BY KERA ABRAHAM
Justice & Gender
An interview with Mary Schroeder
Judge Mary Schroeder is the chief justice of the nation’s largest judicial circuit, the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals, which encompasses nine western U.S. states and two island territo-
ries. Schroeder will visit the UO on Feb. 16 at the Knight Law Center, 1515 Agate St, Room 175.
At 5 pm, Schroeder will sit on a discussion panel with local female judges, and at 6:30 pm, she
will deliver a speech entitled, “Whatever Happened to Diversity?” The free public event is
sponsored by the UO School of Law and the Women’s Law Forum. EW spoke with
Judge Schroeder by phone from Tuscon, Ariz.
Have the courts played a signifi-
cant role in enforcing the civil rights
of women and minority populations?
Absolutely. I don’t know where women
and minorities would be without them. We’ve
made tremendous progress through the
courts.
Are the civil rights laws expansive
enough to protect the rights of the
“new minorities,” such as Arab
Americans, Muslims, and gays and
lesbians?
I don’t think we know yet, as far as the lat-
ter. I don’t see any fundamental changes to
civil rights laws to broaden them in the near
future. I think lawyers will work well with
what we have.
In 1987’s Hirabayashi v. The
United States, you ruled that the in-
ternment of Japanese Americans
during World War II was unconstitu-
tional. Why did it take 40 years be-
fore that case was ruled upon?
The Supreme Court turned down
Hirabayashi during the
war. A researcher,
Peter Irons, uncov-
ered materials 40
years later that
showed that there was
no basis for any of the
fears of the Japanese
[Americans] that led to the
Judge Mary
internment. Historical re-
Schroeder
search made that possible.
Is there a pattern of delay in civil
rights cases?
The Japanese internment is, in that sense,
unique. But there was also too much time that
passed between Plessy v. Ferguson [the 1892
case that racially segregated schools] and
Brown v. The Board of Education [the 1954
case that overturned Plessy].
Why do you oppose the proposal to
divide the 9th Circuit into three juris-
dictions?
Basically because none of the proposals to
divide the circuit improve the administration.
We are in a period now of an extreme budget
squeeze, and having to build courthouses and
cope with staffing in three jurisdictions
doesn’t make much sense. My mind is not
closed to a restructuring of the circuit if it was
shown that there was some problem with the
existing circuit that could be solved by that.
But there is a feeling that the people attempt-
ing to divide the circuit simply don’t like the
decisions coming out of it. The solution, if
you don’t like the decisions, is to fill the va-
cancies that exist with people who they
think will do a good job.
Is the proposed split an at-
tempt to make the 9th
Circuit, viewed by Washing-
ton as the nation’s most lib-
eral judicial branch, more
conservative?
This issue comes up every so often,
and it’s always in response to particular
decisions. In the ’60s there was a reaction
to fishing rights decisions that favored
Native Americans. In the ’80s, there was a
reaction to the spotted owl decision. Then-
[California] Gov. Pete Wilson coined the
term “environmental gerrymandering” to de-
scribe the efforts to split the 9th Circuit. It did
raise some questions about the Court of
Appeals and the way it functions.
As a young lawyer in the late
1960s, you had a hard time finding a
job because of your gender. Do you
believe that women have finally
achieved parity with men in the na-
tion’s legal system?
We’ve made tremendous progress. But in
all parts of the system, there is an under-rep-
resentation of women and minorities in the
higher ranks of law firms and the judiciary, in
state legislatures and in Congress … The
National Association of Women Judges iden-
tified patterns in the treatment of females in
the courtroom, such as calling them “little
girl” or “honey.” There are certain areas
where we know what demeaning conduct can
mean in the courtroom or in the law, and we
try to eradicate it.
Does
mandatory
sentencing
deny judges the discretion to factor
compassion into their decision-
making?
There are certain issues which give some
leeway for a factoring-in of compassion —
for example, “cruel and unusual punish-
ment.” One can say that a life sentence for
stealing videotapes is cruel and unusual. One
of our panels did that; another court took a
different view. There are some cases where
you do take into account the possible injus-
tices and misfortunes of a strict application of
the law. There are other times when you are
very limited. Most of the time, it doesn’t mat-
ter how harsh it is; the statute of limitations is
the statute of limitations.
You’re now four and a half years
into your seven-year term as chief
justice. What’s next?
I’m not eligible to take senior status until
next year, so I will wait until then to take a
deep breath and see will happen next. I think I
will do something in the area of human rights.
I was appointed by Jimmy Carter, after all,
and this is a chance to come full circle. ew
Friday & Saturday
February 11 & 12
5-11 p.m.
Lane Events Center
796 West 13th, Eugene
$10 ADMISSION
includes souvenir glass
and a drink ticket
21 & OVER
MICRO MUSIC SALE!
Fri - Misty River
Records, CDs & books
at low low prices
89.7 fm
SM
Sat - Amadan
R
E A D I N
'
I N
T H E
R
A I N
Sponsored by
www.klcc.org
P R E S E N T S
“Two-Way Seeing:
Pioneers & Native Oregonians ”
with Shannon Applegate
and Esther Stutzman.
Eugene Public Library, Downtown
Saturday, Feb. 12, 2 pm • FREE
w w w. r e a d - r a i n . o r g
FEBRUARY 10, 2005 13