Denny chin why race matters

Start with former U. Only he knows the answer to that question. He also appointed a lead class-action lawyer from a firm that has members who support Hillary Clinton. That is, not the fact that a judge is a Democrat, but that he or she expressed generalized bias to others, or spoke badly outside of court of the party or the lawyers. Absent that, a litigant has, as Winter said, zero. A related misconception is that the impartiality of minority judges is inherently suspect.

Higginbotham, an expert of the history of race and American law, crisply denied the motion:. By that standard, white judges will be permitted to keep the latitude they have enjoyed for centuries in discussing matters of intellectual substance, even issues of human rights and, because they are white, still be permitted to later decide specific factual situations involving the principles of human rights which they have discussed previously in a generalized fashion. But for black judges, defendants insist on a far more rigid standard, which would preclude black judges from ever discussing race relations even in the generalized fashion that other justices and judges have discussed issues of human rights.

Constance Baker Motley, the first female African American judge, faced a similar challenge in a sex-discrimination case. Trump wine has always been a little off, and this vintage fairly reeks. The re-introduction of this crude, explicit racism into politics is repellent. Supreme Court said in Whren v. United States in that police can legally stop someone even if they racially profiled the person, so long as they have probable cause that a traffic violation occurred.

That interpretation of the 4th Amendment has enabled profiling for decades because any driver followed for long enough will eventually violate a traffic law, according to research by Loyola University Chicago School of Law professor Stephen Rushin and University of Alabama associate professor Griffin Edwards.

Likewise, Supreme Court precedent from Maryland v. So there was no issue with Weaver's situation on that point, the court said.

But the majority opinion takes the potential for police abuse to the next level. The judges held that cops can also have someone assume the position and "spread eagle" as part of a routine traffic stop. Dissenting judges said any ordinary person "would find that position illogical and contrary to human nature.

Dissenting judges said that notion is simply "absurd. But racial bias often plays out without any mention of race. Of course, the relevance of race in this case is also painfully obvious — even setting aside the flimsy basis for "reasonable suspicion," or our long national history of racist policing.

Research has shown that crime rates are basically unrelated to whether an officer characterizes an area as "high-crime," as Judge Raymond Lohier pointed out in his separate concurrence. Racial composition is actually the biggest factor — although I imagine some officers might not even mention race when describing the neighborhood in their reports. One wonders, under these circumstances, what virtue the court sees in avoiding talking about race. Opinions expressed here are those of the author.

Reuters News, under the Trust Principles, is committed to integrity, independence and freedom from bias. Monitor, Apr. Close By supporting urban renewal projects in Harlem and in ghettos, Motley had sought to add better and new housing stock in areas with extraordinary need. Burks, Borough President Race: Mrs. Times, Sept. Herald Trib. Close Moreover, Motley had represented community activists and organizers during her civil rights practice.

Most famously, she defended demonstrators, including Dr. By contrast, in Mullarkey , a case involving an area of law—landlord—tenant relations—that did not give the plaintiffs much leverage, Motley did not recognize a broad theory of state action. Yet, that is precisely what she did in that case.

Bigwood, F. Darby Town Houses, Inc. Denny, F. Close On this issue, Motley certainly did not look like a liberal activist judge. Gulino v. Board of Education — Board of Education also chips away at the notion that Motley reflexively sided with plaintiffs alleging discrimination.

In Gulino , a group of African American and Latino educators sued the boards of education of the city and of the state of New York. Teacher Test, Educ. Gulino, U. Close ruled against it on the most important issues on cross motions for summary judgment. Close At the same time, Motley concluded that the plaintiffs had not established a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination. Then, after a five-month trial, Motley ruled against the plaintiffs on the merits of the case.

Evidence adduced at trial showed that while forty-five percent of class members passed the relevant tests, eighty-five percent of whites passed them. It should go without saying that New York City teachers should be able to communicate effectively in both spoken and written English. State Educ. The Second Circuit agreed, as lawyers for the plaintiffs had argued, that Motley had wrongly found one of the tests in question valid notwithstanding the absence of a formal evaluation of the exam.

Close In so concluding, Motley had not followed the controlling precedent on test validity. Close The court of appeals issued a unanimous opinion reversing Motley on that point. Negro Educ.

Board of Education. Members of the civil rights bar expressed particular disappointment that Motley—who once had represented black teachers in antidiscrimination suits See Motley, Equal Justice, supra note 33, at 71— Close —sided with defendants in this important case. LDF had litigated the cases, including Griggs v.

Duke Power Co. Supreme Court established disparate impact theory, U. Close and Motley cited Griggs in her Gulino decision. See Mrs. Close The validation of employment tests—including those aimed at educators—long had been a means of ensuring employment opportunities for women and racial minorities.

Times Mar. Local , Enter. Pipefitters, F. DeStefano, F. See Ricci v. She interpreted the law in ways that favored and in ways that disfavored alleged victims of discrimination. The empirical research followed the framework and methods of interdisciplinary scholarship on judicial behavior.

In recent years, scholars have applied empirical methods associated with the field of political science to study judicial behavior. This scholarship tests arguments for judicial diversity based on the supposed distinctive viewpoints and experiences of women judges and judges of color. If, as some argue, these judges add unique perspectives to legal debates, See supra notes 6—10 and accompanying text. Close Similarly, black judges would be more likely to favor blacks who allege discrimination in the workplace or in the criminal justice system and in cases involving race-based affirmative action.

The scholarship concludes that the demographic backgrounds of judges can and sometimes do produce distinctive substantive outcomes in cases. But the influence is limited and occurs only with respect to certain demographic characteristics. Studies have not found a significant difference in the voting behavior of white and nonwhite judges. Close Nor does the presence of black judges on appellate panels lead white judges to issue decisions more favorable to blacks.

Close Moreover, black district court judges do not rule in favor of criminal defendants more often than white colleagues. Close One study found a racial impact in criminal cases, but not in the expected direction.

Gender is a more relevant category of analysis, according to the research. Several studies show that in certain subject areas, the gender of jurists does affect judicial outcomes. Courts of Appeals, 52 Am. Close particularly in cases alleging sex-based discrimination. Partisan preferences—not demographic characteristics—are the best predictor of judicial outcomes. Numerous studies show that political ideology, using the party of the appointing President as a proxy, best explains or predicts judicial outcomes.

Sunstein et al. The analysis relied on existing rubrics. Collins, Jr. Johnson et al. Women Pol. Close Specifically, I, along with a team that included a statistician and several research assistants, examined claims involving racial discrimination e.

Interlocutory issues regarding evidence, for example did not merit coding. Close Two hundred sixty-two cases fell into the relevant claim categories. Close The empirical analysis showed that Motley overwhelmingly ruled against plaintiffs in discrimination cases and against defendants in criminal law cases. Unlike many observers, I hypothesized that Motley would readily distinguish the roles of judge and lawyer; therefore, the positions that she took as a lawyer would not unduly influence her judging.

I explore these factors in detail in Part V. Here, I simply observe that precedent itself posed the most obvious constraint on Motley. Over the course of her career on the bench, controlling precedent became less favorable to criminal defendants and to plaintiffs in discrimination suits. Goldberg, Discrimination by Comparison, Yale L. At the same time, Motley sat on one of the most liberal district courts and presided in one of the most liberal appellate circuits in the nation. This context should have moderated the effect of the increasing conservatism of courts over time to the extent that no controlling Supreme Court precedents demanded deference.

Brock Hornby, The Business of the U. Pushaw, Jr. Close A federal trial court judge sorts facts to determine which are relevant and which are disputed; through that process, the judge greatly influences whether a case proceeds to trial or judgment. Close Therefore, in all of the case categories described above, Motley retained tremendous authority to exercise discretion. The research team selected the comparison judges based on shared practice background—one of the predicates for persistent concerns that Motley favored victims of discrimination or other litigants who resembled her former clients.

Judicial Ctr. Close and Robert Carter, Robert L. See Carter, Robert Lee, Fed. Close spent significant time practicing law in the public sector, whether in government or for a nonprofit organization. To the extent that one gives credence to the idea of practice-induced judicial bias, these judges would have been subject to it. Close was a pioneering female lawyer and jurist; appointed to the federal district court by President Johnson, Green, like Motley, would have experienced gender-based discrimination in the workplace.

All three judges presided on courts perceived as liberal. Close Green presided on the district court in the District of Columbia.

Because Motley was the sole woman on the SDNY, the research team looked elsewhere for a white woman comparison judge. We settled on Green, a pioneering federal judge on the federal district court in Washington, D. A white woman, Green differed from Motley in terms of race but shared her sex. A black man, Carter differed from Motley in terms of sex but shared her race. The presence of these independent variables among judges otherwise similar in important respects permitted the team to draw conclusions about whether, in fact, demographic characteristics correlated with liberal or conservative outcomes in politically salient cases.

The Appendix includes tables that recount the coding outcomes for each judge in relevant case categories. Close The results dispel the idea that Motley, the black woman and former civil rights lawyer, was more likely than others to favor plaintiffs in discrimination matters or criminal defendants.

Consider outcomes in the Title VII cases. Close The differences among Motley, Weinfeld, and Green are not statistically significant. Identity did not drive her rulings, and she did not follow an ideologically oriented view of the judicial role.

This Part seeks to shed light on the complexities of both identity and judging by discussing a variety of factors that can influence judicial behavior and the expression of identity.

Some of these factors pertain to the legal process itself; others relate to factors external to the process. Doctrine and Stare Decisis. In this judicial role, Motley encountered constraints but also wielded significant discretion.

Federal district court judges serve vital and distinct functions in the judicial system. United States, U. For a scholarly discussion of the concept, see generally Randy J. To be sure, scholars, including legal realists and empiricists, debate the extent to which doctrine actually binds appellate courts, particularly the U.

Supreme Court, in controversial and dynamic areas of law. And courts sometimes do not follow precedent that is deemed wrong or outmoded. See Planned Parenthood of Se. Casey, U. Close —with the obligation to find and interpret facts in the context of novel scenarios. Close Because the district courts are the first courts to review many issues with respect to which appellate rules are undeveloped or unclear, these courts are the workhorses of the federal judiciary. Nevertheless, precedent powerfully constrains the federal trial courts.

Close In cases in which there is law of the circuit or of the U. Supreme Court, there is no question that a district court must defer to the higher tribunal. In areas of great legal controversy, including subjects such as civil rights and discrimination, district courts may initially develop the law but eventually must apply the law as interpreted by the higher courts.

If district court judges seek to issue innovative decisions, they must do so by finding bases upon which to persuasively distinguish the controlling authority. Appellate Review and the Possibility of Reversal. Because district court judges can and may be reversed on appeal, they labor under strong incentives to apply precedent correctly and faithfully.

Rubin, Judicial Discretion, 9 J. Close Trial judges hope to avoid errors in order to build and maintain reputations as good jurists and to increase the possibility of promotion. Motley, like other district judges, undertook her work in the shadow of appellate review and the incentives that it creates. Motley and Judicial Constraints. The possibility of reversal enforced accountability, but it did not cripple Motley. Close When the situation demanded it, she reached innovative decisions that pushed the law into new frontiers.

Her decisions in Blank and Ludtke fell into this category. So did several other opinions that favored plaintiffs in employment discrimination, civil rights, and civil liberties actions. Close Most notably, in Fisher v. Close In Evans v. Connecticut , Motley ruled in favor of a black state trooper in a Title VII racial discrimination case. Close And in Olivieri v. Race, gender, and institutional history, she believed, made some colleagues charged with reviewing her decisions less receptive to her.

Edward Lumbard, Jr. Close to Motley found expression in numerous slights by her colleagues, some of whom just could not imagine a woman, and a black woman at that, presiding in court.

Her pioneering status and the animus it generated left Motley vulnerable to unusual scrutiny, including at the court of appeals. Lohier, Jr. The study demonstrated that courts of appeals overturn the decisions of black district court judges at significantly higher rates than decisions by white judges.

Motley and the Judicial Virtues. Close That is, she performed the judicial role in keeping with the conception of the judge as neutral arbiter of apolitical law. Close Motley reached outcomes not because of an inclination to favor one side or the other but out of a concern for fairness for all litigants.

Motley conducted herself with earnestness and conviction. June 18, on file with the Columbia Law Review. A host of factors external to the bench shaped her social experience and political commitments.

Identity Performance. Close to capture the unique experiences and complex personhood of women of color and other subjects frequently sidelined in discussions of human existence. Close This term acknowledged that identity is relational; subjects experience and express personhood in the context of others.

While the lexicon may be unfamiliar, the concept of identity performance is deeply rooted in the African American experience. Blacks and other people of color have long managed their identities in racially mixed settings.