Federal Courts and Nominations

Alito: The Chamber’s High Court Ringer?

 

Was the Citizens United case, in which the Supreme Court voted to allow unlimited corporate spending on elections, just an aberration? Or is the Roberts court really as pro-business as critics allege? Well, the Constitutional Accountability Center decided to test that thesis by examining the justices’ voting records in cases where the U.S Chamber of Commerce was a party or filed an amicus brief. On Wednesday, it released the results of its empirical study. As it turns out, the five-justice conservative majority ruled in the chamber’s favor in 64 percent of the cases, and even more often–71 percent–in the closely divided cases, which included Citizens United and the Lilly Ledbetter case involving gender discrimination.

 

By far the most reliable Chamber vote on the court turned out not to be the leading suspect, Chief Justice Roberts, but Justice Alito, who voted for the Chamber in 75 percent of the cases. Even more striking, however, is that in the most contested 5-4 cases, Alito never voted against the Chamber. He was the only justice with such a one-sided record. On the other end of the ideological spectrum, Justice John Paul Stevens rarely sided with the Chamber in the close cases, but overall still voted for business interests almost 40 percent of the time.

 

The CAC’s analysis didn’t include the court’s newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor, because of her short time on the court. But the group did find that in the seven business cases in which Sotomayor participated, she voted against the Chamber in five of them, more than any other member of the court. While CAC says the Sotomayor votes aren’t a statistically significant sample, they still contrast sharply with many liberal predictions last year that she would turn out to be a closet conservative. Her votes so far in the Chamber cases suggest she may prove more liberal than David Souter, the man she replaced, who tended to vote right down the middle, with 50 percent of his votes for the Chamber and 50 percent against.

 

 

Read the original article here.

More from Federal Courts and Nominations

Federal Courts and Nominations
January 17, 2024

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Sign-On Letter Prioritizing Diverse Judges

Dear Senator, On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the...
Federal Courts and Nominations
January 23, 2023

BLOG: How Do We Fix an Ailing Court? Lessons From Reconstruction

The Supreme Court is ailing, but you wouldn’t know it from Chief Justice Roberts’s 2022...
By: David H. Gans
Federal Courts and Nominations
November 30, 2022

RELEASE: How Do We Fix an Ailing Court? Reconstruction Provides Critical Lessons

WASHINGTON – Today, Constitutional Accountability Center is releasing new scholarship by CAC Civil Rights Director...
By: David H. Gans
Federal Courts and Nominations
November 29, 2022

ISSUE BRIEF: Court Reform and the Promise of Justice: Lessons from Reconstruction

Lewis and Clark Law Review, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2023 The Supreme Court is broken....
By: David H. Gans
Federal Courts and Nominations
August 15, 2022

BLOG: Building the Next Generation of Constitutional Progressives

This summer, CAC welcomed four interns to learn our method of understanding the progressive promise...
Federal Courts and Nominations
July 14, 2022

Supreme Court Review: The Future of Supreme Court

Host: NYCLA’s Civil Rights and Liberties Committee and NYCLA’s Supreme Court Reform Committee
Program Chair: Elliot Dolby Shields, Co-chair NYCLA’s Civil Rights Committee; Chair, NYCLA’s Supreme Court Reform...
Participants: David H. Gans, Elliot Dolby Shields, Amir Ali, Alicia Bannon, Katherine M. Franke, Rachel Rebouche