John D. Bates is a Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Bates was appointed by George W. Bush in 2001, and from July 2013 to January 2015, Bates served as Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. In August 2018, Judge Bates ruled that the Trump Administration did not justify its decision to eliminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and ordered its reinstatement. The government’s appeal of that decision has been added to the Supreme Court’s docket for the upcoming fall term.
Harvard Political Review: In the over 18 years that you have been a judge, has your judicial attitude changed over the course of your career?
John Bates: I don’t think there has been any fundamental change in my attitude toward being a judge and what I think a judge needs to do and how he or she needs to do it. There have obviously been some changes that have affected my being a judge, and some of those take place from year to year, since this court handles a lot of issues that deal with the federal government. The federal government changes, and that can affect the type of cases we have. But I think for the most part, the approach I have for being judge has stayed the same. I’ve grown, and I’ve learned, as I hope we all do when we’re taking on a task. I expect that I do it a little better now and maybe a little more efficiently than I did before, but I don’t think there has been a fundamental change in my attitude toward or approach toward judging.
HPR: Using the NAACP v. Trump case that challenged the Trump Administration’s rescission of DACA as an example, how do you go about ruling on and enforcing laws that have outcomes that can seriously alter individuals’ lives? How do you approach these kinds of cases that can have universal outcomes for many people?
JB: Well there are cases that you get as a judge that may have a broader impact, although every case is important. An individual criminal case has a significant impact not only on the defendant but on victims and on the public. An individual discrimination case will have a significant impact on the plaintiff, on the plaintiff’s family, and to some extent also on the defendant charged with discrimination. But there are some cases, and you have identified two of them, that are of broader impact. I think as a judge you need to be careful to bear in mind what your job is. The job of a judge is not to set the policy, and the job of the judge is not to decide what the best approach is in terms of fairness, in terms of equity, in terms of rational policy. The job in those kinds of cases is to review what the government has done and to make sure that it complies with the rule of law. And the rule of law may in some instances be the Constitution, but more likely it’s going to be compliance with statutory requirements and compliance with procedural requirements. You need to keep your eye on the ball and on your obligation as a judge, which is to look at the facts, ascertain what the law is, and to apply that law to those facts.
HPR: The importance of precedent has been called into question recently with buzz around uncertainties regarding long standing Supreme Court cases on abortion and affirmative action. How do you, as a District Court Judge, perceive stare decisis and precedent in your decisions? What is its overall importance to you as a District Court Judge?
JB: Well, I think it is very important. Precedent is different sitting as a District judge than it is sitting as a Court of Appeals judge in the federal system, and certainly much different as it is as a sitting Supreme Court Justice. The Supreme Court can change precedent, and that is sometimes what they do. They did that recently, and they might do it again this term. The Court of Appeals can sometimes change its precedent, although sometimes that will require an en banc decision by the entire court. District judges follow precedent. We do not follow other District Courts because District judge decisions are not precedential on another District judge, but we do follow the decisions of the Circuit we happen to be in and certainly the Supreme Court. So I think precedent is different depending on what judicial title and role you have. For a District Judge, there is much less leeway to avoid or change precedent; that is not to say that we are simple rubber stamps not doing anything challenging because that is not true. We have to interpret the law, and that includes looking at precedent that may not be directly on point. But there is no opportunity to really change Circuit precedent and certainly not to change Supreme Court precedent sitting as a District judge. Our job is to ascertain and then follow that precedent.
HPR: Back around Thanksgiving, Chief Justice Roberts had a quote that read, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.” He went on to add that an “independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.” What are your thoughts on this quote and the greater topic of an independent judiciary, especially in times when the political climate is especially contentious?
JB: I have expressed my agreement with that quote to many people, and I’ll leave it at that. I have done so publicly in programs dealing with judicial independence; I did a program in Philadelphia at the American Constitutional Center last fall on judicial independence. I think the Chief Justice got it right in saying that there aren’t judges who are tied to the President who happened to appoint them, and I’ll make two observations on that. Number one, I would guess that if people looked at my opinions they wouldn’t be able to determine who the president that appointed me was. I don’t think there is any tracking that can be done for a lot of judges. I feel that judges do their jobs well, generally speaking, and apply the law to the facts and apply the rule of law. Indeed, when I first came on the bench, two appellate judges from different political persuasions (if you can attach a political persuasion to the president who happened to appoint the judge) — two very well known appellate judges — said the same thing to me, and that is that you will know when you are really functioning as a federal judge when you rule against the president who appointed you. I think that does say a lot. It’s revealing, and I think that to some extent it’s true. Judicial independence is fundamental to the job that we do, and the time that we are living in challenges judicial independence; however, when challenged, judicial independence actually becomes more important. I will continue to express the view privately and publicly that the independence of the federal judiciary is the fundamental part of our democracy.
HPR: Do you think that the Constitution should be interpreted differently with the passage of time, and why or why not?
JB: Well, this is a question getting at the difference between originalism and the living Constitution. I think it is fair to say that I am not a strict originalist, but I also think that the living Constitution approach needs to be tempered a little bit. So I am not a strict or extreme living Constitutionalist. But I think there is more to be said for that view than for the originalist view. But I am somewhere between the extremes of the two views.
HPR: Why have you committed so much of your life to public service? What words of wisdom would you pass on to those interested in public service today?
JB: I think that public service is an important thing that one can give back to the community. A lot of lawyers, and I include myself in the group, have had a pretty good life with many benefits, and it’s nice to figure out a way to turn the skills that you have back to the benefit of those who have less than you have. Public service is one way to do that — not the only way to do it but one way. Now there are some kinds of public service that people don’t think are public service, but I think it’s all public service. I think it is in the public interest to have very capable and dedicated people working for the government. Whether it be in the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s offices, in our various police forces, or in some kinds of responsibilities where you’re dealing more directly with benefits for people — be it our healthcare benefits, be it our medicare benefits, our social security benefits, etc. All of that are important aspects of public service.
My particular public service — it was easy to say yes to being a federal judge, yes, that is certainly public service, but it is at a level that many would aspire to. It’s a little bit harder when you are trying to figure out how you can really make a difference in other circumstances, but it is nonetheless important, and I would encourage anyone — in the legal community and young lawyers in particular — to make sure that they do take on some public service during their careers. These days people don’t seem to stay in the same position forever, but it’s important to build into your career whether you’re a lawyer or not. It’s a very rewarding thing to do, and it’s not like you are committing the biggest sacrifice in the world. Some of the best positions in the law are public service positions, and they are both challenging and rewarding in terms of your own development and feeling that you are giving back, even if [they are] not monetarily rewarding.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Image Credit: Garrett O’Brien