Brad Rosebrock

SCOTUS Justice


Brad Rosebrock is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Brad was appointed to the Court by President Barack Obama in 2016. Brad was born in Greenwood, Indiana He attended college at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. He obtained his law degree from Harvard University's school of law, and spent six years in an Indianapolis law firm, before he became a law school professor at Indiana University. President Barack Obama nominated him to the court in May of 2016 and appointed to the court later that year.

Judicial Philosophy

Brad practices a philosophy of restraint in regard to his judicial philosophy. He believes that his job as a Supreme Court Justice is to interpret that law, rather than legislate new policies. He also believes that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional. Brad is a Strict Constructionist, believing that the Constitution should be interpreted with original intent in mind.

Korematsu v. United States

Brad would have voted with the majority opinion in the 1944 Korematsu v. United States Supreme Court decision. This decision upheld race-based discrimination against Japanese Americans during World War II. Writing for the majority opinion, Justice Hugo Black stated, "Compulsory exclusion of large groups of citizens from their homes, except under circumstances of direst emergency and peril, is inconsistent with our basic governmental institutions. But when, under conditions of modern warfare, our shores are threatened by hostile forces, the power to protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger." The Court practiced judicial restraint in this decision, in interest of protecting national security after Pearl Harbor.

Roe v Wade

Had Brad been on the 1973 Court that heard the Roe v Wade case, he most likely would have not voted with the majority opinion. Brad is a Strict Constructionist, meaning that he interprets the Constitution in a very literal sense, and does not view it as a "living document." Because there is no place in the Constitution that explicitly states grants people a "right to privacy," Brad would have no agreed that the right to privacy granted by the 14th Amendment applied to a woman's decision to have an abortion.

Miranda v Arizona

Brad would have agreed with the majority opinion in the 1966 Miranda v Arizona Supreme Court decision. This decision determined that any statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible in trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of his or her 5th and 6th Amendment rights. The defendant must not only understand these rights, but also voluntarily waive them. These defendants' rights are explicitly stated in the Constitution. As a Strict Constructionist, Brad agrees that the Supreme Court made the right decision in this case.