October 31, 2013
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit just chastised Shira Scheindlin, the trial judge in the case challenging the constitutionality of the N.Y.P.D.’s stop-and-frisk policy, for speaking out about the issue while the trial was going on. In a ruling today, the appeals court said Scheindlin’s statements suggested that her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” As a result, all further proceedings in the case, in which Scheindlin found that that city residents’ rights had been violated, will be transferred to another trial judge. The appeals court, in a footnote, in particular cited Scheindlin’s statements to me in a piece for The New Yorker, as well as to the AP and the New York Law Journal. (I have some familiarity with this sort of thing. )
This is preposterous. The Second Circuit took
this action on its own, without even a request from the city (the
defendant in the case). Apparently, it took the view that there had been
such an egregious violation of the rules of judicial conduct that the
court had to act on its own—sua sponte, as the lawyers say. It also stayed Scheindlin’s rulings aimed at reforming stop-and-frisk.
Scheindlin did nothing wrong. She talked about her judicial career and her history on the bench in a way that illuminated the work that all judges do. In my experience, it’s a common complaint from judges that the public doesn’t understand their work, and doesn’t care about what they do. Scheindlin’s conduct in this case exemplified the independent tradition of the judiciary. She should be honored for it, not scolded.
“Too many judges, especially because so many of our judges come out of that office, become government judges,” Scheindlin told me—one of the quotations that appeared in the piece. “I don’t think I’m the favorite of the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District. Because I’m independent. I believe in the Constitution. I believe in the Bill of Rights. These issues come up, and I take them quite seriously. I’m not afraid to rule against the government.”
In a final irony, the resolution of the case may not matter much anymore. Bill de Blasio will be mayor soon, and he has vowed repeatedly to change the N.Y.P.D.’s stop-and-frisk policy anyway. The appeals-court judges can take the case away from Scheindlin, but they can’t take the mayoralty from de Blasio.
Illustration by Elizabeth Williams/AP.
Scheindlin did nothing wrong. She talked about her judicial career and her history on the bench in a way that illuminated the work that all judges do. In my experience, it’s a common complaint from judges that the public doesn’t understand their work, and doesn’t care about what they do. Scheindlin’s conduct in this case exemplified the independent tradition of the judiciary. She should be honored for it, not scolded.
“Too many judges, especially because so many of our judges come out of that office, become government judges,” Scheindlin told me—one of the quotations that appeared in the piece. “I don’t think I’m the favorite of the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District. Because I’m independent. I believe in the Constitution. I believe in the Bill of Rights. These issues come up, and I take them quite seriously. I’m not afraid to rule against the government.”
In a final irony, the resolution of the case may not matter much anymore. Bill de Blasio will be mayor soon, and he has vowed repeatedly to change the N.Y.P.D.’s stop-and-frisk policy anyway. The appeals-court judges can take the case away from Scheindlin, but they can’t take the mayoralty from de Blasio.
Illustration by Elizabeth Williams/AP.
No comments:
Post a Comment