In initial reviews of Sotomayor’s court record, a trend emerges: many of her questionable court decisions have been made per curiam, or, as part of an unsigned decision made by a group of judges, while the decisions she signs her name to are relatively unremarkable.
It’s not a unique trend, and only a moderately useful lens through which to view her judicial record. It’s usually difficult to tell why a decision is authored per curiam, because one court may use the method frequently to write its decisions, while another never uses it. Furthermore, the decision to issue a ruling in this manner may be made by any judge who is working with her – so Sotomayor is not necessarily responsible.
Still, as part of per curiam decisions, Sotomayor supported a bizarre notion of eminent domain in which a politically connected developer extorted a land owner in New York after the land owner refused to give him a stake in the property. The day after the refusal, the land was condemned by the city.
She also held that the Second Amendment is inapplicable to states. According to her, if a state denies the right of its constituents to own guns, as is guaranteed by the Constitution, the Supreme Court cannot overturn that decision. Sotomayor is one of only three judges in America to hold this opinion, though again, she did not sign it.
These cases, along with her ducking the issue of reverse discrimination with New York firefighters in the massively-reported Ricci v. Destafano, provide a sharp contrast to what could be considered her more important individual court cases, which are comparatively tame.
Some, such as Amnesty America v. Town of West Hartford, could be considered anti-law enforcement, though not egregiously so. In that case, she was the sole author of an opinion that faulted police officers for not training well enough when they were managing a demonstration. In U.S. v. Cavera, she ruled against giving a trial judge more discretion in deciding a case, in contrast to a trend that gave judges more liberties in deciding cases based on individual circumstances.
In another case, Sotomayor wanted to hold corporations liable for regulations that previously only applied to federal agencies. If federal agents violate a version of constitutional law, the person affected can be eligible for compensation. The Constitution usually only applies to the government, so this standard did not affect private entities. Sotomayor’s ruling sought to change that, but she was overturned by the Supreme Court.
Healthcare Solutions Begin with Innovators in Tennessee, Not Bureaucrats in Washington, DC | Marsha Blackburn