Let us regain the understanding that law is to do Justice.

There are many, many changes I’d like to see the Obama administration implement and encourage in the law, and today’s collective effort to comment on our hopes for the new administration in each of our respective areas of expertise will spur me to address many of these specific matters in the coming days and weeks.  But for today, I would like to address a topic particularly dear to my heart: the art of legal interpretation.

Over the last 30 years or so, there has been a relentless drumbeat from the right attacking judges deemed too liberal for being too “activist,” for “making” law, not merely applying it.  The judges we need, it’s been said, are “strict constructionists” who apply the law “as it is written,” not as the particular judge might wish it to be.

This rhetoric has obscured what judging is.  It is not a controversial proposition to state that interpretation of legal language is not merely a matter of applying words to facts.  Words are too ambiguous, and the world is so complex that the legislators who write the words of statutes cannot possibly foresee every possible situation to which the statutes will apply.  Judges, thus, must make judgments.  Judgments require weighing different possible interpretations and different possible implications and different possible intentions.

Worst of all, however, I fear we’ve lost sight of the fact that judges are part of a justice system.  Their efforts to properly interpret and apply the law should always be guided by the effort to achieve justice.

We’ve lost sight of the fact that judges are people whose judment we must trust to do justice.  As Euripides put it, you must “judge a tree from its fruit, not from its leaves.”

The infamous Lily Ledbetter case is a perfect example of what has gone wrong.  As Gail Collins recently summed up the facts of the case:

Ledbetter, now 70, spent years working as a plant supervisor at a tire factory in Alabama. How, when she neared retirement, someone slipped her a pay schedule that showed her male colleagues were making much more money than she was. A jury found her employer, the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, to be really, really guilty of pay discrimination. But the Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 decision led by the Bush appointees, threw out Ledbetter’s case, ruling that she should have filed her suit within 180 days of the first time Goodyear paid her less than her peers. (Let us pause briefly to contemplate the chances of figuring out your co-workers’ salaries within the first six months on the job.) Until the Supreme Court stepped in, courts generally presumed that the 180-day time limit began the last time an employee got a discriminatory pay check, not the first.

The operative language of the statute provided that “A charge under this section shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.”  Interpretation of a statute is typcially described as an effort to determine the intent of the legislature that passed the statute.  Could Congress have intended to outlaw discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and yet have provided that someone who could not have found out about a discriminatory decision until long after it had intitially been made could not recover.  Such an interpretation seems absurd.  Thus, it is no surprise that prior to the Supreme Court’s decision courts had typically held that each new paycheck for an amount less than it would have been in the absence of the discrimination constituted an “alleged unlawful employment practice.”  Thus, the employee could sue for disrimination within 180 days after the most recent pay check that resulted from the discrimination.

These decisions made perfect sense.  As I said, it would be absurd to believe Congress intended people like Lily Ledbetter, who had no knowledge until she neared retirement that her pay was lower than that of her male colleagues merely because she is a woman, should not have an opportunity to sue over that unlawful discrimination.

Yet, “Justice” Alito held that that absurdity was precisely what the statute required the Court to find.  As Justice Ginsburg explained , joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer in her dissenting opinion, Alito’s reading was a “cramped” one that flew in the face of what Congress plainly had intended:

[U]nder the Court’s decision, the discrimination Ledbetter proved is not redressable under Title VII. Each and every pay decision she did not immediately challenge wiped the slate clean. Consideration may not be given to the cumulative effect of a series of decisions that, together, set her pay well below that of every male area manager. Knowingly carrying past pay discrimination forward must be treated as lawful conduct. Ledbetter may not be compensated for the lower pay she was in fact receiving when she complained to the EEOC. Nor, were she still employed by Goodyear, could she gain, on the proof she presented at trial, injunctive relief requiring, prospectively, her receipt of the same compensation men receive for substantially similar work. The Court’s approbation of these consequences is totally at odds with the robust protection against workplace discrimination Congress intended Title VII to secure. See, e.g., Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S., at 348 (“The primary purpose of Title VII was to assure equality of employment opportunities and to eliminate … discriminatory practices and devices … .” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 418 (1975) (“It is … the purpose of Title VII to make persons whole for injuries suffered on account of unlawful employment discrimination.”).

This is not the first time the Court has ordered a cramped interpretation of Title VII, incompatible with the statute’s broad remedial purpose. See . . . 1 B. Lindemann & P. Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law 2 (3d ed. 1996) (“A spate of Court decisions in the late 1980s drew congressional fire and resulted in demands for legislative change[,]” culminating in the 1991 Civil Rights Act (footnote omitted)). Once again, the ball is in Congress’ court. As in 1991, the Legislature may act to correct this Court’s parsimonious reading of Title VII.

Congress did fix the Court’s wrong, and on January 29 of this year President Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  But it should never have gotten to that point.  Judges should judge, should bear the fruit of justice.  To say so is not to argue that judges should ignore what the law says.  But it is to say that judges should be open to what the law does as well, and that what the law ultimately is supposed to do is justice.

Thus, I would like the Obama administration to appoint judges whose judgement we can respect and trust, and to push hard to re-educate the public about what law and justice are — to, in other words, begin to redress the cultural tide of the last 30 years that has learned to fear critical judgment and to ignore justice.