>> Carla Hayden: I'm Carla Hayden, and I'm very pleased to welcome you to the Law Library of Congress's 190th Anniversary Celebration. It was on this day in 1832 that the Law Library of Congress was created as a department of the Library of Congress by statute. Since that time, the Law Library has grown to be the largest Law Library in the world, featuring an unparalleled collection of domestic, foreign, international, and comparative legal materials. This collection is so large that the subbasement stacks of the Madison Building, which contains most of the Law Library's collection, is an incredible one and a half football fields in length. But, of course, the impressive collections are only half the story. The Law Library's dedicated staff is what makes this collection accessible to patrons who come from a wide variety of backgrounds ranging from members of all three branches of our government, legislative, executive, and judicial, to members of the public. They make the collection accessible by providing reference services and issuing reports for Congress on both US and foreign, international, and comparative law, providing webinars on how to research the law, maintaining and describing a vast collection of legal materials in a wide variety of languages, and through large scale digitization projects, such as digitizing the United States Serial Set. To celebrate this momentous occasion, we are so pleased to have with us Dean Tomiko Brown-Nagin. Dean Brown-Nagin is Dean of Harvard Radcliffe Institute, Daniel P.S. Paul Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School, and member of the History Department. In 2019, she was appointed chair of the Presidential Committee on Harvard and the Legacy of Slavery. She's a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Law Institute, and the American Philosophical Society, a fellow of the American Bar Foundation, and a distinguished lecturer for the Organization of American Historians. The Law Librarian of Congress, Aslihan Bulut, will interview her today to discuss her book, Civil Rights Queen: Constance Baker Motley and the Struggle for Equality. Civil Rights Queen is a book that explores the life and times of Constance Baker Motley, the pathbreaking lawyer, politician, and judge. Dean Brown-Nagin, once again, we are so pleased you could join us today. And with that, I will turn it over to the Law Librarian of Congress. Happy anniversary Law Library of Congress. >> Aslihan Bulut: Thank you, Dr. Hayden. Good afternoon to our audience, our patrons, and colleagues, and, of course, to our guest of honor, Dean Tomiko Brown-Nagin. Dean Brown-Nagin, thank you for helping us celebrate the Law Library of Congress's 190th birthday. I just want to remind the audience that they can type their questions into the Q&A box at the bottom of the screen. And we will address the questions at the end of the program. So, our first question is, could you tell us a bit about both Constance Baker Motley and your book, Civil Rights Queen: Constance Baker Motley and the Struggle for Equality? What drew you to tell Constance Baker Motley's story? >> Tomiko Brown-Nagin: Thank you so much. I'm delighted to be here to celebrate the Law Library of Congress anniversary and to be in conversation with you about my book, Civil Rights Queen. The book is a life and times of Constance Baker Motley, who was a path breaker in three different realms. First, she was a civil rights lawyer who helped to litigate cases such as Brown versus Board of Education, the case that desegregated Ole Miss, University of Alabama, University of Georgia. And through her work as a civil rights lawyer, she brought us the world that we know today, one in which racial discrimination is prescribed under law. And the achievement is open to everyone regardless of race and gender. After she had litigated all of those cases that changed the world for us, Constance Baker Motley broke barriers in politics. She was the first woman elected Manhattan Borough President. She was the first Black woman elected to the New York Senate. And then, after all of that, in 1966, President Lyndon Johnson appointed her a federal judge, making her the first Black woman to occupy such a role. She's appointed to the Us District Court in Manhattan. And what drew me to this life, well, it was because when I was researching a prior work, I came to understand that Motley had not received the attention, the scholarly attention that she deserves. There had been relatively little written about her. And I thought that the absence of her story in the literature was a kind of historical malpractice. And I also concluded that, unfortunately, her erasure or her lowered visibility likely came down to gender and to race because, in Western society, historical significance tends to be accorded to males. And women's stories are not highlighted. And that's true of women of all backgrounds. And yet it was especially notable to me that Motley, who was a protégé of Thurgood Marshall, worked alongside him and Martin Luther King Jr., who was her client. Well known to them, but had been -- not been featured in the history like these individuals were. And I thought I wanted to correct that oversight and thought it was particularly unfortunate that the erasure of this woman occurred within the civil rights literature and the legal history. Just the same as erasure of women is apparent in all other areas of history. >> Aslihan Bulut: So Thurgood Marshall was one of the most influential people in Motley's life, hiring her at a time when it was very difficult for a female law school graduate to find work as an attorney. But ultimately, she also had to fight even in her own place of work for equal pay within the organization. And no doubt, she was disappointed when Marshall chose Jack Greenberg, a white civil rights attorney, as his successor. She also faced a significant professional setback in that she never did get appointed to the Federal Court of Appeals. How did Constance Baker Motley respond to these challenges, and what can we learn from it? >> Tomiko Brown-Nagin: Sure. Well, there's a lot there. Let me unpack it a little bit. First, as to the challenges she encountered as a law student, she graduated from Columbia Law School in 1946. And when she went to apply for jobs with law firms, New York City law firms, of course, the most lucrative sector of the legal profession, she had the door closed in her face because she was a woman and also because she was African American. And this was a common experience. It didn't just happen to her. In fact, this continued to happen years later when Ruth Bader Ginsburg came along and Sandra Day O'Connor. And so this was the fate of women, even those who performed well in law school and who went on to these brilliant careers as lawyers. Motley did not let it discourage her, that being shut out of the law firms. In fact, it created an opportunity for her in public interest law. In 1945, well before she even graduated from law school, she went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, asked Thurgood Marshall for a job. He hired her on the spot. It was her dream job because she had been a person with a strong social consciousness from a very young age. And she was delighted to work at the [inaudible]. Marshall was a mentor to her. And she learned so much from him. And in many ways, he was progressive on gender. For instance, when she became pregnant around the same time that the NAACP was litigating Brown versus Board of Education, and it went up and down to the Supreme Court twice, he permitted her to go on maternity leave and then come back. And I say permitted. That might not sound so progressive. But for that era, in fact, it was pretty progressive to have a woman in the office, much less, you know, have her going out on maternity leave and returning to the job in this really hectic time for law firm. Nevertheless, Thurgood Marshall, as you mentioned, also denied her the promotion to his position when he was set to be appointed to the federal bench. And Motley was disappointed. She thought that gender was a factor, that race was a factor in the denial of her promotion. And yet, for all of her life, she lifted up Thurgood Marshall. She praised Thurgood Marshall for giving her her big break. In fact, she said, had it not been for Thurgood Marshall, no one ever would have heard of the Constance Baker Motley. And so she handled it in the way that she handled everything. She kept going. She kept going. She was incredibly resilient. And, of course, the failure to attain that promotion actually opened an opportunity for her. She was -- she went into politics after working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund for more than 20 years and was a barrier breaker there. And, of course, she was appointed to the US District Court. She was not able to make it to the court of appeals. There are many stories there. I'm not sure how much you want me to tell. But suffice it to say that her practice background as a civil rights lawyer was weaponized against her. And also, there were those who just didn't want a woman on the Court of Appeals. Nevertheless, Motley achieved great things, and ultimately, she was pleased with the history that she had made. >> Aslihan Bulut: So one of the things I noticed in your book, which was really interesting, is that you discussed the intense pressure placed on plaintiffs in civil rights cases, not just the attorneys but also the clients. And two that caught my attention were Autherine Lucy, who sought admission to study library science at the University of Alabama. And James Meredith, who sought admission to the University of Mississippi. And both of these clients were under tremendous pressure from communities that sought to resist desegregation with violence. Client management and emotional intelligence are often an underappreciated skill set in the law. How did Constance Baker Motley help these clients through such trying situations? And what do you think attorneys could learn from that? >> Tomiko Brown-Nagin: Well, thanks for that question. I like it a great deal because it does give me the opportunity to discuss one of the themes of my book. And that is how much pressure, what costs these pioneering plaintiffs had to endure in the course of the struggle for civil rights. And the case of Autherine Lucy and her [inaudible] for a while, Polly Anne Myers in the University of Alabama case, and James Meredith in the University of Mississippi or Ole Miss case points in different directions. And here's why. Autherine Lucy had been prompted to file the case to enter the University of Alabama because of her friend, Polly Anne Myers, who was more of a, initially more of a social activist. And something really unfortunate happened to Polly Anne Myers during the course of that litigation such that she ended up no longer being a plaintiff. And that was that the officials at the University discovered that she had become pregnant before she was married and accused her on that basis of being a person of low moral character. And the NAACP, upon being faced with this situation, the circumstance, drops Myers. And so Lucy was left to fight as a plaintiff on her own. It was very difficult for her. She not only was subjected to epithets and threats of violence from whites but was subjected to criticism from some African Americans for daring to take on this role. Because, of course, in these civil rights cases, the entire community could feel -- could be subject to blowback from whites, even if only one individual was the face of a civil rights case. And so, ultimately, Autherine Lucy said that she had enough. And the University of Alabama case, the first one Motley was involved in, ended without success. It took a second case years later, during the early 1960s, to ultimately desegregate the University of Alabama. And what about the James Meredith case? So this was another one in which Meredith faced tremendous obstacles. And everyone knew that this would be the case. In fact, when James Meredith wrote a letter to the NAACP legal defense fund saying that he wanted to challenge segregation at Ole Miss, Thurgood Marshall and everyone else said he had to be crazy because white supremacy was such a factor in every sector of life in Mississippi, that it was clear that someone might get killed, might be murdered in the course of this case. And in fact, there were individuals who lost their life as a result of the desegregation of Ole Miss. And yes, Motley was with him all along. She had to encourage him to go on when the State of Mississippi argued that he was unstable, mentally unstable, because what kind of Black person would want to challenge the State? That was really what the -- what was embedded behind that claim. They were using his records from the Armed Forces to make that claim. They argued that he had unlawfully voted, which was not true. But the full weight of the State of Mississippi was brought to bear on James Meredith. And one of the things that Motley did was she actually invited him to her apartment in New York City to talk about what he was going through. You know, a context where he could taste freedom instead of being left in Mississippi, where he had to be in fight mode all the time. And so she was -- she made the difference for him. She helped him manage his emotions even as she was managing her own emotions. They both were up against quite a lot in Mississippi, disrespect, the State just being [inaudible] opposed to desegregation, making claims in court that were ridiculous, but nevertheless, had to be litigated. And so Meredith is just one of the many plaintiffs that Motley worked with whom she had to support. And she almost was like one could think of it as a kind of therapy, or some of it might be characterized as maternal. She did that because she had to because these were hard cases, hard for the plaintiffs, hard for the communities, the Black communities, and of course, difficult for Motley and other civil rights lawyers as well. >> Aslihan Bulut: So Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson acknowledged the influence of those who inspired her, stating, "I stand on the shoulders of so many who have come before me," in her Senate confirmation hearing, including Judge Constance Baker Motley. During her time as a Federal District Judge, Constance Baker Motley presided over cases ranging from the rights of persons in solitary confinement under the Eighth Amendment to a case that turned on whether a female reporter could interview baseball players in the locker room. Which was the location where male reporters typically got the inside scoop. Did Constance Baker Motley have a case that she presided over that she was particularly proud of and felt it defined her legacy on the bench? >> Tomiko Brown-Nagin: Mm-hmm. That's a good question. And a complicated question. And that's because the cases that tended to define her legacy were civil rights cases. And yet it was her background as a civil rights lawyer that had been weaponized against her to deny her, say, the appointment to the Court of Appeals. And so there was a mixed legacy associated with her expertise in civil rights. Nevertheless, the cases that I would cite as being particularly meaningful to her and indeed to us relate to discrimination. Because essentially, what she did was, as a lawyer, she paved the way for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And then, as a judge, she implemented the Civil Rights Act through these cases that were brought. And let me tell you about two of them. The first defining case was Blake versus Sullivan and Cromwell. This was a claim brought by female law school graduates against the law firm Sullivan and Cromwell, which I'm sure we all know of, one of the white shoe firms in New York City, arguing that the firm would not hire women, would not. If they did hire a handful, would not promote them or give them the kind of assignments that would allow them to show their mettle and stand for partner. This was a Title VII case. And judge Motley drew the case by random assignment. You know, back a long time ago, the court in the Seventh District actually had a wheel. And the clerk would spin the wheel and get a name, reach in and get a name of one of the judges. And Motley was it. And the law firm's attorney was not happy because he argued that, well, she had been a civil rights lawyer. She was a woman, and she was biased, he argued. He wrote her a letter saying this. Then he filed a motion for recusal. And Motley rejected the motion. And she did so in the opinion that continues to have residents and continues to be cited by judges who are asked to recuse on the basis of identity. What she held there was that identity alone was not enough and did not amount necessarily to bias. In fact, she turned the argument on its head and said that if race or gender or practice background alone were enough to disqualify a judge, then no judge on the court could hear the case, right, because white men, corporate lawyers, for instance, have a practice background and a gender and a race. It was a brilliant opinion and has been cited time and time again. Now, what was the self-substantive result there? The firm settled ultimately, and Motley approved a settlement that opened up the doors of these lucrative positions in law firms to women. And I should say that Sullivan and Cromwell was hardly alone in its practices. The case really could have been brought against any of the firms at that time, all of whom denied entry to women and to people of color. And thanks to Motley, that changed. I will tell you about one other case that was defining. And this was a case involving Martin Sostre, who was what was called a jailhouse lawyer, a Black Puerto Rican man who had landed in Attica on trumped-up drug charges. And in solitary confinement, he brought a lawsuit arguing that solitary confinement constituted cruel and unusual punishment. And that some other things that had happened during the course of his confinement, for instance, taking his mail, not letting him communicate privately with his lawyers, were unlawful. And Motley ruled in his favor. It was a cause célèbre, and it was very controversial. And I will tell you that it's the kind of case where no one would have been surprised or particularly upset outside of the prisoner's rights movement if Motley had not ruled in his favor. So this was a very courageous decision on her part. The Second Circuit upheld her in part but not in whole. And it's defining because it shows how courageous she was. And that she called them like she saw them. She called them like she saw them. If Martin Sostre had made his case, she was going to rule in his behalf. Although, it really didn't win her very many friends. >> Aslihan Bulut: Yeah, I'm sure we can all relate to that at some point in our life. If Constance Baker Motley were here today, what words of wisdom do you think she would want to leave us with? And do you think there is a particular aspect of her life that is underappreciated and you would like to mention? >> Tomiko Brown-Nagin: Hm. Well, first, I want to go back to the first thing you mentioned in the prior question. And that was that Associate Justice Brown Jackson cited Motley as a role model when she was introduced to the country. I was very happy that she did because, of course, there is a link between Motley and Justice Jackson. Clearly, Motley's pathbreaking paved the way for not only the handful of women of color judges, but women judges generally, and indeed women lawyers and people of color lawyers. And yet an answer to your current question, the thing that I would say about her is that she was a lovely person, just a lovely person. And I wanted, in my book, to show her full personhood, her full humanity and to show, for instance, how she mentored law clerks and other judges. She was very welcoming to Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor when she joined, began her judicial career in the Southern District of New York and Kimba Wood and so many other judges. She always stayed in touch with her family and was helpful to her family. She hosted reunions. She traveled back to Nevis, which is where her parents had immigrated from in the early 20th century. And so she was just a very decent person. And I think that it's important to convey to readers that this is a person of high achievement. But she wasn't just that. She also was just a terrific human. And I think it's important to have examples of that combination. And then, in terms of what she might say to us today, well, I suppose, she might look around and see the many problems, legal and social problems confronting us. And she might observe that in a career that spanned decades and included three different phases and roles, she had done her part. And she would say to us that we should do our parts to ensure that democracy holds and that people are able to achieve despite their identities. [ Multiple Speakers ] >> Aslihan Bulut: Yes, words of wisdom. The discrimination faced by Constance Baker Motley as a woman, a minority, and a child of working-class family required an incredible amount of perseverance to overcome and to become the prominent civil rights attorney, federal district judge, and later a New York state Senator. Based on your extensive research on Motley's life, what advice would you glean from her experience to give to people pursuing a career in law who come from similar backgrounds that are underrepresented in the law and who may face obstacles similar to Constance Baker Motley? >> Tomiko Brown-Nagin: Mm. That's a good question. And I will quote Motley, who described herself as a person who would not be put down. She just would not be defeated. She was determined. She was resilient. She knew who she was. She understood that she was a person of great ability. And despite all of the setbacks, she continued to pursue her goals. They were goals that she had had since she was a teenager growing up in New Haven in the shadow of Yale University. And so I would say that she would encourage people to endure. People who can, again, who know that they have talents. She also would say that Individuals who are pursuing goals, certainly in the law, need to be prepared. And that preparation starts long before law school. Of course, it's something that requires preparation in K through 12, and thus that leads back not just to the individual but to institutions and structures. We, as a society and as decision makers and leaders in educational institutions and in the legal profession, need to ensure that barriers are removed. And that those who are talented or who show ability can achieve despite what might be humble beginnings. Certainly, that was the case for Constance Baker Motley. >> Aslihan Bulut: One particular challenge you had discussed was this difficult balancing act of being a working mother, even though she got her maternity leave. How did Constance Baker Motley balance being a mother with being an attorney who had to travel frequently across the country? >> Tomiko Brown-Nagin: Yeah, well, maternity leave is just the beginning of it, right? >> Aslihan Bulut: That's right. >> Tomiko Brown-Nagin: So she came back to work, and she was in a very different position than her male colleagues. And I describe in the book how when the [inaudible] lawyers were litigating Brown versus Board of Education, they were expected to be at work all the time, to not see their families, to litigate, to do the work, the research, to write the briefs for hours at a time. And speaking of law firms, certainly, those who have worked in law firms know this life. And Motley couldn't really do that. And so she had to -- she had to do what she needed to to spend some time with her young son. At the same time, she also hired help and was not shy about saying so. She counseled women who were talented, who were in the professions to hire help to play the domestic roles that one cannot when one is in the workforce. And she also had a supportive spouse, an egalitarian marriage before that was really a phenomenon. And she had siblings who helped her out. And so, you know, there's that saying, the proverb about it taking a village. I think that was true of Motley. And yet I also want to note that at the end, near the end of her life, when she was asked what she was proudest of, she said her son, who had turned out well, although his mommy was always working. And that's bittersweet, isn't it? that she was so proud of being a mother. And yet she was acknowledging her uneasy relationship with conventional motherhood. And so one juggles, but there's always until child care responsibilities are more evenly distributed for women, at least there may always be that sort of sense of sacrifice. So a little bit of just regret. >> Aslihan Bulut: So I must ask you, since we are celebrating the Law Library's 190th anniversary, I am curious whether you ran across any quotes by Constance Baker Motley about libraries or law libraries. What role do you think law libraries can play in ensuring the words that are etched above the portico on the US Supreme Court, Equal Justice Under Law, which is such a dominant theme in the life of Constance Baker Motley becoming, you know, closer to reality? >> Tomiko Brown-Nagin: Sure. Well, I can't say that I came across any quotes about law libraries. And I must say that one of the unfortunate realities of these early civil rights lawyers was that they were denied entry to various law libraries, even in Northern states. And so there's not a very happy history there. However, years later, when I was doing research not only for this book but for a prior one on the history, legal history, the history of the civil rights movement, and uncovering histories of some rights lawyers not well known, I did research at the Library of Congress and was happy to do so and know about the unparallel resources that are available at the Library of Congress, including the Law Library of Congress. And also, just the professionalism of the staff was astounding to me. And frankly, when I was first researching there, I was a graduate student, so it was a little scary, a little intimidating with all of the procedures. But of course, the staff doing exactly what needed to be done to protect the materials. And so, it is absolutely the case that we, in doing our research and recovering this history, it's vital to have resources like those that are available at the Library of Congress. >> Aslihan Bulut: Well, thank you so much, Dean Brown-Nagin. What a remarkable legacy and what a role model for all of us. Now it's time to answer questions from our audience, and we have a few I see in our Q&A. So the first one is, could you discuss how Constance Baker Motley's parents felt about her involvement in the civil rights movement? >> Tomiko Brown-Nagin: Hm. Yes. Well, let me add some context to the answer by noting first that her parents were immigrants from the West Indies and considered themselves special. And the father considered himself and all West Indians different from Black Americans, from Black migrants from the South. And in fact, would not allow his children to play with the children of Black migrants. So his understanding of race was, and racism was pretty -- it's not -- it was, I'd say -- I would say common, but just sort of unhappy, unfortunate. And yet I conclude in my book either because of or despite of her father's teachings, Motley grew up to be the civil rights queen and was a person who had tremendous social consciousness. She grew up during the Great Depression and was exposed to civil rights lawyers to social activists. Her mother was an important influence on her life and lived much longer than her father and to see her daughter become a civil rights lawyer and a politician in New York City. And she was delighted that she played that role. And I was happy to talk about that background in my book. It's really important to understanding Motley's relationship to social activism and to the law. I can't say that her parents expected her to become a lawyer. In fact, they didn't. They didn't even think that it was logical for her to pursue a college education because women didn't do that. Little girls of color from working-class backgrounds didn't aspire to such things. And yet Motley -- Baker Motley was able to pursue that course with the help of a philanthropist in New Haven, Clarence Blakeslee. >> Aslihan Bulut: Our other question here I see is, how would you describe Judge Motley's influence as a Manhattan Borough President on New York City politics? >> Tomiko Brown-Nagin: Hm. Good question. Well, she was able to break through and to enter politics in Manhattan, New York politics, despite being a woman. I can't say that everyone welcomed her. And indeed, they did not. There were those who thought she should stay in her lane as a civil rights lawyer and that she wasn't the most authentic representative of African Americans, including in Harlem. And yet she did break through. And that was partly because she had the backing, not only of liberal Democrats, but when she ran for Manhattan Borough President, all three parties supported her, including the Republican party and another third party. And so she was just very well respected. She did break through. And then, in terms of her impact, I would point to two things. First, there was the symbolism of her. As we all know, being a politician means, you know, a lot of chicken dinners and representing the city and the state. And she did that. And it was something to see Constance Baker Motley being the representative of the City of New York. And then, more substantively, as Manhattan Borough President, she sat on the Board of Estimate, which meant that she was able to influence, had a lot of influence on the budget of the city. And using that influence, she was able to ensure resources for social welfare programs, to support women, in particular, single mothers, people from modest backgrounds who were striving. She supported revitalization in Harlem. And so in this second part of her career advanced the struggle for equality using different means. And I wanted to tell the story of her brief time in politics because I do think it's notable that in each of her three professional roles, she was able to engage in activities that allowed her commitment to social justice to find expression. >> Aslihan Bulut: There's a related question in the queue. And perhaps in answering this one, we could focus on her work as a State Senator. So how much impact on New York City did Constance Baker Motley have as a State Senator? >> Tomiko Brown-Nagin: So, I would say -- I would answer in much the same way and also point out that when Motley was in the State Senate, she was battling against things like no-knock laws and police violence, so issues that are still relevant to us today. She was not winning, so she was not in the winning position there. And yet it's important that she was a representative, that she was a barrier breaker. She was in the legislature, overlapped with Shirley Chisholm, and was a model for people like Shirley Chisholm and other women who came after her in New York politics. Also was a classmate of Bella Abzug, who, of course, was elected, first woman elected to Congress from New York. And so she was a part of a network of women early politicos who sometime prevailed in the liberal positions that they took, but not always. And so, but I think that not winning is an important legacy of its own when she was standing up for positions that years, many years later, others have come around to. So she was a -- she was ahead of her time on those criminal justice issues. >> Aslihan Bulut: I think that was our last question. I want to thank you so much, Dean Brown-Nagin, for sharing the story of Constance Baker Motley's extraordinary life and career with us. This certainly was an inspiring conversation. And thank you all for being with us today as we celebrate the 190th anniversary of the Law Library of Congress, the largest Law Library in the world. I hope you enjoyed this event, and I hope we will see you again. Don't forget to visit the Law Library's Legal Research Institute site at law.gov, where you can learn about our upcoming foreign and domestic law webinars and events. And until then, we wish you a wonderful rest of the evening. And when you have some free time or next time you're in town, please be sure to visit us. Thank you so much.