I have been asked a few times today to opine, as a corporate and securities law scholar, on President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. (Cnn.com has a couple of quotes reflecting my thoughts.)
I have three main comments:
First, this is a pivotal time in American securities and corporate law jurisprudence. Any appointment to the Supreme Court has the potential to significantly influence the evolution of corporate and securities law. The Supreme Court has recently granted certiorari for a couple of big-ticket securities and corporate law cases, and there is every reason to believe, particularly in light of the SEC’s recently announced rulemaking and Senator Schumer’s recently proposed Shareholder Bill of Rights Act of 2009, that the Supreme Court will continue to handle important business matters like these in the near future. Federal preemption, Securities and Exchange Commission rule-making authority, corporate governance reform, damages, and the reach of federal securities laws are all incredibly important topics that are certain to come before the Supreme Court in the next few terms.
Second, it is difficult to gauge where exactly Judge Sotomayor falls on the spectrum of pro-management versus pro-investor jurists. Is she a shareholder primacist, does she defer to the invisible hand of the market, does she interpret Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange of 1934 broadly or narrowly? These are questions to which Judge Sotomayor’s judicial writings provide no clear answers. Sotomayor was nominated to the federal bench by President Bush, so one might have suspected that she would embrace ardent pro-management leanings. However, the business and securities opinions she has penned have not evinced such a bent. For example, she penned the Second Circuit’s relatively recent shareholder-friendly opinion in Merrill Lynch v. Dabit (a detailed summary of the case is available here). Indeed, upon reflection, one recalls that Sotomayor was viewed as a less conservative Bush nominee (proposed by Moynihan) when she was appointed, and it was President Clinton who elevated her to the Second Circuit. Yet Judge Sotomayor has dismissed numerous cases in favor of management despite her more liberal affiliations.
Third, Judge Sotomayor has a strong background in sophisticated corporate and securities law cases, as she comes from the Second Circuit, a jurisdiction that generates a significant number of these cases (given that Wall Street falls within the jurisdiction of the Second Circuit). This bodes well, in that pundits often query whether Supreme Court jurists fully appreciate the complex business nuances arising in many securities and corporate matters. That Judge Sotomayor has been both a district court judge and an appellate judge in a jurisdiction where these difficult business cases arise delights me, and I think she would add a valuable perspective on the Supreme Court.
Taking off the “corporate and securities law scholar” hat, and putting on the “Chair of the American Association of Law Schools Section on Women in Legal Education” hat, I can say that I am thrilled that President Obama has nominated a woman to the Supreme Court. I was disheartened that Justice O’Connor’s seat was not filled by a woman, but I remain optimistic that someday the number of women on the Supreme Court will mirror, as a percentage, the number of women in the average law school entering class.
Of course, given that, in the almost 30 years since a woman first ascended to the United States Supreme Court, we appear to have reached a plateau, with only two women serving at any one time over the past 16 years, perhaps my optimism is misplaced. I remain optimistic nevertheless.
