First Confirmed Judge of Second Trump Term Called a ‘Direct Threat’ to Fundamental Freedoms – Common Dreams

 

Judicial Confirmation Raises Concerns Regarding Sustainable Development Goals

The lifetime judicial appointment of Whitney Hermandorfer to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has elicited significant concern from civil rights and anti-corruption organizations. An analysis of the nominee’s record indicates potential opposition to the principles underpinning several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to justice, equality, health, and labor.

Analysis of Judicial Record in Relation to Key SDGs

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Concerns have been raised that the appointment undermines the objective of developing effective, accountable, and transparent institutions (Target 16.6). Critics highlight a perceived allegiance to the executive branch over constitutional principles, which could weaken judicial independence. Key issues include:

• Support for expanding executive power and control over independent federal agencies.
• The nominee was not formally vetted by the American Bar Association (ABA), a departure from established procedure that raises questions about institutional transparency and accountability in the judicial selection process.
• Arguments in favor of ending birthright citizenship via executive order, challenging established legal and institutional norms. This action also impacts Target 16.9, which aims to provide legal identity for all.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The nominee’s record suggests a judicial philosophy that may run counter to the goal of reducing inequalities and ensuring the inclusion of all persons (Target 10.2). Opposition groups point to a history of hostility towards the rights of marginalized communities, including:

• LGBTQ Equality: A record that is viewed as antagonistic to the rights and protections of LGBTQ individuals, hindering progress toward ensuring equal opportunity (Target 10.3).
• Birthright Citizenship: Efforts to undermine birthright citizenship are seen as a direct challenge to policies that promote inclusion irrespective of origin.
• Environmental Protections: A record on environmental issues is cited as a concern, potentially impacting communities disproportionately affected by environmental degradation.

SDG 5: Gender Equality & SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The appointment is seen as a direct threat to progress on gender equality and health. The nominee’s past actions conflict with targets aimed at ensuring universal access to reproductive health and rights.

1. Reproductive Rights: As director of the Tennessee attorney general’s Strategic Litigation Unit, the nominee argued in support of a near-total state abortion ban.
2. Impact on SDG Targets: This stance is in direct opposition to SDG Target 5.6 (ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights) and SDG Target 3.7 (ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services).

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

The nominee’s record on labor rights has been identified as a significant area of concern, potentially undermining the protection of labor rights and the promotion of secure working environments (Target 8.8). Specific points of concern include:

• A history of undermining union and labor protections, including submitting amicus briefs in cases that challenge fair labor practices and the right to unionize, such as Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney.
• Previous research and writings that supported busting teachers’ unions, which is viewed as an attack on collective bargaining rights for workers in the education sector.

SDG 4: Quality Education

The nominee’s past work with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, has been highlighted for its support of the corporatization of public education. This position is viewed by critics as potentially detrimental to the goal of ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education for all (Target 4.1), particularly regarding the role of public institutions and educators’ unions in maintaining educational standards.

Conclusion: Long-Term Implications for Sustainable Development

According to watchdog organizations, the confirmation of Whitney Hermandorfer represents a significant challenge to the advancement of the Sustainable Development Goals within the United States. Her lifetime appointment is considered a bellwether for future judicial nominations that could institutionalize legal interpretations hostile to civil rights, gender equality, labor protections, and institutional integrity. The upcoming Senate consideration of other nominees, such as Emil Bove, is being monitored as part of this broader trend, which could have lasting consequences for the legal frameworks that support sustainable and equitable development.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses issues related to judicial appointments, civil rights, labor protections, and institutional integrity, which connect to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary SDGs addressed are:

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This is the most relevant SDG, as the article’s core theme is the appointment of a federal judge and the implications for the justice system, rule of law, and institutional accountability.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article highlights concerns that the judge’s record shows hostility towards marginalized groups (LGBTQ community, immigrants) and favors the “wealthy and powerful” over workers, which directly relates to increasing inequality.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The specific mention of the judge’s history of “undermining union and labor protections” and opposing workers’ rights to unionize connects directly to the goal of protecting labor rights.
• SDG 5: Gender Equality: The judge’s “disturbing and unacceptable record on reproductive rights,” including her support for a “near-total abortion ban,” is a key issue that falls under this goal.
• SDG 13: Climate Action: Although mentioned briefly, the concern about the judge’s “demonstrated hostility towards… environmental protections” links the article to this goal.

What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues raised by civil rights and anti-corruption groups in the article, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

1. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. The article raises concerns that the judge puts “loyalty to Donald Trump over the Constitution,” which challenges the promotion of the rule of law. Her record on civil rights, reproductive rights, and birthright citizenship suggests a potential threat to “equal access to justice for all.”
2. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The confirmation process itself is questioned. The fact that the judge was “not formally vetted by the American Bar Association (ABA)” and that the Attorney General “restricted the ABA’s access to judicial nominees” points to a breakdown in the transparency and accountability of the judicial appointment process.
3. Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development. The judge’s record showing “hostility towards the protection of civil and human rights,” including her positions on “reproductive rights, LGBTQ equality, [and] birthright citizenship,” directly opposes the promotion and enforcement of non-discriminatory laws and policies.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

1. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… origin… or other status. The judge’s support for ending “birthright citizenship” and her record on “LGBTQ equality” are actions that work against the social and political inclusion of people based on their origin and status.
2. Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially… wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality. The judge’s anti-union stance, including “undermining union and labor protections” and “busting teachers unions,” works against social protection policies like collective bargaining that are designed to achieve greater economic equality for workers.

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

1. Target 8.8: Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers… The article explicitly states that the judge has a history of “undermining union and labor protections” and has “submitted amicus briefs in many cases that undermine fair labor practices and the right of workers to unionize,” citing the Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney case as a specific example.

SDG 5: Gender Equality

1. Target 5.6: Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights… The article points to the judge’s “disturbing and unacceptable record on reproductive rights” and notes that she “argued in support of the state’s near-total abortion ban,” which is in direct opposition to this target.

Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article implies several qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress, or lack thereof, towards the identified targets:

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Indicator for Target 16.6: The existence of an independent and transparent judicial vetting process. The article highlights a negative indicator by stating the judge was “not formally vetted by the American Bar Association (ABA),” suggesting a weakening of institutional accountability.
• Indicator for Target 16.3: Judicial rulings and legal arguments related to constitutional principles. The judge’s record of supporting the “expansion of executive power” and being loyal to a political figure over the Constitution serves as an indicator of the state of the rule of law.

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

• Indicator for Target 8.8: Legal actions and judicial opinions on labor rights and unionization. The judge’s submission of an amicus brief in the Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney case, which involved employees fired after attempting to unionize, is a specific indicator of a stance that undermines the right to collective bargaining.

SDG 5: Gender Equality

• Indicator for Target 5.6: Laws and legal arguments concerning reproductive health services. The judge’s argument “in support of the state’s near-total abortion ban” is a clear indicator of a policy position that restricts access to reproductive rights.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• Indicator for Target 10.2: Policies and legal positions on citizenship and non-discrimination. The judge’s support for the “effort to end birthright citizenship” and her record on “LGBTQ equality” are indicators of policies that could increase exclusion and inequality.

Summary of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

SDGs	Targets	Indicators (Mentioned or Implied in the Article)
SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.3: Promote the rule of law and ensure equal access to justice. 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions. 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws.	– Lack of formal judicial vetting by the American Bar Association (ABA). – Judicial record showing loyalty to a political figure over the Constitution. – Stance on laws related to civil rights, LGBTQ equality, and birthright citizenship.
SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities	10.2: Promote social, economic and political inclusion of all. 10.4: Adopt policies to achieve greater equality.	– Legal positions against birthright citizenship and LGBTQ equality. – Anti-union stance that undermines policies for worker economic equality.
SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth	8.8: Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments.	– History of undermining union protections. – Filing of amicus briefs against the right of workers to unionize (e.g., Starbucks case).
SDG 5: Gender Equality	5.6: Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights.	– Record of supporting a “near-total abortion ban.” – A “disturbing and unacceptable record on reproductive rights.”
SDG 13: Climate Action	(General relevance)	– A “demonstrated hostility towards… environmental protections.”

Source: commondreams.org