The Court and Its Traditions

xxx
Since at least 1800, it has been traditional for Justices to wear black robes while in Court. Chief Justice Jay, and
apparently his colleagues, lent a colorful air to the earlier sessions by wearing robes with a red facing, somewhat
like those worn by early colonial and English judges. The Jay robe of black and salmon is now in the possession of
the Smithsonian Institution.
Initially, all attorneys wore formal "morning clothes" when appearing before the Court. Senator George Wharton Pepper
of Pennsylvania often told friends of the incident he provoked when, as a young lawyer in the 1890s, he arrived to argue a
case in "street clothes." Justice Horace Gray was overheard whispering to a colleague, "Who is that beast who dares to
come in here with a grey coat?" The young attorney was refused admission until he borrowed a "morning coat." Today,
the tradition of formal dress is followed only by Department of Justice and other government lawyers, who serve as
advocates for the United States Government.
xxx
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/traditions.aspx (accessed on: July 30, 2019)

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on Why Judges Wear Black Robes

The Supreme Court icon breaks down the tradition

By Sandra Day O'Connor

The simple black judicial robe has been a part of my life for nearly four decades. I first wore one in 1975 when I became a
trial judge in Arizona. When I was appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States, in 1981, I brought that same robe
with me to Washington and wore it on my first day on the bench. Although I retired in 2006, I still wear a robe in my role
as a “circuit-rider,” sitting frequently, as many retired justices do, on various federal Courts of Appeals across the country.

It is surprising to me how little we know about where this plain black judicial uniform comes from. Colonial judges in
England wore robes, and the tradition took off on American soil as well. But English judges also wore colorful robes and
ornate wigs—a tradition that was not adopted in the United States. Some speculate that the Supreme Court began with
more colorful attire; the court’s official portrait of the first chief justice, John Jay, shows him in a robe of black and red
with white borders. The story, perhaps apocryphal, is that Thomas Jefferson himself objected to such unnecessary pomp:
As an ardent supporter of modest republican citizenship, Jefferson was against “any needless official apparel,” especially
“the monstrous wig which makes the English judges look like rats peeping through bunches of oakum.” It is believed that
by 1801, when John Marshall became chief justice, the justices were in the habit of wearing black.

Today, every federal and state judge in the country wears a very similar, simple black robe. I am fond of the symbolism of
this tradition. It shows that all of us judges are engaged in upholding the Constitution and the rule of law. We have a
common responsibility.

Remarkably, this similarity among our judges and justices is purely a matter of tradition. There are no rules that dictate
what judges or justices must wear on the bench, nor is there even a common source for Supreme Court robes. The court’s
internal correspondence suggests that, in the 19th century, the justices all wore black silk robes from a single tailor. By the
20th century, other materials were often used and judges selected their robes from those available to college graduates and
choir singers. For the most part, we have all chosen to wear a very similar style of black judicial robe.

Of course, there have been a few exceptions, intentional or otherwise. In the marshal’s office records of the court, there is
a note that in 1969, Justice Hugo Black “returned to the Bench” without his robe on and sat on the bench for the
remainder of the court session, departing with his colleagues. But there’s no record of whether something happened to his
robe or he just forgot to put it on. And Chief Justice William Rehnquist added gold stripes to one arm of his robe. It was
an unannounced departure: He simply surprised us with the change one morning. He said he had recently seen a Gilbert &
Sullivan opera in which the lord chief justice wore a robe with gold stripes. Our chief asked the seamstress at the court to
sew some on his own robe. I myself made a modest addition to the simple black robe by choosing to wear a white judicial
collar.

My fondest thoughts about my robe have to do with the tradition at the Supreme Court for putting it on. On argument
days, a buzzer sounds about five minutes before the oral argument starts. The justices go to the robing room—the court’s
version of a locker room. Each justice has a locker; attendants help the justices fasten their robes. Then the justices,
without fail, engage in a wonderful custom. Each justice shakes the hand of every other justice before walking into the
courtroom—an important reminder that, despite the justices’ occasional differences in opinion, the court is a place of
collegiality and common purpose.

“People often ask me if, as the first woman on the Supreme Court, I had any special preferences for my robe.”
says Sandra Day O’Connor. “But honestly, I took whatever was available and put it on.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/justice-sandra-day-oconnor-on-why-judges-wear-black-robes-4370574/
(accessed on: July 31, 2019)

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL COSTUME

Legal and judicial costume is defined as special occupational dress worn by judges and members of the legal community
to mark their membership in this professional group.

Dress in the Early Modern Period

Legal and judicial dress has its origins in royal and ecclesiastical history. Prior to the early modern period, monks and
other ecclesiasts were responsible for the administration of justice in the European territories. By the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries, this group was replaced by lesser nobility appointed by European sovereigns. As direct servants of the
monarch, they were charged with the administration of sovereign law, and it was important for their clothing to reflect the
legitimacy and authority of the sovereign's rule. Therefore, early judicial and legal dress borrowed heavily from the styles
of the church's legal representatives, while reflecting the new era now defined by royal rule.

Judicial Dress

During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, judicial dress varied considerably between nations due to the decentralization
of ownership and rule in Europe. Ecclesiastical costume history, however, assured some general similarities in basic
judicial and legal dress among European nations. Judges of the early modern period wore sleeved tunics, and over this,
wide-sleeved pleated gowns or robes made from cloth, wool, or silk. This garment, previously worn by monks, was
sometimes referred to as a supertunica. High judges might wear tabards (essentially, a sleeveless version of the
supertunica) instead. Judges also wore closed mantles covering the shoulders to the middle-upper arm, and rolled hoods or
casting hoods of the same fabric, lined with miniver. For ceremonial occasions, some judges wore a shorter cloak, called
an armelausa (in France, called a manteau), made from the same fabric.

Despite this basic attire, there was little consistency in color of judicial uniform. James Robinson Planché summarizes this
point well in his Cyclopædia of Costume: "Information respecting the official costume of the Bench and the Bar is
abundant; but, unfortunately, the descriptions are not so clear as they are copious" (Planché, p. 426). Royalty frequently
dressed judges in ornate, regal costumes of scarlet and black, although vibrant hues of pink, violet, and royal blue were
also common. Color reflected royal taste, but also judicial rank or position, and lower judicial officials wore different
colors than presiding judges. Justices of the peace, appointed on a local basis to police the king's laws and manage local
affairs, wore lay dress associated with their middle-class rank.

Upon the head, members of the early modern judiciary typically wore a coif, a white circular lawn or silk cap, along with
a black silk or velvet skullcap on top. Such head coverings bore resemblance to academic dress, which signified the
possession of a doctorate degree. In fact, "The Order of the Coif" was a name given to a group of British sergeants-at-law,
a special legal class who comprised the body from which high judicial offices was chosen. Judges often wore another hat
on top of the coif and skullcap, particularly in France and Germany.

Early Legal Dress

Early costume for lawyers, also known as barristers, solicitors, advocates, or councillors, depending on the country, bore
strong similarities to that of judges. During the Middle Ages, lawyers were considered to be apprentices to the judiciary,
which explain the likeness in dress. Like their judicial counterparts, barristers in Britain also wore closed gowns made of
cloth or silk. These garments, however, had raised, stuffed shoulders and elbow-length glove sleeves. Even before Queen
Mary's death, these gowns were predominantly black, in accordance with the rules of the Inns of Court that organized
barrister education and membership. Like judges, barristers also wore coifs and skullcaps, as well as white ruff-like bands
around the neck. Solicitors, who unlike barristers, did not have the right to present in court, wore long, open black gowns
with winged sleeves, although by the seventeenth century, they had lost their special dress and instead wore common
business attire. French advocates wore wide, colored, bell-sleeved gowns, often in scarlet, with shoulder pieces and
chaperons like their judicial counterparts. They also wore white bands and stiff black toques called bonnets carrés.
Regulations of the Seventeenth Century
Historically, monarchs set out complex dictates on judicial and legal dress, which reflected that individual sovereign's
taste. By the seventeenth century, as countries continued to centralize and codify legal order, it became important to
systemize the mélange of customs and traditions relating to legal and judicial dress. This did not, however, result in a
simple, concise, framework for dress—in fact, the exact opposite! In 1602, France regulated, by royal mandate, the dress
of its judges and lawyers of all ranks. Although scarlet still predominated, the monarchy dictated the specific robe fabrics,
colors, and lengths for its judges, advocates, and clerks. It even made distinctions for colors by seasons and days of the
week.

Britain had similarly intricate legislation, which resulted in complicated and confusing dictates. According to the 1635
Decree by Westminster, the monarch became the exclusive administrator of judicial dress. From spring to mid-autumn, it
was mandatory for judges to wear a taffeta-lined black or violet silk robe with deep cuffs lined in silk or fur, a matching
hood, and a mantle. Judges were also required to wear coifs, caps, and a cornered cap on top. During the winter months,
the taffeta lining was replaced with miniver to keep judges warm. Special scarlet dress replaced this standard costume on
holy days or the visit of the Lord Mayor.

There was no parallel code for barristers' dress at this time, and the Inns of Court governed bar costume.

During the same time, Britain also regulated the judicial dress of the American colonies. Settlers followed codes and
ceremonies of British law, and while little has been written on judicial and legal dress in the colonies, scarlet, which was
the ceremonial and traditional color for British judges, was de rigueur for the colonial bench. American dress, however,
did not mirror the same level of British complexity, given the puritan and austere circumstances and culture of the region.

Adoption of the Wig

Even the dignified and traditional dress of the legal and judicial system has not been isolated from whims of popular
fashion. The wigs worn by members of the British bench and bar are perfect examples of this idea. Fashion has always
influenced its styles, from changes in sleeve to ruffs and sashes. Charles II imported the wig from France in 1660, and
during the seventeenth century, they were a fashionable item for all gentlemen of wealthy and established social classes.
Made from human or horsehair, they sat very high at the crown, and cascaded in curls over the shoulders. Judges and
barristers took to wearing these fashionable full-bottomed wigs with their robes, no doubt under the recommendation of
Charles II. By the middle of the eighteenth century, wigs fell out of favor with the general public, but legal professionals
adopted the wig as a vital part of the legal and judicial uniform. In the early 2000s, high-court judges and the Queen's
Counsel in Britain and the Commonwealth continue to wear full-bottomed wigs for ceremonial occasions, and shorter
bench wigs are customary for daily courtroom proceedings. Barristers wear an even more abbreviated version of the
seventeenth-century wig, known as a tie-wig, which sits back from the forehead to expose the hairline.

Legal Dress in the Early 2000s

The styles put into place in the seventeenth century for the legal and judicial community have persisted in their basic
form, although styles for sleeves, collars, and accoutrements like wigs and bands have changed, according to lay fashion
and monarchial taste. Central governments rather than monarchs regulate legal and judicial dress, and complex and
confusing directives, in principle, continue to exist. In Britain, judges, barristers, and court clerks sitting in high courts are
generally required to wear black silk or stuff gowns over suits, and a short bench or tie-wig and bands. Black robes for
judges account for more of their dress than in previous times, and high court, district, and circuit courts prescribe their use
all or much of the time.

More frequently, colored mantles or sashes denote the type of case and court a judge presides over. Scarlet robes remain
reserved for ceremonial occasions, as well as for some high-court criminal cases in winter. Violet is also used for certain
cases according to season and court. Judges may be called to add or remove cuffs, scarves, mantles, and hoods of varying
color and fabric at different times and seasons. These rules, however, are frequently amended and discarded in practice by
judges in particular, who may dispense of their wigs or robes, either due to weather or due to special circumstances, such
as cases involving children. Barristers' dress remains more clear-cut, and in court they continue to wear black silk or cloth
gowns, tie-wigs, and bands, depending on the seniority of their position. Solicitors and lower court officials do not wear
wigs. Justices of the Peace, now predominantly confined to name only, do not wear any special dress.

Why Judges Wear Black

Free use of color in judicial dress lasted in European countries until the late seventeenth century, when the black robe,
which many consider to be the traditional judicial color, became the preferred color for daily judicial dress. France
adopted black as the color of dress for its judges, and historians believe that the British tradition of black robes began
when barristers and judges adopted mourning dress for Queen Mary II in 1694. Although high court judges eventually
reverted back to colors of scarlet and violet, it remained for barristers, lower-court judges, and court clerks in Britain. By
the eighteenth century, American judges had followed suit, though as a symbol of liberty from British control over the
American colonies.
Like Britain, France has also retained its complex guidelines for members of the legal profession. French high court
judges traditionally wear bell-sleeve cloth or silk black gowns and heavy draped manteaus lined with rabbit fur. Over the
coat, they also wear fur shoulder pieces upon which they hang national medals. Like Britain, this full dress is not always
abided by in daily practice. For ceremonial occasions, high-court judges may wear scarlet robes. Lower-court judges wear
similar robes in black or scarlet with black satin cuffs. Unlike their British or American peers, these robes button down the
front, and have trains that can be tucked up inside the robe. Additionally, they wear black moiré belts andepitoges, or
shawls tipped in ermine or rabbit, along white cloth fichus. They also continue to wear black toques. Although French
advocates wear business attire outside of the courtroom, they still wear black robes like their lower court judicial
counterparts in court trials. They can, but rarely do, wear toques as well. French court clerks wear dress similar to
advocates, but this depends on the formality and level of the court.

Other European countries follow similar national judicial-costume history, and even the European Community's high
judges wear distinctive scarlet or royal blue judicial robes, although this is governed by tradition rather than written
statute. Lawyers and advocates presenting at the European Courts of Justice wear their national legal costume, whether it
be plain dress or robe.

Unlike in Europe, both national and local governments regulate judicial and legal dress in the United States, and American
legal costume is confined only to judges. All levels of the judiciary wear long, black, cloth or silk gowns with bell-sleeves
and yoked necklines. They wear no wig, special headdress or collar, although male judges are expected to wear a shirt and
tie underneath their robes. There is no specific dress code for court clerks appearing in courts, although professional dress
is assumed or required. Justices of the Peace, now largely succeeded in authority by organized lower-level courts, wear lay
dress as well.

Production and Retailing

Legal and judicial dress is produced by specialized manufacturers and sold through specialty legal retailers or by
companies that also cater to academic and religious vestments. Legal dress can be quite expensive, and in Britain, a black
judicial gown may cost between £600 ($960) and £850 ($1,360), and a full-bottomed judicial wig, £1,600 ($2,560). Such
expenses have actually resulted in a thriving market for used wigs in Britain. Some high-court judges in Britain and other
European countries are given a stipend for their judicial attire, but lower-court judges, barristers, and advocates, must
provide for their own. In America, judges are expected to pay for their judicial dress, but pricing is far more moderate.

Modernization

There has been considerable debate since the mid-1980s about the relevance of traditional legal and judicial dress in
modern society. The United States and many European countries have relaxed regulations regarding such attire,
particularly for judges, and judges have had the ability to exercise their individual judgment in such matters. Judges in
Britain have chosen to dispense with wigs and robes upon certain situations when they want to convey a feeling of
equality to laypersons, and Muslim and Sikh judges wear their turbans instead of wigs.

Modernization has also included the exercise of individual judicial tastes as well. In 1999 American Supreme Court
Justice William Rehnquist chose to wear a robe decorated with gold stripes on each sleeve at the Impeachment Trial of
President William Jefferson Clinton. Justice Byron Johnson of the Idaho Supreme Court in the United States chose to
wear a blue robe, rather than a black one when he sat on the bench. Although both examples are American, they reflect the
questioning of relevance of judicial and legal dress in the early twenty-first century, and how it relates to the role of judges
and lawyers in community organizations.

Another example of modernization is the ongoing debate regarding the relaxation of legal and judicial garb in the United
Kingdom, and specifically the abolishment of wigs. In 1992, and again in 2003, the judicial system in Britain debated the
redesign of judicial and legal dress in order to be more relevant to society. With this has come the question of whether to
retain the wig.

In addition to being a visual guide for members of the legal profession to that of their peers, the image of judges and
barristers in their traditional occupational dress for society reminds the public of the dignity and gravity of the law, and the
impartiality of the judicial system. It also acts as a disguise to protect judges and barristers outside of the courtroom, as
well as a tool for downplaying differences in age and gender. Hence, the decision to retain, relax, or disband with legal
and judicial dress, extends beyond a discussion of the physical garments. Current debates about judicial dress are also
deliberations over the function of governments and tradition in the structure of civil life, and the role of a judicial
representative in the modern execution of justice.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/fashion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/legal-and-judicial-costume
(accessed on: July 31, 2019)
Judicial History 101: Why US Judges Dress the Way They Do
BY ANDIE PANTAZIE
If a uniform has about seven centuries to evolve, how dignified—or unique—can it look?

Ask yourself this the next time you see a federal judge or a Supreme Court justice, because, yes, the robes worn by these
men and women of the Bench looks to a tradition that goes as far back as the early 1300s.

Back in the Olden Days

Modern American judge’s uniform traces its roots to the good old days of British aristocracy, a system that ensured the
privileged few had a hand on powerful posts of the land.

You see, being a judge back then was a privilege enjoyed exclusively by the members of the nobility. Hence, judges had to
dress as representatives of their elite class, wearing robes made of weasel fur called ermine.

This may sound strange, but during those times, judges in full regalia—robes, wigs, and all—wouldn’t cause much of a
fuss as they walked down the street, simply because those were the norm of the day.

The robe of a High Court judge, for example, was based on the correct dress code for attending the royal court during the
reign of Edward III. It had a long, hooded robe with a cowl covering the shoulders and a mantle or cloak, pretty much like
the one you see below.

The material for these robes was originally given to judges as a grant from the Crown, and included ermine and either
taffeta or silk. The colors were violet for winter and green in summer.

The early 1600s saw the definitive guide to court dress published in Judges’ Rules, though this didn’t introduce new
costumes so much as just prescribe what existing robes should be worn, and when.

After 1635, the correctly-dressed judge would have worn a black robe faced with miniver (a light-colored fur) in winter,
and violet or scarlet robes faced with shot-pink taffeta, in summer. A black girdle, or cincture, was worn with all robes.

So, if judges could wear colorful robes back then, when did black robes become a judge’s most recognizable uniform?

Well, that’s easy.

Dressing for a Royal Funeral

The black robe tradition began when all of England’s judges attended the funeral of Her Majesty Queen Mary II in 1694.
Of course, they all wore black robes, a natural, classy gesture when mourning the death of a beloved or important person.

Unexpectedly, the mourning period extended a few years after Mary’s burial, making the custom of wearing black robes a
permanent fixture in the English judiciary.

And, as Englishmen ventured into the New World and carved out colonies, they brought their traditions with them,
including the black robes of their judges.

The quest for colonies, therefore, spread throughout the US and brought the world a judiciary tradition that persists today.

A National Identity
After the American Revolution, many of the Founding Fathers wanted to purge the nation of any symbols of the old
English aristocratic order, including what Thomas Jefferson called the “needless official appeal” of judges.

Others disagreed, and eventually a compromise was reached in which the hated judicial wigs were banned but the robes of
office remained. In true Federalist form, further regulation of judicial costume was left to the jurisdiction of the individual
states.

Many states, especially in the South, shared Jefferson’s original mentality, and had their judges wear no official costume
for a long period. This changed around the mid-19th century, when the states and feds began to increasingly harmonize,
and from then on almost every judge in America has worn a standardized black robe over a formal business suit.

Women judges tend to accessorize with a frilly white collar, though this varies from judge to judge.

Unity in Diversity
Despite the standardization, there are still some exceptions to the black robe hegemony. It’s common in the US for
members of a state Supreme Court to wear a distinct costume.

For example, in Maryland, judges of the Court of Appeals wear red robes, with British-style tab collars.

The Supreme Court justices of Pennsylvania wear special red, yellow, and green sashes over their black robes.

The Supreme Court justices of Georgia wear gray robes with black lining and black bars on the sleeves.

The late US Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, famously modified his own Chief Justice robe in 1994 to make it resemble
the robe of the British Lord Chancellor. His robe had four gold stripes on each arm, but was otherwise the same as most
American judicial robes.

There was some speculation that this tradition would continue with the next Chief Justice, John Roberts, but he has
instead reverted back to wearing a plain black robe.

Not Just Any Ordinary Robe

With the richness of judicial robe history, it won’t be hard to imagine that fad changes are coming in the future. However,
one thing will remain ever the same: every time judges put on that uniform, it should remind them to uphold justice and
fairness at all times.

Everywhere in the world, judges are treated with great respect; in turn, they are expected to perform their duties with a
solemn sense of dignity, wisdom, and honor.

And most of the time, fulfilling these duties starts with simply wearing with pride that robe that eloquently sums up
centuries of honorable judicial function and contribution.

https://www.judicialshop.com/blog/judicial-history-101-why-us-judges-dress-the-way-they-do/ (ACCESSED ON: July

31, 2019)