You can’t choose your family. Whether they came from the small Mexican town of Mascota or the German village of Kallstadt, you’re pretty much stuck with them, like it or not.
The same could be said about the federal judge presiding over your lawsuit – as presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is slowly finding out. Last week, Trump offended Americans across the nation as he openly rejected the notion that an American-born judge could impartially preside over a lawsuit involving Trump University.
Apparently, according to Trump, the simple fact that Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s parents emigrated here from Mexico was an “inherent conflict of interest” in the case. Asked to further clarify how that would be possible, Trump responded, “I’m building a wall.”
Really, he’s digging more of a hole. This weekend, when he was asked if his newly formed no-Mexican-judges rule applied to others, like Muslim American judges, Trump responded in the affirmative. Taken to its logical extreme, it seems Trump would seek to disqualify any judge from a background he’s explicitly insulted in the last year from the judiciary. This would include Hispanics, Muslims, women, the disabled, followers of Pope Francis and the people of the state of Iowa.
Given the small number of Hispanic federal district court judges across the nation, the odds that Trump would draw a Hispanic judge were slight. On the other hand, the odds of a Hispanic litigant drawing a non-Hispanic judge are overwhelming. Welcome to our world, Donald Trump. You get what you get, and no amount of whining is going to change that. In fact, in most cases, the more you openly whine about your judge, the less likely you are to curry favor. That’s why most litigants exercise more restraint than Mr Trump. It’s just common sense.
While the numbers have certainly improved over the last couple of decades, diversity on the federal bench still lags behind the diversity of the American people. People of color represent 38% of the US population, but only 21% of sitting judges on the federal bench (commonly known as Article III courts). Women are 51% of the US population, and yet they only fill 25% of the judgeship positions at the federal district, appellate and supreme court levels.
For organizations like the Hispanic National Bar Association, judicial diversity is a vital civil rights issue, not only because it would enhance a court’s understanding of the real-world consequences of their decisions, but also because it would assure the American people that our system of justice is indeed fair and impartial.
So we’ve spoken out against Trump’s words – not because we’re particularly invested in his legal troubles, or because Judge Curiel is ethically prohibited from defending himself. Having faced down death threats from a Mexican drug cartel during his days as a federal prosecutor, we’re sure a little bombastic criticism from a presidential candidate won’t faze Judge Curiel. We have spoken out because Trump’s attack on Judge Curiel is an attack on all of the honorable diverse judges who serve our nation.
Whether or not Trump wins in November, he will still have a strong base of followers, and what he says about our judicial system will have a lasting impact on public opinion and confidence in that system. We face a dismal future if we are led to believe that judges who don’t look like us cannot be impartial. That is a proposition that each and every one of us should reject on its face. That is not what America is about.
The United States of America is a country rich in diversity, and the richness of that diversity permeates every level of society, including the esteemed federal judiciary. It is something that we celebrate. It is not something that we reject, Mr Trump. If you want to make sure your lawsuits are only heard by judges who look like you, you are living in the wrong country. We’re headed in a different direction.
