he sponsored the bill that establi shed the African Development Foundation (22 U.S.C.A. §§ 290h-1). The foundation sent aid directly to African villages. In 1984 he sponsored legisla- tion that sent emergency food aid to Ethiopia. Gray also exerted a great deal of influence over African affairs, authoring and promoting pas- sage of the Anti-Apartheid Act (22 U.S.C.A. §§ 5001 et seq.), which imposed economic sanctions on South Africa for its policies of racial SEGREGATION. The act passed in 1986 over President Reagan’s veto. In addition, Gray worked to foster better relations between African and Jewish Amer icans. As he rose in the House, Gray became increasingly influential in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. In 1988 he chaired the panel that drafted the party platform at the Democratic National Convention. The following year he was named to the powerful position of House majority whip. Gray encountered difficulties when uncon- firmed rumors of financial wrongdoing surfaced in 1988. He left Congress in 1991, surprising many who had predicted that he would continue to rise in the House. The same year, Gray became president and chief executive officer of the United Negro College Fund (UNCF), the nation’s oldest higher education assistance organization for African Americans, a position he held until June 2004. More than half of the $1.8 billion raised throughout the organization’s history (which spans more than 50 years) took place during Gray’s tenure. He was instrumental in establishing a number of new research and funding programs, and he ensured that administrative costs remained below 15 percent of the fund’s total revenues. In 1994 President BILL CLINTON appointed him envoy to Haiti. Gray advocated using economic sanctions against that country’s mili- tary dictatorship in order to restore President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power. Gray has continued to be active in public affairs, and he sits on several corporate boards, such as Dell Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Prudential Financial Inc., Visteon Corporation and Pfizer Inc. He is Chairman of the Amani Group (a consulting and advisory firm), a position he has held since August 2004. Throughout his career, Gray has received numerous awards, including the MARTIN LUTHER KING Jr. Award for Public Service in 1985. And, in its December 1999 issue, Ebony magazine named him one of the 100 Most Important Blacks in the World in the 20th Century. Gray also has received honorary degrees from more than 60 colleges. Despite his heavy work schedule over the years, he has continued to preach sermons at Bright Hope Baptist Church in Philadelphia at least two Sundays per month. Gray married Andrea Dash in 1971. The couple has three sons. GREAT COMPROMISE OF 1787 See SHERMAN COMPROMISE. GREAT SOCIETY In May 1964 President LYNDON B. JOHNSON gave a speech at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor in which he outlined his domestic agenda for the United States. He applauded the nation’s wealth and abundance but admonished the audience that “the challenge of the next half century is whether we have the wisdom to use that wealth to enrich and elevate our national life, and to advance the quality of American civilization.” Johnson’s agenda was based on his vision of what he called “the Great Society,” thenamebywhich the agenda became popularly known. Part of the Great Society agenda was based on initiatives proposed by Johnson’s predecessor, JOHN F. KENNEDY, but Johnson’svisionwas comprehensive and far-reaching. Johnson wanted to use the resources of the federal government to combat poverty, strengthen CIVIL RIGHTS , improve public education, revamp urban communities, and protect the country’s natural resources. In short, Johnson wanted to ensure a better life for all Americans. He had already begun his push toward this goal with his “War on Poverty,” a set of initiatives announced in 1964 and marked by the passage of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. This act authorized a number of programs including Head Start; work- study programs for college students; Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), a domestic version of the Peace Corps; and various adult job-training programs. Johnson’s Great Society proposal was ambitious, even by his standards— as a seasoned politician, he had a well-earned reputation for getting things done. Not only that, he had to win the 1964 presidential election before he could enact his ideas. Johnson sought affordable hea lth care for all, stronger civil rights legislation, more THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MYSELF AND OLD -LINE FOLKS IS THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT THE POLITICAL PROCESS IS PUTTING TOGETHER COALITIONS . —WILLIAM H. GRAY GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 148 GREAT COMPROMISE OF 1787 benefits for the poor and the elderly, increased aid to education, economic development, urban renewal, crime prevention, and stronger con- servation efforts. To many, Johnson’s initiative seemed to be the most sweepi ng change in federal policy since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s NEW DEAL in the 1930s. The Great Society theme was the foundation of his campaign in the 1964 presidential election. Johnson’s Republican opponent, BARRY GOLDWATER , campaigned on a promise of reduc- ing the size and scope of the federal govern- ment. In the end, Johnson’s campaign for the Great Society was convincing enough that he carried 46 states and won 61 percent of the popular vote in Novemb er. Johnson outlined his Great Society pro- grams during his State of the Union address in January 1965, and over the next several months progress followed quickly. MEDICARE was intro- duced to provide healthcare funding to SENIOR CITIZENS . The Elementary and Secondary Educa- tion Act was signed into law, guaranteeing increased funding to disadvantaged students. The Housing and Urban Development (HUD) program was created to bring affordable housing to the inner cities. The Highway Beautification Act was signed, providing fund- ing to clear the nation’s highways of blight. Along with that went legislation to regulate air and water quality. The Civil Rights Act of 1965 prohibited DISCRIMINATION on the basis of race, color, and gender. Johnson chose John Gardner to head the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). Gardner, who w as sworn in on July 27, 1965, was a psychologist, an authority on education, and had previously been head of the Carnegie Corporation. Widely respected by members of both parties (he was a Republican) Gardner helped carry out Johnson’s goals and agenda; in some circles he was known as the “engineer of the Great Society.” Johnson’s Great Society made a genuine difference in the lives of millions of Americans, and many of its initiatives are still integral to U.S. society in the twenty-first century. But the programs were expensive, costing billions of dollars, and many of Johnson’s opponents said that the programs only added new layers of BUREAUCRACY to an already oversized govern- ment. A more pressing issue, however, was the VIETNAM WAR. What was supposed to have been a short-term exercise had now gone on for several years with financial and human cost. The war was highly unpopular with a large portion of American society, and the energy needed to keep the war effort going drained resources from the programs of the Great Society. The departure of Gardner from HEW was a blow to Johnson, especially since after Gardner left HEW he spoke out publicly against the war. The 1960s also saw an upsurge in racial unrest. Despite the sweeping civil rights initiatives Johnson had launched, many poor blacks felt it was not enough. Racial unrest in major cities led to several riots, and it was clear that there was a great deal of pent-up anger and FRUSTRATION that could not simply be legislated away. Faced with mounting criticism because of Vietnam, Johnson chose not to run for re- election in 1968. The shadow of Vietnam hung over him until his death five years after, and it was only later that the American people were able to appreciate fully the scope and importance of Johnson’s role in shaping the Great Society. FURTHER READINGS Andrew, John A. 1998. Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society. Chicago: Dee. Califano, Joseph A. 2000. The Triumph and Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson: The White House Years. College Station: Texas A&M Univ. Press. Unger, Irwin. 1996. The Best of Intentions: The Triumphs and Failures of the Great Society under Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. New York: Doubleday. CROSS REFERENCES Civil Rights; Civil Rights Movement. GREEN CARD The popular name for the Alien Registration Receipt Card issued to all immigrants entering the United States on a non-temporary visa who have registered with and been fingerprinted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The name green card comes from the distinctive coloration of the card. CROSS REFERENCE Aliens. GREEN PARTY The Green Party blossomed as an outgrowth of the environmental and conservation move- ment of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1970 Charles Reich published The Greening of America, a popular extended essay that effectively inserted GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GREEN PARTY 149 environmentalism into politics. Reich, along with anarchist Murray Bookchin, helped inspire a worldwide environmental movement. Thro- ughout the 1970s and 1980s, environmental activists, calling themselves Greens, began to work within the political system to advance environmental causes around the globe. The Green Party first achieved electoral success in Germany in the early 1980s. German Green Party candidates were elected to public office on platforms that stressed four basic values: ecology, social justice, grassroots democ- racy, and nonviolence. In the mid-1990s the Green Party was established in more than 50 countries, and Green Party politicians held seats in approximately nine European parliaments. In the United States, Greens originally were reluctant to move into electoral politics. Throughout the 1970s and most of the 1980s, they teamed with military and NUCLEAR POWER protesters to promote their agendas from outside the formal political system. In 1984 the Greens began to discuss the organization of a political party, and in 1985 the organization fielded its first candidates for elective office in North Carolina and Connecticut. The U.S. Greens became known as the Association of State Green Parties. In 1996, in response to the need for a national Green presence, the organization’s name changed to the Green Party of the United States. The U.S. Green Party expanded the European platform to forge its own identity. According to its Website, the party offers a proactive approach to government based on ten key values: ecological wisdom; grassroots de- mocracy; social justice and equal opportu- nity; nonviolence; decentralization; small-scale, community-based economics and economic justice; feminism and gender equity; respect for diversity; personal and global responsibility; and future focus and sustainability. Each state and local chapter of the party adapts these goals to fit its needs. The Green Party of the United States also extended its reach in the 1990s and into the 2000s. In 1996 the party fielded candidates in 17 states and in the District of Columbia. It increased its national profile the same year by nominating RALPH NADER as its candidate for president. Nader accepted the nomination, but stipulated that he would not become a member of the Green Party and that he did not feel obliged to follow faithfully its political platform. Nader ran a no-frills campaign, eschewing advertising and usually traveling alone to speak at various locales. He accepted no taxpayer money and spent approximately $5,000 on the campaign. With political activist Winona LaDuke as his running mate, Nader appeared on the ballot in 21 states and in the District of Columbia. The ticket also received write-in votes in all but five states. Nader and LaDuke lost to the Democratic incumbents, President BILL CLINTON and Vice President AL GORE. Nader and LaDuke ran again in the 2000 presidential election, again on the Green Party platform. Nader raised more than $8 million for the campaign, about $30 million less than REFORM PARTY candidate Pat Buchanan. Nader received the third highest number of votes with 2,882,955, representing 2.74 percent of the total vote. By comparison, Buchanan received a total of 448,8 95. David Cobb, legal counsel for the party, was its 2004 presidential candidate, receiving the nomination after a divisive battle with Nader. His name appeared on only 28 state ballots, down from 44 in 2000. The party suffered a dramatic loss of support, with Cobb receiving only 119,859 votes. The decline continued in the 2009 presidential election, when Cynthia McKinney, a former congresswoman, received only 161,603 votes. On the local level, the Green Party has realized some electoral success. As of 2009, there are 193 Greens serving in state and local government. Former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney ran for president in 2008 as the Green Party candidate. Her running mate was Rosa Clemente. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 150 GREEN PARTY FURTHER READINGS Burchell, John. 2002. The Evolution of Green Politics. London: Earthscan Publications. Green Party of the United States. Available online at www. greenpartyus.org (accessed September 23, 2009). Herrnson, Paul S., and John C. Green, eds. 1998. Multi- party Politics in America. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. CROSS REFERENCES Environmental Law; Independent Par ties v GREENBERG, JACK Jack Greenberg is a CIVIL RIGHTS attorney and professor of law who was on the front lines of the struggle to eliminate racial DISCRIMINATION in U.S. society. He served for 35 years as an assistant counsel and as director-counsel of the NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND (LDF). Greenberg was born December 22, 1924, in New York City. His parents, Bertha Rosenberg and Max Greenberg, were immigrants from Eastern Europe who stressed to their children the importance of education. Although they were not involved in civil rights or politics, they inculcated in their children a deep concern for disadvantaged people. This early awareness of the plight of society’s less fortunate ignited Greenberg’s desire to take up the civil rights cause. Greenberg grew up in Brooklyn and the Bronx, and he was educated at public elemen- tary and high schools before receiving his bachelor of arts from Colum bia University in 1945. He then entered the U.S. Navy and served in the Pacific as a deck officer, participating in the invasion of Iwo Jima. After the war ended, he enrolled at Columbia Law School and earned his bachelor of laws in 1948. While in law school, Greenber g enrolled in a seminar called Legal Survey, which established the course of his future career. The course offered students the opportunity to work for civil liberties and civil rights organizations, doing legal research and writing memorandums, complaints, and briefs. While taking the course, Greenberg became acquainted with THURGOOD MARSHALL, who at the time was the LDF’s director. When a staff attorney resigned her position, Greenberg was recommended as a replacement. His career in civil rights, as well as his lasting friendship with Marshall, was launched. Greenberg began his work at the LDF with only a vague idea about the types of cases he would handle. He was quickly plunged into the ugly reality of racial discrimination. His first cases required him to travel regularly to the Jack Greenberg. COURTESY OF JACK GREENBERG Jack Greenberg 1924– ▼▼ ▼▼ 1925 2000 1975 1950 ❖ ◆◆ ◆ ◆ 1924 Born, New York City 1939–45 World War II 1950–53 Korean War 1948 Graduated from Columbia Law School 1945 Earned B.A. from Columbia University; enlisted in U.S. Navy ◆ 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decided by Supreme Court 1959 Race Relations and American Law published 1961–73 Vietnam War 1967 Thurgood Marshall became first African American appointed to U.S. Supreme Court 1948–84 Worked with the NAACP’s Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) 1977 Judicial Process and Social Change published 1984 Appointed professor at Columbia Law School 1989–93 Served as dean of Columbia College 1994 Crusaders in the Courts published 2001 Received Presidential Citizens Medal ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ 1961 Became LDF’s director-counsel 2009 The Legacy of Brown v. Board of Education published GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GREENBERG, JACK 151 South to defend African Americans against various racially motivated charges. While on those trips, he experienced racial discrimination firsthand, as the African American lawyers with whom he traveled were not allowed to stay at hotels for whites or eat at restaurants for whites. Upon seeing the deplorable accommodations African Americans were forced to accept because of legal SEGREGATION, Greenberg, who is white, soon realized that the LDF had a definite plan underlying its apparently random selection of disparate cases. The fund’s ambitious goal was nothing less than the complete repudiation of PLESSY V. FERGUSON, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256, the infamous 1896 Supreme Court case that established the separate-but-equal doctrine, which legitimized segregation at all levels of society. During the 1930s and 1940s, NAACP and LDF lawyers concentrated on desegregating higher education. Greenberg was involved in impor- tant cases that allowed the integration of professional schools in Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, North and South Carolina, and many other states. The LDF then set its sights on state-supported undergraduate schools. The first big case that Greenberg handled on his own involved the integration of the University of Delaware. The LDF’s ASSAULT on segregated education culminated with the landmark 1954 Supreme Court deci- sion in BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L. Ed. 1083, in which Greenberg was a major participant. Greenberg and the LDF argued on behalf of African Americans in countless cases, with Greenberg appearing before the U.S. Supreme Court more than 40 times. During the 1960s and 1970s, Greenberg won important cases abolishing discrimination in housing, health care, employment, and public accommodations. Also during this time, the fund launched a full- scale effort to abolish the death penalty because of its disproportionate effect on blacks. The LDF was ultimately successful, but the victory was short-lived. By the 1980s most of the states that had used CAPITAL PUNISHMENT before it was outlawed had reinstated it under new terms considered constitutionally acceptable by the Supreme Court. In 1961, when Marshall was appointed to the federal judiciary, Greenberg was named director-counsel of the LDF, a position he held until 1984, when he resigned to become a professor at Columbia Law School. During his last ten years at the LDF, he concentrated the group’s energies on preventing the reversal of laws and court rulings that had finally outlawed discrimination in all forms. In 1989 Greenberg was named dean of Columbia College, a post he held until 199 3, when he returned to the faculty of the law school. Greenberg’spositionasoneofasmall number of white lawyers involved in the LDF’s struggles against racial discrimination was not a point of contention until 1982, when he was asked to co-teach a course in race and legal issues at Harvard Law School. The Black Law Students Association picketed the opening of the course, protesting the use of a white lawyer to present it. Greenberg led the course as planned, although some students boycotted. He encountered simi- lar hostility when he was slated to teach a similar course at Stanford the following year, and so he declined the Stanford position. The protests were apparently a reflection of the feelings of younger black students and lawyers that whites had no credibility to speak about the African American struggle for equality. Greenberg was unfazed by the objections. A man of many and varied interests, Green- berg has written several books, including Race Relations and American Law (1959), Judicial Process and Social Change (1977), and Crusaders in the Courts: How a Dedicated Band of Lawyers Fought for the Civil Rights Revolution (1994). He also coauthored a cookbook, Dean Cuisine, or the Liberated Man’s Guide to Fine Cooking (1990), and studies Mandarin Chinese. He was married from 1950 to 1969 to Sema Ann Tanzer, with whom he had four children. He now lives in Manhattan with Deborah M. Cole, whom he married in 1970. They have two children. Greenberg has received numerous awards throughout his career, including the Thurgood Marshall Award from the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIA- TION in 1996. In recognition of his 50 years of defending civil and HUMAN RIGHTS, President BILL CLINTON awarded Greenberg the Presidential Citizens Medal in January 2001. This award honors individuals who have performed “ex- emplary deeds of service” to the United States in the areas of medicine and health, education, RELIGION, disability advocacy, government ser- vice, the environment, civil rights, and human rights. I THINK THAT THE LAW HAS BEEN AN IMMENSE FORCE FOR SOCIAL CHANGE WITH REGARD TO RACE . —JACK GREENBERG GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 152 GREENBERG, JACK Greenberg continues to teach at Columbia University Law School and has served as a visiting professor at more than ten American and foreign universities. He has earned a number of honorary law degrees and, as of 2009, continues to serve as a senior director of the LDF. FURTHER READINGS Greenberg, Jack. 2004. Brown v. Board of Education: Witness to a Landmark Decision. New York: Twelve Tables Press. ———. 1994. Crusaders in the Courts: How a Dedicated Band of Lawyers Fought for the Civil Rights Revolution. New York: Basic Books. Greenberg, Jack, and Kendall Thomas, eds. 2009. The Legacy of Brown v. Board of Education: Reflections and Colloquy. New York: Twelve Tables Press. Greenberg, Jack, with Stanley Corngold and Benno Wagner, eds. 2008. Franz Kafka: The Office Writings. New Jersey: Princeton Univ. Press. CROSS REFERENCES NAACP; School Desegregation. GREENMAIL A corporatio n’s attempt to stop a takeover bid by paying a price above market value for stock held by the aggressor. Greenmail is a practice in corporate MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS .LikeBLACKMAIL, the concept after which it is named, greenmail is money paid to an aggressor to stop an act of aggression. In the case of greenmail, the aggressor is an investor attempting to take over a corporation by buying up a majority of its stock, and the money is paid to stop the takeover. The corporation under attack pays an inflated price to buy stock from the aggressor, known popularly as a corporate raider. After the greenmail payment, the takeover attempt is halted. The raider is richer; the corporation is poorer but retains control. During a great wave of corporate mergers in the 1980s, the practice of paying greenmail became contro- versial. Critics viewed it as harmful to U.S. business interests. Portraying the transaction as little more than a bribe, they argued that some corporate raiders began takeover bids simply to earn profits through greenmail. Corporate shareholders also protested the practice. By the mid-1990s, state legislatures had taken the lead in opposing greenmail through legislation. The increase in corporate mergers in the 1980s made the hostile corporate takeover a familiar event. Before the decade’smulti-billion- dollar takeovers, corporate mergers usually involved a mutual agreement. In contrast, hostile takeovers ignore the target corporation’sman- agement. One form of hostile takeover involves stock. Whoever owns the most stock controls the corporation. Instead of entering negotiations with management, corporate raiders go to the corporation’s stockholders with offers to buy their stock. Not only the means but also the goals of these acquisitions differ from those of earlier acquisitions. Prior to the 1980s, mergers generally occurred when larger interests bought up smaller competitors in similar industries, with an eye toward dominating a particular market. In hostile takeovers, corporate raiders often intend to break up and sell a corporation after the takeover is complete. Their interest commonly lies in earn- ing enormous short-term profits from selling a company’s assets, motivating corporations to try to protect themselves against takeovers. Greenmail is one of an array of strategies, ranging from changing corporate bylaws to acquiring debt that makes the corporation a less attractive target, used to deter raiders. It is an expensive alternative, as was illustrated when investor Saul P. Steinberg attempted to take over the Disney Corporation in 1984. Steinberg was known for his concerted efforts in the takeover field, having previously targeted Chemical Bank and Quaker State. In March 1984 his purchase of 6.3 percent of Disney’s stock triggered concern at the corporation that a takeover was in progress. Disney management quickly announced an approximately $390 million acquisition of its own that would make the company less attractive. After this maneuver failed, Disney ’s directors ultimately bought Steinberg’s stock to stop the takeover. Steinberg earned a profit of about $60 million. The Disney case illustrates a major criticism of greenmail: Other stockholders blame corpo- rate directors for showing undue favoritism to corporate raiders, who are paid exorbitant sums for stock whereas the stockholders are not. This criticism formed the basis of a lawsuit that produced one of the few court decisions condemning greenmail outright. In 1984 Disney stockholders sued the corporation’s directors as well as Steinberg and his fellow investors, seeking to recover the amount paid as greenmail. They won an injunction from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which placed Steinberg’s profits from the sale in a trust. The verdict was upheld on appeal (Heckmann v. Ahmanson, 168 Cal. App. 3d 119, 214 Cal. Rptr. 177 [Cal. Ct. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GREENMAIL 153 App. 1985]). In ordering the profits put in a trust, the court sought “to prevent unjust enrichment” that would otherwise “reward [Steinberg] for his wrongdoing.” In 1989 Stein- berg settled with the plaintiffs for approximately $21.1 million. Although greenmail’sheydaywasinthe 1980s, it continued to be controversial in the 1990s. Criticism of greenmail grew out of a larger condemnation of the way in which corporate raiders had rewritten the rules of mergers and acquisitions in an avaricious, shortsighted man- ner. Some critics viewed this trend harshly. In his 1995 work on the subject, Professor David C. Bayne portrayed greenmail as a pact involving embezzlement by corporate directors and black- mail by corporate raiders. Bayne said greenmail is “nothing other than a recondite species of the broader genus Corporate BRIBERY,andassuchis intrinsically illegitimate.” States increasingly viewed greenmail in the same light. Most states had enacted antitakeover laws, and several had anti-greenmail pr ovisions. The Ohio and P en n- sylvania laws were among the toughest, requiring raiders to return greenmail profit s to the target corporation (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1707.043 [Anderson Supp. 1990]; 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 2571–2576 [Purdon Supp. 1991]). Some people doubt the constitutionality of t hese la ws, a nd the issue of g reenmail remains far from settled. FURTHER READINGS Bayne, David Cowan. 2001. “Traffic in Corporate Control— Greenmail: Damages and the Disposition of the Bribe.” Univ. of Detroit Mercy Law Review 78 (summer). ———. 1995. “Traffic in Corporate Control—Greenmail: The Definition of the Reverse Premium-Bribe.” Univ. of Dayton Law Review 20 (spring). Crain, Mark E. 1991. “Disgorgement of Greenmail Profits: Examining a New Weapon in State Anti-Takeover Arsenals.” Houston Law Review 28 (July). “Securities and Exchanges: Greenmail.” 1991. United States Law Week 60 (November 5). GREGG V. GEORGIA Modern U.S. death penalty jurisprudence begins with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S. Ct. 2909, 49 L. Ed.2d 859 (1976). In that landmark case, the Court rejected the idea that CAPITAL PUNISHMENT is inherently CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT under the EIGHTH AMENDMENT. In addition, it endorsed new state death penalty statutes that sought to address the criticisms that the Court had raised in FURMAN V. GEORGIA, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S. Ct. 2726, 33 L. Ed.2d 346 (1972). These statutes split the criminal trial into a guilt phase and a penalty phase, gave jurors specific aggravating and mitigating factors to consider in deliberating the death penalty, and mandated appellate review with designated factors for the court to consider. Finally,the statesremovedcapital punishment as a sentencing option for crimes other than MURDER. Since Gregg, the issues surrounding the death penalty have turned on procedural fairness rather than questions of societal values. By the early 1970s, the death penalty had been removed from the statute books in many countries, including Austria, Denmark, Great Britain, Portugal, Switzerland, Brazil, and Venezuela. In the United States, criticism of the arbitrary administration of capital punish- ment and its application to crimes other than murder led to judicial challenges based on the Eighth Amen dment’s Cruel and Unusual Pun- ishment proscription. The number of execu- tions had dwindled, and public opinion polls suggested that the death penalty was no longer as popular. Therefore, opponents were optimis- tic when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down three death sentences in Furman. However, the Court’smannerofdecidingthe case revealed a split in the way that the justices looked at the death penalty. Furman, which came on a 5–4 vote, was issued as a per curiam decision, which takes the form of a brief, unsigned opinion. Such a decision does not have as great a precedential value as a signed opinion, as it indicates that the court was deeply divided over the reasons that went into its ultimate decision either to affirm or reverse a decision. Each justice filed a separate opinion, with only Justices William Brennan and THURGOOD MAR- SHALL declaring that the death penalty is intrinsi- cally cruel and unusual punishment. Others on the Court who reversed the sentences indicated that capital punishment might be constitutional if the states administered it fairly and rationally so as to serve legitimate societal needs. Georgia set out to address these concerns, and its legislature passed a comprehensive death-penalty-reform law. It established a BIFURCATED TRIAL process, in which guilt or innocence is to be decided first. If the DEFENDANT were found guilty of a capital crime, the jury then entered a penalty phase. The state devel- oped a list of 14 “aggravating circumstances,” any one of which could justify the death GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 154 GREGG V. GEORGIA penalty. The jury had to find BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that an aggravating circum- stance applied. The defendant was also given the opportunity to present “mitigating circum- stances” to the jury in hopes of overcoming the aggravating circumstances. These included the youth of the defendant, the defendant’s cooper- ation with police, and the defendant’s emotional state at the time of the crime. If the jury imposed the death penalty, the Georgia Su- preme Court was mandated to review the decision. It was told to consider whether passion or prejudice influenced the sentence, whether the evidence of aggravating circum- stances was sufficient, and whether the penalty was disproportional or excessive in comparison to similar cases and defendants. The new law was applied at the trial of Troy Gregg for two counts each of armed ROBBERY and murder. Gregg was convicted, and during the penalty phase the PROSECUTOR offered evidence of aggravating circumstances. The jury found beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT that Gregg had committed the murders during the commission of another capital crime and for the purpose of taking a victim’s property. These two circum- stances sustained the death-penalty verdict. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the sentence, findi ng that the verdict was fair, based on the three factors it was instructed to review. However, it sustained the death penalty on only the second aggravating circumstance. It threw out the armed-robbery circumstance because the death penalty had rarely been imposed for that crime. Gregg then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the decision on a 7–2 vote. Justice POTTER STEWART announced the judgment of the Court in an opinion joined by two other justices. Four justices agreed with the AFFIRMANCE, but for different reasons. Stewart retraced the Furman decision and noted that only two justices had taken an absolutist position against the death penalty. The Court then declared that the death penalty was not inher- ently cruel and unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendment incorporated a “basic concept of dignity,” which was consistent with the purposes of deterrence and of retribution. As long as it was proportional to the severity of the crime, the death penalty was not unconstitutional. Stewart also stated that legislatures do not have to prove that capital punishment deters crime; nor must they enact the least severe penalty possible. Finally, Stewart noted a telling change in U.S. public opinion, demonstrating that the public supported capital punishment. The rush of legislatures to modify their death penalty statutes did not take place in a vacuum. Having disposed of the threshold issue, Stewart examined the Georgia statutory frame- work. He found the framework constitutional, as each element worked to prevent the arbitrary and disproportionate death sentences criticized in Furman. Gregg had argued that other elements undercut the statutory framework. These includ- ed prosecutorial discretion, plea-bargaining and executive CLEMENCY. Stewart rejected these argu- ments, noting that the Georgia law required the jury to consider aggravating and mitigating factors as applied to the individual defendant. Justices Brennan and Marshall again dis- sented on absolutist grounds, arguing that the time had passed for the state to execute criminals. FURTHER READINGS Hall, Kermit L. 2008. The Magic Mirror: Law in American History. 2d ed. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Janda, Kenneth, Jeffrey M. Berry, and Jerry Goldman. 2006. The Challenge of Democracy: Government in America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Stephens, Otis H., Jr., and John M. Scheb II. 2002. American Constitutional Law. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. v GREGORY, THOMAS WATT THOMAS WATT GREGORY served as attorney general of the United States under President Woodrow Wilson from 1914 to 1919. Because his term of office coincided with the entry of the United States into WORLD WAR I,Gregory’s JUSTICE DEPARTMENT experienced tremendous growth. He presided over the creation of a war emergency division within the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , and he watched the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI) grow to five times its prewar size as he worked to enforce U.S. laws pertaining to ESPIONAGE, SEDITION, SABOTAGE, trading with the enemy, and selective service compliance—in addition to pursuing the general interests of the U.S. government. It is fitting that Gregory’s service to the United States came in a time of war. Born November 6, 1861, in Crawfordsville, Mississippi, he was, in many ways, a child of war. His father, Francis Robert Gregory, a physician and Confed- erate army captain, was killed during the early days of the Civil War. His mother, Mary Cornelia CRITICISM OF THE COURTS FOR THEIR ADMINISTRATION OF THE WAR LAWS CAN HARDLY BE CALLED AN ATTACK ON THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. —THOMAS GREGORY GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GREGORY, THOMAS WATT 155 Watt Gregory, a delicate woman mourning the loss of her first child, was unable to cope with news of her husband’s death. As she drifted in and out of melancholy, the upbringing of her remaining child, Gregory, fell to her father, Major Thomas Watt, a Mississippi planter. By all accounts, Gregory’s grandfather was a stern taskmaster with a strong commitment to education. Gregory graduated from Southwest- ern Presbyterian University, in Clarksville, Tennessee, in 1883. Driven to please his grandfather, he had completed his course work in just two years. From 1883 to 1884 he studied law at the University of Virginia. In 1885 he received a bachelor of laws degree from the University of Texas. Later that year, he opened a law office in Austin, Texas. In the early 1890s Gregory began forming some important partnerships. On February 22, 1893, he married Julia Nalle, the daughter of Captain Joseph Nalle, an Austin native. They had two sons, Thomas Watt Gregory, Jr., and Joseph Nalle Gregory, and two daughters, Jane Gregory and Cornelia Gregory. He also formed a law partnership with Robert L. Batts. Together, they successfully represented the state of Texas against Waters-Pierce Oil Company, a SUBSIDIARY of Standard Oil of New York, charged with violating Texas antitrust laws. The company was found guilty and enjoined from doing further business in Texas. The case was appealed, and was ultimately affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court (Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86, 29 S. Ct. 220, 53 L. Ed. 417 [1909]). The company paid a heavy fine and ceased to operate in Texas. While partnered with Batts, Gregory also served as assistant city attorney of Austin, from 1891 to 1894. As his reputation grew , he was offered a number of political appointments, including the assistant attorney generalship of Texas in 1892 and a state judgeship in 1894. Wanting to serve on a national level, he declined them all. To further his personal and professional goals, Gregory served as a Texas delegate to the Democratic national conventions of 1904 and 1912. In 1910 he began working in DEMOCRATIC PARTY circles to secure a presidential nomination for Wilson. He actively promoted a Wilson candidacy throughout his state—and because of Gregory’s considerable influence, Texas went on ▼▼ ▼▼ Thomas Watt Gregory 1861–1933 1850 1900 1925 1950 1875 ❖ ❖ 1861 Born, Crawfordsville, Miss. 1861–65 U.S. Civil War ◆◆ 1883 Graduated from Southwestern Presbyterian University 1885 Received law degree from University of Texas; opened law office in Austin, Texas ◆ 1894 Declined nomination to state judgeship in Texas 1891–94 Served as assistant city attorney of Austin 1916 Declined nomination to U.S. Supreme Court 1914–18 World War I ◆ 1914–19 Served as U.S. attorney general 1933 Died, New York City 1939–45 World War II Thomas W. Gregory. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 156 GREGORY, THOMAS WATT to elect a delegation that would hold fast for Wilson at the Baltimore convention. In 1913 Gregory was rewarded for his efforts. President Wilson’s attorney general, JAMES C. MCREYNOLDS, made Gregory a special assistant and asked him to spearhead an action against the New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad for monopolizing transportation in New England. Using his experience from the Waters-Pierce case in Texas, Gregory negotiated a settlement. As a result of his work, the railroad gave up control of several rail lines, trolley lines, and coastal shipping interests. Gregory was named attorney general of the United States by President Wilson in 1914. McReynolds, his predecessor (and former University of Virginia classmate), created the vacancy by accepting Wilson ’s appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. When WORLD WAR I broke out in Europe, the first act of the Department of Justice was to create a war emergency division responsible for circumventing the work of agents of foreign governments, and preventing or suppressing violations of U.S. neutrality. When the United States entered the war, the roles and responsi- bilities of the Department of Justice and the FBI were expanded to deal with the enforcement of espionage, sedition, sabotage, and trading-with- the-enemy laws. The passage of selective service legislation further increased the department’s reach. Reports from Gregory’s tenure reveal that his officers arrested sixty-three hundred spies and conspirators; detained 2,300 ALIENS in Army detention camps; filed 220,747 actions against men who failed to comply with draft laws; and uncovered the activities of a group securing government and supply contracts through illegal means. Under Gregory, the Department of Justice also organized and oversaw the operations of a volunteer SECRET SERVICE called the American Protective League. In addition to his wartime responsibilities, Gregory continued to watch domestic issues. He initiated several antitrust suits, including actions against the International Harvester Company and anthracite coal opera- tors. Gregory also secured reforms in the administration of federal prisons while in office. Like his predecessor, Gregory was eventually offered a Supreme Court appointment by President Wilson; unlike his predecessor, he declined. In refusing the vacancy created by the resignation of Justice Charles E. Hughes in 1916, Gregory cited his failing hearing and his inability to tolerate the confining life dictated by the position. Gregory liked to speak his mind and thought he would be unable to temper the expression of his opinions. On March 4, 1919, Gregory resigned from the cabinet at the request of President Wilson. During the war, Gregory had treated pacifists and other opponents of the war ruthlessly; his tough, no-compromise demeanor had been suited to the times. But, as the war drew to a close, Wilson and others wanted to replace him with an attorney general more suited to postwar needs abroad and peacetime needs at home. In a gesture of respect and esteem, President Wilson invited Gregory to attend the postwar Paris Peace Conference as an adviser. In the spirit of reconciliation, Gregory urged Wilson to enlist the support of Republican business leaders in the peace efforts and to include them on the advisory team. Upon his return from the peace conference, Gregory remained in Washington, D.C., and returned to the PRACTICE OF LAW. But ill health and age forced a retirement after just a few years. He spent his last years in Houston, Texas, where he continued to advise local attorneys on antitrust matters and to lecture at the University of Texas. Gregory died of pneumonia on February 26, 1933, in New York City, while on a trip to meet with president-elect FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT. FURTHER READINGS Anders, Ivan. 1989. “Thomas Watt Gregory and the Survival of His Progressive Faith.” Southwestern Historical Quarterly 93. Available online at http://www.tshaonline. org/shqonline/apager.php?vol=093&pag=023; website home page: http://www.tshaonline.org/ (accessed July 27, 2009). Gould, Lewis L. 1992. Progressives and Prohibitionists: Texas Democrats in the Wilson Era. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press. Gregory, Thomas Watt. Thomas Watt Gregory Papers. Austin: Southwest Collection, Texas Tech Univ. v GRIER, ROBERT COOPER Robert Cooper Grier served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1846 to 1870. Grier is best remembered for his unusual actions during the deliberation of DRED SCOTT V. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 15 L. Ed. 691 (1857). THE EVIDENCE OF [FRAUD] IS ALMOST ALWAYS CIRCUMSTANTIAL . N EVERTHELESS IT PRODUCES CONVICTION IN THE MIND OFTEN OF MORE FORCE THAN DIRECT TESTIMONY . —ROBERT GRIER GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GRIER, ROBERT COOPER 157 . LDF’s director-counsel 2009 The Legacy of Brown v. Board of Education published GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GREENBERG, JACK 151 South to defend African Americans against various racially. STATES. —THOMAS GREGORY GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GREGORY, THOMAS WATT 155 Watt Gregory, a delicate woman mourning the loss of her first child, was unable to cope with news of her husband’s. phase. The state devel- oped a list of 14 “aggravating circumstances,” any one of which could justify the death GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 154 GREGG V. GEORGIA penalty. The