Carolyn Kuhl Nomination Fact Sheet
May 6, 2003
Judge Carolyn Kuhl's views on important civil rights issues, particularly with regard to equal opportunity and the rights of workers and consumers, are outside the mainstream. Her work as a Justice Department official, in private practice, and as a California judge reflects a lack of commitment to core constitutional values and to upholding equal rights for all Americans.
The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund (LCCREF), the research, education, and communications arm of the civil rights coalition, believes that Justice Kuhl's record raises numerous serious concerns, including:
- Judge Kuhl's efforts on the issue of whether the federal government should subsidize institutions that practice racial discrimination raise serious concerns. Judge Kuhl was one of three Reagan Justice Department officials who persuaded the Attorney General to reverse prior policy and support the granting of tax-exempt status to Bob Jones University, despite its racially discriminatory policies, in its brief in Bob Jones University v. United States. More than 200 Justice Department lawyers, the solicitor general, and the Treasury Department general counsel objected to the change of position that Judge Kuhl advocated, which was ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court by an 8-1 vote.
- Judge Kuhl's positions on "associational standing" would have seriously limited the ability of civil rights groups to vindicate legal rights of individuals. In International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Brock, Judge Kuhl not only argued that the requirement for associational standing had not been met in the particular case, but went on to urge the Supreme Court to overturn the doctrine of associational standing altogether, except in the most extraordinary circumstances. This view, if adopted, would have had a catastrophic effect on the ability of civil rights and other groups to file lawsuits on behalf of their members in order to vindicate their legal rights.
- Judge Kuhl has attempted to limit the reach of sexual harassment doctrine. As Deputy Solicitor General at the Justice Department, she co-authored an amicus curiae brief in the landmark sexual harassment case of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, asserting a position on sexual harassment which, had it been adopted, would have made it more difficult for women to prove sexual harassment in the workplace. The test she would have applied was ultimately rejected by a unanimous Supreme Court.
- Judge Kuhl attempted to restrict the remedies that courts can order in Title VII cases. In Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n v. EEOC, Kuhl co-authored a brief on behalf of the EEOC advocating the extreme theory that relief in Title VII cases can be granted only to identifiable victims of discrimination. This theory, which was rejected by the Supreme Court, would have significantly limited the ability of the courts to provide effective remedies for past and persistent discrimination.
- Judge Kuhl's record reveals a tendency to favor corporate interests, at the expense of workers and consumers. For example, as a lawyer in private practice, Judge Kuhl argued on behalf of two major defense contractors that the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act, which allows private individuals to sue corporations that committed fraud against federal government programs, was unconstitutional. As a judge, she dismissed a case brought under a California law enacted to prevent suits against whistleblowers and others acting in the public interest. The California appellate court reversed Judge Kuhl's decision in Liu v. Moore in unusually strong terms, calling it "a nullification of an important part of California's anti-[abusive lawsuit] legislation."
For many Americans, the federal judiciary is the first line of defense against violations of dearly held constitutional principles. Because of the impact that lifetime appointments of judges hostile to civil rights may have on the rights of millions of Americans, LCCREF will continue to monitor the integrity of the processes for nominating and confirming judicial appointments.
