Inconsistent Pleadings: Another Thing White People Like: Judging
The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported that Vaughn Walker, the James Coburn/Wilford Brimley look-alike who is overseeing the federal court challenge to California's Proposition 8, is gay. (Awkward!) Since the story broke, journalists and pajama-bloggers have debated whether it's appropriate for a gay man to adjudicate the constitutionality of a law aimed specifically at depriving gays of their rights.
This is an interesting question, if ultimately an academic one. As Vaughn himself has noted, the Prop 8 case will make a relatively brief stop in his courtroom before moving on to the Court of Appeals and possibly the Supreme Court, where the lawfulness of the referendum will ultimately be decided.
The real news in the Chronicle story was the sheer improbability that a gay rights case would get assigned to a gay judge. Out of more than 1,000 federal judges in the country, there are only two that are known to be gay: Vaughn, and a federal trial court judge in Manhattan, Deborah Batts. Using the most conservative estimates of their share of the population (not to mention their share of the legal population!), gays are underrepresented on the federal bench by, at least, the dozens.
Gays are not alone. The only demographic group that is overrepresented on the federal bench is white men, who, while constituting around 37% of the population, make up around 70% of federal judges. Contrast this with the percentage of federal judges who are women (17%), African-American (8%), or Hispanic (5%). As of 2009, there were 8 Asian-American federal judges. Eight, total. (These numbers are courtesy of a report [PDF] from the Brookings Institution.)
Enter Obama. As President, he has authority to appoint judges to all three levels of the federal judicial system: (1) trial courts, or District Courts, where federal cases are initially filed; (2) Courts of Appeals, also called Circuit Courts, to which decisions of the District Courts are appealed; and (3) the Supreme Court, which hears appeals from the Courts of Appeals.
Thus far, Obama has nominated 43 people to the federal bench, including Sonia Sotomayor. Although it should shock no one that the nominees are a diverse bunch, the specific statistics are nonetheless dramatic: 50% women; 26% African-American; 7% Hispanic; 14% Asian; and only 30% white male. Whites overall, who make up 85% of the current crop of federal judges, are only 53% of Obama's nominees.
The diversity of Obama's nominees stands in stark contrast not only to the current makeup of the federal bench but, more surprisingly, the nominees of past Democratic presidents. More than 60% of Jimmy Carter's judicial appointments were white men, and Bill Clinton, whose desire for non-white/non-male appointments turned occasionally desperate, tapped the white guy more than 50% of the time.
So Obama appears to have a commitment to increasing the diversity of the federal bench, although it's not something he seems particularly eager to talk about. (No public promises, a la Clinton, for a bench that "looks like America.") Nor is it something that's gotten a lot of press. But Obama's nominations, though low-profile, are likely to be high-impact. Lower federal court judges, like Supreme Court justices, serve until death or retirement, whichever comes first. (The oldest federal court judge, appointed by JFK, is 102 years old.) Thus, the people nominated by Obama could (if confirmed by the Senate) rule on, for example, the scope of Constitutional protections for the next several decades.
The importance of lower federal courts is underappreciated. The Supreme Court gets more attention, but most of the action in the federal court system happens in the District Courts and the Courts of Appeals. The Supreme Court has near-complete discretion over its docket, and in recent decades has chosen to hear fewer than 100 cases per year. (For comparison: in 2009, more than 11,000 cases were filed in the District Court covering Manhattan.) For the vast majority of litigants, the ride through the federal court system stops well short of Justice Sonia and friends. The diversity of the Supreme Court Justices serves an important symbolic function, but diversity on the lower courts has a much greater chance of actually affecting your life.
Whether the race or gender of a judge actually influences the decision-making process is a topic of intense (and, typically, ill-informed) debate. Justice O'Connor has said many times that a wise old man and a wise old woman will usually reach the same result, and Justice Sotomayor has said… something different. (Studies seem to support Sotomayor, at least in part.)
This debate aside, there is a practical advantage to Obama's picks: he'll have a stable of well-qualified female and minority candidates to chose from if there is another Supreme Court vacancy during his term (which likely there will), and he may decide to fill the spot with someone who is non-white or non-male (which likely he will). Obama's nominations might be grounded more in politics than in principle. But can we really argue with any efforts that help remake the federal judiciary in our image?
Ian Retford is the pseudonym of a lawyer in New York City.








The Federal Judiciary system is generally a repository for (mainly bright) hardasses, playing within the bounds of some pretty brightline rules, regardless what lineup you pick them out of, or what substantive matters put before them.
So, diversity: Symbolic? Sure. Necessary? And long overdue. Transforming? Don't wait up.
Thank you for making me feel a bit less embarrassed these days about being so enthusiastic about Obama's win a year ago. This is not simply a matter of how will cases be decided in the future, just as having a black president is not simply a matter of how presidential decisions will be made (you know what I'm talking about).
Do we have to remake the federal judiciary in our image? I mean, we eat a lot of Doritos and our fashion sense is highly questionable.
Fascinating. I would also love to see a breakdown re: economics AND, more importantly, legal backgrounds (private firm, academic, etc.).
Also, re: proxy representation on the bench, can "Ian" look into the largely-overlooked insanity that is the funding of state supreme court elections and those justices refusal to recuse themselves when cases dealing with their donors come before their bench (e.g., Wisconsin's current pooch screw http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/82319592.html) so I don't have to. Thanks!
You're reaching into another heart of this matter. The economics/private firm stats are going to be very, very telling at the Federal level.
Sad as I am to say it, the popular election of state judges has been, in my silly state, at least, a source of some embarrassment.
This is only a partial answer, but here is the breakdown of the 43 nominees, by last job held: 8 federal judges, 5 federal magistrate judges, 14 state or local judges, 12 private practitioners, 1 bank executive (former US Attorney), 1 professor (former state supreme court justice), 1 district attorney, and 1 federal public defender. If anything surprises me in these numbers, it's the lack of public sector/public interest lawyers.
Judicial elections are pretty insane. I find it interesting that this is the one substantive issue that O'Connor has tackled post-retirement from the Court. (She has said that she regrets her vote in one judicial elections case, Republican Party of Minn. v. White.) The one bright spot is that, regardless of state recusal rules, litigants can always argue that recusal is required under Massey, a recent Supreme Court case dealing with campaign contributions and recusals. Maybe it's time to see how Massey claims have fared thus far.
Christ, I didn't think you;d actually answer that. Thanks. I suppose you're going to bill me now, huh?
You probably realize that it's a little unfair to paint the picture from just last job held. Many public interest/public sector lawyers graduate up to other work where they maintain the same concerns, including in the private sector. I feel like most promising judicial nominees have pretty diverse, long backgrounds. Also, the 27/43 former judges described obviously did not become judges before working in some range of other lawyering.
Is it possible that the difference between Obama's and Clinton's nominee's demographics results from a larger group of minority and female lawyers getting to the appointment-to-the-bench part of their careers over the past eight years? (I'm taking it as a given that Democrats will appoint more woment and minority judges where available than Republicans, which is why I'm not comparing to Bush. Thus the eight-year gap might have involved changes further down the legal food chain.)
Also, I find it kind of hilarious that people would get exercized over a gay judge presiding over a case involving gay rights, because the people most likely to oppose gay marriage would be mostly likely to claim that gay marriage affects straights and straight marriage too. So either everyone has a stake in this and has an equal potential for bias, or it's just a matter that affects gays, in which case what do you care?
Yes; and a thousand times yes.
Actually, if there's a surprise in those statistics it's how well they mirror the population of lawyers as a whole. Granted these statistics are a decade old, but as of 2000, 73% of lawyers were male and 88.8% were white. Stepping back a few years to 1991, maybe a good mean year for when many of these federal judges were appointed, 80% were male and 93% were white.
Two words: Judge Judy.
It was never a secret that Vaughn Walker is gay. I guarantee that it was well known to the lawyers appearing in front of him.
What may be more significant is the fact that this will probably be his last case before retirement.