All Blog Posts from Courtwatch

In the past 13 months, no fewer than 22 distinguished federal appeals court judges have examined the issues surrounding the now-famous Ricci v. DeStefano employment discrimination case involving New Haven, Connecticut’s firefighter promotion system. Of that number, 11 believe under the law that the City did the best it could in difficult circumstances after black firefighters performed poorly on standardized tests. And 11 believe that white firefighters were discriminated against when the City threw out the results of the tests and tried for a Mulligan.

On the 2nd U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals, the score was 7-6 in favor of the City. At the United States Supreme Court, the score was 5-4 in favor of the challengers. Yes, the Supreme Court gets the final call in matters like this. But let’s not pretend that the Justices are so remarkably brighter and wiser than are their lower federal court colleagues that their votes are seeped in justice and the lower-court votes wallow in ignorance. The fact is that the case generated a series of legal issues that were remarkably close calls given the Court’s past precedent (and the new one it has just adopted).

We particularly care about this case, and this result, because the likely next Supreme Court Justice, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, was one of the 22 jurists who took a crack at deciphering what happened in New Haven. Last June, the Supreme Court nominee, in a brief panel ruling, sided with the City in finding that because no firefighters were promoted when the initial test was tossed out there was no valid discrimination claim. Six of her colleagues on the 2nd Circuit, and four of the Court’s most liberal Justices agreed with this view.

Read full post…

Some initial thoughts from CBS News' Chief Legal Analyst and Legal Editor Andrew Cohen after the announcement of the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in favor of the white firefighters in the closely watched case Ricci, et al. v. DeStefano, et al. The case is also of note because Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was on the three-judge panel that rejected the reverse discrimination complaint that has now been overturned.

---

The majority said that the fear of litigation by black firefighters who didn't do well on this test didn't justify tossing the test. So I guess the lesson here is that when you are going to test for promotions you had better make sure the test is race neutral.

The four dissenters found that the white firefighters had no right to be promoted anyway and had not seen black candidates promoted over them-- only the test was tossed out. This, the dissent claimed, did not warrant the court's interference in New Haven's attempt to solve what it considered a legitimate problem with the tests.

Read full post…

The Supreme Court ruled today in an 8-1 vote that the strip search of a female teen by high school officials for ibuprofen was a violation of the teen's constitutional rights.

CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen says that it's "important to remember" that the court didn't illegalize school searches but rather drew a line around necessary conditions for aggressive searches.

Cohen discusses the ruling further below:


Watch CBS Videos Online

The Supreme Court will also rule on the controversial Connecticut firemen case that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled on in the U.S. Court of Appeals.

In the case, the firemen accuse the fire department of reverse discrimination against them. Cohen says the Court ruling of the case could prove "embarrassing" for Sotomayor, given that she ruled against the firemen in court.

Cohen discusses the case further below:


Watch CBS Videos Online