The Supreme Court overruled the lower court in a 5-4 ruling.
It did without acting on minimalist grounds, for instance, as suggested by the Obama Administration (and argued for by some here), remanding it because summary judgment was unfounded. In fact, it basically argued the other way ... "There is no genuine dispute that the examinations were job-related and consistent with business necessity." Except to the degree four justices et. al. so disputed. See, Ginsburg's dissent. Kennedy, as is his wont, does not directly answer the dissent's points. [See also, Lawrence v. Texas.] More talking past each other on a race issue. This is the value of narrow opinions here.
In fact, some argue it was rather narrow. Other than "race was used wrongly here," various unanswered questions even for the firefighters themselves remain. Some argue the ruling is quite activist and that the Congress needs to act again to make things right. Or, at least, they should have remanded the case. Also, some suggest that the Court made it difficult for both governments and private businesses given its (arguably) more restrictive disparate impact approach. On balance, I think local governments should have discretion in employment cases of this sort if the results are reasonable, and Ginsburg appears to make the case that they are here. See also, my somewhat wary comments here. GG too has good stuff, including on "activism."
[Update: To toss in another analysis, this is a useful one that touches open the appellate court "error" issue. TalkLeft also recommends the analysis of the ruling here. Overall, the whole thing is instructive of judging, politically hot button topics, and confirmation fodder. Useful, but a bit tedious all the same.]
The value of this ruling as some sort of "gotcha" to Sotomayor is questionable, even if some will use it that way. She is replacing someone who joined the dissent. And, the Supreme Court had the power to move the law of "disparate impact" analysis in ways a lower court could not. Tom Goldstein of Scotusblog has more on the nomination point. This includes the majority's care in noting that "the issue was unsettled" and that four justices (at least in part) was on the panel's side. Overall, I never found this case that interesting; even if wrong, the city or 2CA panel were not patently unreasonable or anything.
The concurring opinion by Alito (joined by Scalia/Thomas*) is particularly striking. As Ginsburg early on notes, before her more extended analysis:
Never mind the flawed tests New Haven used and the better selection methods used elsewhere, JUSTICE ALITO’s concurring opinion urges. Overriding all else, racial politics, fired up by a strident African-American pastor, were at work in New Haven. See ante, at 4–9. Even a detached and disinterested observer, however, would have every reason to ask: Why did such racially skewed results occur in New Haven, when better tests likely would have produced less disproportionate results?
Alito's concurrence goes out of its way to discuss the of questionable relevance place of "Reverend Boise Kimber, to whom the District Court referred, is a politically powerful New Haven pastor and a self-professed 'kingmaker'" in all of this. He argues that there is clear evidence that dealing with this Jeremiah Wright sort was the real reason for the city's actions here. Cf. Ginsburg's discussion. Alito's concurrence also add a "cry me a river" component:
“Vargas devoted countless hours to study . . . , missed two of his children’s birthdays and over two weeks of vacation time,”and “incurred significant financial expense” during the three-month study period.
We are reminded as well that he is a Hispanic (but Hispanics as a whole basically sat this battle out), and his wife had to take a part-time job to care for the kids as he studied. But, he emphasizes, "sympathy" is not the touchstone, the law is. Sure. Just wondering, though. Is the implication that the black test takers did not study? Did they instead go to birthday parties and babysit so their wives' can not have to work? Scalia's "what if" concurrence is something of an extended aside, but this one (which happily Roberts did not join) was basically offensive.
And, goodbye and good luck Justice Souter ... and thanks for the service.
---
* Scalia/Thomas have split in various cases this term, including this very day where they are on opposite sides (on some issues) of a 5-4 ruling, and both the voting rights and strip search cases. A third case, involving an anti-Clinton movie, was held over for reargument ... for September. Souter has retired, so will not take part. Thus, the path (4-4 possible?) is a bit strange. There is a chance Sotomayor will be confirmed, but she would not likely take part in the case even if she did.