Judicial Diversity

  • April 6, 2012

    by Jonathan Arogeti

    “President Obama’s judges have shattered barriers across the country,” writes Senior Counsel to the President Christopher Kang.

    In a post titled, “Federal Judges That Resemble the Nation They Serve,” Kang notes that the president has doubled the number of Asian American and Pacific Islander federal judges over the past three years.

    The Senate recently confirmed Miranda Du to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, albeit after dragging the process out for 239 days. Judge Du (pictured with Sen. Reid) is the 16th Asian American and Pacific Islander judge in the country. But despite support by Nevada Republican Sen. Dean Heller, Republican Governor Brian Sandoval, Republican Lieutenant Governor Brian Krolicki and Republican Mayor of Reno Robert Cashell -- in addition to support of Obama and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) -- only five Republican senators joined Sens. Reid and Heller in her confirmation vote.

    President Obama’s commitment to diversifying the federal bench was explored in a report issued earlier this year by the Brookings Institution. Russell Wheeler, the report’s author, highlights that only 38 percent of the president’s nominees are white males. That figure contrasts with a 66 percent rate under President George W. Bush and a 53 percent rate under President Bill Clinton.

  • March 30, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Eric M. Gutiérrez, Legislative & Public Policy Director for the National Employment Lawyers Association


    President Obama routinely gets high marks for his efforts to diversify the federal judiciary by nominating “non-traditional” candidates for federal judgeships. In fact, nearly three of every four nominees confirmed to the federal bench during his Administration are either women or minorities; he also is the first president who hasn’t selected a majority of white males for lifetime judgeships.

    Articles and commentary addressing judicial diversity, however, have focused typically on racial, ethnic, and gender diversity. The National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) recently published a report entitled, “Judicial Hostility To Workers’ Rights: The Case For Professional Diversity On The Federal Bench,” which targets another type of diversity that is equally as important and sorely lacking on the federal bench — professional diversity. Like his predecessors, President Obama’s nominees have largely been corporate lawyers, judges, or prosecutors prior to their nominations, while fewer have been public defenders, legal services attorneys, or public interest lawyers. Even fewer have devoted their professional careers to representing workers and civil rights litigants.

    Overlooking qualified candidates whose professional experience includes representing workers in employment, labor, and civil rights cases inevitably reinforces the image of a judiciary that is unfamiliar with, and therefore indifferent to, the plight of everyday Americans. Moreover, as the NELA report points out, the lack of professional diversity has contributed to the increasing judicial hostility workers face in employment cases and the deleterious effect on workers’ access to the courts to vindicate their rights.

    Justice Byron R. White remarked on the value of Thurgood Marshall’s professional diversity:

  • January 27, 2012

    by Jonathan Arogeti

    Last year ended with 100 current and future vacancies on our judiciary, an alarmingly high rate that has persisted for more than two years now. As documented by a recent Brookings Institution report, the number of district court vacancies has “starkly” increased since the beginning of President Barack Obama’s term. Senate obstruction reached new levels this year, with filibusters of nominees who once would have been considered widely noncontroversial. One bright spot, however, was President Obama’s significant progress in diversifying the federal courts. A mid-year White House infographic on the state of judicial nominations reinforced these themes. Below are highlights from last year in judicial nominations.

    The crisis.

    • Last year ended with 30 seats that the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts deemed judicial emergencies on the federal courts.
    • Delays caused by judicial vacancies have sparked, in the words of Chief Justice John Roberts on the eve of 2011, “acute difficulties” for districts “burdened with extraordinary caseloads.”
    • Between Sept. 2010 and Sept. 2011, nearly 15 percent of civil cases in the district courts are forced to wait more than three years for a resolution. And during the same period, the average time for a civil litigant’s jury trial was more than 24 months.
    • Chief Judge Roslyn O. Silver of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona declared a judicial emergency at the onset of the year because of an “acute shortage of judges” in her district.
    • Chief Judge Federico A. Moreno of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida said the vacancies cause an “undue hardship” on his district and Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado said the vacancies are “impeding” the judicial process.
    • And the caseloads in both circuit- and district-level federal courts so overwhelmed their active judges, that many were forced to rely heavily on senior judges. Judge Richard D. Cudahy of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit warned at the ACS 10th Anniversary National Convention that at this pace, the work of the federal bench will soon be left primarily to octogenarians.
    • A special CNN report documents how the “massive nominee logjam” is having a “staggering” impact on the American people. And an article in The Wall Street Journal details how the backlog is forcing some plaintiffs to wait years for their day in court. In Denver, for example, the newspaper chronicles Amy Bullock’s two-and-a-half-year ordeal -- twice postponed -- to receive damages from her husband’s death in a 2006 truck accident.
  • July 21, 2011

    by Nicole Flatow

    Following the Senate’s confirmation of J. Paul Oetken as the first openly gay male federal judge, President Barack Obama has announced another nomination that would add diversity to our courts.

    Litigator and former assistant U.S. attorney Michael Walter Fitzgerald has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, becoming Obama’s fourth openly gay nominee. The others are Alison Nathan, a nominee to the Southern District of New York, and Edward Dumont, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

    These nominations have contributed to the record diversity of Obama’s nominees, Politico reports.

    Despite a backlog in confirming Obama’s judicial nominations, the president has surpassed his predecessors in putting forth diverse candidates to the federal bench. Obama has nominated more female, African American, Hispanic, Asian American, Native American and openly gay candidates as federal judges than Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush. That includes two female Supreme Court justices, one of whom is the high court’s only Hispanic justice. The numbers are particularly striking for Asian-American nominees. Obama has nominated half of the Asian-American federal judges currently on the bench.

    Of course, many of those nominees haven’t had the success of Oetken in getting through the confirmation process.

  • June 9, 2011
    Guest Post

    By Amy Matsui, senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center. This is a cross-post from NWLC’s blog


    Rome, I hear, was not built in a day. Neither is a diverse federal judiciary. When Justice Ginsburg graduated from law school (1959), there were two female federal judges. When Justice Sotomayor graduated from law school (1979), that number had increased to 35. In 1988, the year I graduated from high school, women made up about 7% of federal judges. Over the past three decades, an increasing number of women have joined the legal profession. In recent years, law schools have seen the number of female students increase, so that they now make up nearly half of all law students. Today, women make up roughly 30% of the federal bench and for the first time in history, that holds true in trial courts, courts of appeal, and the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court.

    The increased number of women on the federal bench is a fact worthy of celebration, because when women are fairly represented, our federal courts are more reflective of the diverse population of this nation. In addition, when women are fairly represented on the federal bench, women as well as men may have more confidence that the court understands the real-world implications of its rulings. For both, the increased presence of women on the bench improves the quality of justice: women judges can bring an understanding of the impact of the law on the lives of women and girls to the bench, and enrich courts’ understanding of how best to realize the intended purpose and effect of the law that the courts are charged with applying.

    But while we cheer this progress, it’s nowhere near time to sit back and think that our work is done.