Jeffrey Sutton Nomination Fact Sheet
Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals
March 1, 2003
Mr. Sutton's record as a lawyer and advocate reveals him to be an extremely ideological and conservative activist with a particularly troubling record in many areas important to a range of communities and constituents.
Mr. Sutton's record raises numerous serious concerns, including:
- Mr. Sutton has become, over the last several years, a leading advocate for "states' rights." He has personally argued key Supreme Court cases that, by narrow 5-4 majorities, have undermined Congress' ability to protect Americans against discrimination based on race, age, disability, and religion.
- Mr. Sutton has been involved in a targeted effort to challenge and weaken the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In University of Alabama v. Garrett, Mr. Sutton, as indicated by his statement during oral argument that the ADA was "not needed," would have gone even further than the majority, which ultimately held that it was unconstitutional for the ADA to permit state employees to bring lawsuits for damages to protect their rights against discrimination. In Pennsylvania Dep't. of Corrections v. Yeskey, Mr. Sutton filed an amicus brief arguing that the ADA does not apply at all to state prison systems. In Olmstead v. L.C., Mr. Sutton argued that it should not be a violation of the ADA to force individuals with mental disabilities to remain institutionalized without proper justification, despite clear congressional findings to the contrary.
- Mr. Sutton has also argued for a narrow view of Congress' ability to provide a means for individuals to vindicate their rights. In Alexander v. Sandoval, Mr. Sutton argued against allowing private individuals to sue to enforce the disparate impact regulations of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, by recipients of federal financial assistance.
- Mr. Sutton has advocated for other specific steps by the courts to limit federal civil rights protections. In an article for the Federalist Society, Mr. Sutton praised a concurring opinion by Justices Thomas and Scalia in Holder v. Hall, which would have severely restricted the application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (prohibiting state and local conduct that has a racially discriminatory purpose or effect), and would have required reversal or reconsideration of at least 28 previous Supreme Court voting rights decisions.
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, LCCR/LCCREF will continue to monitor the integrity of the processes for nominating and confirming judicial appointments.
