Public Law 117-111 passed April 13, 2022

Placement of statues for Sandra Day O’Conner and Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Sandra Day O’Conner

Born 1930 in El Paso, Texas. Spent her childhood on family's cattle ranch in Arizona. Lived with her grandmother in El Paso during the school year. Graduated from Stanford University at the age of 16, combined her undergraduate and law school curriculum, graduating with a bachelors in economics and a law degree in 6 years. Graduated third in her class, behind William Rehnquist, her future colleague on the Supreme Court. Sandra took an unpaid position in the San Mateo County District Attorney’s office because she could not find work as an attorney becasue of the bias against women. Her husband finished his law degree a year later.

In 1954, O’Conner went to Frankfurt, Germany because her husband joined the United States Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps where she was able to find work as a civilian attorney with the United States Army Quartermaster Corps.

In 1957, O’Conner moved back to Arizona and worked as a sole practitioner since she was still unable to find work with a traditional law firm. In 1965, she was hired as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Arizona.

O’Conner was appointed Arizona State Senate seat in 1969. In 1970, she was elected to the Arizona State Senate and served 2 consecutive terms.

In 1972, selected as Majority Leader of the Arizona State Senate, the first woman to hold this position in any State.

In 1974, she ran for trial court judge and won and later appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals in 1979.

August 19, 1981. President Ronald Reagan nominated O’Conner to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, filling the vacate seat of Associate Justice Potter Stewart.

September 21, 1981, the Senate confirmed O’Conners nomination by a unanimous vote, making her the first woman to serve in the Supreme Court.

In 1982, Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, O’Conner wrote an opinion piece that the State could not discriminate against men enrolling in an all female school based on sex but only if there was an “exceedingly persuasive justification”.

O’Conner was best at finding the middle ground between her often-divided colleagues. Her views in concurring opinions that eschewed broad constitutional doctrine in favor of resolving the cases before the Court.