Herbert P. Wilkins, former chief justice of the state Supreme Judicial Court, dies at 95
'If you ask me who was the most significant chief justice certainly Herbert Wilkins would be a standout,' she said. 'I say that not only in the Commonwealth, but nationwide. He was an extraordinary man.'
Justice Wilkins, who also was committed to public service on community boards and with influential legal organizations before and after his years on the bench, was 95 when he died Tuesday at home in Concord.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
In rulings and in private conversations, Justice Wilkins was known for his brevity and clarity. His humor was also often present, even on the bench.
Advertisement
A 'Wilkins ruling' had certain hallmarks, said
'It's brief, it's concise, it says what it means to say,' she said of his opinions, which he wrote from draft to finish. His clerks submitted memoranda for him to review.
'He was not a man of many words, but each word counted,' she said, 'and he also was very funny and had a dry wit.'
Advertisement
In 1996, when Justice Wilkins was scheduled to be sworn in as chief justice in the governor's office, he noted in an interview that it was the same place where he had taken the oath as an associate justice in 1972. It also was the same place where his father, Raymond S. Wilkins, was sworn in as an SJC associate justice and later as chief justice.
'So it's going to be a four-fer,' Justice Wilkins told The Boston Globe.
Then he joked that he had picked
Though nominated to be an SJC associate justice by
'In my view, our state Constitution tells us today that the state may not engage in the senseless killing of a murderer, even though he is by definition a person who has committed a senseless killing himself,'
His more nationally lasting impact involved helping place the SJC at the cutting edge from the mid-1970s onward in issuing state Constitution rulings that more forcefully protected individual rights during an era when the US Supreme Court generally was not doing so.
'I rather regard it as an anchor to the windward to protect people's rights that we should all be in favor of,' Justice Wilkins said in a 1986 interview.
Advertisement
Justice Wilkins 'understood that state constitutions were terribly important,' Marshall said, and by doing so was 'was among the most highly regarded jurists among state jurists.'
From the outset as chief justice, he worked amiably with the state Legislature. That close work with lawmakers helped spur appropriations to build and rehabilitate courts across the state, Marshall said.
'That was a singular achievement that nobody else had been able to do,' she said.
Marshall added that Justice Wilkins also tried to ensure that legal assistance would be made more available to state residents who couldn't afford a lawyer when they found themselves caught up in complex court matters.
The current Supreme Judicial Court justices
'As a jurist, he was known for his incisive rulings and meticulous attention to detail,' the statement said. 'His respectful and polite demeanor on and off the bench earned him the respect and admiration of all who worked with him. The people of the Commonwealth are fortunate that a person of his intellect, dignity, and commitment to justice was willing to devote his talents in their service.'
The youngest of three siblings, Herbert Putnam Wilkins was born on Jan. 10, 1930, and grew up in Winchester.
His mother, Mary Louisa Aldrich Wilkins, died in 1954, the year Justice Wilkins graduated from Harvard Law School.
His father,
Advertisement
Before joining the SJC in 1972, the year after Raymond died, Justice Wilkins followed in his father's footsteps as a Harvard College and Harvard Law graduate.
A decades-long resident of Concord, he was town counsel for Concord and Acton and chaired Concord's Board of Selectmen before becoming a judge.
A Phillips Exeter Academy graduate, he formerly served on his alma mater's board of trustees and as president of the Harvard University Board of Overseers. Justice Wilkins also was a member of the council of the American Law Institute and a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He also had been the
'He took his obligations seriously,' said
Justice Wilkins joined the Palmer & Dodge law firm after law school and was a partner from 1960 until becoming a judge.
In 1952, he married Angela Middleton, an internationally recognized expert in addressing learning disabilities and teaching those with dyslexia to read.
When he met with reporters in July 1996, after Weld nominated him to lead the SJC, Justice Wilkins spoke with pride about Angela's work and said he believed he would be the first chief justice whose wife worked full time.
With his four children, Justice Wilkins 'tried to instill a sense of social responsibility to do right by others, an obligation that we're all in this together,' said his son
Advertisement
Douglas's siblings are Stephen of Gloucester, an educator;
In addition to his wife and children, Justice Wilkins leaves eight grandchildren and 10 great-grandchildren.
A celebration of his life will be announced.
Justice Wilkins 'was a very, very kind man and I think he hired kind clerks,' said Dolberg, who added that the judge and his wife invited former clerks to gather for lunch each year around his birthday.
One by one, all stood each year to discuss and update their careers, becoming an extended family through the annual gatherings, inspired by his life and work.
'We were so full of gratitude,' Dolberg said. 'We really felt he had been an amazing mentor and that he had helped guide us in our careers.'
Bryan Marquard can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
MAGA largely falls in line on Trump's Iran strikes
President Donald Trump's sudden announcement Saturday night that he bombed three Iranian nuclear sites has skeptics of U.S. military action against Iran largely falling in line. The prospect of strikes against Iran had sparked backlash from Democrats and days of infighting within Trump's MAGA coalition, but after the president posted on Truth Social that the U.S. has bombed Iran, several GOP critics cheered the strikes as a limited action. Several top Democrats denounced the strikes as illegal and warned they could drag the U.S. into another Middle East war. The prospect of U.S. strikes on Iran had sparked debate between Republicans pressing for the U.S. to aid in regime change and isolationist voices who warned a full-scale war would betray Trump's 'America First' approach. 'Iran gave President Trump no choice,' Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist and critic of GOP war hawks, said on X. 'For a decade he has been adamant that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon. Iran decided to forego diplomacy in pursuit of a bomb. This is a surgical strike, operated perfectly. President Trump acted with prudence and decisiveness.' Former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, Trump's one-time pick for the attorney general post who had warned of the Middle East conflict turning into another drawn out war for the U.S., said on X that the president's strike didn't necessarily portend a larger conflict, and likened it to the strike of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani during Trump's first term 'President Trump basically wants this to be like the Solimani strike — one and done,' Gaetz wrote. 'No regime change war. Trump the Peacemaker! Some Republicans had expressed doubts that bombing Fordow (also known as Fordo) would end the threats, including Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. But after the strikes, Sheehy called Saturday's military action the 'right decision.' 'To the naysayers out there, this isn't starting a war, this is ending one,' he said. 'Iran has been at war with America for 46 years. The Iranian people should rise up and put an end to this murderous regime.' Democrats, meanwhile, were largely unified in opposition to the strikes, arguing Trump lacks the legal authority even if the destruction of Iran's nuclear program is a positive goal. Trump shocked Washington and the country with a post revealing that U.S. aircraft had already bombed three Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. The move drew recriminations from critics — and even some allies — who argued Trump had no legal authority to launch the offensive strikes against Iran's nuclear program. Top Democrats on the House and Senate Intel Committees — Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), both members of Gang of Eight — were reportedly not briefed before the attacks on Iranian nuclear sites. 'According to the Constitution we are both sworn to defend, my attention to this matter comes BEFORE bombs fall. Full stop,' Himes said on X. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries slammed Trump's strikes as reckless and unauthorized, demanding a full classified briefing for Congress and warning it risks 'a disastrous war in the Middle East.''Donald Trump shoulders complete and total responsibility for any adverse consequences that flow from his unilateral military action,' Jeffries said in a statement. But Trump's fellow Republicans who'd pressed for the president to join Israel's military operations against Tehran quickly cheered the decision. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the Senate's most hawkish Republicans, said the bombing was 'the right call,' and that 'The regime deserves it.' Some hawkish Republicans argued ahead of the strikes that Trump had a historic opportunity to set back Iran's nuclear program despite potential retaliation from Iran against America's bases and allies in the Middle East. 'Iran has waged a war of terror against the United States for 46 years,' Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). 'We could never allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. God bless our brave troops. President Trump made the right call and the ayatollahs should recall his warning not to target Americans.' House Speaker Mike Johnson was briefed on the strikes ahead of time, a person with direct knowledge of the matter told POLITICO. In a post on X, Johnson called it 'America First policy in action.' 'The President's decisive action prevents the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, which chants 'Death to America,' from obtaining the most lethal weapon on the planet,' he wrote. Still, the attack left some MAGA isolationists distressed. And it could ramp up pressure for votes in the House and Senate on war powers legislation on Iran when Congress returns next week. Longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon, who has been wary of U.S. military involvement, was livestreaming on his show as the president made the announcement. Bannon argued that Trump should use his address Saturday evening to 'talk to MAGA' to explain why he opted to attack Iran. 'This is not Constitutional,' said Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) on X following the president's post. The Kentucky lawmaker has clashed with Trump and is one of the most vocal Republican detractors of U.S. involvement in Iran. This week, Massie, along with several House Democrats filed a House resolution seeking to block U.S. involvement in the conflict. 'While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional,' conservative Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) tweeted. 'I look forward to his remarks tonight.' Progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), one of the Democrats who teamed with Massie, said lawmakers should 'immediately return to DC' to approve their resolution 'to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war.' It's unclear what legal justification the administration is using to support its attack on Iran, an ambiguity that could fuel attempts to rein Trump in. Across the Capitol, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) has planned to force a vote on his own resolution to block action against Iran without congressional authorization and could do so as soon as this week.'The American public is overwhelmingly opposed to the U.S. waging war on Iran,' Kaine said on X. 'And the Israeli Foreign Minister admitted yesterday that Israeli bombing had set the Iranian nuclear program back 'at least 2 or 3 years.' So what made Trump recklessly decide to rush and bomb today? Horrible judgment.' Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is pushing his own Iran legislation, slammed Trump's strike in a stop at his 'Fight Oligarchy' tour in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The crowd chanted 'No more war' in unison with raised fists as Sanders passionately called into question the president's legal authority for hitting Iran. 'Not only is this news that I've just heard this second alarming, that all of you have just heard, but it is so grossly unconstitutional,' Sanders said. 'All of you know that the only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress. The president does not have the right.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Sanders criticizes Trump decision to bomb Iran as ‘grossly unconstitutional'
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at a rally in Oklahoma blasted President Trump's decision to bomb Iran and enter the U.S. into Israel's war with Tehran. Sanders broke the news to the crowd in Tulsa, which began chants of 'no more war.' 'I agree,' Sanders told the crowd. 'Not only is this news that I've just heard alarming . . . but it is so grossly unconstitutional. All of you know, that the only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress. The president does not have the right.' Only Congress has the power to declare war under the U.S. Constitution, though presidents in both parties have carried out military strikes on adversaries without prior approval from the legislative body. Lawmakers in both parties have been unnerved in recent days by the saber-rattling over the possible U.S. entry to Israel's bombing of Iran. Trump just days ago said he would be making a decision in the next two weeks about bombing Iran. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) introduced a resolution Monday seeking to prevent the U.S. from getting involved in a military conflict with Iran without congressional approval. The resolution reaffirms existing law, directing the president to end any use of the U.S. armed forces 'for hostilities' against Iran 'unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran.' President Trump announced Saturday the United States had bombed three Iranian nuclear sites, including the Fordow site that is located in a mountainside. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Trump posted on Truth Social.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Trump takes heat from Dems and GOPers over decision to bomb Iran: ‘Another foreign war'
A handful of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle fumed at President Trump's decision to bomb top nuclear facilities in Iran and accused him of violating the Constitution. On Sunday, Trump announced that he had ordered strikes to target Iran's Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan nuclear sites. Trump noted that all planes successfully departed Iranian airspace and were 'safely on their way home.' 'Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war,' firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a top Trump ally, lamented. Advertisement Several lawmakers of both parties met President Trump with fuming responses to his decision to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran. REUTERS 'There would not be bombs falling on the people of Israel if Netanyahu had not dropped bombs on the people of Iran first. Israel is a nuclear-armed nation. This is not our fight.' Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who hasn't been shy about splitting with Trump in the past, simply declared: 'This is not Constitutional.' Advertisement Top Intel Committee Democrat Jim Himes (D-Conn.) similarly accused Trump of exceeding his presidential authorities with the strikes. 'According to the Constitution, we are both sworn to defend, my attention to this matter comes BEFORE bombs fall. Full stop,' Himes fumed on X. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) simply declared: 'This is not Constitutional.' in response to the bombings. Getty Images Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) also called it an 'unambiguous impeachable offense.' Advertisement 'This is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program. No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress,' Casten said on X. 'I'm not saying we have the votes to impeach. I'm saying that you DO NOT do this without Congressional approval and if Johnson doesn't grow a spine and learn to be a real boy tomorrow we have a BFing problem that puts our very Republic at risk.'
