Supreme Court Decision Raises Questions About Judge Sotomayors Judicial Philosophy

 

The Supreme Court today reversed a Second Circuit decision that was joined by Judge Sotomayor, which raises important questions about the judicial philosophy of the Supreme Court nominee.  The 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano rejects a decision by Judge Sotomayor that dismissed a reverse discrimination lawsuit filed by a group of Connecticut firefighters and comes just two weeks before confirmation hearings begin for Judge Sotomayor before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  

 

In Ricci, 17 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter filed suit against the City of New Haven, claiming that city officials had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause when they failed to certify the results of two promotional exams, one for Lieutenant and one for Captain. The city claimed that it would be liable under Title VII for adopting a practice that had a disparate impact on minority firefighters if it certified the test results since no African-Americans would be eligible for promotion to the position of Captain or Lieutenant.

 

The district court granted summary judgment to the City, and Judge Sotomayor joined an unsigned summary opinion affirming the district courts decision. By a 7-6 vote, the Second Circuit declined to hear the case en banc. Three days before the Second Circuit issued its denial of rehearing en banc, the three-judge panel that included Judge Sotomayor withdrew its summary order and filed a per curiam opinion adopting the reasoning of the District Court.

 

The Supreme Court reversed by a 5-4 vote, holding that a race-based action like the Citys violates Title VII unless the employer can provide a strong evidentiary basis for concluding that it would have been liable under Title VII if it had not taken that action. The Court concluded that the City could not meet this standard.

 

Justice Alito, in his concurring opinion, supporting the majoritys decision to overturn the Sotomayor decision, wrote:

 

The dissent grants that petitioners situation is unfortunate and that they understandably attract this Courts sympathy. Post, at 1, 39. But sympathy is not what petitioners have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the lawof Title VIIs prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until todays decision, has been denied them.

 

This Supreme Court decision which overturns Judge Sotomayors legal position puts the nominees views on judicial activism front and center at the upcoming confirmation hearings.  How does Judge Sotomayor view the Constitution, the rule of law?  Whats the proper role of the judiciary when it comes to issues like race is it to set public policy, or uphold the rule of law that is gender and racially neutral?  These are important questions that now become even more significant in light of todays decision by the Supreme Court.  We look forward to hearing from Judge Sotomayor on this issue and others in the days ahead.