The Honorable John Neeley Kennedy United States Senate 224 Dirksen

The Honorable John Neeley Kennedy The Honorable Bill Cassidy United States Senate United States Senate 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 152 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 201510 May 23, 2018 RE: LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW’S OPPOSITION TO WENDY VITTER’S CONFIRMATION AS DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Dear Senators Neeley Kennedy and Cassidy: The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law writes to express our strong opposition to the confirmation of Wendy Vitter to serve on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The Lawyers’ Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the private bar’s leadership and resources in combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity – work that continues to be vital nearly 55 years later. The mission of the Lawyers’ Committee is to secure equal justice for all through the rule of law targeting in particular inequities in criminal justice, employment, housing, and voting rights that confront African Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities. Federal courts occupy a central place in American democracy. For African Americans and other minority groups, the courts have been the primary forum for seeking equal justice under the law. For the last several decades, minority groups have looked to the federal judiciary to vindicate their constitutional and civil rights. The Lawyers’ Committee review of district judge nominee Wendy Vitter’s professional record found 1) Ms. Vitter’s omission of important information from her Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire raises serious concerns as to her integrity; 2) Ms. Vitter’s tenure at the New Orleans District Attorney’s Office indicates that she will exercise judicial discretion in a manner that will exacerbate racial inequities within the criminal justice system; and 3) Ms. Vitter’s refusal to say whether she agreed with the outcome of the landmark civil rights ruling Brown v. Board of Education during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee was an affront to longstanding – and broadly accepted -- civil rights principles. Based on her record, we are compelled to oppose the confirmation of Wendy Vitter to serve on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Ms. Vitter’s conduct throughout the confirmation process is deeply troubling. As a threshold matter, Ms. Vitter’s initial Senate Questionnaire failed to disclose several important speeches and publications. It was not until widespread media criticism for the omission of these documents that Ms. Vitter made a supplemental production of over 190 pages. The omitted materials were controversial in nature, hence Ms. Vitter’s failure to disclose appears to be a deliberate attempt to deceive the Senate Judiciary Committee and the public. Ms. Vitter’s tenure at the New Orleans District Attorney’s Office indicates that she will exercise judicial discretion in a manner that will exacerbate racial inequities within the criminal justice system. As a prosecutor, she consistently sought the harshest possible sentences1 and repeatedly issued statements to the media criticizing judges for what she argued were lenient sentences that led to repeat offenses and more crime.2 These beliefs are especially concerning because as a judge she will have a tremendous amount of discretion in sentencing. Studies show that the propensity to impose maximum sentences disproportionately impacts historically disenfranchised communities.3 In addition, Ms. Vitter’s tenure at the District Attorney’s Office also brings into question her ability to vigilantly monitor and punish prosecutorial misconduct. The District Attorney’s Office in New Orleans suffered from a pervasive culture of disregard for Brady obligations during Ms. Vitter’s tenure. As one Louisiana judge stated, “the behavior of the District Attorney’s Office (of which Ms. Vitter was Chief of Trials) was not a result of carelessness or laziness—it was “an active unwillingness to follow the rule of law.”4 Given this track record, it is not likely Ms. Vitter would actively police and, when appropriate, penalize prosecutors for failing to make Brady disclosures or for otherwise engaging in wrongful conduct. During her April 11, 2018, confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Ms. Vitter refused to state whether she believed that the Supreme Court had properly decided the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education: Sen. Blumenthal: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Vitter, do you believe that Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided? Ms. Vitter: Senator, I don’t mean to be coy, but I think I get into a difficult, uh, different, difficult area when I start commenting on Supreme Court decisions which are correctly decided and which I may 1 See Criminal Court Judge Has Big Gavel, THE NEW ORLEANS TIMES-PICAYUNE, May 29, 1996, at A6. 2 See Criminal Court Judge Has Big Gavel, THE NEW ORLEANS TIMES-PICAYUNE, May 29, 1996, at A6. 3 See Written Submission of the American Civil Liberties Union on Racial Disparities in Sentencing, Hearing on Reports of Racism in the Justice System of the United States, 153rd Session of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Oct. 27, 2014, available at https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/141027_iachr_racial_disparities_aclu_submission_0.pDf. 4 See Criminal Court Judge Has Big Gavel, THE NEW ORLEANS TIMES-PICAYUNE, May 29, 1996, at A6. disagree with. Again, my personal political or religious views I would set aside. This is Supreme Court precedent. It is binding, if I were honored to be confirmed, I would be bound by it and of course, I would uphold it. Sen. Blumenthal: Do you believe it was correctly decided? Ms. Vitter: And again, I would respectfully not comment on what could be my boss’ ruling, the Supreme Court. I would be bound by it and if I start commenting on I agree with this case, don’t agree with this case, I think we get into a slippery slope. I would be, if I’m honored to be confirmed, I would be bound by Supreme Court precedent and that’s what I would follow and Fifth Circuit precedent.5 Brown v. Board of Education was one of the most important decisions of the Supreme Court in the 20th century. In its unanimous decision delivered nearly 65 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled to strike down the doctrine of "separate but equal," agreeing that it denied African Americans their 14th Amendment guarantees of equal protection under the law. The Brown decision is a testament to the power of the judiciary in recognizing and protecting the rights of every American. Ms. Vitter’s nomination undermines not only principles laid out by this decision, but also the integrity of the confirmation process. For all of these reasons, we strongly oppose this nomination. Sincerely, Kristen Clarke President and Executive Director Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 5 Nominations Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, 115th Cong. (2018). Portions of Ms. Vitter’s testimony are available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfT5OB6Wj_Y. Unless otherwise noteD, the facts in this section are taken from this testimony. .

Load more