling with extensive self-directed reading.

Bradley's childhood in rural upstate New York was shaped by the agrarian rhythms of the early nineteenth century. He worked on his father's farm while pursuing his education, and the economic limitations of his family made the prospect of attending college a significant challenge. Nevertheless, his intellectual abilities attracted the attention of local educators and benefactors who encouraged him to seek higher education. Bradley reportedly taught school as a young man to earn money for his continued studies, a common practice among academically inclined young men of limited means in antebellum America.

The determination and self-reliance that Bradley demonstrated in his youth would prove to be defining characteristics throughout his career. His rise from a farming family in the hills of eastern New York to the highest court in the land was a trajectory that, while not unique in nineteenth-century America, reflected the possibilities of social mobility in a society that placed a high value on education and professional achievement.

Education

Bradley enrolled at Rutgers University (then known as Rutgers College) in New Brunswick, New Jersey, where he distinguished himself as an outstanding student. He graduated from Rutgers and subsequently pursued the study of law. His legal education followed the customary pattern of the era, which typically involved reading law under the supervision of an established attorney rather than attending a formal law school. Bradley studied law in the office of Archer Gifford, the Collector of the Port of Newark, and was admitted to the New Jersey bar.

His education at Rutgers provided Bradley with a strong intellectual foundation, and the institution would later honor him by naming a building on its Newark campus after him—a distinction that was subsequently revoked in 2021.

Career

Legal Practice in New Jersey

After his admission to the bar, Bradley established himself as a practicing attorney in Newark, New Jersey. Over the following decades, he built a reputation as one of the most capable lawyers in the state. He developed a particular expertise in patent law, corporate law, and matters involving railroads, which were among the most complex and lucrative areas of legal practice in mid-nineteenth-century America. Bradley became closely associated with several major railroad companies, including the Camden and Amboy Railroad and the New Jersey Railroad and Transportation Company. His work on behalf of railroad interests placed him at the center of the era's most significant economic and legal developments, as the expansion of the railroad network transformed American commerce and raised novel questions of constitutional and statutory interpretation.

Bradley's practice was intellectually rigorous, and he became known for his mastery of technical legal subjects. His work in patent litigation required a strong grasp of both legal principles and the underlying science and engineering of the inventions at issue. This combination of analytical skill and breadth of knowledge distinguished Bradley from many of his contemporaries at the bar and would later characterize his approach to judicial decision-making.

Bradley was active in Republican Party politics in New Jersey, though he never held elective office prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court. His political affiliations and his professional standing made him a natural candidate for judicial appointment during the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant.

Nomination and Confirmation to the Supreme Court

In 1870, President Ulysses S. Grant nominated Bradley to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Bradley's nomination filled a newly created seat on the Court, which had been established by Congress as part of the Judiciary Act of 1869, legislation that set the number of justices at nine. Bradley took his seat on March 23, 1870, beginning a tenure that would last until his death on January 22, 1892. His successor on the Court was George Shiras Jr.

Bradley's appointment came at a critical moment in American legal history. The Reconstruction Amendments—the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments—had recently been ratified, and the Supreme Court was tasked with interpreting these transformative additions to the Constitution for the first time. Bradley's views on the scope and meaning of these amendments would profoundly shape the development of American constitutional law.

The Electoral Commission of 1877

One of the most consequential episodes in Bradley's career was his service on the Electoral Commission that resolved the disputed presidential election of 1876. The contest between Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and Democrat Samuel J. Tilden produced conflicting sets of electoral returns from several Southern states, and with no clear constitutional mechanism for resolving the dispute, Congress established a fifteen-member commission to adjudicate the matter. The commission consisted of five senators, five representatives, and five Supreme Court justices.

Bradley was the fifteenth and final member selected for the commission, and his vote proved decisive. The commission was evenly divided along partisan lines, with seven Democrats and seven Republicans, making Bradley—nominally an independent-minded Republican—the swing vote on every contested question. On each of the disputed electoral votes, Bradley voted with the Republican majority, resulting in an 8–7 decision that awarded all contested electoral votes to Hayes and secured his election as president.

Bradley's role on the commission was the subject of intense controversy. Democrats accused him of partisanship, alleging that he had been pressured by Republican allies to change an initially pro-Tilden opinion. Bradley denied these allegations and maintained that his votes were based on legal principle rather than political loyalty. Historians have debated the matter ever since, with no definitive resolution. The commission's work was later depicted in a large-scale painting by artist Cornelia Adèle Fassett, which portrayed William M. Evarts, counsel for Hayes, addressing the commission. The painting was completed in the grand manner of history painting and remains part of the Supreme Court's collection.

Bradwell v. Illinois (1873)

Bradley authored one of the most criticized concurring opinions in Supreme Court history in the case of Bradwell v. Illinois (1873). The case involved Myra Bradwell, who had been denied admission to the Illinois bar on the basis of her sex. The majority of the Court upheld Illinois's decision on narrow procedural grounds, but Bradley wrote separately to offer a broader justification rooted in what he described as the natural differences between men and women.

In his concurrence, Bradley wrote that "the civil law, as well as nature herself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman" and that the "paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfil the noble and benign offices of wife and mother." He argued that this understanding of gender roles was part of "the law of the Creator" and justified the exclusion of women from the legal profession.

Bradley's concurrence in Bradwell has been cited by scholars and legal commentators as a prime example of how legal reasoning was employed to reinforce gender-based exclusion in nineteenth-century America. The opinion's invocation of "separate spheres" ideology and its appeal to divine authority have made it a staple of constitutional law and women's history courses. The concurrence contributed to the 2021 decision by Rutgers University to remove Bradley's name from a campus building.

The Civil Rights Cases (1883)

Bradley's most consequential opinion as a justice was his majority opinion in the Civil Rights Cases (1883), a consolidated group of five cases challenging the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1875. That act had prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodations, including inns, theaters, and public transportation. Bradley, writing for an 8–1 majority, held that the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection provisions applied only to state action, not to the conduct of private individuals or businesses, and that Congress therefore lacked the power to prohibit private acts of racial discrimination under the amendment.

Bradley's opinion held that the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, likewise did not authorize such legislation, reasoning that the denial of access to public accommodations did not constitute a "badge of slavery" within the amendment's meaning. He wrote that there must come a time when formerly enslaved people cease to be "the special favorite of the laws" and instead take on "the rank of a mere citizen."

Justice John Marshall Harlan was the sole dissenter in the Civil Rights Cases. Harlan argued that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments gave Congress broad power to protect the civil rights of all citizens, including the power to regulate private discrimination in public accommodations. Harlan's dissent has since been recognized by many scholars as more consistent with the original purposes of the Reconstruction Amendments, and the Civil Rights Cases decision effectively gutted federal civil rights enforcement for decades, contributing to the rise of Jim Crow laws across the Southern states and beyond.

Legal scholars at Marquette Law School have described Bradley's reasoning in the Civil Rights Cases as "an object study in how to maintain white supremacy," arguing that the decision's logic served to insulate private racial discrimination from federal regulation and thereby perpetuated systemic racial inequality.

The state action doctrine articulated in Bradley's opinion remained a cornerstone of constitutional law for more than eighty years. It was not until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which relied on Congress's commerce power rather than the Fourteenth Amendment, that comprehensive federal prohibitions on racial discrimination in public accommodations were enacted.

Other Judicial Contributions

Beyond his most controversial opinions, Bradley made significant contributions to other areas of law during his long tenure on the Court. He was recognized by contemporaries as a justice of considerable intellectual ability, with particular strength in areas involving commercial law, patent law, and the interpretation of federal statutes. His background as a railroad attorney gave him a practical understanding of the economic and legal complexities facing American industry during the rapid industrialization of the Gilded Age.

Bradley also participated in the Court's deliberations on the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), one of the earliest and most important cases interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment. In that case, a divided Court adopted a narrow reading of the amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause, and Bradley joined the dissent, arguing for a broader interpretation that would have afforded greater federal protection for individual rights against state infringement.

A portrait of Bradley was included among the judicial portraits created by artist Cornelia Adèle Fassett, who produced a large conté crayon drawing of the Waite Court. This drawing was created for exhibition purposes and its composition was inspired by several photographs of the justices taken during that era.

Personal Life

Joseph P. Bradley married Mary Hornblower, a member of a prominent New Jersey family. The couple settled in Newark, New Jersey, where Bradley maintained his legal practice and raised his family. Mary Hornblower Bradley was connected to one of the state's leading legal families, and the marriage reinforced Bradley's standing within New Jersey's professional and social elite.

Bradley was known among his contemporaries as a man of wide-ranging intellectual interests. He was a voracious reader throughout his life, and his personal library reflected interests that extended well beyond the law to encompass mathematics, natural science, history, and classical literature. His scholarly temperament and analytical mind were frequently noted by those who knew him or observed him on the bench.

Bradley died on January 22, 1892, in Washington, D.C., while still serving as an Associate Justice. He was seventy-eight years old. He was buried at Mount Pleasant Cemetery. His death ended a tenure on the Supreme Court that had lasted nearly twenty-two years, spanning the terms of six presidents and encompassing some of the most transformative and contested periods in American legal history.

Recognition

During his lifetime, Bradley was regarded as one of the more intellectually formidable members of the Supreme Court. His expertise in patent law, commercial law, and constitutional interpretation earned him respect within the legal profession, even as some of his opinions provoked criticism.

Rutgers University, Bradley's alma mater, honored him by naming Bradley Hall on its Newark campus after him. The building served as a campus landmark for decades. However, in October 2021, the Rutgers University Board of Governors voted to remove Bradley's name from the building, citing his judicial record on issues of race and gender. The decision was made in the context of a broader national reassessment of public honors for historical figures whose actions or writings are viewed as having contributed to systemic inequality.

The renaming decision drew public attention and commentary. Writing in Reason Magazine, legal scholar Josh Blackman discussed the Rutgers decision under the headline "Rutgers University Cancels Justice Joseph Bradley," noting that Bradley's majority opinion in the Civil Rights Cases and his concurrence in Bradwell v. Illinois were central to the university's rationale for the name change. An article in NJ.com noted that while Bradley's name was removed, the names of other historical figures with connections to slaveholding were retained on other campus buildings, raising questions about the consistency of the university's approach.

Bradley's image appears in a number of historical artworks associated with the Supreme Court, including the conté crayon drawing of the Waite Court by Cornelia Adèle Fassett and her painting of the Electoral Commission of 1877, both of which are held in the Supreme Court's collection.

Legacy

Joseph P. Bradley's legacy is a deeply contested one. His nearly twenty-two years on the Supreme Court placed him at the center of the most significant constitutional debates of the post–Civil War era, and the legal doctrines he articulated in cases such as the Civil Rights Cases and Bradwell v. Illinois had far-reaching consequences that extended well beyond his lifetime.

The state action doctrine that Bradley established in the Civil Rights Cases remained the governing framework for federal civil rights law until the mid-twentieth century. By holding that the Fourteenth Amendment did not reach private discrimination, Bradley's opinion effectively removed the federal government as a guarantor of equal access to public accommodations for Black Americans. This legal vacuum facilitated the entrenchment of Jim Crow segregation across the South and in many parts of the North, a system that would persist for decades until the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s prompted new federal legislation.

Bradley's concurrence in Bradwell similarly cast a long shadow over the history of women's rights in the United States. His explicit invocation of the "separate spheres" ideology, grounded in appeals to natural law and divine order, provided judicial sanction for the exclusion of women from professions and public life. While later courts rejected this reasoning, the opinion remains a frequently cited example of how legal institutions reinforced gender-based discrimination in American history.

Bradley's role on the Electoral Commission of 1877 also continues to generate scholarly and public interest. The resolution of the 1876 election in favor of Hayes, facilitated by Bradley's decisive vote, is often linked to the end of Reconstruction, as the political compromise that accompanied Hayes's inauguration led to the withdrawal of federal troops from the South and the abandonment of federal efforts to protect the rights of Black citizens in the former Confederate states.

The 2021 decision by Rutgers University to remove Bradley's name from a campus building reflected the ongoing reassessment of his place in American legal history. While Bradley was undeniably a figure of intellectual distinction and legal influence, the substantive consequences of his most important opinions—particularly their role in undermining civil rights protections for Black Americans and women—have led contemporary institutions to reconsider the honors previously accorded to him.