Nominees refuse to endorse Brown v. Board of Education

The Trump administration continues to pack the federal bench with jurists that have raised serious concerns among the civil and human rights community due to their lack of qualifications for the federal bench, questionable legal experience, and record of disturbing discriminatory actions and statements. As we pause to commemorate the 64th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, a watershed milestone in the struggle for racial justice and equality in the United States, we must remain vigilant against attempts to erode the progress that has been made.

The Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Brown banned racial segregation in public schools and redefined racial equality in the eyes of the law. However, on May 17, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Wendy Vitter and Andrew Oldham, two judicial nominees who refused to endorse the landmark ruling in Brown during their confirmation hearings. The confirmation of these nominees would be a tremendous blow to the legacy of this crucial case, which has touched the lives of every single American.

The unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court on this day in 1954 was that racial segregation in our schools has no place in our children's lives or our Constitution. This decision made clear what should have been self-evident from the promise of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

Separate but equal is inherently unequal.

It should be unquestionable for any legitimate lawyer or judicial nominee to our nation's highest courts that the Brown decision was correctly decided then, now or ever. As the first person in my family to go to college, I was inspired to go to law school in large part due to the Civil Rights Movement, the lawyers who litigated this case, and the Brown decision. It is absolutely unacceptable and quite frankly disrespectful that these judicial nominees have refused to endorse or affirm this landmark Supreme Court decision that helped to make my legal education possible.

Wendy Vitter, 56, has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. She currently serves as an attorney for the Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans and is the wife of former Sen. David Vitter, R-La. Her record is deeply troubling. She has repeatedly and vehemently stated her opposition to the reproductive rights of women and to the civil rights of LGBT Americans. She has stated that Planned Parenthood kills 150,000 females a year. With a legal career spanning decades, she has only tried one federal case, Demoran v. Champion Offshore Boat Services, in U.S. District Court in New Orleans, 25 years ago.

Andrew S. Oldham, 39, has been nominated to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He currently serves as general counsel to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican. Oldham lacks sufficient legal experience to be nominated to one of our nation's highest courts. In fact, according to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200 national organizations committed to promoting and protecting the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States, Oldham is one of the youngest people ever nominated for a federal circuit court judgeship.

The American Bar Association recommends that judicial nominees to the federal bench have at least 12 years of legal experience in the practice of law before being nominated to the federal bench. Judicial nominees should possess fair-mindedness, integrity, professional competence, the proper judicial temperament, and freedom from bias and a commitment to equal justice under the law to be elevated to the federal bench. Oldham barely cleared the American Bar Association's minimum years of practice standard to be rated qualified. Nevertheless, only 13 years into his practice, Oldham has established a troubling record of litigating conservative cases and has already done significant damage to civil and human rights during his short legal career. He has litigated cases to restrict voting rights, immigrant rights, women's health, environmental protections and gun safety.

The federal courts play a critical role in our justice system. Throughout the nation's history, the U.S. federal courts have played important roles in bringing about major societal changes involving issues ranging from civil rights to freedom of speech. No matter the issue -- whether it's marriage equality, voting rights, health care or immigration -- the federal courts play a vital and critical role in the lives of all Americans. Furthermore, federal judges have lifetime appointments and hear more cases than their counterparts on the Supreme Court.

As the only African-American male in my first year law school cohort at UC Hastings College of the Law, I can personally attest to the importance of diversity in the legal community. With the nomination of judicial candidates such as Wendy Vitter and Andrew Oldham the Trump administration has continuously demonstrated a troubling disregard to diversifying the federal bench. So far, Trump has only nominated one African-American judicial nominee of the 103 Article III judicial nominations that he has made.

Established in 1816 as one of the original standing committees in the U.S. Senate, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary is arguably the most influential committee in Congress. The judicial nominees that they confirm to seats on the federal bench have the power to issue opinions that impact generations. The committee's broad legislative jurisdiction assures its role as an impactful forum for the public discussion of pressing social and constitutional issues.

The committee is also responsible for providing oversight over critical executive branch activities and is responsible for the initial stages of the confirmation process of all judicial nominations for the federal judiciary. It is completely unacceptable and inappropriate that the Senate continues to elevate these patently unqualified judicial nominees to our nation's highest courts.

Despite the tremendous progress that has been made to close the achievement gap among African-American and white students much work remains to be done to ensure that all African-American students receive the quality education that they deserve. We must continue to make progress in improving and investing in our public schools and ensuring that all students are adequately prepared to join the 21st century workforce, especially those who are most marginalized. Confirmation of judicial nominees like Vitter and Oldham pose a serious threat to our nation's civil rights laws, democratic norms, the principles of equality, and the rule of law.