HOME > NEWS > NATIONAL NEWS
By: LOU CHIBBARO JR. and EARTHA JANE MELZE COMMENTS
 
Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. provided significant help to gay activists in a 1996 landmark Supreme Court case protecting gays from discrimination based upon their sexual orientation, the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday.
At the time, Roberts was a lawyer specializing in appellate work for Hogan & Hartson, a large D.C.-based law firm. Walter A. Smith Jr., then head of the pro bono department of the firm, told the paper that Roberts didn't hesitate. "He said, 'Let's do it.' And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job."
Roberts did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the Supreme Court, but he was instrumental in reviewing filings and preparing oral arguments, according to several lawyers intimately involved in the case, reported the Los Angeles Times.
Jean Dubofsky, the lead lawyer for the gay rights activists in the case that Roberts assisted, Romer vs. Evans, told the Los Angeles Times that Roberts gave her advice in two areas that were "absolutely critical."
In that decision, the court overturned a Colorado law that banned cities and towns within the state form adopting ordinances banning discrimination against gays in employment, housing and other areas.
"He said you have to be able to count and know where your votes are coming from. And the other was that you absolutely have to be on top of why and where and how the state court had ruled in this case," Dubofsky said.
Art Leonard, an openly gay law professor at New York Law School and frequent commentator on gay legal issues, told this publication, "… I think it is possible for a political conservative such as Roberts to have deemed it worth his time to help prepare the argument in Romer because the concept of Amendment 2 was offensive to him on general grounds.
"There is certainly a difference between striking down laws that impose second-class citizenship on a class of people and supporting more affirmative rights for such people, and I don't think a judge's position on one necessary predicts his position on the other.…"
Leonard said, "To sum up, I find today's news report comforting to the extent it indicates that Roberts is not reflexively anti-gay and probably holds views on gay issues more like those of Justice Kennedy than Chief Justice Rehnquist."
Gay advocacy groups have reacted unethusiastically to the revelation of Roberts' assistance in Romer vs. Evans.
Matt Foreman, the executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force told this publication, "All that that shows is that he is a good lawyer, it has nothing to do with his conservative ideology."
Kevin Cathcart, the executive director of Lambda Legal Education & Defense Fund, a gay legal advocacy group, stated in a news release Thursday, "Lawyers in firms are often called on to play roles to support their firm's work; the work is routine and as here, often goes without notice.
"This information, along with his much more extensive advocacy of positions that we oppose continues to raise significant questions for us."
But in an interview Thursay afternoon on National Public Radio, Smith said that Roberts was under no obligation to assist on the gay rights case and could have easily declined the matter.
Lambda Legal's director of education and public affairs, Michael Adams, told this publication that the story in the Los Angeles Times was the first that Lambda had heard about Roberts' involvement in Romer vs. Evans.
Joe Solomnese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy goup, also remains skeptical of Roberts.
"Judge Roberts' involvement in the case is noteworthy, but his participation adds little to our understanding of how he would vote on the court," said Solomnese in a news release. "The stakes are too high for guessing games over Judge Roberts' stance."
Documents released this week by the National Archives show that Judge John G. Roberts Jr., President Bush’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, expressed strong objections to the extent that the high court has recognized a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy.
According to the Washington Post, the documents show that Roberts drafted an article for then Attorney General William French Smith in 1981, which revealed Roberts’ skepticism of the Constitution’s so-called “right to privacy” doctrine. The court has invoked this doctrine in a number of landmark cases, including the 2003 decision in Lawrence vs. Texas, which overturned state sodomy laws.
“[T]he broad range of rights which are now alleged to be ‘fundamental’ by litigants, with only the most tenuous connection to the ...
| 
