Browse days
The Lawyer Who Argued Before the Supreme Court While the Bar Said She Could Not Practice
19th CenturyUnited States

The Lawyer Who Argued Before the Supreme Court While the Bar Said She Could Not Practice

On September 19, 1862, Belva Lockwood graduated from a teachers' program in Royalton, New York, and began the series of pivotal professional rejections that would make her one of the most consequential figures in the history of American law — though not in the way she intended.

Lockwood was born in 1830 in Royalton, New York, taught school to fund her education, and in 1869 enrolled in law school at National University Law School in Washington, D.C. She and fifteen other women in her class completed the program. The school refused to grant them degrees. President Ulysses Grant was the honorary president of the university. She wrote him a letter. He sent her the degree.

She was admitted to the District of Columbia bar in 1873 and began practicing. When she attempted to argue before the U.S. Court of Claims, she was told the court did not admit women. She petitioned Congress. In 1879, Congress passed the Lockwood Bill, which required all federal courts to admit women attorneys who had practiced for three years in a state court. In 1880 she became the first woman to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court.

She ran for president of the United States in 1884 and 1888 on the National Equal Rights Party ticket, receiving several thousand popular votes. She could not vote for herself — women did not have that right.

She represented the Cherokee Nation in an 1906 case that resulted in a $5 million judgment. She advocated for international arbitration as an alternative to war and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Why This Matters

Lockwood's career required her to petition every institution that refused her entry and to pass new laws creating access she then used to help others. She ran for president while legally barred from voting. The system she navigated was not a series of individual prejudices but a coherent structure, and she understood it as such — which is why her strategy was legislative rather than purely argumentative. She won in Congress more often than she won in courtrooms.

Daily Women in History

Get each discovery in your inbox.

A new forgotten woman, every day. Direct to you.

← Back to Archive