San Diegan’s Integration Stand Cited : Civil Rights Groups Wary of Reagan Court Nominee

Civil rights groups and liberal organizations say that the writings of a conservative University of San Diego law professor on sensitive racial matters raise serious questions about his nomination by President Reagan to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Prof. Bernard Siegan is identified with libertarian thinking and as a champion of economic freedoms who staunchly opposes most government regulation of commerce. But liberal critics--noting in particular his opposition to court decisions on school desegregation--harbor doubts about Siegan’s commitment to the protection of the rights of minorities.

“There appear to be some serious problems regarding the nomination,” Ralph Neas, director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, said Friday.

‘Careful Look’ Advised

“He is certainly cause for concern,” said Nancy Broff, director of the Judicial Selection Project of the Alliance for Justice, a coalition of 22 liberal organizations. “The Senate certainly needs to take a careful look at Mr. Siegan.”

Conservatives have applauded the nomination of Siegan, a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School, former land-use attorney and a friend of U.S. Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III.

“He’s one of the top legal minds you could have on the bench,” said Paul Kamenar, executive legal director of the conservative Washington Legal Foundation.

Kamenar said liberal criticism is based solely on opposition to Siegan’s politics and ignores his scholarship and competence to serve on the bench.

Reagan nominated Siegan on Jan. 30 for a seat on the 9th Circuit, whose jurisdiction stretches across nine Western states, including California. But liberal spokesmen and congressional staff members said this week that the nomination is likely to draw intense scrutiny from the Senate Judiciary Committee, which came under Democratic control in January for the first time in the Reagan presidency.

To ‘Play Hardball’

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of a four-member committee task force set up to review judicial nominations, said Thursday that the panel intends to “play hardball” with nominees whose qualifications or judicial temperament appears questionable.

No date has been set for Siegan’s confirmation hearing, but an aide to Leahy said he expects the nomination of the 62-year-old scholar to attract opposition.

Siegan, contacted Friday at his home in La Jolla, refused to comment on the controversy. In an interview last month with The Times, he said that his “primary obligation” as a circuit judge would be to “carry out the policies declared by the Supreme Court,” even if they conflict with his own views.

Congressional sources confirmed that an American Bar Assn. screening panel had rated Siegan “qualified”--the next-to-lowest of four ratings given to judicial candidates and the ranking most often given to Reagan’s recent appellate court nominees.

Desegregation View

The liberal critics say they have only recently begun reviewing Siegan’s record. For now, most say their concern focuses on a report in a Washington-area legal publication that Siegan had criticized the Supreme Court’s landmark 1954 ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education, which declared segregated schools unconstitutional.

The story, in the Feb. 2 edition of Legal Times, said editors at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, had excised references to the Brown case from Siegan’s chapter critiquing the Supreme Court in a 1985 book, “Beyond the Status Quo.”

As published, the chapter--in an argument criticizing judicial excesses--says decisions ordering the integration of schools represent “the most flagrant example” of the court’s “usurp(ing) powers belonging to other governmental bodies.”

Siegan continues: “There is no fundamental or natural right to an education, nor to an integrated education; each is a political right created by government and is accordingly not within the guarantees of the 14th Amendment.”

Abortion Rulings Criticized

Like other writings by Siegan, the chapter argues for the “strict constructionist” view of the Constitution, criticizing decisions protecting women’s right to have abortions and arguing for greater protection of unfettered economic conduct.

David Boaz, co-editor of the book, said that the Cato Institute no longer has a copy of Siegan’s original draft and that no one at the institute could recall if it made a direct reference to the Brown case.

The liberal activists say that, if Siegan in fact has questioned the legal underpinnings of the Brown decision--or if he is found to be hostile, philosophically, to other widely accepted legal principles--his nomination will face tough sledding in the Senate.

“Clearly, he’s going to be questioned closely about that and what that represents in terms of having mainstream constitutional views that are viewed as very fundamental in our society, such as a commitment to equal justice under the law,” said Melanne Verveer, public policy director of People for the American Way, a liberal lobbying group.