Day of argument, analysis and action on the Voting Rights Act

Today the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a challenge to a crucial provision of the Voting Rights Act.  AFJ is ready:

• We'll be at a mass rally in front of the court to support the Voting Rights Act. We hope you’ll join us.
• AFJ President Nan Aron will be speaking at the rally. Check back here at 10:30 a.m. for the text of her remarks.
• Later this afternoon, four legal scholars will provide comprehensive analysis of the arguments here at Justice Watch.
• On Friday, when the Supreme Court releases audio of the arguments, we'll add excerpts.

Read more about the Voting Rights Act on our website here.

Unanimous Supreme Court Limits Awarding of Attorney’s Fees to Defendants Accused of Civil Rights Violations

Today the Supreme Court unanimously held in Fox v. Vice that a court may grant reasonable attorney’s fees to a civil rights defendant, but only for costs that the defendant would not have incurred without claims deemed frivolous.

Ricky Fox, a candidate for police chief in Vinton, Louisiana, was the victim of an extortion plot engineered by the incumbent chief. The incumbent was convicted of criminal extortion as a result of the plot. Fox sued the incumbent in a state court for federal civil rights violations and related claims based on state law. The Fifth Circuit deemed Fox’s federal claims to be frivolous but did not address the merits of his state claims. The court also ordered Fox to pay all of the convicted extortionist’s legal fees based on a federal statute allowing the court to order payment of fees to the successful party when a claim is deemed frivolous. Fox argued that the court could not award the defendant all of his attorney’s fees when only federal claims are deemed frivolous but state claims requiring an examination of the same facts are not.

The Court, in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Kagan, stated that, “if a frivolous claim occasioned the attorney’s fees at issue, a court may decide that the defendant should not have to pay them.” However, the opinion added that, “if the defendant would have incurred those fees anyway, to defend against non-frivolous claims, then a court has no basis for transferring the expense to the plaintiff.” The Court opposed a fee-shifting system that would allow a defendant to recover all attorneys’ fees when only some claims were deemed frivolous because it “would furnish windfalls to some defendants, making them better off because they were subject to a suit including frivolous claims.” Though it will be for lower courts to decide the breakdown, the Court noted that the district court’s analysis suggested that Vice’s attorneys would have done much the same work even if Fox had not brought the federal civil rights claims that were deemed frivolous.

As a result of this ruling, victims of civil rights violations will be less intimidated by the prospect of suing the perpetrators of those violations because victims will be less likely to be saddled with the perpetrators’ attorney’s fees in addition to their own.

Alliance for Justice Submits Testimony on Muslim Civil Rights

The following testimony was submitted to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights:

Alliance for Justice is a national association of over 100 organizations dedicated to advancing justice and democracy. We have an unshakable belief in the right of all Americans to practice their religion without interference and that no citizen should ever be afraid to worship, establish religious communities, or speak openly about their religious precepts. Efforts to broadly demonize the Muslim religion or its adherents are contrary to the most fundamental principles that undergird our nation’s values and our Constitution, which guarantees to all Americans an inalienable right to freedom of religion, speech, and peaceable assembly.

It is deeply disturbing to see individuals, organizations, and members of the media intentionally advance bigotry and promote intolerant acts against Muslims, but it is unconscionable for those holding public office to participate in such efforts. Recent efforts by members of Congress to denigrate an entire group of citizens by tarring them as radicals, extremists, or terrorist sympathizers, should not go unanswered and today’s hearings are a welcome and hopeful sign that our nation has not forgotten its foundational principles.

When any group is singled out for persecution or investigation, based on nothing more than its religious affiliation, we all lose a measure of our own liberty. The fabric of our free society is eroded when all Muslims are painted as terrorists or potential criminals, despite clear evidence to the contrary, and in spite of the unambiguous message from law enforcement agencies that American Muslims have been active and willing partners in the effort to protect the nation from terrorist attacks. The notion of collective guilt is utterly anathema to American principles and must be rejected without equivocation.

Nothing could do more damage to our ability to protect ourselves from violence than to cut off from American life the very people whose cooperation is desired to help identify those who mean us harm. Our strength as a nation comes from our diversity and from a belief in a common destiny. Scapegoating the entire Muslim community for the acts of a few and directing unremitting hate speech at Muslim beliefs and institutions only serves to create a gulf that divides neighbor from neighbor and weakens the fabric of our society at a time when unity is essential.

The subcommittee and Chairman Durbin are to be commended for standing forthrightly for religious freedom, and reminding us that we are one people untied by a shared belief in tolerance, diversity, and liberty.

Supreme Court Arguments Address Attorney’s Fees in Civil Rights Cases

Today the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Fox v. Vice, a case with important implications for victims of civil rights violations. At stake in this case is the balance between allowing people whose civil rights are violated to seek justice in court, and protecting defendants when suits are deemed frivolous. The Court must determine whether a plaintiff in a civil rights action must pay federal statutory attorney’s fees when the plaintiff’s federal claims are deemed frivolous but the state claims are not.

Ricky Fox, a candidate for police chief in Vinton, Louisiana, was the victim of an extortion plot engineered by the incumbent chief. The incumbent was convicted of criminal extortion as a result of the plot. Fox sued the chief in a state court for federal civil rights violations and related claims based on state law. The Fifth Circuit deemed Fox’s federal claims to be frivolous but did not address the merits of his state claims. The court also ordered Fox to pay all of the convicted extortionist’s legal fees based on a federal statute allowing the payment of fees to the successful party when a claim is deemed frivolous. Fox argues that the court could not award the defendant all of his attorney’s fees when only federal claims are deemed frivolous but state claims requiring an examination of the same facts are not.

Billy Vice, the incumbent police chief who won the attorney fees at issue in this case, died on August 26, 2010. The Supreme Court determined that the case could go forward with Vice’s estate replacing him as a party to the case.

If the Supreme Court sides with the defendant, victims of civil rights violations could become reluctant to sue because they risk being saddled with their opponent’s attorney’s fees in addition to their own.

The Waiting Is the Hardest Part

Crucial Justice Department nominations are still being held up in the Senate.

Dawn Johnsen, nominated to head the Office of Legal Counsel, and Tom Perez, whom the president picked to lead the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, have been waiting for many months to be confirmed. Seven and five months, respectively. The last action on Johnsen's nomination occurred on March 19 and the last action for Perez on June 4. Both were placed on the executive calendar, but Republicans are obstructing the much-needed restoration of the DOJ’s role as a guardian of civil rights and liberties.

While there may be a vote on the Perez nomination as early as later next week, nothing is certain, and we need to keep up the pressure on all senators – with the message that these are vital positions that need to be filled. There is no reason to object to or obstruct the confirmation process of these highly qualified nominees.

Call your senators now and urge them to do all they can to help confirm Dawn Johnsen and Tom Perez. Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121, ask to be connected with your senators’ offices, and tell them it is time to put an end to the partisan games.

The Justice Department was severely damaged during the Bush administration and the leadership of Dawn Johnsen and Tom Perez in two of its most important offices will help get it back on track defending our rights and liberties [not sure if I missed this in the original, but there shouldn't be a colon here] .

Call now. And ask others to do the same.

Sotomayor Shows Precision in Areas of Civil Rights and Constitutional Protections

Today, Alliance for Justice released the last in a series of in-depth reports examining the record of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. During a press briefing on the report, Vanderbilt Associate Law Professor and Hispanics for a Fair Judiciary member Terry Maroney summed up Sotomayor’s style by stating, “What comes through loud and clear is that she takes a scalpel approach rather than a hammer approach resulting in absolute precision.” Speaking about the recently decided Ricci case, AFJ Legal Director Bill Yeomans clarified that “the Supreme Court decision in Ricci created a new standard that Sotomayor could not have applied previously as a circuit court judge.”

Over the last month, AFJ has released a new report each week, providing thorough analysis of key areas of Judge Sotomayor’s record. You can read all of the reports on our Supreme Court Watch page. This final report focuses on civil rights and constitutional protections, finding that similar to the rest of her record Sotomayor is “a model of judicial restraint, acutely and openly conscious of the limits imposed by her role as a judge.”