By Olympia Duhart

A few years ago, United States Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens spent the day visiting the law school where I teach. Any time a member of the Supreme Court comes to town, it’s a big deal at a university. But for my law school – which is not ranked among the elite, super-prestigious law schools in the nation – it was a real coup. A sitting member of the U.S. Supreme Court came down to Florida and spent his day with us. Of course we have amazing students and an incredible faculty and staff, but lawyers can get lost in hierarchy at times, and for many folks, we simply don’t rate.

So, it felt good for Nova Southeastern to host Justice Stevens for a day. He had lunch with the faculty, but the bulk of his day was spent meeting with students. He talked with them and answered their questions. The visit was organized by one of my colleagues, Professor John Anderson, who spent 10 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives and made a bid for the Presidency in 1980.

Justice John Paul Stevens

At the time of the visit, I was a brand new Constitutional Law professor. Even on my best day, it was often a challenge to make the pages of the textbook come to life for my students – no matter how riveting the 10th Amendment appeared to me. But on the days we covered anything penned by Justice Stevens – an expertly assembled majority opinion or a zinger dissent – I knew we’d have a great day. Having him visit our law school in person was just as amazing for me as it was for my first year students.

The students loved his easy conversation and affable demeanor. Not surprisingly, we were all amazed by his thoughtful and expansive responses. When he announced his retirement April 9, I thought about his visit to Nova in 2006. I also considered what that visit conveyed about Justice Stevens.

It was an honor to host him at our law school, and we were thrilled that he was eager to walk among the masses – even if the masses weren’t lined up along the steps of an Ivy League law school. His visit demonstrated the commitment Justice Stevens typically displays to inclusion and access. It was also consistent with Justice Stevens’ alignment with “the little guy.”

For decades, Justice Stevens has stood firm for a commitment to civil liberties. He’s been called a “non-practicing Republican” and the “last of the great liberals” on the bench. After almost 35 years on the high court, he will leave behind an important legacy. His respect for the rule of law and civil liberties is clearly evident in many of his decisions: voting rights, opposition to the death penalty, the push for an appropriate response to climate change, restraint on unbridled executive power, protection of detainee rights at Guantanamo and the preservation of democratic participation. Stevens has staunchly defended the rights of the vulnerable and voiceless. And he has made his points clear in a logical voice that anyone can understand.

In Anderson v. Celebrezze, filed by Independent Presidential candidate John Anderson, the Court held that early filing deadlines for Independent candidates diluted the voting and associational rights of supporters. Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion for the 1983 case. In his opinion, he also addressed the entrenched bipartisan system: “Competition in ideas and governmental policies is at the core of our electoral process and of the First Amendment freedoms.”

Atkins v. Virginia held that the execution of mentally retarded offenders violates the Constitution. Justice Steven brought centrists on the court over to his side and wrote in the majority opinion for the 2002 decision that executing mentally retarded offenders violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against “cruel and unusual” punishment.

In the 2006 case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Justice Stevens defended the rule of law.  In his majority opinion, the court struck President Bush’s authority for establishing war-crimes trials and protected the rights of detainees held at a military detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  Even the President, said Justice Stevens, must follow the law.

Sometimes, Justice Stevens was not able to persuade the majority of the bench, but he still left his mark through memorable dissents. He wrote a dissent in Bush v. Gore, the 2000 presidential election decision, which challenged the judiciary to meet its role as an “impartial guardian” of the law.

More recently, Justice Stevens wrote a 90-page dissent in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, criticizing the conservative wing of the Court for giving corporate speech the same level of deference as that afforded to human beings under the First Amendment. He warned against the dangers of eroding democratic participation through unchecked corporate spending on political campaigns and corporate “domination” of electioneering. He wrote: “When citizens turn on their televisions and radios before an election and hear only corporate electioneering, they may lose faith in their capacity, as citizens, to influence public policy.”

As his record makes clear, Justice Stevens has more than earned some time to rest. On April 20, he will be 90 years old. Once Justice Stevens retires at the end of the current term, President Barack Obama will start the difficult task of trying to replace him before the Court’s new term in October. Among the qualities the President said he was seeking in a replacement was someone with a “an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people.”

What a fitting job description for the person who will assume the role that Justice Stevens played on the court. He consistently and passionately advocated for fairness and justice. He consistently gave a voice to those who wouldn’t ordinarily be heard, and he recognized those who often would not rate much consideration.

The ticket stub for the Justice Stevens visit is still hanging from a bulletin board in my office. It’s not every day that a sitting United States Supreme Court Justice visits our law school – it has only happened once in our school’s history. And I’m not at all surprised that it was Justice Stevens.

Olympia Duhart is an Associate Professor of Law at Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad Law Center in Fort Lauderdale where she teaches Constitutional Law, Women and the Law and Lawyering Skills and Values.