Exactly 80 years has passed since the completion of the United States Supreme Court building. This comment is not another paper about the importance or historical influence of the greatest of all American institutions, nor about dramatic cases which shaped America, nor about justices and their approaches, nor about characters or world views. It is about architecture and the messages which are sent from the facade of this strong institution to which legal scholars and practitioners from around the world look.

Architecture is not just another form of art. It is powerful and present: it spreads through the public sphere but it can remain private and secluded. Equally, legal architecture has its own place in its interface with people: it has an internal and external approach. ‘Buildings of the law’ emit messages about the distribution of justice in indirect ways, through objects that capture the most necessary historical values for the sake of the future. Although there are many studies of the architectural periods in which American public buildings were built, the architecture of this particular court building is not as well studied as it should be. While the technical qualities and particular character of its building are powerful, there is a lack of serious work about the legal architecture of the United States Supreme Court and its real message to the people ‘under law’.Footnote ¹

I recently visited the United States Supreme Court. It is an impressive and powerful building constructed in the neoclassical style which shaped courts of law for centuries: law which is not just important for American citizens but also law which spread through a much broader international arena. That law has influence not just on the legal reasoning and logic of common-law scholars but also on international procedural rules and practices, especially when we observe the work of international courts and tribunals.

The building is impressive in many ways, but I would like to concentrate on one particular part – the friezes in the courtroom – which can be found in the most important part of the court, the masterpiece of Cass Gilbert, one of the most prominent and influential architects of the time.Footnote ² It is unclear why the courtroom friezes are not more visible and why they were not positioned where they could better tell the story of human history and the sources of general law which connect cultures and draw people closer together. These sculptures are not just evidence that United States law is a product of the development of the world's legal history, and proof of the connection between history and modernity; they also tell a story about the nature of law, amalgamated from many different points through history. They could be perceived as signs of the ‘general principles of law’, which are common to all legal systems regardless of place and time and referred to in Article 38 of the Statutes of the International Court of Justice. Examples of these general principles have been held to include laches, good faith, res judicata and the impartiality of judges; international tribunals rely on them when they cannot find authority in other sources of international law.Footnote ³ The sculptures are indeed images of sources of law, as general principles of law are echoes of legal cultures themselves.

Are these important sculptures ‘hidden’ in the courtroom because they should not be revealed to the eyes of the masses? Are they available just for those entitled to practise law and sewn into the invisible fabric of the law itself? Or do they just have internal aesthetic value? Although neoclassical pillars may look strong and awesome, the power of the law and of the written word should, in the end, subordinate other manifestations of the law. All the sculptures are the product of a partnership between architects, builders, politicians and lawyers – even including the justices of the court themselves.

There are also friezes on the exterior of the court, which are more visually appealing and may appear more influential. The east pediment seems neglected and lingers in the shadow of the west one, which is more visible to the public, since the principal entrance is there. It is the work of an artist named Hermon A MacNeil, with whom Cass Gilbert worked closely.Footnote ⁴ Particularly interesting is the fact that that part of the Court building displays the figures of Moses, Confucius and Solon, figures to whom we will return when the inner friezes of the courtroom are analysed. Having these figures inside and outside the court building could mean that they are more important than others. They represent great civilisations, but they are also images of the three great lawgivers. Surrounding them are figures representing the functions of the Supreme Court: means of enforcement, tempering justice with mercy and settlements of inter-state disputes. Those functions are legally and philosophically connected with the images of Moses, Confucius and Solon, with further characteristics described through other objects representing their thought. Only one of the lawgivers from the more prominent west pediment is also present in inner court frieze: that is John Marshall, the Chief Justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835, who represents ‘Research Past’ and who is pictured alongside Roman scrolls, an urn, mosaic tables and an oil lamp.Footnote ⁵

Apart from the east and west pediments, there is a further detail which may be overlooked: the great bronze doors of the Court contain scenes of Anglo-American legal history and scenes which are derived from historical sources. Those on the left include images of the Shield of Achilles, the Praetor's Edict and the Justinian Code.Footnote ⁶ The Cass Gilbert Society's introduction to the Supreme Court building states that the first two represent Greek and Roman law, which is correct, and that Justinian's Code represents religious law, which is incorrect, or at least not completely true. Justinian was known as the great regulator of both civil and religious law. It would therefore be more appropriate to say that Justinian's Code represent law on religion, but it is definitely not a representation of a religious legal system such as canon, rabbinic or sharia law. Generally speaking, the US Supreme Court iconography neglects the importance of religious law, though it is ephemerally present.

The architectural iconography of the Supreme Court is mostly connected with presenting the sources and foundations of the law and of the American state, which is presented as a ‘product’ of the cultural and legal evolution of the world's history and contains elements of many previously existing legal structures. With regard to the sources and foundations of law, the central place in this most important American legal edifice is given to Adolph A Weinman's friezes on the south and north walls of the courtroom. They represent ‘great lawgivers of history’ and portray the ‘development of the law’. Those represented on these friezes are: Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian (south) and Justinian, Muhammad, Charlemagne, King John, Louis IX, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall and Napoleon (north). Footnote ⁷

The figures were selected as the world's great lawgivers, each one of them important for their contribution to the world's legal development. Menes was the unifier of Egypt and one of the earliest law imposers. As the journalist Joan Biskupic writes, ‘Menes personifies the idea of centralized government and political system – the necessary basis for any coherent set of laws'.Footnote ⁸ Hammurabi, King of Babylon, was the creator of the Code of Hammurabi, which he is shown receiving from the Sun God; this code was an amalgamation of criminal and procedural law.Footnote ⁹ Here also is Moses, representing the Torah. Biskupic writes that his presence suggests the ‘existence of a higher authority, beyond human control’. However, the fact that in the frieze just the sixth to the tenth Commandments are visible suggests that the designers wanted to emphasise only these, more secular, commandments.Footnote ¹⁰

Solomon appears as a just king and judge of Israel, and Lycurgus as a legislator of Sparta and the reformer of its constitution. Solon was the famous codifier of the Greek law usually know as Solon's reforms. Draco was a strict and very harsh ruler, famous for his cruelty. Confucius was a Chinese thinker and philosopher who influenced development of government and society. His teachings were connected with the belief that balance is essential for the law and also the idea that individual achievement produces greater good. The Roman Emperor Octavian (Augustus) re-established republican state structure and modernised public and legal life in Rome.

Justinian was an important European lawyer and the great codifier of Roman law. His Corpus iuris civilis remains the most important classical Roman law source for continental legal systems. According to Islamic teaching, Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, received from God the Qur'an, the primary source of Islamic law. The inclusion of Muhammad is controversial: the webpage of the Supreme Court states that ‘The figure above is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor, Adolph Weinman, to honor Muhammad and it bears no resemblance to Muhammad. Muslims generally have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representation of their Prophet.’Footnote ¹¹ Next come Charlemagne, emperor, polyglot and great promoter of knowledge, and King John, famous for assenting to Magna Carta, one of the most important documents for Western legal thought. The Court's webpage states that ‘This document, depicted in the frieze as a scrolled document in King John's hand, is regarded as the foundation of constitutional liberty in England.’Footnote ¹² King Louis IX was famous as the founder of the first court of appeal for modernising legal process through administrative reform. He is also known for leading the seventh and eighth crusades. Hugo Grotius, a Dutch lawyer and the author of the famous De iure belli ac pacis (On the Law of War and Peace, 1625), laid the foundations of international law. Sir William Blackstone was a famous author of commentaries on the laws of England. John Marshall was one of the greatest American Supreme Court judges. At the end of the frieze we find Napoleon, Emperor of France, with his famous Civil Code.

All these are strong, influential lawgivers, representing the ‘lineage’ of the American state and American law. At first glance all the important characters are present: religious and secular, Judaeo-Christian and Islamic, historical and more contemporary. But if that is the case, is someone missing? Where is Jesus? This is a fundamental issue, not just in a legal or theological perspective, but also in a broader general humanist framework. Do we consider Jesus as a lawgiver? Most scholars would agree that religion can be addressed as a set of rules, that religion also means law and that there is a sanction within religion itself that makes sets of rules akin to what we perceive as law. Religion also comprises the fulfilling of duties. In countries which are based more on secular principles such fulfilment is voluntary,Footnote ¹³ but, even in such cases, some religious rules penetrate the ‘secular’ system so much that even secular lawyers do not know that they are of religious origin.Footnote ¹⁴ Some countries connect some or all of their legal system with religious rules, with observation of such rules being voluntary or semi-voluntary in, for example, family law issues.Footnote ¹⁵

If a religion is a system of laws and if Christianity made an important impact on the Western civilisation on which US Supreme court is, in turn, built, why is Jesus not on the friezes? One may argue that the frieze contains two saints (Louis IX and the Christian Emperor Justinian) but this misses the point. Louis and Justinian are honoured for their secular contribution – for improving the system of justice – but not for their spiritual lives. Jesus addressed at least one issue for which he deserved to be incorporated in the frieze. To recognise this one does not have to be Christian but just étatist: it is to be found in the very well-known gospel passage where Jesus interprets the Jewish law of his time:

There could be a valid argument that St Paul should also be pictured on the walls of the Supreme Court. In Romans 13 he states the Christian duty of submission to civil law and to the law of God and that ‘love is the fulfilling of the law’.Footnote ¹⁷ But this teaching is derived from the teaching of Jesus. The attitude of Jesus towards law and state deserves much deeper legal and theological analysis, but the essence of Jesus' teaching is the law of love, which is the essence of the Judaeo-Christian tradition: love of God and love of neighbour. Jesus summarised the ancient ‘norm’ of Jewish law written in Deuteronomy 6:5 – ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might’ – and extended it:

So, why is Jesus not engraved on the Supreme Court building? Moses is depicted with only five of the Ten Commandments given by God: those that address the relationship between human being and human being. Those addressing the relationship between God and humanity remain hidden and it seems that their place is not in the courtroom either. On the one hand, it looks as if the significance of religious law is partially acknowledged; on the other, it seems that such religious law is divided between law which is connected with God (spiritual law) and that which is connected with people (ethics and morals). Although disagreeing with such a division, I believe that the architects of American law and the American legal system felt this to be the case and that the building's architects and artists followed suit.

However, these people might all be wrong. Jesus might be observed as a supporter of the secular (‘give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's') and a separator of two relationships (God–people and people–state) but his unique position of lawgiver of love deserves a place on the frieze. What Jesus offers to humankind is a new way of looking at law: not just a reflection of God's plan for humans but a system which contains concrete elements such as love, compassion and forgiveness. Without those, any legal system would not be balanced. Amnesty, parole, pardon and various limitations are all important tools of the legal system. I believe that if society is willing to honour Draco as a strict spirit of order it should be even more willing and ready to honour love. As Biskupic notes:

Out of all the architectural beauties in the United States Supreme Court, the friezes of the south and north interior walls are the most striking and powerful. The sculptures are the most important part of the court because they show the roots of the system and where the branches of laws are heading. Whether we are religious or not, it is important to acknowledge that Jesus has his place there, even though we do not see him on the walls.