The National Organization for Women Urges Defeat of Thomas Griffith for U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

March 10, 2005

In yet another assault on women's equality, our so-called "education president" George W. Bush has re-nominated Thomas Griffith, an outspoken opponent of Title IX educational equity, for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. And to further the right-wing's goal of dismantling federal civil rights protection and remake the federal judiciary, the so-called "values president" has decided to overlook Griffith's professional ethical lapses—he nominated this man to the second highest court in the land despite the fact that Griffith has practiced law without a valid license in two jurisdictions.

The Bush administration's initial attack on Title IX—a landmark federal civil rights bill which aims to secure equality for women in education and in athletic opportunity—failed when the Secretary of Education's Commission on Opportunity in Athletics in 2003 declined to erode its protections. Rather than accept defeat, the Bush administration is now trying to dismantle the bill's protections through the nomination of a member of the Commission who exhibited blatant hostility to the concept of equality for women in school athletics. When Thomas Griffith served on the commission, not only did he join a number of the commission's recommendations to erode Title IX protections, but he actually proposed a change which was so extreme that the commission overwhelmingly rejected it.

Griffith's views, as reflected in his Title IX proposal, show a cavalier attitude toward judicial precedent, as all federal courts which considered the act's protections have upheld them as constitutional. When confronted with these court cases, Mr. Griffith responded that "the courts got it wrong" and that "I for one don't believe in the infallibility of the judiciary."

This administration's casual attitude toward fundamental legal principles is displayed with the very nomination of a man who ignored his profession's registration requirements and practiced law in the District of Columbia and the state of Utah without a valid license. NOW questions why this fact alone is not a disqualification for judicial appointment—as one would expect lifetime appointments to the federal bench to at least be awarded to attorneys in good standing with the bar associations of the states in which they have resided.

At a minimum, to qualify for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench, a judicial nominee should demonstrate a commitment to established principles of equal rights and be an attorney of unassailable professional ethics. Mr. Griffith's disregard of fundamental professional ethical requirements, as well as his disrespect for the rule of law renders him unqualified to be a Court of Appeals judge. We urge the Senate to decisively reject his nomination.