A Conversation With U.S. Judge Roger L. Gregory, 2024 Jefferson Medal in Law Recipient

RISA GOLUBOFF: Good afternoon.

AUDIENCE: Good afternoon.

RISA GOLUBOFF: Thank you. It is so wonderful to see you here today. This is one of the highlight events of the year. It's very exciting. My name is Risa Goluboff. I am Dean of the Law School. And I'm delighted to welcome you here, first-time visitors and long-time friends, students, faculty, and staff to this lecture with our 2024 Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medalist in Law.

Before I introduce the honorable Roger Gregory, I want to thank a few people who have made this event possible. Rebecca Klaff and Laurel Owens and our events team who organized today's events, as well as everyone on the communications, law IT, building services, and janitorial teams for everything they do to make this all look effortless.

Thank you, as well, for the special guests who have joined us today, Mrs. Velda Gregory, Judge Gregory's wife, as well as Patricia Connor, who was the long-time clerk of the Fourth Circuit who is here with us today.

Finally, it is my great privilege to introduce the honorable Roger L. Gregory, the 2024 recipient of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in law. Judge Gregory is a path-breaking public servant and son of Virginia who has served on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals since 2001, after a distinguished career in private practice.

After attending segregated schools through the 11th grade, Judge Gregory was in the first class of students to graduate from Petersburg's integrated high school in 1971, almost two decades after the Supreme Court's decision in Brown versus Board of Education. A first-generation college student, Judge Gregory attended Virginia State College, now Virginia State University, ultimately graduating summa cum laude. And then he attended the University of Michigan for law school, graduating in 1978-- and-- for which we forgive him.

[LAUGHTER]

In 1982, after practicing at law firms in Detroit and Richmond, Judge Gregory formed the law firm of Wilder and Gregory with L. Douglas Wilder, who later became governor of Virginia and was himself a path-breaker the first Black governor elected in any state of the United States. After building a successful corporate litigation practice in Richmond, Judge Gregory began his career in the federal judiciary in 2000 when he was nominated by President Bill Clinton to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond.

The Senate did not initially act on the nomination, and President Clinton made a recess appointment. Judge Gregory joined the appellate court in December of 2000. Just a few months later, President George W. Bush renominated Judge Gregory to the Fourth Circuit. And this time, he was quickly confirmed to his seat by a near-unanimous vote. And he remains the only person appointed to a federal appellate judgeship by presidents of two different parties.

In his more than two decades on the court, Judge Gregory has built a reputation as a formidable jurist who brings his remarkable intellect and legal acumen to bear in every case he hears, along with a deep-seated humanity and commitment to the rule of law.

Quote, "At bottom"-- one commentator said-- "Judge Gregory has a leveling-up jurisprudence that seeks to ensure that the least well off are afforded the same legal protections as the most privileged in our society." Judge Gregory has served as the Fourth Circuit's chief judge from 2016 to 2023, leading the court's administrative operations through a particularly challenging era for leadership of any institution, not that I would know from personal experience.

[LAUGHTER]

He has also volunteered countless hours with numerous civic organizations, having led or served on the boards of the Industrial Development Authority of Richmond, Virginia Commonwealth University, the Black History Museum, and Cultural Center of Virginia the Old Dominion Bar Association, and the Friends Association for Children, among many others.

No recitation of Judge Gregory's many substantive contributions to the Fourth Circuit, its jurisprudence, and its people would be complete without noting his role as a path-breaker on the court. When Judge Gregory joined the Fourth Circuit, he broke the judicial color line in a jurisdiction that, at the time, had the largest proportion of Black residents of any federal appellate court in the country. And he later became the Circuit's first Black chief judge as well.

The symbolism of Judge Gregory's service is physical as well as personal. His chambers are located in Richmond, the former capital of the Confederacy, in a building that once housed Jefferson Davis's executive office.

This brief recitation of Judge Gregory's accomplishments remains incomplete. And I can't possibly do it all justice-- no pun intended. As such, it surely fails to capture the scope of his contributions to the people of our Commonwealth and our nation and the humanity and great care with which he approaches the litigants in each of his cases.

As Judge Gregory himself once said, quote, "Your service is important. It is what you do for others that really lasts. What you build in the hearts of other people-- that is what eternal things are." Judge Gregory's own legacy will surely be an eternal one. His love of country, his life of service to others, and his work to advance freedom, equality, and justice for all Americans are models for me and I know for all of us. So without further ado, I am honored to present you the 2024 Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medalist in law, the honorable Roger L. Gregory.

ROGER L. GREGORY: Dean Goluboff, thank you so much for your wonderful words I must say that when I received the letter that I was to be the recipient of this incredible medal, I'm glad that I was at a level ground because I was almost about to faint. And that's not hyperbole. It really was. I mean, my heart was--

First of all, it was a mixture of incredible humility and just retrospective. And it is an incredible honor. I just want to thank you and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, University of Virginia, and the law school for bestowing such a great honor to me.

And times like this that the mystic chords of memory swell, and they touch. And many chords and rivers of times and all those times a river runs right through it. Parents who-- as the Dean alluded to-- who worked very hard-- tobacco factory-- and being the first not only to go to college but to graduate from high school, then college, then law school. It's really a tribute to them, and I wish that they could be here to see this. But somehow I think they know.

So you it's-- fainting. It's so amazing. An eclipse was this week.

[LAUGHTER]

Those kind of things coming. And this is an incredible week. Of course, it's Thomas Jefferson's birthday Saturday-- I believe the 13th of April. Tomorrow, the 12th, is the day that Dr. King was arrested in Birmingham. And he sat down and penned a letter-- penned a letter we now know as the "Birmingham Letter from the Jail."

The 9th was the last day of the Civil War. Lee surrendered his army to Grant in Appomattox. And also, on the 12th was the first day of the war down in Charleston, South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter. So it is an incredible week in our history. And certainly, is my personal honor to be here, particularly here at Mr Jefferson's school.

And this school, we know, is important. Of all of the things that the president accomplished on his tomb, he wanted to be known by the Declaration of Independence-- declaration in terms of-- a statute in terms of religious freedom and the University of Virginia.

And thank you for forgiving me, Dean. I'll forgive you, also, for Michigan having to share with you on the rankings lately. And--

[LAUGHTER]

You're on the upside. But that's OK. When I was there--

[LAUGHTER]

We were two or three. It was always Harvard, Yale, Michigan, or Harvard, Michigan, Yale. But it's nice. But it didn't take me reading the magazine to how great this University is, and law school. I know that. I know that from the-- not just reputation, but I've seen your work. And your work has helped me with my work-- some great law clerks.

Matter of fact, that's how we met. She's a working Dean. We met. We were on a panel of a constitutional law in Williamsburg. She was waxing, of course, eloquently in constitutional law. I was taking notes. But she was talking to me about a student she had, and she was absolutely right. And he was a very great, great law clerk.

And speaking of law clerks, it's a blessing that keeps on going because on Friday, I am going to-- yeah, right after I get the award at the rotunda, I'm going to do a live feed to the Baltimore federal courts. One of my law clerks is a judge-- his investiture. So I'm here and couldn't be there. But I thought technology would help me get there.

And so it really is in terms part of the story. And another clerk who's on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals who clerked for me-- and I went to her investiture in Chicago.

So I'm saying this to say that if anything, life is about a gift that keeps on giving. And I've been blessed to have a lot of gifts and a lot of contributions from people who helped me. And I'm glad to pass that rope of destiny to them, that they might climb because to me, that's what it's all about.

And my lovely wife is here with me. I can tell you this. I have three daughters. So I didn't go to University of Virginia. But a lot of my money came to the University of Virginia.

[LAUGHTER]

My middle daughter went to the University of Virginia. And it was so nice singing the good old song in the rain, playing Georgia Tech, playing the football. It was really nice. And she had a wonderful experience-- an English major. And just-- really cool. And my older daughter passed nearly two years ago. And Valerie and I have been married almost, what-- nine years.

And you know what the real test of love is in terms of how you deal with the things that you don't know that will happen. And my two granddaughters live with us, and we're raising her. And she's grandma as much if not more than I'm grandpa. And I love her for that. And I want to just shout out that she's been a wonderful love and companion and just right there with me. So I share this with her, and all those memories.

Now, to get on-- this is a talk, not a lecture. And it's not a job talk either because I how you-- I how in law schools, you have job talks. This is not. So there will be no footnotes to this. It's a talk.

But I thought about constitutionalism, the whole idea of adhering to constitutional principles and ideals. The good thing about that is also the bad thing about that. The good thing is that obviously, anybody who's a lawyer, particularly a judge-- and I'm sworn to be so-- is an adherent to the Constitution. It's required.

The bad news is everybody has a different view of what that means and how to interpret it. Oh, let me say this. I'm a federal judge. I have no political opinion. Did I say that? Just in case, I have no political opinion. Let me know where they hide these things. [LAUGHS] No, but I don't. But I do have a view about the Constitution a bit. And I make no statement about any case that's before me in the Fourth Circuit or very likely to come before me in that detail.

So I put that caveat because we're going to have a Q&A, and everything else is open to talk about. And the Dean-- and it was not scripted because she hasn't given me a clue as to what she's going to ask me. So it's all live. It's all live.

But anyway-- but-- constitutionalism has been inherent. And that has been a problem that has perplexed us since the beginning of the Republic. What does it mean? And in fact who are we, the people?

And in fact, there's some questions now in terms of jurisprudence and question-- perhaps one of the first steps in finding historical analogs might be to determine who are people that are protected under those rights in the Constitution and amendments and the Bill of Rights? And so we have to go back looking for analogs as to who we, the people, are.

And I can tell you that people that look like me would not be so if you were a textualist or originalist and all of those things. So but we-- we're trying to get it right. And nothing I say is disparaging at all to anyone because it's difficult. It's tough.

But as John Kennedy said about space, we go to the moon because it is difficult, because that's what Americans do. Because it is difficult. We grapple with these things because they are difficult. They should not be grounds to divide us. Instead, they should make us stronger to understand our Constitution. The Tocqueville said, one of my favorite, he wrote the book American democracy.

And he made so many observations, but he said Americans don't do a whole lot of dialogue about things. We don't talk about things well. In other words, you're almost like from a kid we don't play well in the sandbox. When it comes to talking about our Constitution. And what it means. And are we talking about originalism or textualism or the text or what it means. So I'll tell you just take just a moment to tell you in a sense why that might be in terms of the situation.

Our framers were geniuses. They were. And what they excelled in the most was this, their objective to make us a powerful nation that could carry on Interstate, and international commerce be strong enough to protect us against our foreign enemies, put together machinery that could make us the gold standard of the world. They were successful. There's no question about it, they put together an incredible architecture for that.

But what they did not do, was intentional. They made a compromise because face it, about 27 of the 55 were slave holders. And they knew the only way to make this thing work was to give up some of their revolutionary ideals that they had in the Declaration of Independence. They needed that. They needed, so they did. You notice that, for example, from the anti-democratic things. Giving example, there's no right to vote in the Constitution.

And think about it. On September 17th, 1787, they were finished. There was no Bill of Rights. It was Jefferson, who was in Paris, he wrote, I made a letter probably he said, little Jimmy, that's Madison. What did y'all do out there? Every people, whoever they are need a Bill of Rights against the government. What are you talking about? And they wrote a corresponding and it wasn't texts either.

You can imagine how long a letter took to get from Paris to Virginia. But he did brilliant writing. The two of them were titans. And think about and this is in defense of Madison. Madison, you probably don't know this, he wasn't opposed to the Bill of Rights in terms of protecting rights from the federal government, his thing was, if anything, we need a Bill of Rights to protect people from state governments.

That was his position. He said, no. That's the real danger. Because he realized Shays Rebellion, those things like that. And Shays Rebellion and the states were doing things like this more importantly. That was against the people, populist people. But for in terms of the states, they weren't paying off their debts. And these bondholders were coming to the states and saying, where's our money.

And they said, we don't have it. Yeah, you want some money? Here we just printed this in our capital right here. Take this. And now, give me-- this is the genius of it. When they wrote the Constitution in the preamble, remember they said, we the people do hereby ordain in order to form a more perfect Union establish justice. They weren't talking about the Justice we were talking about.

And I would debate any historian about that. What they were talking about is we are tired of these states closing their courts to people trying to justly get debts paid. The states were saying I'm sorry there's no court today. Or we're not going to-- or no, we're not going to pay off that bond, we're not going to pay off that debt. We're not going to do that. They were angry about that.

And when they say establish justice, it was literal, no, we're going to make sure it's established that our courts will be open and federal judges that are like minded like us are going to help us ensure that. But the beauty is they didn't detail what they were doing. They just call it what? Established justice. So it was broad enough to later to be what justice might become. But so when I say that to my originalist friends, if you want to talk about it as an originalist then you'll be stuck right there.

It was against-- it was to protect against the states closing courts. But it had to mean more than that. It had to mean more. But that was some of the problem. And I move on. In terms of-- but that's the thing, Madison said, look, we need to protect ourselves from mankind's natural inclination for mutual animosities. They were afraid of the people. That's why it was anti-democratic in a sense.

Madison said, the best way to neutralize the people was to make government big. They didn't want local government. That's why we have districts, each state has the right district, congressional districts. There's nothing in the Constitution that requires that. You could have one congressional district and have all of your members chosen from that one district. And it wouldn't offend Baker versus Carr either because everybody is in that district.

So you're not-- I mean, so it was very anti-democratic. For example, a lot of people didn't know this, you couldn't vote for the Senate. And what do senators do? They confirm judges. So in terms of Democratic, the people could not vote for the people who would pick, confirmed federal judges. And for example, can anybody name any piece of legislation that could get passed by the People's house that the Senate doesn't also pass?

The answer is zero, right? So even that, they cut off the Democratic process because you couldn't pick the Senator and the Senator couldn't neutralize anything that the people's house did, because it required them to also pass it. Yeah, it was very anti-democratic. And they knew what they were doing, because they just could not have these people who they believed had the impulses of being motivated by passion and interest.

If for them it was a battle of passion and interest versus reason and deliberation. Don't forget they were motivated by whom? Plato. Plato was this-- read the Republic, he was despondent, he was depressed. His mentor Socrates had been executed, and the fifth century democracy of Pericles had failed. Because people start exaggerating their importance and putting themselves ahead of the interests of the people. So it failed.

So he was writing from that sense. As a matter of fact, he said, ought to be the learned. That's what he came up. As the philosopher King ought to be the leader. And they believed that. Not from a mean spirit, but because of-- it were patronizing. If this work, if it's going to work, people who have been educated. For example, electoral college. No direct election of the president. Now why do why do they call it college?

How many people you think went to college in 1787? They use their language, it is the college that will elect the president. And it's a check on the people, because just in case, the people get drunk with their passions, we have a check on it. And people are beginning to understand that without any reference to anything going on, they had no idea that it was so singular as to who actually says it's the president of the Senate who announces that.

And you see what I'm saying? Very anti-democratic. We had to grow into this. So people who are originalists, I love to debate them that. I respect their view, but it doesn't hold water from a historical standpoint in terms of if you're going to be stuck with the original intent. And the textualists, the same way. How do you use the text to describe establish justice without any context?

As a matter of fact, text without context is pre text. So I think it is a living document. It is one that has to be malleable. And think about this, what they said, for example, now, I love this one. You all who Justice Story was, he served with John Marshall. As a matter of fact, he probably was the most scholarly person ever to serve on the Supreme Court. Awesome scholar. He wrote commentaries on the Constitution.

This is what he said nearly 200 years ago. The Constitution must be interpreted with contextual sensitivity to changing circumstances so that it imposes reasonable requirements in such circumstances. How in the world, 200 years later can you say we should not have an expansive view of in terms of changing times when 200 years ago he was saying that. A contemporary, no we have to adjust to those times.

So again, constitutionalism is a blessing, because we adhere to the Constitution, but it can be a curse if we engage in distorted constitutionalism. I'm not saying originalists are distorting it, but I'm saying it led-- historically it did. John Calhoun. He took the very words of Thomas Jefferson penned brilliantly and eloquently in the Declaration of Independence and came up with it to support slavery.

The whole basis for the doctrines of interposition and nullification was based on that, when it comes in the course of human events that when someone is threatening your rights to two interests in property and human beings called chattel slavery, then you have a right, matter of fact, a duty. You see how you can paraphrase that? And that's what they did. As a matter of fact, they said no. We can interpose our state law. And we can nullify federal law.

And he took it from the American Revolutionary ideas. That's why the anti-federalists were upset. They said, wait a minute, this Constitution doesn't speak to the Revolutionary ideas. What are you doing here? So what I'm saying is nothing magical about constitutionalism if you distort it in the sense that it's boxed in something that doesn't breathe, and doesn't live, and it doesn't respond to, in my view, a generation in that.

So we go on fast, de Tocqueville, again, brilliant. One of my favorite quotes. He said that, America's greatness does not lie in it being more enlightened than other nations, its greatness lies in that it has the ability to repair its faults. What a phrase. No, that's great. We have the ability. The Constitution is broad enough to use broad enough language that we could grow into a meaning that fulfills justice.

Grow in a sense that all of us could be a part of this. It was not stuck there. They wanted to make a new nation, and what was necessary, they substituted and gave up human rights in order to make it work. But I can't see how in the world you can justify 250 years later, we still have to be there knowing that was what was given up. But anyway. But we tried though. The Chief Justice Taney tried.

Let's stop this ship from coming. And he used the most vile words you could use. So he said, how do you do that? We have to show that the enslaved people never were meant to be a part of anything in the words of the Declaration or in the preamble. He said, but it is too clear for dispute that the enslaved African, this is in the Supreme Court in their opinion, the enslaved race were not intended to be included and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration.

Because his idea was this, the framers were too honorable, and they had too much integrity to say all men are created equal. And talk about we the people, and say that. And still include the enslaved people. They must have, he concludes in his circular reasoning, to keep them honest that they didn't clearly couldn't have meant this subset were human. Because if do that, then you have to admit that they were deliberately lying.

That's what his-- that's what in the Constitution you read. You got to read. I don't about the CRT stuff, but if you have to read this to understand where we were to help better understand where we need to go if we're going to make this ring thing work for everybody. And I love the Constitution, I toilet it every day, and try my best to give equal justice to everyone. But we cannot be stuck and put our heads in the sand to say that, there's nothing talismanic about these words unless it's in the heart.

And an idea of believing what freedoms and Justice are. And lastly, I get out of the history a little bit with this last thing. March the 2nd, 1861, June 15, 1865. March 2nd, 1861. June 15, 1865. I shudder to think about those two dates. Let me tell you what it is. March 2nd, 1861, the Congress of the United States having required a 2/3 majority in each house transmitted to the states for proposal the 13th Amendment.

That 13th Amendment would have protected slavery against any federal interference. June 15, 1865. Congress having also reached a 2/3 majority in each house submitted to them the 13th Amendment. Or did I tell you the first one was never ratified. And it was proposed to end slavery. That's the 13th Amendment. That's how close we were with ensconcing slavery in our Constitution.

And what happened unfortunately, really, is a war. With over 600,000 casualties. It took blood to change that course between those two. I call it 51 months. 51 months, that was the difference in terms of what they had submitted to the states. And what would have been the 13th Amendment. And is not. So I'm saying, this does not, as Dr. King says, things don't change by time.

Time is a neutral force. Nothing rolls on the course of inevitability. It takes people with heart, and courage, and a belief in a Constitution that has to fulfill its meaning that Jefferson's word did include everybody, it's just that we were not doing so. And we can't get that twisted in the point that it's like rithmetic. Figures don't lie, but liars figure. So you have to look behind those figures. Because our country and our promise is too great. The mission is too important.

The things that we lead helpfully globally and the great country that was put together through the Constitution made a difference. And I move on, slaughter-house cases, this is post 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment. Guess what? There are no citizen rights that come from the federal government. That all comes from states. You'll have to go back to Mississippi to find out whether or not they're going to-- you have to go to Georgia, or Alabama, or whatever.

These are the newly freed men going back after 1876 to Tilden Hayes election. Can you imagine that? Where are you back, right in the same thing. Again, even these amendments did not change anything, because the hearts didn't change. And moving on. And there's the Civil Rights cases are even worse. In terms of, they struck down a federal law that would have protected Blacks voting.

And said no, there's no protection states are the rights to vote. There's no federal right there. And it's almost like a formula for violence. That well, constitutional you read the opinion. Well, if you go to vote we'll protect the right to vote. But if on your way, somebody beats you up, or something happens to you, that's a state crime, and you'll have to go to state courts to vindicate those rights.

These are Supreme Court opinions. And then of course Plessy comes along in 1896, separate but equal. That's the definition of the 14th Amendment. All of these were victories. You see what I'm saying? None of these things really changed until hearts changed upon a broader view of constitutionalism. And giving the documents some real meaning. And if people don't about Williams versus Mississippi, that's the 1 in 19-- 7-- 1898.

I saw, said that states could change their Constitution and counting jellybeans and the grandfather clause, and the poll tax was all appropriate. And Virginia did. And your colleague here, Eddy Dick Howitt worked on that in terms of changing that in 1971. And around the world he has done so because people have pride in our Constitution. The question is, do we still have pride in our Constitution. Do we still want it to breathe?

That's the question. It's not our enemies, we're not defeated because our enemies defeat us, we are defeated if we surrender. And we cannot surrender our constitutional thing. There were too hard fought, too many people went on. And I conclude with one of my favorite Justices, and that's Justice Brennan. Justice Brennan, I thought he just made the Constitution live in so many ways. I love his dissent in McCleskey Kemp.

How much is too much justice? In dissent, but this is what he said. He said, our Constitution is a Charter of human rights and human dignity. It is a bold commitment by a people to the ideal of dignity protected through law. And the vision is deeply moving. And he says as a judge, I love this. I approach my responsibility to interpret the Constitution in the only way I could.

As a 20th century American concerned about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And what it means to us in our time. The genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it may have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and present needs. Justice Brennan. It's a great contribution that President Eisenhower gave in my view to the nation to put.

And of course, Justice Brennan was a recess appointee like me. Did I say that? Did I say that? And also Eisenhower put Earl Warren on the court. And he was also a recess appointee like me. So I was in good company. But I'd say that and then Cardozo of course, went on in the nature of the judicial classic. Nature of judicial process. A Constitution states or ought to state not rules for the passing hour, but principles for an expanding future.

And that's what we have to do in America, I believe. Expand the future. These things in terms of-- I showed you, just turn to some of the Rocky road to our constitutional development is that there were people who made the difference. And in my, the Dean said it well, where am I I'm blessed to be in a courthouse built in 1858 as a United States customs house. But I can look out my window and I see our state Capitol that was designed by Thomas Jefferson.

It's Greek revival, but Thomas Jefferson will make sure he gets his rotunda. So it's inside. It's Greek revival, but it has the rotunda in it. But I look at those resounding words and then I look over beyond it from my window I see a statute to Barbara Johns, the young student in 1951 who had the courage to say we're going to walk out of these schools and modern high school because they're very separate, and very unequal. And walked out.

So those are the people that made the change. And I see them in Oliver Hill and Spottswood Robinson. And the words of Thurgood Marshall, his last-- I think his last public speech before he died. He is receiving the Liberty Bell award in Philadelphia in front of Independence Hall. And he ended by saying-- he said that, the legal system can force open doors. And sometimes it can even knock down walls.

But it cannot build bridges. That job belongs to me and you. Let's work together. Let's take a chance on elevating and celebrating those things that we have in common and appreciating our differences. And making this country what it was to be in doing that. And I end with this students, if the students are here, and not students. Story about a little girl who was in school. And it was the day where people were supposed to talk about-- well, let's say, I'm ahead of myself.

She was-- her father was a lamplighter. Unskilled worker. And he was lighting the gas lamps in the little village. And she would sit on the hill and watch as her father would light all the gas lamps at night, every night. And then so they were in class about a month or so later, and they were saying, well, what are your-- what are your parents do? What are your father do? In a sense.

And people would say, well my father is a physician, or my father owns the bakery, and another person might say, well, my father is a whatever. And when they got to the little girl, she said-- teacher said, what does your father do? And she paused. And she said my father punches holes in the dark and that's what. I think our mission is. The darkness and the morass of insensible thinking, divisive thinking, an idea that was somehow we are stuck in an 18th century document.

No, the genius was it was an 18th century document, but it was written for ever to be enduring. So punch holes in the dark. Because that lets that the real existence is light. In the dark is just the fog that's enveloping us. But don't ever stop punching the holes in the dark. Thank you so much.

RISA GOLUBOFF: That was really stirring, and moving, and profound. So thank you for those words. And we're going to do a little Q&A. And then I'll open it up to the audience for questions in a little while. So I wanted to start with the building bridges that you're maybe penultimate point. And how important that is. And we talk a lot about that here. And I think aspire to do so here.

And I think the fourth circuit is famously known as a collegial place where you all come down off the bench. You shake hands with advocates, your collegial with one another. And you've gone through some pretty serious change in who appointed the members of the fourth Circuit. There was a time when it was very conservative. Now, it's considered to be more liberal. But my sense from what I in the public is it remains a very collegial place.

And you continue to build those bridges. And I'm curious, having been on the court through that change, and through all this time and been the chief judge of the court. How does that come about? What does the collegiality look like? What are your thoughts about that? Building bridges on the Fourth Circuit?

ROGER L. GREGORY: Well, I think first of all, it was good part about it is that nothing happens until you have at least one judge to agree with you. So in that, unlike a trial judge, it may not last long, but at the moment this is the judgment of the court. But you need that. So no, you have to be. And we embrace that, that you work together. And the fourth circuit, we are very collegial. And we work very independently too.

Because we don't share bench memos. Memos that give a brief idea of what the case is, and that thing, we don't share them. So the first time we hear each other's jurisprudential voices on a case is right there in real time in oral argument. And exchange can be very interesting. One of my favorite one is that they ask you Eugene a question. And then you answer it and your answer is not quite like I would want it to be my point.

And what I would say is this. I won't-- I'll look at you, but I'm talking to my colleague. But counsel, isn't your better response to that question. I'm telling him, or her, what my view is of it. But we do so in a very respectful way. In that sense and we write letters. You send out an opinion. And then someone will say, Judge Gregory, thank you so much for your opinion. I really appreciate it.

And then you get a 10 page letter saying, how much they have a different view. And what you do, you very kindly say, and you drop your other work. It's all about the fourth circuit. We're very polite in that sense. You don't just wait two or three weeks later, you respond if you can, the next day or the same day. You say, thank you so much for your response. And like alluded to, you weren't on the panel.

But let me tell you a little bit more about the record in this case that might give you a better perspective of how we came that way. So that keeps us engaged, it keeps you there. So you're always close to someone, because that's the way we operate. Don't just like, yeah, I said it. I don't have to say anything else. No, it's not that. Because we believe that you get a strong and a better idea of justice by doing that in a very polite way.

But we still have that. And I was the chief, and past July after seven years. But even though people-- new people came, everybody fell into that. Because this is the way I analogize it to make perspective. If you stand on the banks of a river, trillions of gallons, or whatever, of gallons of water passed by, gone forever. Never to return to that point of the river again.

But guess what? The river never stops. You have to realize, no, you're just but an important part of it, you contribute to the river, but you're not the river. The river is the court. It's the institution. Just like our Constitution, that is the river we contribute to it. And that's the way I think it keeps us focused on it. And it's very good, one thing I'll say, I'll talk a little bit out of school a little bit. It's fun. When I first got on the court, I'm on there with no law clerks, because I was recess appointed.

So I like law schools. I'm ready to get going when they get to my part of the day, because I'm first, the baby judge goes first. So I got this. So I'm talking like, well, on that point, I'll see it this way. But I could just hear these figures of-- Judge Gregory, how do you vote? We can, in our conferences, we can be quite brief. And that's why I joke, because sometimes you get those letters, especially with panel members.

I can see people who weren't on the panel. I said, well-- I said to myself, this is like the bubble over your head. It'd be nice if we had said that at conference. I think I could have saved myself a little. But that's the fun part. And you do that. But that's what it is. We work together. And that's what I think the whole point. In America, we don't have to be on the same page. Matter of fact, we're stronger because our views are different.

But you can't walk out the room. You can't say the answer is separation. The answer is calling you an enemy and you have horns. No, you don't have horns, you're a human being like I am. And I appreciate it. But come and let us talk. And let's walk a little longer together. And maybe we might come to a consensus about what justice is. And we try to do that. And sometimes we have the sense, but it's a great-- I think it's a great Circuit.

RISA GOLUBOFF: So when you don't agree, and you end up dissenting, how do you think about dissenting? How often does it happen? Do you think for yourself or others is it you often? Not often enough? How do you think about the whole practice?

ROGER L. GREGORY: Well, as one person said, I think a dissent is the highest expression of patriotism. Because you love it so much that you want it to be a better opinion. Not being disparaging about it, but a better opinion. And as long as that's what your focus is, like one of my favorite rabbi Hershel Abraham. And he talks about-- he said, once you start advocating, once you get angry, you're no longer advocating for Justice or the law, you're advocating for yourself.

And that's what it is. So if a dissent is great, immigration law for example. I had a lot of dissents. A lot of dissents, but some of those dissents now, it's the it's the precedent of the court, because I felt that it was necessary for Justice in all respect to my clients, but I mean, my colleagues. But a dissent well purposed is important, because it clarifies the majority.

And it's also leaves room for what might become from a jurisprudential standpoint. But I don't do it unnecessarily. As a matter of fact, I have at least a couple of times, had a majority, wrote the opinion, I only have a couple of times in mind. But a couple of times. 23 years. But I said, you know what after getting your dissent, I think you're right. And what you do, you write the majority, I have some suggestions on how you ought to tweak it. And I'll join you and you write it.

Because I think have the better view to me. That's what it's supposed to be. It's not hunkered down like, I don't care what you say. I tell my law clerks, if I get no response, that's the best applause you'll ever get. Because there is there is no response. But a response is well put and well reasoned ought to persuade you. You say that's what I open for persuasion. So that's the way I see it.

And I love it. Like I said, it's great colleagues and nothing I wouldn't do for any of my colleagues in terms of their personal thing. And of course I've had to, as I alluded to, some difficult times in my life. My first wife passed, my colleagues were so wonderful and kind. And that's good. That's good. That's good. That's a good chord.

RISA GOLUBOFF: Is there a case or two that you wrote the majority for that you're particularly proud of or when you think about your legacy that you think that's what you want to be remembered for.

ROGER L. GREGORY: Well, I don't-- I guess I don't put it that way. But I can think of a case I remember it took a long time for it to get this case out it was a death case. It was a lot of people ended up writing it took a while. And finally we got it out. And I urge that there was error in terms of the mitigating factors. And in the habeas. And we granted the writ. And the man received a trial, a new trial. And he was sentenced to life.

Another one I had was a death penalty case. I didn't write the opinion. But another one of my colleagues was on it. And he wrote a book. It was mentioned in a book called anatomy of-- anatomy of injustice. And what it was-- first it was a question of the Atkins case in terms of whether or not he's mentally retarded. They turned out that he met the state's definition of it. So they said OK. Well, we'll agree that-- he said excuse me, wait a minute.

We're not finished yet. There's also an issue of actual innocence. And we took that and we granted writ on the actual innocence. And after 17 years on death row, he was released. And it's like Pasteur said, he did work on rabies. And he had never tested on a human being. And this lady a mother, whose son had rabies, she said, please use it. Please use it. He said, I never put it on a human being.

She said, my son is going to die, because nobody survives rabies. That vaccination to keep you from getting it, but only about two or three people ever, but anyway, the point is that he did it. And the boy lived. And on his tombstone, that's all he wanted. And says, the filename was Joey something. He lived. That's the only epitaph he wanted, that little boy lived. And you can live a life that the Constitution still lives. Justice is still alive.

To me, that makes it important. So all the cases are important. But those are the ones that stand out a little bit.

RISA GOLUBOFF: I mean, it is-- I said this in your introduction, but I think you're manifesting it now. You're an appellate judge. And I think we often think by the time cases get to the appellate level, they're stripped a lot of the humanity in them. But you manage to continue to see that. You're talking about the effects on people's lives of the cases that you've done. So I don't if this is related or not related.

So I don't want to hem you in your answer, but I do wonder if it's related. You've talked in other contexts about your upbringing and your own life. And can you say a little bit about that and how has that affected your worldview as a judge. And maybe is it part of why you have such empathy and humanity for the people whose cases you're deciding?

ROGER L. GREGORY: Well, yeah. I think it is. I think it really is a lot with my parents. Because they said they were people who worked hard and a lot of faith and they poured in a lot of things. And it took me a while to understand some of the things that happened that had really connection with historical things. But I didn't it at the time. Give me an example. This was early on when Blacks could use the dressing rooms in a Department store to change clothes.

Before that, you had to just buy clothes and hope that it fit, and it wouldn't be accepted on return. But anyway, my mom, I was a little kid. A little boy. And I was there and she took me in the room with her, because that's was nobody to watch me. That she wasn't going to leave me unattended. And I came out with her, and this lady came out. And she was she was a Caucasian woman. And she said, there's a man back. There's a man. You what my mom did?

The first thing she did was she pushed me back and got between me and the lady. Between me and the world. And she said, he's not a man. He's a little boy. And he's with me. I remember that, and I thought about it. My mom was reacting to? Emmett Till. In Mississippi, he was supposedly whistling at someone. No, no. You're not going to say my son is back here as a man in the ladies dressing room.

And she stood up and said, no. He's a little boy. But she first put me behind her. But he said no, he is not. Those sacrifices. And then the other is my mama she was a piece of work. Remarkable when just give you anything but she didn't-- she was staying back. But when the factory integrated, Black people then were in areas of the factory that they otherwise were not in.

A lot of-- because sometimes in the stemmery and dealing with the raw tobacco but in other ways, this was a more sophisticated machinery. They had to depend, had to depend on white workers to train them. When they were newly in those positions. And I remember Mr Leroy, they had a time. A little slow on training her what she needed. I think she would come home and say look I tell you, I'm about tired of this now.

But the point the good story is that she and Mr Leroy became great friends. He would bring vegetables over and that thing. And I learned that there's space. If you just keep and don't give up. If we just stop at that point, we'll never get to where we need to be. And so those things, I just remember. And I remember my wife would tell you this too, I don't care how bad a waitress is, or a waiter is at a restaurant. And most of them are very kind.

But they're going to get a nice tip from me. And I tell them, I don't even say it. Sometimes they're not. They're short, but they still get a good tip. That's because my mom, when she was working at the tobacco-- first tobacco factory, after the war, they laid off all the women so the men could get their jobs. So then she was forced to go into domestic work. And then one time she worked at a restaurant, and I remember she worked overnight at this restaurant.

And I would stand at the window waiting in the fog in the morning for her to get off from work. And I saw how hard she worked. And I say to myself, you're getting this tip is not for you. You're getting this tip for my mom. But her influence over me is stronger than your rudeness. Because that's important. So something has to be important and searing to you. And yeah. So that's the way I grew up.

Church and everybody, family, and those things, you didn't lose your values. And you're not that important. You're humble. And just like this medal, is just amazing to be in a position. And I say, I accept it for all those people who smarter than am, who I grew up with who didn't-- give you an example, Dean. A friend of mine who spent most of his adult life in prison.

And substance abuse was his biggest problem. And he's doing well now. But I as a Fourth Circuit judge, I went to his chip ceremony. Where you get your chip and he graduated to another level. I didn't come as a Fourth Circuit judge. I came as a friend. And that's something I guess my colleagues would never even think about. But there's no mantle that I wear that would keep me from that thing that touches me to a person and proving themselves.

Getting out of prison, and now he goes back and he helps other people through the journey. He said what it's like to be addicted to drugs and let me help you. And he does that now. And even to the point now from diabetes, he's almost blind. Just about legally well blind. And he said, I've never seen clear in my life that I see now, today. And that's how we got to see the Constitution.

Not with just eyes of just a way to find out to beat people down. But eyes that can see clear away from drugs, away from imprisonment. Those things are important. To me, and to hopefully to a lot of people.