Citing Civil Rights Implications, Legal Experts Call for Disclosure of Roberts Solicitor General Documents
Feature Story by Tyler Lewis - 8/22/2005
The White House's refusal to disclose documents from Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' time as Solicitor General - arguably his most important job in the executive branch -- "creates an impression that there is something to hide," said Nan Aron, President of Alliance for Justice at an August 19 press briefing held by Independentcourt.org, a project of the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary.Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have requested documents pertaining to 16 of the 81 cases that Roberts worked on during his time at the Solicitor General's office. The briefing brought together senior lawyers from several prominent organizations, who discussed the importance of these cases on individual rights and protections for Americans.
Cases discussed included those addressing access to justice (Suter v. Artist M.), affirmative action (Metro Broadcasting v. FCC), right to privacy (Rust v. Sullivan), and church-state protections (Lee v. Weisman).
In Artist M, the Solicitor General's office filed an amicus brief urging the Court to preclude abused children from suing the states, under Adoption Assistance laws, for failing to take reasonable actions to reunite foster children with their natural families where possible.
Artist M is important, Seth Rosenthal, Alliance for Justice Legal Director said, because the "law is ineffectual...unless it can be enforced in court" and it is crucial to know whether Roberts' signature on that brief was part of his job as attorney for the government or representative of his actual views.
In Metro Broadcasting, Roberts, as acting Solicitor General, argued against the FCC's affirmative action program for applications for new broadcast licenses. Of Metro Broadcasting, Rob Randhava, counsel for Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, said, "It's the kind of case that calls for a little more attention, especially when Roberts argued that the policy in question, affirmative action, wasn't only unconstitutional but 'a policy in search of a purpose.'"
Speakers emphasized the importance of the Solicitor General documents in shedding light on whether or not Roberts' opinions reflected his own views or were just instances of a lawyer representing his clients.
Jocelyn Frye, who discussed Rust v. Sullivan, a case involving the validity of an abortion "gag rule" regulation under the First Amendment, stated that the documents will present "an unvarnished" picture of Roberts' role in these critical cases, showing how he may have personally agreed or disagreed with the final decision.
Addressing skepticism that any new information would change the opinions of any major organization on John Roberts' nomination, Elliot Mincberg, vice president and legal director of People for the American Way, said that the concern was for "the integrity of the [confirmation] process." Mincberg discussed Lee v. Weisman, a case in which he said the Solicitor General's office "took the unusual move of filing an amicus brief in a case that didn't concern federal laws or programs."
According to Alliance for Justice's Aron, the White House's refusal "sets a precedent that would limit the Senate's ability" to adequately conduct the confirmation hearings.
