U.S. Justices Elizabeth Branch, James Ho and Matthew Solomson, along with 10 additional members of the federal bench appointed by President Trump, recently announced a critical line that has long separated the nonpartisan judiciary from the turbulent waters of political battles. exceeded.
These self-identified judicial bullies have written a letter to Columbia University President Minoush Shafik requesting that he refuse to hire as law clerks any student who will enroll at Columbia as a law student or undergraduate this fall. I gave notice.Colombia won’t lift ban until it makes ‘extraordinary changes'[s]” to policies governing campus protests, and changes the composition of faculty and administrators to increase “diversity of perspectives.” I can only enumerate the ways in which this “demand” letter ignores basic understandings of the role of the judiciary and undermines public confidence in the impartiality of the courts.
First, there is obvious guilt in punishing completely innocent students who, despite opposing some of Columbia’s policies, still want to take advantage of Columbia’s extraordinary educational resources. At this time of year, many students have already decided to attend Columbia University in the fall. Will they have to pay for Colombia’s actions? One might expect that conservative jurists, who pride themselves on treating people as individuals rather than group members, would be the first to recognize the injustice of collective punishment.
Second, one wonders what kind of research these judges did to compare Columbia University’s approach with that of countless other universities. Indeed, the protests in Colombia were widely reported. However, the essence of a trial is to postpone a decision until all the evidence has been considered.
These judges turned into culture warriors without waiting to hear both sides. Do they think there is less “diversity of perspectives” in Colombia than in other regions? On what basis can they make such a claim?
Third, we expect federal judges to oversee partisan skirmishes. No one wants to enter a courtroom thinking that the judge’s mind is already made up. In these particularly polarized times, judges should take great care to strengthen their role as referees rather than combatants. Nevertheless, here the judges are rushing to use their hiring power for their personal political views. We should all be wary of public officials, let alone federal judges, threatening the legitimate independence of private universities that make their own hiring decisions and balance free speech and campus safety. It is.
Fourth, this is particularly worrying. What on earth were the justices thinking when they sent out this kind of letter, signed by only one judge appointed by a single Republican president? When President Trump once referred to “Justice Obama,” Chief Justice Roberts rightly criticized him, saying, “We don’t have ‘Obama Judges, we don’t have Trump Judges, we don’t have Judges Clinton, we don’t have Judges Bush.’ He said there is. Perhaps judges cannot be expected to remain completely silent on all issues of public importance. But it should be clear to all judges that if they cannot muster bipartisan support to speak out on issues involving the exercise of public power, they should remain silent.
Finally, as if knowingly slipping on thin ice and waving their hands in the sand, these justices, who are said to have been angered by the criticisms of Harvard faculty, are writing a review of the Harvard Law Department by Judge Brennan. It is referring to an earlier, private decision to refuse to hire clerks. supreme court. They compare his “boycott” to their own, claiming that while he sought to suppress academic freedom, they are defending it. However, the definitive account of Brennan’s hiring practices by Professor Stephen Wormeil reveals that for many years, Brennan obtained all of its clerkships from Harvard University. Even after he began recruiting from many law schools, he continued to recruit from Harvard throughout his tenure. Moreover, the idea that public officials can promote academic freedom by forcing universities to hire people with the right ideology is nothing more than a cruel joke.
Ideally, the judge who wrote this ill-advised letter would apologize and retract it. But if that’s not the case, I wish all law faculty across the country would stop recommending students to these judges, and all law schools would encourage students not to clerk for judges. Masu.
Our country has given judges incredible authority to decide serious cases that can affect life and death. All these judges can do is stay out of the national controversy until the actual case comes before them.
Jeremy Paul is a law professor and former dean of Northeastern University’s School of Law. He is also a former dean of the University of Connecticut School of Law.
