Justice Alito rips NY federal judge for requiring race- and sex-based law firm staffing
on November 18, 2013
30 Comments
Supreme Court Justices occasionally issue statements in connection with the Court's decision not to accept a case for review. Sometimes the statement is in the nature of a dissent, other times just to make a point.
Justice Alito has issued a blistering statement in connection with the Court's denial of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the case of Martin v. Blessing. Justice Alito did not disagree with the decision not to take the case in light of the fact that the issue involved appeared isolated.
The issue was the practice of U.S. District Judge Harold Baer in the Southern District of New York in requiring that class action counsel ensure that attorney staffing of the case reflect the racial and gender of the class. That practice, apparently unique to Judge Baer, sparked a lengthy statement by Justice Alito warning that if the Court of Appeals does not address the situation, future Supreme Court review may be warranted.
Think about it for a second. While Judge Baer's intent undoubtedly is to bring diversity to the case, what if the class itself is non-diverse? What if the class constituted almost entirely white males, would Judge Baer insist that only white male attorney staff a case? I think not.
Justice Alito's statement was part of an Order list issued this morning. I have extracted Justice Alito's Statement, which is embedded at the bottom of this post. Here's an excerpt (emphasis added):
The petition in this case challenges a highly unusualpractice followed by one District Court Judge in assessingthe adequacy of counsel in class actions. This judge insiststhat class counsel “ensure that the lawyers staffed on the case fairly reflect the class composition in terms of relevant race and gender metrics.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 35a. The uniqueness of this practice weighs against review by this Court, but the meaning of the Court’s denial of the petition should not be misunderstood.
