Justice Anthony Kennedy

  • March 27, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Adam Winkler, professor of law, UCLA School of Law. This post is part of an ACSblog online symposium on oral argument in HHS v. Florida.


    The two days of oral argument into President Obama's health care reform law have been notable for their lack of surprises.

    On the first day, the Court considered whether the Anti-Injunction Act barred the lawsuits challenging the individual mandate. Although this was always considered the sleeper issue of the case, there are few stronger trends in the Supreme Court these days than judicial assertiveness. A Court that could decide a disputed presidential election in Bush v. Gore; unleash Citizens United; and repeatedly wade into presidential war powers should have little hesitancy reaching out to decide the fate of the Affordable Care Act. So when the Justices breezily ignored the plain language of the AIA, it was predictable. The Court wants to decide all of the major issues in American politics, including this.

    On day two, the Court looked at the individual mandate. One thing that always seemed beyond the pale to me was the idea that, when it came to the mandate, the votes of Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts were in play. Just because Scalia voted to uphold the federal drug laws in Gonzalez v. Raich should never have fooled anyone into thinking he'd vote to uphold the mandate, and his aggressive questioning of the government on the mandate indicated he's likely to vote to strike it down. The same can be said for Roberts, who for seven years now has been confounding the expectations of those who believed he'd really push for unanimous, narrow rulings that avoided constitutional questions, as he promised in his confirmation hearings. His voting record is strongly conservative and his desire to protect the institutional legitimacy of the Court is remarkable mainly for its lack of manifestation.

  • February 6, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Billy Corriher, an attorney working in civil rights


    With the 2012 election in high gear, the country is tasting the bitter fruit of the Supreme Court's controversial Citizens United v. FEC opinion. Vitriolic political ads - funded by anonymous donors, accountable to no one – are flooding the airwaves in primary states. When these ads go nationwide, the chorus of criticism against Citizens United will only grow louder. We are already seeing local governments and state courts rebuking the Court. The Portland City Council, for example, passed a resolution opposing the idea that corporations are persons with constitutional rights.

    In Citizens United, the Court ruled unconstitutional a federal law prohibiting corporations from airing political ads before an election. The Court found that the statute infringed corporations' right to free speech and that this infringement was not justified by a compelling government interest. The Court said, “[I]ndependent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Although such expenditures may give rise to “the appearance of influence or access,” this was not a problem for the Court because “an independent expenditure is political speech . . . that is not coordinated with a candidate.” 

    As soon as it was announced, Citizens United came under fire. The idea that five unelected judges understand political corruption better than the United States Congress is absurd, and the notion that Super-PACs are “independent” of the candidates has proven to be a ludicrous legal fiction. 

  • September 7, 2010
    With the crisis over judicial vacancies continuing to grow - there are more than a hundred vacant seats on the federal bench - a new ACS-sponsored website, JudicialNominations.org, is tracking where the vacancies reside nationwide, highlighting the Senate obstruction of the judicial nominations process, and providing essential resources for understanding the ongoing matter.

    The Associated Press reports that a "determined Republican stall campaign in the Senate has sidetracked so many men and women nominated by President Barack Obama for judgeships that he has put fewer people on the bench than any president since Richard Nixon at a similar point in his first year term 40 years ago. The delaying tactics have proved so successful, despite the Democrats' substantial Senate majority, that fewer than half of Obama's nominees have been confirmed and 102 out of 854 judgeships are vacant."

    JudicialNominations.org offers all those concerned about the ability of federal courts to operate efficiently to stay on top of the judicial nominations process. The website brings together for the first time an array of information, including an interactive map that allows the user to select an individual district or circuit courts and identify the number of vacancies in that area, how long those vacancies have existed, whether anyone has been nominated to fill the vacancy and how long nominees have waited for confirmation. The website also provides links to congressional statements, videos, upcoming hearings and other events, and the latest nomination news.

    Politicians and judges alike have noted the growing crisis of federal court vacancies. During a recent judicial conference, Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy blasted the slow pace of judicial confirmations. "It's important for the public to understand that the excellence of the federal judiciary is at risk, Kennedy said. "If judicial excellence is cast upon a sea of congressional indifference, the rule of law is imperiled."

    As President Obama noted earlier this summer, "If we want our judicial system to work - if we want to deliver justice in our courts - then we need judges on our benches. And I hope that in the coming months, we'll be able to work together to ensure a timelier process in the Senate."

    Visit JudicialNominations.org to stay abreast of the crisis on our federal bench and receive updates from the website via Facebook, by clicking the "like" tag on JudiciaNominations.org's Facebook page.

  • August 30, 2010

    Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy has joined the list of legal leaders speaking out on the slow pace of judicial confirmations to the federal bench.

    During the 2010 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, Kennedy questioned whether the Senate confirmation process is "working the way it should be," asking lawyers and law schools to study the process to identify "neutral" principles to guide both parties through the confirmation process, according to a release issued by the United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit.

    "It's important for the public to understand that the excellence of the federal judiciary is at risk," Kennedy told the Los Angeles Times. "If judicial excellence is cast upon a sea of congressional indifference, the rule of law is imperiled."

    Obama's judicial confirmation rate is "the lowest since analysts began detailed tracking [of] the subject 30 years ago," according to the LA Times, "with 47% of his 85 nominations winning Senate approval so far." There are currently 102 vacancies, out of 876 seats on the federal bench.

    Christopher H. Schroeder, assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Policy, said if the current rate of replacing judges continues, nearly half of all federal judgeships will be vacant by the end of the decade.

  • April 14, 2010

    By Margaret Love, who now represents applicants for pardon and commutation. Love previously served as U.S. Pardon Attorney under Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. 
    At a recent oral argument in a case involving the crack cocaine sentencing guidelines, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy asked Assistant Solicitor General Leondra Kruger, "Does the Justice Department ever make recommendations that prisoners like this have their sentence commuted?"

    It was a question that stumped Ms. Kruger. The answer should have been "not very often."

    On second thought, make that "hardly ever."

    The prisoner was Percy Dillon, sentenced in 1993 to 27 years in prison for trafficking in crack cocaine. Dillon was asking the Court to decide whether the U.S. Sentencing Commission had acted properly in limiting courts' ability to modify previously-imposed sentences in the wake of Congress' 2007 reduction in the crack guidelines. If Dillon lost his case, he would spend another three years in prison.

    Dillon seemed to strike Justice Kennedy as a particularly appealing candidate for clemency: his sentencing judge had called his original sentence "unfair" and "entirely too high," and Dillon had spent 16 years compiling an impressive prison record of educational outreach to fellow inmates and at-risk youth in the community.

    Getting no answer from the government to his question about the frequency of the Justice Department's clemency recommendations, Justice Kennedy observed that there had been no sentence commutations in 2009 and only five the year before. "Does this show that something is not working in the system?"