WASHINGTON, July 2 (UPI) -- House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., wants to know how the judges who heard the appeal on the University of Michigan's affirmative action policy were chosen.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the University of Michigan law school's admissions policy, saying race can be a determining factor in determining whether a candidate will be admitted. The court said the school had a compelling interest to create a diverse student body, reversing a lower court decision. The case now is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court.
The committee confirmed Tuesday that Sensenbrenner sent a letter to Chief Appellate Judge Boyce Martin, seeking court documents to determine whether judicial misconduct was committed in the way judges were chosen to hear the case.
The decision was handed down May 14, amid allegations from one of the dissenting judges, Danny Boggs, that Martin delayed the case until two of the Republican-appointed judges who would have been part of the en banc panel had taken senior status.
"The participation of those judges (who went on senior status) on the panel could have reversed the outcome of the case," Sensenbrenner wrote in the letter, which demands the documents by July 12.
Another member of the panel, Judge Karen Nelson rejected Boggs' charges, stating in her concurring opinion that even if the case had been heard immediately, "the case would have been heard by the same en banc court that, in fact, heard it on Dec. 6, 2001."
Citing the appendix to Boggs' dissent, Sensenbrenner said it appeared Martin substituted himself for another judge, who should have been chosen randomly.
Sensenbrenner sent his letter June 26. Committee spokesman Jeff Lungren said the letter was one of several letters sent as part of the panel's oversight of the administrative functions of the courts.
"In light of the committee's jurisdiction ... I am compelled to review credible evidence of judicial misconduct," Sensenbrenner wrote. "Published judicial decisions, such as Judge Boggs' dissent, describing a failure to comply with the rules of the court, raise serious questions for this committee to consider."
Among the documents Sensenbrenner requested are the petition for the en banc hearing, the order deferring consideration and the order scheduling oral arguments. He also is seeking "all records referring or relating to any communications between you and the clerk regarding the case, including any records referring or relating to any decision about the handling of the case," along with any records of communications among members of the court.
