Supreme Court Nominee: John Roberts
Personal Information about Judge John Roberts
Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., was born in Buffalo,
New York, on January 27, 1955. Raised in
Indiana. He is one of four children (the only
boy, and second oldest). Judge Roberts lives in
Bethesda, Maryland, with his wife Jane Sullivan
Roberts and their two children.
Judge Roberts was graduated Summa Cum Laude from
Harvard University in only three years. After
graduating from Harvard Law School with high
honors and serving as an editor of the Harvard
Law Review, Judge Roberts clerked for Judge
Henry Friendly on the Second Circuit and later
for Justice William Rehnquist at the Supreme
Court.
After his clerkships, Judge Roberts served in
the Department of Justice and later as Associate
Counsel to President Ronald Reagan before going
into private practice.
After three years in private practice, Judge
Roberts returned to the Department of Justice as
Principal Deputy Solicitor General, a position
in which he briefed and argued a variety of
cases before the Supreme Court.
Judge Roberts Has Extensive Experience in
working with the Supreme Court. Prior to his
service on the D.C Circuit (often referred to as
“the second highest court in the land” and the
bench from which three current Supreme Court
Justices came to the Court), Judge Roberts
argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Only a
handful of the 180,000 members of the Supreme
Court bar have come close to arguing that many
cases. He has an ample record that should be
carefully reviewed.
Judge Roberts was reported favorably out of the
Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16-3,
and confirmed by the Senate for the D.C. Circuit
Court of Appeals by unanimous consent.
Judge John Roberts’s Record on Civil Rights and
Women’s Rights
Judge John Roberts’s record is mixed, both as
Deputy Solicitor General and on the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, raises serious
concerns and requires careful review. On the
one hand,
in the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge
Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C.
Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the
neediest welfare recipients, challenging a
termination of benefits under the District’s
Public Assistance Act of 1982.
However, Roberts has also demonstrated a
hostility to individual rights, women’s
reproductive rights, and he has taken positions
that would undermine free speech. His
experience as a judge is limited, but what
little record he has on the bench raises serious
questions about his judicial philosophy and
whether his ideology would weigh more heavily on
his decisions thus making him less likely to be
impartial. Although it has been said that he
rules based on the application of existing laws
and specific facts of the cases before him,
rather than making new laws or creating new
policies based on personal opinion. It has also
been stated that he is willing to support others
who exhibit similar values.
Many of the civil rights groups have raised
strong concerns, and the American Disabilities
Association has flat out opposed him (NOTE: This
is unusual. They generally do not come out
strongly in opposition of judicial candidates –
I’ve attached their press release below).
· In Hedgepeth v. Wash. Metro. Area
Transit Auth. (2004), Roberts rejected the
civil rights claims brought on behalf of a
12-year-old girl who had been handcuffed,
arrested and taken away by police for eating a
single French fry in the D.C. Metro. Roberts
rejected the claim that the girl’s equal
protection rights had been violated by a DC law
that only would have required an adult in the
same situation to be given a citation, instead
of being arrested.
· In Acree v. Republic of Iraq
(2004), a suit filed against the Republic of
Iraq and Saddam Hussein by seventeen American
soldiers who had been captured and tortured
during the Gulf War, Roberts argued in dissent
that the courts did not have jurisdiction to
hear the case. Had he prevailed, the soldiers
would have been deprived of any possible relief
in court.
Roberts used his position as Deputy Solicitor
General to press the Supreme Court to overturn
Roe v. Wade:
· Roberts co-authored a brief for the government
in Rust v. Sullivan (1991) which stated
that “Roe was wrongly decided and should
be overruled,” even though the case did not
directly involve the validity of Roe.
· He co-authored an amicus curiae
brief in Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health
Clinic (1993), in support of the radical
anti-choice group Operation Rescue, which had
obstructed access to reproductive health care
clinics. His brief claimed that the protesters’
conduct did not constitute discrimination
against women.
Judge Roberts’s Commitment to
Environmental and Other Vital Protections is
Questionable
In Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton (2003),
Roberts and only one other judge dissented when
the court denied en banc review of a
panel decision to uphold the constitutionality
of the Endangered Species Act, as it applied to
a real estate development project. Roberts’s
dissent strongly suggested that he thought it
would be unconstitutional to apply the
Endangered Species Act in the case. His dissent
also advances a crabbed view of Congressional
power that could threaten to undermine a wide
swath of federal protections, ranging from
criminal laws to workplace safeguards. The
Supreme Court recently rejected Roberts’ view of
Congress’ legislative authority. Given recent
reports that have come out from the EPA on
environmental justice, this latter issue raises
strong concerns for the Hispanic community that
has been disproportionately and adversely
impacted by issues such as power plants in their
neighborhoods, toxic dumping sites, etc.
Judge Roberts Interprets Separation Between
Church and State Loosely
Roberts co-authored an amicus brief filed
by the United States in Lee v. Weisman
(1992). In this amicus brief he urged the Court
to scrap the long-standing test the Court has
used to decide whether laws and practices
violate the Establishment Clause. His argument
was not only rejected by the Court but
criticized by the majority for its erroneous
First Amendment analysis, which brings into
question his judicial philosophy.
Tuesday, July 19,
2005
Contact: Jim
Ward, 202-415-4753
ADA Watch and the National Coalition for
Disability Rights Opposes Supreme Court Nominee
Judge John Roberts
“Out of the Mainstream” Nominee Poses Threat to
Americans with Disabilities
Statement of Jim Ward, Founder and President of
ADA Watch/NCDR
(Washington, DC)
ADA Watch/NCDR is opposed to the nomination of
Judge John Roberts to a lifetime seat on the
U.S. Supreme Court.
At a time when our Nation could have greatly
benefited from the selection of a mainstream
consensus nominee, people with disabilities --
indeed all Americans -- should be saddened and
disturbed by President Bush's choice of
Judge John Roberts to fill Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor's seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
While Justice O'Connor did not take the side of
people with disabilities in all cases, she was
the swing vote on important 5-4 rulings
involving the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), including historic cases such as Olmstead
v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) and
Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004).
With the selection of John Roberts, President
Bush is making good on his stated intention to
fill a Court vacancy with a nominee in the mold
of Scalia or Thomas -- Justices who have
consistently ruled against people with
disabilities in these and other landmark cases.
If confirmed, such 5-4 votes would surely go in
the other direction and reverse the historic
gains of people with disabilities.
ADA Watch/NCDR is a coalition of hundreds of
disability, civil rights and social justice
organizations united to defend and promote the
human rights of children and adults with
physical, mental, cognitive and developmental
disabilities.
Why we are opposed to Judge John Roberts:
Narrow Interpretation of the ADA:
After the Sixth Circuit ruled that a woman with
serious manual impairments was substantially
limited in one or more of her life activities,
the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case
(Williams
v. Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc., 224 F.3d 840
[2000]),
and Judge Roberts argued and briefed the case on
behalf of Toyota. His briefs and oral argument
distorted the facts of the case and minimized
the extent of Ella Williams' disability.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court believed Judge
Roberts’s misrepresentations and decided in
favor of Toyota. It also came down with a new
and very strict test for disability. This test
has made it much more difficult for ADA
plaintiffs to prove that they are disabled with
devastating impact on people with epilepsy,
diabetes, mental illness and workplace injuries.
The impact of Robert's distortions is evident in
subsequent decisions including Three Rivers
Center for Independent Living v. Pittsburgh
Public Housing Authority, which barred a
Center for Independent Living (CIL) from filing
suit to hold a Public Housing Authority
accountable for violating Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act.
Thus the consequences of Judge Roberts’s
distortions of the record have been
wide-ranging: they helped to create yet another
unfortunate Supreme Court precedent that has
further impeded the goals of the ADA.
Judicial Activism:
Roberts’ record demonstrates his inclination to
strike down federal anti-discrimination statues
and to further limit congressional power,
narrowly construe the ADA, and restrict the
ability of plaintiffs to get into federal
court.
Extremist Ideology:
Roberts declared that the current Supreme Court
is
not conservative enough
specifically in response to the October 1999
term during which the conservative majority
judicial activism included the striking down of
the Violence Against Women Act and throwing out
an age discrimination suit on federalism
grounds.
Mr. Roberts is a member of two right-wing legal
groups that promote a pro-corporate,
anti-regulatory agenda: the Federalist Society
and the National Legal Center For The Public
Interest, serving on the latter group's Legal
Advisory Council.
The
Federalist Society’s overarching goal is to roll
back domestic policy to before FDR’s New Deal
and its members (including Jeffrey Sutton,
William Pryor, and others) have specifically
targeted the ADA. The National Legal Center For
The Public Interest has attacked ADA civil
rights protections in numerous forums including
its publication of a document entitled "Civil
Rights and the Disabled: The Legislative
Twilight Zone."
Narrowing of Civil Rights Protections:
After a Supreme Court decision effectively
nullified certain sections of the Voting Rights
Act
(City of Mobile v. Bolden
446 U.S. 55 [1980]), Roberts was involved in the
Reagan administration's effort to prevent
Congress from overturning the Supreme Court's
action. The Supreme Court had recently decided
that certain sections of the Voting Rights Act
could only be violated by intentional
discrimination and not by laws that had a
discriminatory effect, despite a lack of textual
basis for this interpretation in the statute.
Roberts was part of the effort to legitimize
that decision and to stop Congress from
overturning it.
In private practice, wrote a friend-of-the-court
brief arguing that Congress had failed to
justify a Department of Transportation
affirmative action program. (Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta,
2001).
As expressed in one case where he would have
invalidated a provision of the Endangered
Species Act, his exceedingly restrictive view of
federal law-making authority – more restrictive
than the current Supreme Court’s – could
threaten a wide swath of workplace, civil
rights, public safety and environmental
protections. In his years of service as a
political appointee in the administrations of
Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush,
Judge Roberts also helped craft legal policies
that sought to weaken school desegregation
efforts, the reproductive rights of women,
environmental protections, church-state
separation and the voting rights of African
Americans.
Jim Ward, Founder and President
ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability
Rights
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20004
Voice: 202-415-4753
Email: jim4ward@aol.com
Visit Our Website:
www.adawatch.org
109th Congress Congresswoman Grace
Flores Napolitano, Chair
Tuesday, July 19,
2005
Contact: Imelda Aguirre
(202) 225-2410
Congressional Hispanic Caucus Responds to
Roberts
Nomination to Supreme Court
Washington, DC – Following reports that
President George W. Bush will nominate Judge
John G. Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court, the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) expressed
disappointment that the President did not
nominate a Latino to fill the seat to be vacated
by Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. The
CHC previously called on the President to fill
the vacancy with a qualified Hispanic dedicated
to equal justice and a judicial system that is
fair to the Latino community.
"The CHC offers its sincere congratulations to
John G. Roberts on his nomination to the Supreme
Court. This is a great honor that he and his
family should be immensely proud of,” said
Congresswoman Grace F. Napolitano, CHC chair.
“However, we are disappointed that the White
House bowed to pressure from right-wing interest
groups and their mean-spirited attacks, and
failed to take advantage of this opportunity to
make a historic appointment of a Latino to a
position of such importance to the lives of so
many people.”
"Despite outward appearances, the unfortunate
truth is that John G. Roberts was nominated
without any meaningful bipartisan consultation
between the White House and the Senate,” said
Congressman Charlie Gonzalez, chair of the CHC
Civil Rights Task Force. “While we are
disappointed that the President overlooked
several qualified Hispanic candidates, we will
proceed with our plan to evaluate the nominee’s
record on issues important to the Latino
community and determine in due course whether he
deserves our support.”
Following established criteria, the CHC will
examine any nominee’s record of commitment to
equal justice and right of access to the courts,
his support for Congress’ constitutional
authority to pass civil rights legislation, and
his efforts in support of protecting employment,
immigrant and voting rights, as well as
educational and political access for all
Americans.
While the CHC’s judicial nominee evaluation
criteria were originally designed to help
identify qualified Latinos to serve on federal
courts, the CHC has decided to evaluate any
nominee to the Supreme Court because of the
enormous impact the Court’s decisions have on
the nation’s growing Hispanic community.
Past Supreme Court rulings on the rights of
immigrant workers, voting rights, affirmative
action policies at colleges and universities,
and bilingual education have had long-lasting
and far-reaching affects on the lives of Latino
families. Many of these rulings have been
decided by one vote.
Immediately following Justice O’Connor’s
retirement announcement, the CHC offered to work
with President Bush to identify a qualified
Hispanic nominee for the Supreme Court, and also
urged the President to consult with Senators
from both parties stating, “Not only is this
consistent with the advice and consent clause of
the U.S. Constitution, but also with the
bipartisan agreement among Senators that
resolved the filibuster controversy.”
“Any nominee, whether Hispanic or not, must
understand the historic role the Supreme Court
has played in the lives of minorities. It is
our hope that Judge Roberts will prove to be
committed to the core constitutional principles
of equal protection and due process, and be
sensitive to the laws that have opened doors for
Hispanics and all minorities in this country,”
said Congressman Linda T. Sánchez, vice chair of
the CHC Civil Rights Task Force. “Furthermore,
should another Supreme Court vacancy occur
during President Bush’s term, we hope that the
President will more strongly consider nominating
a qualified Hispanic candidate to fill that
seat, and we look forward to working with him to
find that person.”
July 20, 2005
Contact:
Sara Zdeb, 202-222-0728
Friends of the Earth Urges Caution, Careful
Scrutiny of John Roberts'
Environmental Record
Statement of Brent Blackwelder, President
It is crucial that our nation's highest court
remain an independent body that will uphold the
right of all Americans to have a clean
environment. The Senate should exercise its
constitutional advise and consent responsibility
with thorough and deliberative scrutiny into
Judge Roberts' views on the environment.
A recent case dealing with the Endangered
Species Act raises troubling concerns about
Roberts' commitment to upholding Congress'
constitutional right to pass laws that protect
our air, land and water. We urge the Senate to
scrutinze Roberts' judicial record, to review
his writings and to determine whether or not he
will uphold the fundamental laws that protect
our health and environment.
Protecting the environment has been challenging
during the past four years, as an increasingly
partisan Congress and White House attempt to
reverse three decades of environmental progress.
The courts have provided a breath of fresh air
during this time, serving as an independent
voice for enforcing the laws that protect the
water we drink, air we breathe and lands we
cherish. In this climate, it's more important
than ever that our nation's highest court remain
an independent body that will uphold these laws.
A look at some of the Court's recent decisions
illustrates the pivotol role played by retiring
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in environmental
decisions, showing just what's at stake as the
Senate prepares to take up Roberts' nomination:
- Clean water. Friends of the Earth won a
landmark decision in 2000, when the Court upheld
the right of citizens to sue polluting companies
who violate the Clean Water Act. An
anti-environment majority could strip ordinary
Americans of the ability to hold polluters
accountable.
- Clean air. An anti-environment majority
could strip the Environmental Protection Agency
of the ability to ensure clean air for all
Americans.
Justice O'Connor was the deciding vote in a case
that upheld EPAs authority to prevent harmful
air pollution when state agencies improperly
fail to do so.
- Habitat protection. An anti-environment
majority could restrict the federal government's
ability to protect endangered species and their
habitat. Justice O'Connor concurred with the
majority in a decision that upheld prohibitions
against habitat destruction that would harm
endangered species.
The future of these issues and more hangs in the
balance. We urge the Senate to proceed with
caution, deliberation and careful scrutiny as it
prepares to take up the nomination of John
Roberts.
Sara Zdeb
Legislative Director
Friends of the Earth
202-222-0728
(fax)
