John Roberts on Civil Rights
Supreme Court Justice (nominated by Pres. George W. Bush 2005)
Coloradans entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts donated his time to work behind the scenes for gay rights activists--and helped win a decision that's been hailed as the "single most important positive ruling" for the gay rights movement.
Roberts agreed to help represent the gay rights activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work. The case before the Supreme Court, Romer vs. Evans, dealt with a voter-approved 1992
Colorado initiative that would have allowed employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing. A 6-3 ruling striking down the initiative was handed down in May 1996.
One gay activist called the Supreme Court ruling the "single most
important positive ruling in the history of the gay rights movement." Antonin Scalia--who was joined in his dissent by Clarence Thomas and William H. Rehnquist--said: "Coloradans are entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct."
Source: NewsMax.com. "Roberts helped Gay Rights"
, Aug 4, 2005
No paper trail as a judge on gay rights issues
Gay rights advocates like the Human Rights Campaign say that Roberts has no paper trail on the issue as a judge.
But they fear that his conservative Republican record, including his criticism of the right to privacy authorized by Roe, bodes badly for them.
, Jul 19, 2005
Ok for religious groups to meet at schools
Roberts has argued on behalf of his clients for the expansion of religion in public schools. In a coauthored brief to the Supreme Court in Lee v. Weisman, he argued that religious ceremonies should be allowed to be a part of graduation ceremonies.
The Supreme Court rejected that position. But Roberts successfully argued to the court that religious groups should not be banned from meeting on school grounds in the case of Mergens v. Westside Community School District.
, Jul 19, 2005
Opposed simplifying complaints against voting rights
For Reagan, Roberts opposed a congressional effort-in the wake of the 1980 Supreme Court decision Mobile v. Bolden-to make it easier for minorities to successfully argue that their votes had been diluted under the Voting Rights Act.
Source: Emily Bazelon and David Newman, Slate.com
, Jul 1, 2005
Weaken the separation of church and state
For Bush Senior, Roberts co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that public high-school graduation programs could include religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court disagreed by a vote of 5-4. (Lee v. Weisman, 1992)
Source: Emily Bazelon and David Newman, Slate.com
, Jul 1, 2005
Against Affirmative Action
John G. Roberts, nominated by President Bush to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, has a record of hostility to the rights of women and minorities. While working under Presidents Reagan and Bush,
Roberts supported a hard-line, anti-civil rights policy that opposed affirmative action, would have made it nearly impossible for minorities to prove a violation of the Voting Rights Act and would have “resegregated” America’s public schools.
Source: Report of the Alliance for Justice
, Feb 1, 2003
Should make secret settlements in some cases
Q: How do you feel about the validity of maintaining or throwing out secret settlements that are made which prevent other people who may be using these defective products from knowing that they are defective, like defective tires, for example, defective
medical devices, for example?
A: I certainly am aware of the cases as they’ve come up. And I hesitate to opine on it without having studied the law. I certainly would obviously follow the Supreme Court precedent and the precedent of the circuit if I
were to be confirmed. I suspect that you’re correct that the applicable law would involve some balancing. There are some interests in sealing settlements in some cases, but I’d be very surprised if that required or permitted sealing in a case where that
actively concealed a harmful condition on an ongoing basis that was continuing to present a danger. But, again, I’m just surmising at this point, and as a judge, I would apply the law in the circuit or in the Supreme Court.
Source: Hearing before the Judiciary Committee of the US Senate
, Jan 29, 2003
1st Amendment protects church's anti-gay funeral pickets.
Justice Roberts wrote the Court's decision on SNYDER v. PHELPS on Mar 2, 2011:
Marine Matthew Snyder was killed in the line of duty in Iraq. On public property about 1000 feet from his funeral service, the Westboro Baptist Church followed its custom of protesting at the funerals of service members with signs condemning both homosexuality and the US for supporting it. Snyder's father has been stricken by a grievous emotional reaction since. He sued the protestors and the church for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
HELD:Delivered by ROBERTS, joined by SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, BREYER & KAGANThe Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment can be a defense, including those for IIED, if speech regards a public, rather than private, concern. The protestor's signs here concerned plainly public matters such as the moral conduct of the US and its citizens, the fate of the nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy. The protestors can't be said to have used speech on
public issues to cloak an attack on the plaintiff. The protestors chose the location to increase publicity, but this does not mean the speech is less protected.
CONCURRED: BREYER concursThe State is not always powerless to provide protection, but upholding IIED liability on the protestors here would not serve the State's interest in protecting citizens against severe emotional harm. In this case, the protestors complied with police directions, picketed where it was lawful to do so, and could not be seen from the funeral.
DISSENT: ALITO dissentsThe protestors engaged in a personal attack on Snyder's memory through signs implying he was a homosexual, a Catholic, and doomed to hell for these “sins.” The direct nature of this assault on the dead marine and his family were made clear in a subsequent Internet posting directed at Snyder's character and his parents. The First Amendment does not shield these verbal assaults at such an emotionally vulnerable moment.
Source: Supreme Court case 11-SNYDER argued on Oct 6, 2010
Sociological analysis insufficient to prove gender bias.
Justice Roberts joined the Court's decision on WAL-MART v. DUKES on Jun 20, 2011:
The plaintiffs were certified as a class by the district court in their suit against Wal-Mart, on behalf of 1.5 million female employees, seeking punitive damages and backpay owing to Wal-Mart's alleged discrimination against them in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
HELD: Delivered by SCALIA; joined by ROBERTS, KENNEDY, THOMAS & ALITOThe certification of the class was inappropriate. Class certification requires proof that a class of persons have suffered the same injury by a general policy of discrimination. Wal-Mart's corporate policy forbids discrimination, and the plaintiff's only evidence of a general policy of discrimination is a sociologist's analysis asserting that Wal-Mart's corporate culture made it vulnerable to gender bias. Since the expert testified he could not estimate what percent of Wal-Mart employment decisions might be determined by stereotypical thinking, his testimony was not significant proof.
That Wal-Mart gave local supervisors discretion over employment matters did not show that a central direction to use that discretion in a discriminatory manner. The claims for backpay were improperly added onto a class provision that allows only equitable relief, not monetary relief.
DISSENTED: GINSBURG concurs in part, dissents in part; joined by BREYER, SOTOMAYOR & KAGANI agree this class should not have been certified, but such a class might have proper under Rule 23(b)(3) seeking money damages. The Court should not have ruled on the class at this time, but rather remanded the issue for consideration and decision. The district court found evidence that 70% of hourly employees are female, but only 33% of managers. That, with other evidence, could support a common question, necessary for the resolution of all class members' cases, that corporate culture and lack of formal standards or training for employment decisions may have led to discrimination.
Source: Supreme Court case 11-WALMART argued on Mar 29, 2011
Page last updated: Apr 29, 2013