Roberts’ Participation in Guantanamo Case Raises Concern

Roberts’ Participation in Guantanamo Case Raises Concern

Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts heard arguments last April in a case dealing with the constitutionality of the Bush administration’s military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba during the same period he was talking with the White House about a possible court appointment. On July 15, Judge Roberts interviewed with the White House for the job, and on the same day, he ruled in favor of the Bush administration in the tribunal case. Many unanswered questions about Judge Roberts’ participation in the case remain.

• Judge Roberts must tell Americans why it was appropriate for him to participate in a case involving the Bush administration while he was interviewing for a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Yesterday Sens. Chuck Shumer (D-NY) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) wrote Roberts and asked him about his decision to remain on the case. Key unanswered questions include: "Prior to your nomination, did you conduct research or receive advice on the propriety of continuing to be part of the panel in Hamadan? After you nomination, have you discussed the propriety of your decision not to recuse yourself from the Hamadan case with anyone?"
  
  
• Judge Roberts recused himself from an earlier case when his participation was in direct conflict with his pursuit of future employment. In 1986, when John Roberts was working in the White House Counsel's Office for President Reagan, he was asked to review a mundane request by attorney Lester Hyman asking the counsel's office to contact a federal agency on behalf of a charity called "Save the Children." Roberts replied "I must recuse myself from this matter, in light of pending discussions with Mr. Hyman's firm about future employment." The memo clearly demonstrates that Roberts understands it is unethical to make professional decisions that impact a prospective employer.
  
  
• Senators should demand clear answers from Judge Roberts before voting on his nomination. Impartiality and fairness are hallmarks of the American judicial system. Without assurances that our judges are acting above board, and in the public’s interest rather than that of any one individual or group, the legitimacy of our legal system is threatened. Judge Roberts has a duty to provide Americans with a solid explanation for how his participation adhered to basic judicial ethics.