Not much news.
Gorsuch quietly meeting with Senators.
“Hey I’ve got an idea that DEFINITELY wasn’t a part of a season 5 episode of The West Wing!” (WaPo)
Hearings scheduled for week of 3/20 (The Hill) – “hearings will begin March 20, with questioning of Gorsuch scheduled to start the next day.”
The Gorsuch record on social issues (and more)
– This ep we take a closer look at Judge Gorsuch on social issues, privacy and how it relates to larger notions of substantive due process.
- Can we believe Trump this time? Trump’s litmus test – overturn Roe
- Might not have ruled on abortion, but certainly has feelings he writes about in his spare time. (Adam will discuss more) Still has feelings he writes about while he’s on the bench, even though question of abortion he needed to answer.
Planned Parenthood Ass’n of Utah v. Herbert (839 F.3d 1301 (10th Cir. 2016)
Herbert, Republican Governor of Utah, ordered the state to stop federal funding ($272k) to PP Assoc. Of Utah.
10th Cir. granted a preliminary injunction to PP, saying PP Assoc. Of Utah was operating lawfully (in response to those fraudulent tapes) and the Governor’s personal objection to abortion was the motivation for blocking federal funds, and the Governor was violating the constitutional rights of PP Assoc. Of Utah by refusing federal funding
Neither PP nor Utah sought en banc review of the panel decision, BUT Judge Gorsuch dissented and would have granted en banc review and would have let the Governor defund PP
Judge Briscoe wrote separately (from the majority opinion) noting how extreme Judge Gorsuch’s position was – saying it was “unusual” “extraordinary” for him to do this sua sponte. She also went on to say that Gorsuch “mischaracterized this litigation and the panel decision at several turns.”
Okay, fine. But what about contraception? Ah, that religious liberty gets some respect….
- Bonus if you’re a big ol corporation. Not so good if you’re their minimum wage workers.
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius (723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2013)) (en banc)
Hobby Lobby, a closely-held corporation, thought that as part of their employer-sponsored health insurance plans they shouldn’t have to offer contraception because it conflicted with its religious beliefs.
Judge Gorsuch was part of a majority that said the Dept. of Health & Human Services couldn’t require such coverage. Saying corporations are people exercising religion for purpose of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This was upheld 5-4 in the Supreme Court.
But Gorsuch wrote a cute concurrence note to declare how much further he would go then the already conservative ruling in the 10th Circuit – something the Supreme Court didn’t even do in its decision. He said that not just corporations, but individual owners, could challenge the contraceptive mandate. Saying that he felt peoples religions trump individual rights and health care for women.
“All of us face the problem of complicity. All of us must answer for ourselves whether and
to what degree we are willing to be involved in the wrongdoing of others. For some, religion provides an essential source of guidance both about what constitutes wrongful conduct and the degree to which those who assist others in committing wrongful conduct themselves bear moral culpability.”
- Cool. You can have your religious liberty, but let’s not make anyone have to do any paperwork so someone can get their medical care.
Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged, Denver Colo. v. Burwell, 699 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2015)
The Little Sisters said that it would be too burdensome for them to opt out of providing birth control coverage by signing a form that would then trigger other provision for contraceptive coverage through their insurance provider.
The 10th Circuit said the opt out accomodate was enough.
Judge Gorsuch joined a dissent from denial of en banc review where he said they should grant review to rehear the challenge because he believed that signing a form was a substantial burden to the Little Sisters’ free exercise religion.
Where does this go? Well, I raise these because in a weird concurrence and a dissent, Gorsuch chose to talk about this even though he didn’t have to. When one gets on the Supreme Court, they become more themselves. I believe Justices can differ from their decisions as judges, but these examples make me quite certain we can believe Trump.
First, Gorsuch is clearly a philosopher. The basic rule is that people ideologically opposed to the president are suspicious of philosopher-nominees. Democrats who embraced natural law ideas during the 1960s when the Court in Tim’s favorite case, Griswold, cited the Ninth Amendment as one of the possible sources of a constitutional right to privacy. But after 10 straight GOP nominees, Democrats were very scared of Clarence Thomas’ writing about natural law and natural rights as important reference points when interpreting the Constitution. As Lena can tell you, then-Chairman Biden spent much of his first round of questioning trying to pin down Thomas on how he would use natural law to interpret the Constitution. And this makes sense. Natural law and natural rights are powerful theories. They can lead to ideas such as a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional if it violates pre-existing natural law/rights, and if your ideological opponent is using natural law, they can do a lot of damage to the Constitution that you believe in.
So, here we have Gorsuch, a Rhodes Scholar, who wrote a whole book on the Constitution and assisted suicide and euthanasia. And his view, based on both law and philosophical ideas about the meaning of life, is that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide. That, by itself, is not the most controversial statement in the world. The Supreme Court has held the same thing, and there wasn’t a big fight about it.
But what does it mean that he’s written such a book? One, that he cares deeply about issues of what the Constitution says about life. Two, that his views aren’t based simply on precedent, on originalism, or other things judges base their decisions on. Their based on philosophical views on life. Not only that, but strangely, he said that the person who wants to die isn’t the only person’s rights at stake (such as a person who doesn’t really want to die but is pressured by family members). The two-persons are involved argument is usually made in the abortion context (when the other person people usually mention is the fetus).
Now Gorsuch expressly tries to separate what he writes in his book from what he thinks about abortion, saying, for instance, that since Roe decided the fetus does not have constitutional rights. But that’s pretty hard to understand. If you’re going to say that a hypothetical person who really doesn’t want to die but evades all the safeguards in a Death with Dignity Act in order to die because of family pressure has rights that have to be considered along with people who actually do want to die must be considered, are you really going to say that a pregnant woman’s views outweigh those of the fetus, the father of the fetus? What about the exact same situation? Where a pregnant woman or girl is being pressured by family to have an abortion but doesn’t want to? Shouldn’t that invalidate all abortion laws based on Gorsuch’s natural law/rights argument?
To cut to the legal realism argument, however, I think it’s pretty clear that Gorsuch wrote this book to signal his views on abortion and other controversial social issues while having plausible deniability should he be nominated for the Court.
Lena: A little big about John Finnis, Judge Gorsuch’s advisor: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/feb/03/neil-gorsuch-mentor-john-finnis-compared-gay-sex-to-bestiality
I’d like to focus on a gender discrimination case… Strickland v. UPS
Carole Strickland, a salesperson for UPS sued for sex discrimination. She had a tough time of it. Shortly after a bad breakup, her bosses put her through the ringer… insisting (against her initial wishes) that she take medical leave. When she returned, they subjected her to micro-managy meetings no one else had to go through despite meeting or nearly meeting every sales quota thrown at her. At least one male member in the area ranked worse than her and never had to go through similar treatment. Co-workers said she was treated differently than the other men – for instance she couldn’t get important questions answered that would have helped her perform her job, while her male co-workers got their questions answered without a problem. The record showed pregnancy leave was frowned upon, and only reluctantly granted due to federal law. This was the environment that was the basis of the sex discrimination complaint. And the 10th Circuit majority said the record contained enough for the case to go to a jury.
But not Judge Gorsuch. In his dissent he wrote no reasonable jury would have found sex discrimination based on the record. This despite a whole host of things that suggested Ms. Strickland’s poor treatment could have been gender-based and that a jury should be the place to suss that out. Judge Gorsuch hung his hat on the testimony of the one other woman in the office who said she wasn’t treated differently than the plaintiff. But under settled 10th Circuit law that’s not enough… just because women aren’t universally discriminated against doesn’t mean one or more women aren’t.
It’s not that the record definitively demonstrated sex discrimination… but Judge Gorsuch’s colleagues held… and I would posit, most reasonable legal minds would concur… there was enough there for a jury to weigh the facts.
And that’s a problem. Judges are gatekeepers and have to do some degree of factual assessment before trial, but that bar is very low and favors plaintiffs in federal courts (yo, Professor Doernburg… I still got it!). A judge assumes everything on the record is true when making an assessment, and if there’s a question of fact… like there clearly was here… a judge passes it to the jury determine those facts.
It may be there was no sexual discrimination in this case… just awful management and bad behavior. But, Judge Gorsuch’s quick trigger in this instance dovetails with his attitude towards judicial relief generally… in other writings he wrings his hands over liberals misusing courts for relief, bemoaning the poor companies that have to defend lawsuits. This is an example of how he puts the thumb on the scale to deny a plaintiff a shot at discovery and a jury in a gender discrimination context.
Oh and for what it’s worth vis a vis last week… this also happens to side with a big shipping company over an individual… par for the course.
SCOTUS politics: a lifetime appointment in the context of the Russian allegations
Every day we seem to get closer to the most outlandish and absurd possibility that someone or some people in the Trump campaign colluded with Russian agents to impact the election. Given the lifetime appointment that is the SCOTUS seat, is it appropriate for Senate Democrats to filibuster this and future lifetime appointments (i.e. all judicial noms) until a complete independent investigation is done? Would framing a filibuster this way make it harder for Senate Republicans to go nuclear?
Lena: process politics not nominee – missing info: DOJ WH Pres Library) Sessions, Independence