By: Mark Glennon*
Three federal judges in Illinois have standing orders for their courtrooms allowing extra time for oral arguments only for young lawyers who are either female or minority. The orders have drawn complaints as being reverse discrimination for oral arguments.
The nearly identical orders, each titled “Increasing Opportunities for Courtroom Advocacy,” say a party, as part of its request for oral arguments, may alert the court that it intends to have a “newer, female, or minority attorney” handle the argument.
If that request is made, there’s little room for discretion and the orders are at least partially mandatory. The orders say “the Court will:
- Grant the request for oral argument on the motion if it is at all practicable to do so.
- Strongly consider allocating additional time for oral argument beyond what the Court may otherwise have allocated were a female, or minority attorney not arguing the motion. [Emphasis added.]
What’s the presumption made by these three judges about young female or minority lawyers? It’s beyond the “soft bigotry of low expectations” – a phrase we now hear often. It’s the hard bigotry of firm assumptions of inferiority.
Imagine watching a case important to you and seeing extra time given to the other side based on age, gender or race, regardless of their ability.
Imagine being a nervous, young lawyer getting less time than your opponent because you’re a white male.
And imagine the particular irony if the case itself is about affirmative action and a young female or minority lawyer represents the defense. These judges would reverse discriminate in their procedure for reviewing alleged illegal reverse discrimination.
Hopefully, anybody with no more than a high school understanding of how American courts are supposed to work would ask, “What happened to equality under the law? That’s the primary basis of a complaint about the orders filed last month by America Legal First, saying the rules constitute judicial misconduct because they unlawfully discriminate, evidence judicial bias, undermine faith in the judiciary’s integrity, and violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.
That complaint was filed with the Chief Judge of the Seventh Circuit, in which the three Illinois judges sit. Text of the three standing orders are attached to it.
Similar concerns were expressed by U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee members Ted Cruz and John Kennedy in a letter to the Chief Judge.
The three Illinois judges are David Dugan, Nancy Rosenstengel and Staci Yandle and, each in the Southern District of Illinois. No word yet on any response to the complaints.
*Mark Glennon is founder of Wirepoints.
Audio and summary 
If this bill passes, say goodbye to local control over all Illinois parks and expect to see open drug and alcohol use, needles, no sanitation and fire hazards, but no ordinary park users.
Hmm, do they give extra time to repeat offenders too?
I wonder if these rules will result in defendants who have lost a case making an appeal based on inadequate representation by counsel. Sure seems that these judges think some attorneys san’t pull their own weight.
I would sure think that anybody who lost a case where they got less time would have a shot at getting a reversal on some ground.
I was among those nervous, young, white guys in court not that horribly long ago. I’d have truly been in disbelief had a judge said I’d get less time because of my race and sex. What happened to America?
Specifically? Or generally? Because generally, this. We are in the “Good Time Create Weak Men” stage of the turning. We are now entering the fourth turning…
While I think that these 3 judges have supported a completely inappropriate policy, perhaps what they are really saying is that oral arguments don;t really matter anyway. Thus, they think that this policy makes them look “politically correct”. Boulderdash! These judges need their heads examined!
They need to be removed from the bench!
I’ll go ahead and jump to conclusion – will the court show likewise bias in it’s ruling? I say absolutely – ‘wins’ need to be handed to the minority represented side for equity.
The three judges should be ruled non
Compos mentus
Done
At least they’re honest.
HONEST? This has nothing to do with honesty. It simply has to do with stupidity!
This calls into question the competency of these 3 judges…
How can they be viewed as neutral arbiters when, before a case is even heard, they have shown their obvious bias…?
This ‘should be’ a slam dunk win for America Legal First, and for us law abiding, justice seeking citizens…
But I won’t hold my breath…
I am deeply disturbed that the same courtesy is not extended to fellow transgender and non-binary lawyers. This is anti-LGBTQ+ on its face and the judges have no right to sit on the bench while showing blatant hatred and discrimination.
Sanity has left the building.
Yes, these orders seem to be blatantly discriminatory on the basis of sex and race.