This Article discusses the magnitude of the Warren Court’s doctrinal legacy, specifically focusing on what the Author deems to be the most important doctrine to come from the Warrant Court—incorporation. The Author first explains that incorporation is not the first obvious choice for the most important doctrine from the Warren Court due to the overwhelming amount of different doctrines the Court addressed, as well as the nature in which the Warren Court brought incorporation into being. The Author then proceeds to explain the positive and negative aspects of incorporation. The debate between whether incorporation is a boon or burden is analyzed by the Author, specifically discussing the recent Supreme Court decision in Timbs v. Indiana.
The Author transitions from the big-picture discussion of incorporation to consider some of the other important legacies of the Warrant Court on a smaller scale. The three legacies discussed are not holdings or specific doctrines, but rather “moves” or specific reasoning utilized by the Court. These “moves” include (1) the Warren Court’s efforts to understand police practices under the constitution; (2) the Court’s movement away from formalism that previously dominated the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of “unreasonable” searches and seizures; and (3) the resurrection of Justice Louis Brandeis reasoning in his dissent in Olmstead v. United States. The Article ends with a discussion on substantial unfinished business left by the Warren Court. The Author states that the most important failure by the Warren Court was the lack of pursuing racial justice in the enforcement of criminal law. The Author notes that the Court did not seek to condone race discrimination, but that Chief Justice Warren sought to keep race out of the Court’s attempt to regulate criminal justice generally.