BUCKING THEIR TRADITIONAL RESERVE, JUDGES FROM ACROSS THE SPECTRUM ARE PUBLICLY DISAGREEING WITH THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES AND DECISIONS
THERE IS A GROWING CHORUS OF SUPREME Court critics coming from within the judiciary. Judges on both sides of the ideological spectrum and across various levels have become increasingly willing to speak out, warning America about the future of democracy.
Among those critics are retired Judge David S. Tatel. A Clinton appointee who served for nearly 30 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Tatel recently revealed in a new memoir, Vision: A Memoir of Blindness and Justice, that part of the reason he stepped down from the court in January was because he grew tired of the Supreme Court’s “low regard” for judicial principles.
He’s not alone. Tatel is one of at least three judges who offered a strong rebuke of the Supreme Court recently. In a May Slate interview, Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddins, who was appointed by former Democratic Governor David Ige, slammed the justices for being “incredibly dishonest about how law and facts are cherry-picked.” The same month, U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves, an Obama appointee, also hit the court for its qualified immunity doctrine: In a ruling on a false accusation case in Mississippi, he wrote that the doctrine, established by the Supreme Court and which protects state and local officials from individual liability, was “an unconstitutional error.” Both Eddins and Reeves are sitting judges.
“My views, I think, are widely shared throughout the judicial system,” Tatel told Newsweek. “Obviously, there are people who don’t agree with them, but there are, I can assure you, a large number of judges who will not find anything I’ve said in this book surprising.”
Jennifer Ahearn, senior counsel for the Brennan Center’s Judiciary Program, said it’s “pretty remarkable” that some judges are choosing to speak out, given how “unusual” it is for judges to speak outside of their work.
“I suspect that, frankly, that’s the tip of the iceberg,” Ahearn told Newsweek. “If a few judges are willing to stick their head above the parapet, then probably a lot of other judges also feel the same way and just aren’t in a position to do that.”
Alex Badas, an assistant professor specializing in judicial politics at the University of Houston, told Newsweek that the criticisms reflect a growing polarization of the judiciary and a general dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority.
“Before, when the court was more balanced, there existed somewhat of an equilibrium. Conservatives would win some major cases, and liberals would win some major cases, too. So, anger toward the Supreme Court would not build up to the point where sitting judges would feel comfortable speak
