Moorfield Storey (1845–1929) stands as one of the most significant American lawyers of the Progressive Era, a figure whose legal career spanned more than sixty years and encompassed some of the most consequential constitutional battles of his time. As a Boston attorney, Storey combined rigorous legal scholarship with a deep commitment to social reform, using the courtroom as a platform for advancing the causes of civil rights, anti-imperialism, and constitutional liberty. His legal practice extended from routine commercial matters to landmark Supreme Court cases that would shape American constitutional development for generations to come.
Storey's approach to legal practice was distinguished by his willingness to take on cases that other lawyers of his standing and reputation might have avoided. While many successful attorneys focused on lucrative commercial litigation and corporate representation, Storey dedicated substantial portions of his practice to matters of public interest, including challenges to discriminatory laws, defense of civil liberties, and advocacy for reform causes that required legal representation. This commitment to public interest law was unusual for his time and established a model that would inspire subsequent generations of lawyers seeking to use their professional skills in service of social justice.
The cases that Storey argued before the Supreme Court and lower courts reveal the breadth of his legal interests and the depth of his constitutional commitment. From challenges to residential segregation in Buchanan v. Warley to the defense of African American defendants in the Elaine Race Massacre cases, Storey's legal work demonstrated his ability to translate moral conviction into effective legal argument. His arguments before the Supreme Court contributed to the development of constitutional doctrine that would eventually be applied in the dismantling of Jim Crow and the expansion of civil rights protection for all Americans.
The case of Buchanan v. Warley stands as one of Moorfield Storey's most significant Supreme Court victories and a landmark in the development of American constitutional law regarding residential segregation. In this case, Storey represented Joseph W. Buchanan, a white real estate broker in Louisville, Kentucky, who challenged the constitutionality of a Louisville ordinance that prohibited African Americans from purchasing property in white neighborhoods and whites from purchasing property in Black neighborhoods. The ordinance represented one of the mechanisms by which American cities enforced racial separation in housing, confining African Americans to specific neighborhoods and denying them the freedom to live where they chose.
Storey's argument before the Supreme Court in April 1917 combined careful constitutional analysis with a powerful moral appeal grounded in the principles of the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that the Louisville ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating on the basis of race in matters of property ownership and residence. Storey emphasized that the right to acquire, own, and dispose of property was a fundamental liberty protected by the Constitution, and that racial restrictions on this right could not be sustained under any legitimate exercise of governmental power. His argument drew on the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as on broader principles of American constitutionalism regarding property rights and individual liberty.
The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with Storey's arguments in Buchanan v. Warley, holding that the Louisville residential segregation ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision represented a significant victory for the cause of civil rights and established an important precedent that would be built upon in subsequent cases challenging residential segregation. While the decision did not immediately end residential segregation in American cities—white communities would find other mechanisms to enforce separation, including racially restrictive covenants and private agreements—it demonstrated that the Supreme Court was willing to strike down segregation ordinances that violated constitutional principles.
The significance of Buchanan v. Warley extended beyond its immediate outcome to its implications for the broader struggle against Jim Crow. The decision established that residential segregation ordinances could not be sustained under the Constitution, undermining one of the key mechanisms by which white supremacists maintained racial separation in American cities. Storey's successful argument demonstrated the potential of strategic litigation to challenge discriminatory laws and to develop constitutional doctrine that would eventually lead to the dismantling of the entire system of legal segregation.
In addition to his civil rights practice, Storey argued significant cases involving federalism and the scope of federal power over interstate commerce. One such case involved the Missouri Pacific Railway, in which Storey represented the railroad in a dispute concerning the validity of state regulations affecting interstate transportation. The case raised fundamental questions about the relationship between state and federal authority in the regulation of commerce and required careful analysis of the Commerce Clause and its implications for the uniform regulation of interstate transportation.
Storey's argument in the Missouri Pacific Railway case demonstrated his ability to master complex factual and legal issues and to present them persuasively to the Supreme Court. He showed that the state regulations at issue conflicted with federal law and that allowing them to stand would undermine the uniform regulation of interstate commerce that the Constitution contemplated. His argument helped persuade the Court to adopt a more expansive view of federal power over interstate transportation, a view that would prove important for the subsequent development of administrative law and the federal regulation of business.
The principles established in the Missouri Pacific Railway case contributed to the development of federal commerce clause doctrine that would be applied throughout the twentieth century. The decision helped define the boundaries between state and federal authority in an era when the national economy was becoming increasingly integrated and when the need for uniform national regulation was becoming more apparent. Storey's contribution to this development demonstrated his understanding of the constitutional implications of economic change and his ability to translate that understanding into effective legal advocacy.
One of the most consequential episodes in Storey's legal career involved his leadership of the defense team for the so-called Elaine Twelve, a group of African American men convicted of murder and other charges following a racial massacre in Phillips County, Arkansas, in 1919. The violence had erupted during an effort by African American tenant farmers to organize for better working conditions through the Progressive Farmers and Household Union of America. White planters, alarmed by the organizing efforts, had responded with a campaign of terror that killed hundreds of Black residents and destroyed the organization that the farmers had built.
The Elaine Race Massacre represented one of the bloodiest incidents of racial violence in American history, yet it received relatively little attention in the national press at the time. The planters who led the violence faced no legal consequences, while the surviving Black farmers were prosecuted for murder on the basis of evidence that would not have been admissible in any fair proceeding. Twelve men were sentenced to death, and approximately sixty others received prison terms ranging from short terms to life sentences. The prosecutions represented a clear miscarriage of justice, with the defendants denied fair trials in an atmosphere dominated by racial terror.
The NAACP, under Storey's leadership as president, took up the case of the Elaine Twelve and organized a legal defense campaign to secure their release. The case represented exactly the kind of injustice that the NAACP had been founded to address—a situation in which African Americans faced prosecution in Southern courts dominated by white supremacists, with no prospect of obtaining justice through the state judicial process. Storey recognized that only federal intervention could provide any prospect of relief and assembled a legal team to pursue appeals in the federal courts.
The Supreme Court case Moore v. Dempsey, decided in 1923, represented the culmination of Storey's efforts on behalf of the Elaine Twelve. In this case, Storey appeared before the Supreme Court to argue that the convictions of the Arkansas defendants had been obtained through proceedings that violated fundamental principles of due process. His argument emphasized that the original trials had been conducted in an atmosphere dominated by mob violence and racial prejudice, with the defendants unable to receive fair consideration of their cases in the local courts.
Storey's argument in Moore v. Dempsey addressed fundamental questions about the responsibility of federal courts to protect constitutional rights against violation by state governments. He contended that the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process required federal courts to review state criminal proceedings and to intervene when those proceedings failed to meet constitutional standards. The case presented a clear example of such a failure—trials conducted under conditions of racial terror in which the defendants had no real opportunity to present their defense or to receive fair consideration from judges who were themselves subject to the pressures of white supremacist violence.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners in Moore v. Dempsey, holding that the due process claims raised by Storey warranted further consideration. The decision established an important precedent regarding the responsibility of federal courts to review state criminal proceedings for constitutional compliance, even when those proceedings had followed the formal requirements of state law. While the immediate outcome of the case did not secure the release of all the convicted men—many of whom remained in prison for years after the decision—it established principles that would prove important in subsequent cases challenging unfair state criminal proceedings.
The Arkansas Cases and the Moore v. Dempsey decision demonstrated both the potential and the limitations of legal strategy in the struggle for civil rights. While Storey and his colleagues were unable to secure the immediate release of all the convicted men, their efforts brought national attention to the injustice of the prosecutions and raised fundamental questions about the fairness of Southern justice for African Americans. The case demonstrated that federal courts could serve as a check on state court proceedings that violated constitutional rights, even when those proceedings followed the formal requirements of state law.
The precedent established in Moore v. Dempsey would prove important in subsequent decades as the NAACP expanded its legal strategy for challenging civil rights violations. The decision established that federal courts had authority to review state criminal proceedings for compliance with constitutional standards and to intervene when those proceedings failed to meet constitutional requirements. This principle would be applied in numerous subsequent cases involving wrongful convictions, coerced confessions, and denial of fair trial rights to African American defendants in the Jim Crow South.
Storey's leadership of the Arkansas Cases also demonstrated the importance of organizational capacity in pursuing civil rights litigation. The NAACP's ability to raise funds for the defense, to assemble skilled legal counsel, and to pursue appeals through multiple levels of the court system represented a new model for civil rights advocacy. This model would be refined and expanded in subsequent decades, eventually achieving the victories that would dismantle Jim Crow and establish constitutional protection for the civil rights of all Americans.
Moorfield Storey's leadership of the American Anti-Imperialist League from 1905 to 1921 involved not merely political advocacy but also the development of constitutional arguments against American imperial policy. The League challenged the constitutionality of American acquisition and governance of overseas territories, arguing that the Constitution did not authorize the establishment of colonial rule over peoples who had not consented to such governance. These constitutional arguments represented an important aspect of the anti-imperialist movement's efforts to delegitimize American imperial policy.
The constitutional question at the heart of the anti-imperialist argument concerned the status of the territories acquired from Spain following the Spanish-American War. The Constitution had been drafted for a nation of continental dimensions, and its provisions assumed a relationship between the federal government and the states that did not easily apply to overseas colonies. The Supreme Court had addressed these questions in the Insular Cases, a series of decisions holding that constitutional protections did not automatically apply to territories acquired by the United States. Storey and other anti-imperialists rejected these decisions as inconsistent with constitutional principles and with American traditions of liberty.
Storey's constitutional arguments against imperialism drew on the traditions of American republicanism and on the specific constitutional provisions that the nation's founders had established to protect liberty and limit governmental power. He argued that the acquisition of overseas territories violated the Constitution by denying the inhabitants the right to self-governance that was the birthright of all mankind. These arguments anticipated concerns about American power that would recur throughout the twentieth century and demonstrated Storey's understanding of the relationship between foreign policy and domestic political institutions.
The Supreme Court's decisions in the Insular Cases, particularly the 1901 case of Downes v. BIDWELL, established that constitutional protections did not automatically apply to territories acquired by the United States. The Court held that territories acquired by conquest or treaty could be governed as possessions rather than as states, with their inhabitants denied the full protection of the Constitution until Congress granted them such protection. This doctrine of territorial incorporation provided the constitutional foundation for American colonial rule in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and other territories.
Storey and the Anti-Imperialist League strongly criticized the Insular Cases as a departure from constitutional principles. They argued that the Constitution's protections extended to all persons under American jurisdiction, regardless of where they happened to live, and that Congress lacked authority to govern territories as colonies without extending constitutional protections to their inhabitants. This argument was grounded in the text of the Constitution, which made no distinction between persons living in states and persons living in territories, as well as in the principles of liberty and self-governance that the Constitution was designed to protect.
While the anti-imperialists were unable to persuade the Supreme Court to overrule the Insular Cases during Storey's lifetime, their arguments continued to influence constitutional debate about the scope of American power. The doctrine established in the Insular Cases would eventually be modified by subsequent decisions, and the territories acquired from Spain would eventually move toward independence or commonwealth status. Storey's constitutional arguments against imperialism established important precedents for challenging the exercise of American power overseas and contributed to the ongoing debate about the relationship between American values and American foreign policy.
Beyond his civil rights and anti-imperialist work, Storey was a consistent supporter of labor rights throughout his career. He represented labor unions in important cases and helped develop legal strategies for protecting workers' rights to organize and bargain collectively. His support for labor rights reflected his broader commitment to equality and his understanding that economic power, like political power, required legal regulation to prevent abuse.
Storey's representation of labor unions placed him in conflict with the great industrial and financial corporations of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era. He understood that the concentration of economic power in the hands of large corporations threatened both workers and consumers, and he believed that effective reform required controlling that concentration through legal means. His work on behalf of labor unions demonstrated his willingness to take on powerful corporate interests in pursuit of justice for working people.
The legal strategies that Storey developed for protecting labor rights contributed to the broader movement for labor law reform that would achieve significant victories in the New Deal era. His arguments about the rights of workers to organize and to engage in collective action helped establish constitutional principles that would eventually be recognized as fundamental aspects of American liberty. While many of these battles would not be won until after Storey's death, his work laid important groundwork for the legal framework that would protect workers' rights in the twentieth century.
Despite his reputation as a reformer, Storey maintained a successful commercial practice throughout his career. He handled a variety of business matters, including corporate formations, contract disputes, and commercial litigation. His success in these areas provided the financial foundation that allowed him to pursue his reform activities without dependence on external support, and it gave him practical experience with business operations that informed his understanding of economic issues.
Storey's commercial practice also brought him into contact with the legal issues raised by the concentration of economic power in large corporations. He represented clients in matters involving railroad regulation, corporate governance, and business competition, developing expertise in the constitutional and statutory issues raised by modern economic organization. This expertise proved valuable in his public interest work, enabling him to address complex economic questions with the same analytical rigor he brought to constitutional litigation.
The combination of commercial success and reform commitment that characterized Storey's career was unusual for his time. Many successful lawyers of his generation focused entirely on private practice, while many reformers lacked the professional success that would give their advocacy credibility. Storey's ability to maintain both a successful practice and a distinguished record of public interest work demonstrated that these two aspects of a legal career could reinforce rather than contradict each other.
Storey's legal work made significant contributions to the development of American civil rights jurisprudence. His arguments in cases like Buchanan v. Warley helped establish precedents that would be applied in subsequent challenges to segregation and discrimination. His defense of the Elaine Twelve demonstrated the potential of federal court review to protect constitutional rights against violation by state governments. His leadership of the NAACP's early legal strategy helped establish the organizational capacity and legal expertise that would eventually achieve the dismantling of Jim Crow.
The constitutional arguments that Storey developed in his civil rights cases reflected his understanding that law could be an instrument of social reform when properly understood and applied. He rejected the notion that constitutional interpretation should be static and originalist, arguing instead that constitutional provisions should be understood in light of their fundamental purposes. This approach allowed him to develop arguments for expanding civil rights protection that were grounded in the text and history of the Constitution but that pointed toward more protective doctrine.
Storey's influence on civil rights jurisprudence extended beyond the specific cases he argued to the broader approach to constitutional litigation that he helped develop. The NAACP's legal strategy, which Storey helped establish, combined careful selection of test cases, thorough preparation of legal arguments, and sustained engagement with the court system over extended periods of time. This approach would eventually achieve the constitutional victories that Storey sought but did not live to see, including the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954 that declared segregation in public schools unconstitutional.
Storey's career established a model for the lawyer-reformer that would influence subsequent generations of attorneys seeking to use their professional skills in service of social justice. He demonstrated that legal practice need not be merely a business but can be a form of public service, and that lawyers can contribute to the achievement of justice through careful analysis, effective advocacy, and sustained engagement with difficult issues. This model has continued to influence legal education and practice, inspiring lawyers who seek to combine professional success with commitment to social justice.
The example of Storey's career also demonstrated the importance of maintaining principle in the face of professional and personal pressure. He took controversial positions that other lawyers of his standing might have avoided, and he maintained those positions even when they cost him professionally or personally. This consistency gave credibility to his advocacy and made him a trusted figure in reform circles. His willingness to take on powerful interests in pursuit of justice, even when the prospects for success seemed dim, provides a model for activists facing seemingly insurmountable obstacles.
Storey's legacy thus extends beyond his specific legal achievements to the broader example he set of principled public service. His career demonstrated that change is possible when dedicated individuals commit themselves to the pursuit of justice over the long haul, and that the legal system, properly understood and utilized, can be an instrument for achieving social reform. In an era when many Americans are discouraged about the possibility of meaningful change, Storey's career offers evidence that persistent, principled advocacy can transform the nation, even if the transformation comes slowly and requires the efforts of multiple generations.
1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorfield_Storey
2.https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2018/06/moorfield-storey
3.https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-rights-act/segregation-era.html
4.https://aaregistry.org/story/moorfield-storey-lawyer-and-activist-born/
5.https://ualrexhibits.org/elaine/100-years-ago/judicial-approach/moore-v-dempsey/
6.https://www.jstor.org/stable/24445105
7.https://uscivilliberties.org/biography/4545-storey-moorfield-18451929.html
8.https://www.masshist.org/collection-guides/view/fa0431
9.https://www.jstor.org/stable/1891012
10.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Imperialist_League