Update: Sotomayor Overruled in New Haven Firefighter Case

The Supreme Court, in a split 5-4 decision, overturned the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Ricci, et al. v. DeStefano (you can read the decision here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf).

The Court held that the City of New Haven, CT. violated the Civil Rights Act when it refused to promote 20 firefighters. The firefighters in question, 19 Caucasians and 1 Hispanic, all passed a written examination given by the city to determine promotions. The city originally threw out the test and denied promotions to those who passed it out of fear that the test would run afoul of a legality called “disparate impact.” Generally, this means that something that appears neutral on its face disproportionately impacts members of a protected class[1]. The city reasoned that the test had a disparate impact since no African-Americans passed the examination. The firefighters in question challenged the city’s decision and sued. A federal District Court originally granted Summary Judgment[2] to the city on the basis that the results could be thrown out to avoid any disparate impact lawsuits. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court in a brief statement authored by Judge Sonia Sotomayor without hearing oral arguments.

Although the final decision was close, the perspective that Judge Sotomayor failed to properly dispose of the case was unanimous. All nine Justices disagreed with the way the case was handled in the appellate court. The Supreme Court felt that a full hearing on the topic was proper and Sotomayor’s brief statement avoiding a hearing was improper for a valid Constitutional claim. Further, it seems obvious that the topic deserved legal arguments at the Circuit Court level since the Supreme Court released over 90 pages of analysis and reasoning.

This makes the 4th time in 6 cases that Sotomayor has been overturned by the Supreme Court. The unanimous agreement that her legal approach was wrong is eerily similar with yet another decision where the Supreme Court deconstructed her legal reasoning as completely incorrect. This means that in 5 of 6 cases that were appealed to, and heard by the Supreme Court, Sotomayor was on the wrong side of the Constitution and federally enacted statutes.

The nomination process is ongoing and a vote is scheduled to occur within the next month. We still have time to let our Senators know that we expect more from the Supreme Court and we will not stand for Justices to legislate from the bench. Please contact your Senator and tell them to vote “no” to Sonia Sotomayor (you can find your Senators here: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm).

[1] Protected class is a term given to individuals in society who are part of a group that has been historically discriminated against or treated unfairly throughout the country over an extended period of time. African-Americans are an example of a protected class since they were the victims of slavery and ongoing discrimination after the Emancipation Proclamation. A few other examples of protected classes are females, the disabled, and the elderly.
[2] Summary Judgment is a legal motion which states that one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when there are no genuine issues of material fact. This motion is granted when the facts of a case are not in dispute; all inferences and ambiguities are to be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The intent is to efficiently move cases through the legal system and avoid trials when possible. Judges should not grant this motion when a fact-finder, either Judge or Jury, could look at the evidence presented and conclude that one participant in the case had more compelling and weighty evidence supporting their legal arguments. It is only to be used when the facts are so one-sided as to make a trial on the evidence unnecessary.