New Haven Firefighter Opinion to be Released Monday
Filed under: Judiciary — DRJ @ 8:48 am
[Guest post by DRJ]
Monday will see the spotlight return to Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor after Chief Justice John Roberts' announcement that the Court will issue opinions in the last 3 cases on this year's docket. One of those cases is the New Haven firefighter case decided by Sotomayor and 2 other Second Circuit judges:
"Sonia Sotomayor, nominated to take Souter's place, was one of three appeals court judges who ruled that officials in New Haven, Conn., acted properly in throwing out firefighters' promotions exams because of racially skewed results.
The city says it decided not to use the test scores to determine promotions because it might have been vulnerable to claims the exam had a "disparate impact" on minorities in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The white firefighters said the decision violated the same law's prohibition on intentional discrimination."
If the Supreme Court reverses the New Haven case as some expect, it will undoubtedly be the subject of many questions during Sotomayor's Senate nomination hearings. It will also mean the plaintiff firefighters will have a chance to to prove their claims at trial.
— DRJ
UPDATE BY PATTERICO: I strongly predict a reversal and think it will be an issue in Sotomayor's hearings, as it should be.
21 Responses to "New Haven Firefighter Opinion to be Released Monday"
Would Sotomayor be less qualified for promotion by virtue of her wrongly-deciding Ricci v. DeStefano — or because she may have sidestepped its constitutional claims in the cause of keeping Title VII as a fair hiring tool?
I take it those are the implications.
Handicapping her nomination and the politics is irresistible. But what's the opinion of merits of the case from the three lawyers who comprise the blog's central writers?
steve (39c0cb) —	6/27/2009 @ 9:15 am
I strongly predict a reversal and think it will be an issue in Sotomayor's hearings, as it should be.
What reasoning and logic abandoned her?
I agree with the dissent from the denial of en banc review by Judge Cabranes, who criticized Sotomayor's panel for failing to address the relevant constitutional claims, and lazily adopting wholesale an opinion that did not address the core issues.
Patterico (cc3b34) —	6/27/2009 @ 9:28 am
You mean a PC outcome is not the goal? I thought the law was whatever our betters tell us it is. I'm so confused.
Chris (a24890) —	6/27/2009 @ 10:04 am
You mean a PC outcome is not the goal?
Proceeding with the results of the test would have landed New Haven in court under Title VII, anyway. They had contrived a policy of fighting fire with fire and bugged out when it got warm.
Seems a good bet that Justice Kennedy will agree the complaining firefighters should have a chance to prove their claim at trial.
steve (39c0cb) —	6/27/2009 @ 10:15 am
Is a written opinion when upholding discrimination based upon race too much to ask for? I'm not sure that you and I disagree on the merits. Regardless, failure to at least put the rationale for dismissing the firefighters' claim into writing is gutless and we are not out of line in asking why it wasn't done.
Chris (a24890) —	6/27/2009 @ 12:54 pm
It will be interesting to see how deeply the decision and legal arguments from the court is tainted by ideology.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) —	6/27/2009 @ 1:02 pm
I'd bet a lot of cash on it.
Don't be utterly shocked if the majority gets more than 5 votes. If it's 8-1 or unanimous, that would be pretty embarrassing for Sotomayor.
Patterico (cc3b34) —	6/27/2009 @ 1:20 pm
If it's 8-1 or unanimous, that would be pretty embarrassing for Sotomayor.
And for DCSCA, apparently.
Steverino (69d941) —	6/27/2009 @ 1:27 pm
With some people viewing EVERYTHING from a political perspective (and in my opinion liberals do this much more than conservatives), is there a chance that some SCOTUS justices may vote on this case depending on how they view their votes as potentially affecting the pubic's and the senate's consideration of Sotmayor? If so, which justices do you think might be more likely to let their votes be so swayed?
Me, I think Breyer and Ginsburg might be.
Ira (28a423) —	6/27/2009 @ 1:46 pm
#9- Speak for yourself. I'm not keen on some of her publicized comments, particularly those on videotape, but that's what the Senate confirmation process is for and she'll have an opportunity to explain her comments before the Judicary Committe and the nation. But if the SC overturns her decision, as Patterico notes, it will be an embarrassment.
Ira,
I honestly don't think any of the Justices would change their positions because of Sotomayor's participation in the appellate decision, but obviously I don't know that for sure.
DRJ (cdbef5) —	6/27/2009 @ 2:00 pm
Nickel-boy, I'll say my mind whenever I feel.
If you inferred from my statement that I think you're a Sotomayor supporter, then you aren't nearly as clever as you think yourself to be.
Please don't try to tell us that your comment at #7 wasn't hinting that you'd claim the justices' arguments were ideologically, rather than legally, determined.
I know your M.O. here.
What if Justice Kennedy – the man who will be deciding this case – figures that Sotomayor will win Senate confirmation in any case, thus the safest political act would be to join the 4 liberals and uphold the 2nd Circuit decision?
It's not as if we can trust the man to make a reasoned decision on the merits.
Brian (79fe76) —	6/27/2009 @ 2:52 pm
I completely believe this is what has happened. This is a slam-dunk discrimination claim and they couldn't write a minimalist, narrowly-tailored, opinion? I smell liberal rats.
I want to be wrong, but somehow, this will be seen as a 6-3 or 7-2 decision to give Sotomayor cover.
Anything short of 8-1 will not reflect poorly upon her in the minds of those who matter – Senators, and the State media. Her actions were a travesty in this case, but she will not be made to pay a proper price.
Ed from SFV (dde255) —	6/27/2009 @ 3:49 pm
While I don't think they will change their ruling based on Sotomayor's hand in the decision, I think it is entirely possible that they will hide every pen, pencil, crayon and keyboard from Justice Scalia.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) —	6/27/2009 @ 8:45 pm
I predict a concurrence. There is a rat but leaving that aside I believe the court fears the executive branch and won't want to rock the boat.
Ralph (e0eb85) —	6/27/2009 @ 9:39 pm
It will be a reversal but without much fanfare. The Court will not reach the Constitutional issues because there was no resolution on the merits at the trial court level. The Court will find that there was a disputed issue of material fact with respect to the City's motivation for invalidating the test — that the Plaintiffs were entitled to a jury trial on the question of whether the decision was pretextual, and whether the real motive was to advance the political interests of the mayor who relied upon the minority community for political support.
The district court judge held that even if it was pretextual, the city was justified in tossing the test in order to avoid a challenge by the minority firefighters who would not have been promoted. The fact that the suit would have likely been meritless didn't factor into the trial court's calculation — avoiding any suit, meritless or not, was held to be justifiable.
The Supreme Court will hold that avoiding meritless litigation is not a sound basis for taking the action that the City took. It has to defend it's personnel actions when they are legally and factually defensible.
This decision will probably not say much about the 2nd Cir's avoidance of the constitutional questions, but will instead take the district court's decision-making to task. It might even be 6-3 or 7-2.
WLS Shipwrecked (c3fa72) —	6/28/2009 @ 8:04 pm
Cogent commentery on the Ricci case by Steve Sailer. Here, he discusses the meaning of the application of the EEOC standards in a world of actual fires, actual firefighters, and actual victims. Here, he shows what happened when the city of New Haven's hiring dream was implemented in a certain large Upper Midwest city, known for dynastic mayors, hardball polics, cronyism, and race-counsciousness. Also Hope and Change.
AMac (b349fc) —	6/28/2009 @ 9:13 pm
5-4. Kennedy rendered the opinion. Granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Not necessary to reach the constitutional questions because the statute was dispositive in this case.
Total ideological divide.
nk (bef3ab) —	6/29/2009 @ 8:47 am
DCSCA on Poll: 51% of Americans Believe Trump Should be Removed from Office
nk on Poll: 51% of Americans Believe Trump Should be Removed from Office
JRH on Poll: 51% of Americans Believe Trump Should be Removed from Office
steveg on Poll: 51% of Americans Believe Trump Should be Removed from Office
SEARCH AMAZON USING THIS SEARCH BOX:
Make the comments of annoying commenters disappear, with a simple comment script! Instructions here: https://is.gd/CommentScript
Join the Constitutional Vanguard! We're a group devoted to promoting the principles of the Constitution, liberty, and the free market. Sign up here!
The archive of the Constitutional Vanguard can be accessed here.
The Constitutional Vanguard private forum is here. You must be a member of the Constitutional Vanguard, by signing up at the link above, to post in this private forum.
Check out Liberty Classroom, a site that teaches economics and history from a liberty perspective. I am a lifetime member. You should be a member too.
Help keep the site alive!
PayPal only (no credit cards):
Credit Card donations (PayPal takes a bite):
Subscribe for $9 per month:
About Patterico
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
Frequently Unasked Questions (FUQs)
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
Highlights from the first ten years of Patterico
"Like" Patterico on Facebook:
Patterico on Twitter:
@Patterico
Accepted Wisdom
ACORN/O'Keefe
Acrostics
Air Security
Bear Flag League
Blogging Matters
Bogus Statistics
Brad Friedman
Brett Kimberlin
Buffoons
California Recall Election
Constitutional Vanguard
Deport the Criminals First
Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers™
Fiskings
Hiltzik
Homespun Bloggers
Human Action and Choice
Kozinski
Music by Patterico
Nadia Naffe
Neal Rauhauser
No on 36
Patterico at PJ Media
Principled Pragmatism
Ron Brynaert
Schiavo
Snarkage
Stark Choice
Watcher's Council
A Million Monkeys Typing
Acute Politics
Alarming News
Anwyn's Notes in the Margin
Badgers Forward
Beldar Blog
Big Lizards
BizzyBlog
Blogging.la
BuzzMachine
Carol Platt Liebau
Commonwealth Conservative
Confirm Them
Constitutional Conservative
Cop the Truth
Countercolumn
Dan Weintraub
Dead Parrot Society
Dean's World
Doc Rampage
Double Toothpicks
Dowingba
Error Theory
Everything I Know Is Wrong
FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog
Galley Slaves
HipperCritical
Hoodathunk?
Hoystory.com
Internet Radio Network
Junkyard Blog
KelliPundit
Laura's Miscellaneous Musings
Let's Try Freedom
Lileks: The Bleat
Local Liberty Blog
Margi Lowry
Media Lies
My Pet Jawa
Neo Warmonger
New England Republican
Oh, That Liberal Media
Okie on the Lam
Old Patriot's Pen
Oraculations
Pajama Pundits
Patrick Ruffini
Pejmanesque
Pigilito
Polipundit
Politburo Diktat
Professor Chaos
Ramblings' Journal
RantingProfs
Real Clear Politics Blog
Southern Appeal
Speed of Thought
Spyware Warrior
Stop the Bleating!
Strong As An Ox and Nearly As Smart
Stubborn Facts
Such Little Things
The Astute Blogger
The Dialectizer
The Hotline
The Iconic Midwesterner
The Movie Court
The National Debate
The Shape of Days
The Spoons Experience
The Unalienable Right
The View from the Nest
ThoughtsOnline
ThreeSheets
Villainous Company
Patterico Sells Out
Conservative Blog Advertising MiniNetwork
L.A. Blogads Network
My Food Diary
Page loaded in: 0.3336 secs.