Edward Terry Sanford (July 23, 1865 – March 8, 1930) was an American jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1923 until his death in 1930.

[1] Sanford's most lasting impact on American law is arguably his majority opinion in the landmark case Gitlow v. New York (1925).

The Court ruled in favor of Harbison and upheld states' right to ban companies from paying employees in scrip rather than cash.

This case involved a sheriff, Joseph Shipp, who was convicted of allowing a condemned black prisoner, who was the subject of a United States Supreme Court writ of habeas corpus, to be lynched.

[7] Defunct Newspapers Journals TV channels Websites Other Congressional caucuses Economics Gun rights Identity politics Nativist Religion Watchdog groups Youth/student groups Social media Miscellaneous Other President Warren Harding nominated Sanford as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States on January 24, 1923, to succeed Mahlon Pitney.

[1][13] While upholding a state law banning anarchist literature, the opinion in Gitlow implied that some provisions of the Bill of Rights (here the First Amendment's free speech provisions) apply with equal force to the states via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (commonly called "incorporation").

That had "extraordinary consequences for the nationalization of the Bill of Rights during the era of the Warren Court," which later used similar reasoning to incorporate other amendments and expand civil liberties.

Other noteworthy opinions by him are Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323 (1926), which upheld the right of property sellers to discriminate based on race, Taylor v. Voss, 271 U.S. 176 (1926) and Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927).

[12] Sanford voted with the majority in Myers v. United States (1926), which upheld the President's authority to remove executive branch officials without the Senate's consent, and in Ex parte Grossman (1925), which recognized the President's pardoning power to extend to conviction for contempt of court.

[1] They routinely sided together in decisions[1] and were a part of the Court's conservative "inner club" that regularly met at the Chief Justice's house for libations and conviviality on Sundays.