Did the Supreme Court rule correctly in the New Haven firefighters case?

Yes

2 of 5

by Gerard Coulombe

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

In law, the only question that matters in adjudicating a case is the narrow question before the court. The Connecticut Post's question of the week is about the correctness of the Supreme Court's ruling, its decision, in the New Haven Firefighters' Case. A 5-4 decision came down on the side of those firefighters who brought the original suit against the City of New Haven which had thrown out the test results because it believed that based on outcome, there was a strong likelihood that black firefighters having fared less well on the test, were likely to file suit under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The test in question was one required to establish a qualifying ranking list of firelighters eligible for promotion within the New Haven fire department.

Consequently, the question asked of American Citizens, not of one class or another, but of all who are citizens, is whether or not the decision of the Supreme Court is fair in this case. One can easily and reasonably argue for either side without acknowledging prejudicial animus.

Moving on the question then, the Connecticut Post asks whether the ruling was correct. Justice Kennedy's argument for the majority opinion is that the City of New Haven only assumed that black firefighters would bring suit against the City, arguing that the test was biased in favor of white firefighters and therefore speculative and ipso facto without foundation.

In other words, New Haven had no challenge to the test from black firefighters and therefore acted prematurely and unnecessarily. Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion stressed that, in view of the paucity of black fireman in the officer ranks generally due to discrimination, there was ample reason for the City of New Haven to anticipate a suit and to therefore act proactively and throw out the test.

There ought to be little argument that the Supreme Court and its justices work within a politically striven climate of contending political forces and views. Every time the opportunity is given, the President in office to appoint his candidate to the Court, the debate is large and contentious from one side and then the other over the qualifications of the candidate. This contention is not new to recent history.

Nowadays, the qualifiers of sex and race given that the majority of the court has been white and male promises all kinds of future debates, only lessened slightly by the tenures of Justices Thurgood Marshall and Sandra Day O'Connor. It is not even likely that an appointee of the same stripes will vote the way strong political insight would have had the candidate vote once appointed. President Obama's first Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor is under attack for her Appeals Court concurring opinion in the New Haven Case that went for the city.

The question asked in this very public argument affecting citizens as firefighters is the reasonableness of New Haven's decision to throw out the test: Not the rights of white firefighters who scored better than their black firefighting brothers on a test, not the rights of black firefighters within the same New Haven fire department who did not score as well as the number of whites who scored better and higher.

Had Sotomayor been on the court, the balance between conservative and liberal justices on the court for this issue and the result would have been the same. President Obama has the opportunity within his remaining term if office to appoint another Supreme Court Justice who will revive the controversy of who rules the land in interpreting or applying the Constitution: a liberal court or a conservative court? In which case the New Haven case by another name bringing to the court a similar question, would rule in favor of a reversal of the New Haven decision and a whole lot more.

President Barak Obama is a Constitutional Lawyer. On this New Haven case, which of his many hats do you think he would have donned to rule in the New Haven case? Right. Wrong. Activist or strict Constitutionalist will not be decided in the any near term if ever.

I favor the activists as fundamentally and Constitutionally more democratic. However Associate Justice Arthur Kennedy, nominated by President Reagan, who has been a swing Justice, focused on the narrow question in this case: Did New Haven have justifiable reason to throw out the test, the core issue, in the New Haven firefighters case before the court? The decision by the City of New Haven was reasonably speculative but not good enough.

Learn more about this author, Gerard Coulombe.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.