#Judge Andy Oldham | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

nooneelsecomesclose17 · 6 years ago

Text

Happy birthday mum

“Hi Mum. Happy birthday.” He settles himself on the ground, thankfully it’s dry, the unexpected spring sunshine drying the ground quicker than usual. “Vic’s been already I see. I haven’t heard from Andy but I know he’ll be thinking of you.”

It’s quiet, the only sound is the occasional car going by and the birds in the trees behind him. It’s nice, he can let himself relax, just be for a little while.

“Sorry I’ve not been by for a while. Everything’s been a bit of a...I messed up Mum. I was trying to get the money so me and Aaron could have a baby and I ruined it. I know Aaron says he’s fine but he isn’t. He’s hurting, and I can’t do anything to make it better.” He pulls at the grass in frustration, the words not coming easily. “I let Seb go and it hurts Mum. Every day I get up and I have to stop myself going into his room. I did it to protect him, both of them. I couldn’t bear him to hear the fighting, not like I did. Do you remember? I hated it and I didn’t want that for Seb. If I’d fought her, she would’ve brought up Aaron’s record and it’s not fair Mum. He’s a good person, and he’s a fantastic Dad to Seb but they wouldn’t see that would they?”

“I wish you were here. I wish you could tell me I’m doing the right thing. I know Aaron wishes we’d fought for him, but he’s been through enough in his life, I didn’t want these strangers judging him. Maybe I’m a coward but Rebecca knows some of the things I’ve done. I’m not proud of it and you’d probably be disappointed in me. I’m trying to be better now...for Aaron. He knows everything and he’s still here, and I don’t know what I did to be so lucky Mum.”

“You loved me.” He turns his head to see Aaron standing there, hands in his pockets, a smile on his face.

“What’re you doing here? You’re meant to be in Oldham or somewhere.”

“I, er...I might’ve made that up. Why didn’t you tell me it was your Mum’s birthday?” He shrugs. He’s so used to no one really being interested. “I would’ve come with you.”

“You’re here now.”

“Only cos Vic told me.” He shuffles a little, nervously almost. “Do you want me to go?”

“No. I was just...how much did you hear?”

“Enough. She wouldn’t be disappointed in you Robert. I’m not disappointed in you either.”

“But...”

“I get frustrated because you take risks...like with Graham...you could’ve...if he’d called the police, I could’ve lost you. That’s what I’m scared of. But you don’t disappoint me.”

“But Seb...” Aaron doesn’t answer straight away, just brushes a kiss to his temple, arm winding round his waist.

“It still hurts, but I know why you did it and I get it. Come on, let’s go get a pint.”

“I don’t feel like...can we just go home?” He always feels so vulnerable when he’s been here, when he’s opened up to her, not up to seeing people.

“Yeah but...we need to go to the pub first.” Aaron’s voice is firm and he lets him pull him along a little. “Bye Sarah.”

“Bye Mum. Love you.”

Aaron doesn’t say anything as they walk the short distance to the pub, doesn’t answer when he complains that he just wants to go home.

All becomes clear when he enters the bar. There’s a group of Dingles around Chas and when she turns round he sees Seb in her arms, giggling away at her. He doesn’t know if it’s that he’s tired or being emotional from visiting his Mum but he feels tears come into his eyes.

“How did you...” Things might be better with Rebecca but she still wasn’t keen on them bringing Seb to the village.

“I called her yesterday, told her what today was and how I thought it’d be good for you to see him. It’s only tonight mind.”

It’s not enough, it’ll never be enough but it’s something. “Will you stop?”

“What? Did I do...”

“Stop being so amazing.”

“Shut up. Go give our boy a cuddle. Then we’ll take him home and you can tell him all about his Nanny Sarah.”

#just popped into my head earlier #robron fic

96 notes · View notes

96thdayofrage · 3 years ago

Text

A famously conservative federal appeals court issued an unpublished, per curiam opinion on Thursday that barred a private airline company from enforcing its own vaccine mandate for its own workforce. In dissent, one judge furiously took aim at his colleagues.

“In its alacrity to play CEO of a multinational corporation, the majority shatters every dish in the china shop,” Ronald Reagan-appointed Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith begins in his 57-page dissent.

The dissent easily dwarfed the majority opinion. The entire appellate rendering — including the voluminous dissent — was a sum total of 80 pages.

“[The majority] rewrites Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] to create a new cause of action.” the judge continues. “It twists the record to fit that invention. It defies our precedent and the commands of the Supreme Court. But this majority is no senseless bull. Knowing exactly what it has wrought, the majority declares that its unsigned writing will apply to these parties only. By stripping its judgment of precedential effect, the majority all but admits that its screed could not survive the scrutiny of the en banc court.”

United Airlines requires all of its employees to be vaccinated. In September 2021, six employees filed a class action lawsuit on the basis that the airline’s accommodation for their refusal to be vaccinated, indefinite unpaid leave, violated their rights under both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII.

In November 2021, Donald Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, sitting in Fort Worth, Texas, agreed with the airline and declined to issue a preliminary injunction to bar the mandate requested by the employees.

“United exempted plaintiffs from the mandate; plaintiffs are not required to violate their religious beliefs,” his 15-page opinion notes. “United’s employees claimed they faced an impossible choice: get the vaccine or endure unpaid leave. But they have chosen the latter. Their dispute thus centers on United’s response to their choice.”

Texas was the original venue for the dispute because the employees who sued were based out of the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport.

On Feb. 17, 2022, Trump-appointed Circuit Judge Andy Oldham and George W. Bush-appointed Circuit Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod upended the district court’s ruling. The 22-page majority opinion found that two plaintiffs who received religious exemptions because they believe “aborted fetal tissue was used to develop or test the COVID-19 vaccines” faced irreparable harm without an injunction against the vaccine mandate while their case progresses.

“Plaintiffs are being subjected to ongoing coercion based on their religious beliefs,” the two judges determined. “That coercion is harmful in and of itself and cannot be remedied after the fact.”

Smith, in dissent, and in no uncertain terms, accused his more conservative colleagues of simply ignoring the law.

“For every conceivable reason that the plaintiffs could lose this appeal, they should,” the judge argues. “The statute does not allow the relief they seek. Nor do our precedents; if they did, the Supreme Court has overruled them. If they have not been overruled, fifty years of precedent and centuries of Anglo-American remedies law show that preliminary relief may not issue.”

The judge also took aim at the two plaintiffs’ religious objections:

If it could issue, it shouldn’t, because the only plaintiffs with standing claim no harm from the “impossible choice” between full postjudgment relief and eternal damnation.

And this is no small thing. The dissent repeatedly argues that the anti-vaccination plaintiffs, a pilot and flight attendant, have avoided their alleged “impossible choice” by choosing to accept an accommodation from their employer and have, therefore, avoided being fired for their religious beliefs.

To hear the majority and the plaintiffs tell it, however, there is still an “exogenous” form of religious coercion at work.

But, Judge Smith argues, that’s not what the law or precedent about Title VII claims actually says.

“[T]he majority says, the ‘[p]laintiffs specifically allege that United wants to coerce them into getting a vaccine that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs and thus avoid any adverse employment action,'” the dissent notes. “None of that is true. The plaintiffs brought this appeal to stop United from placing them on unpaid leave—because unpaid leave is an adverse employment action that violates Title VII. That is the whole point of their suit. That’s what they told both the district court and us.”

Smith then suggests the majority didn’t actually read any of the briefs in the case and goes on to explain that an adverse employment action is a “pedestrian” example of exactly the kind of alleged harm that makes up a reparable injury — not an irreparable injury, which is a legal term of art for something that cannot be adequately solved with money damages.

In other words, the dissent notes, the plaintiffs are talking about rights that are statutorily vindicated with money damages. And, Smith points out, in their briefs and testimony, all they talked about viz. Title VII was the fact that their unpaid leave was causing them financial harm.

In other other words, the majority, to reach their preferred conclusion, said that a legal challenge about being paid can never possibly be solved if the plaintiffs are eventually awarded back pay.

Again, the dissent:

Despite our settled law, the majority concludes that the plaintiffs have suffered irreparable injury. That conclusion rests on at least two faulty legal premises. The first is that the plaintiffs pleaded a coercion injury that’s somehow distinct from any adverse employment action. The second is that United’s alleged Title VII sin is so severe that the plaintiffs have established irreparable injury.

The first premise is both wrong and irrelevant, and the second is nonsense that our precedent expressly forbids.

Essentially, Smith is accusing the majority of just making stuff up.

“Instead of confronting those odds, the majority ignores them and invents a new Title VII sin called ‘ongoing coercion,’ resulting in the plaintiffs’ win,” the dissent says. “Alleging ‘ongoing coercion’ now supplies a private right to preliminary injunctive relief—not because of text, history, or precedent, but because two well-intentioned but misguided judges say so.”

0 notes

duaneodavila · 7 years ago

Text

Non-Sequiturs: 04.08.18

* Remember the “revealed preferences” law school rankings that debuted last year? Christopher Ryan and Brian Frye have issued the 2018 edition. [SSRN]

* And C.J. Ryan offers yet another set of law school rankings, this time focused on “value added” (similar in philosophy to the ATL rankings, but Ryan’s top ten is very different from ours). [SSRN]

* If brevity is the soul of wit, then Supreme Court opinions are getting less and less witty; Adam Feldman has the data to prove it. [Empirical SCOTUS]

* A serious threat to political speech and election integrity, according to media law expert Charles Glasser: the weaponization of copyright law, . [Daily Caller]

* Andy Oldham, President Trump’s latest Fifth Circuit nominee, is very, very smart — and very, very conservative. [Texas Tribune]

* The latest headline-making case handled by legendary litigator Ed Hayes is a doozy — involving a former beauty queen, a hedge-fund magnate, an ostrich farm, and… an STD. [New York Post]

* Interested in constitutional law and possessed of a progressive perspective? Here’s a great job opportunity you should check out. [Constitutional Accountability Center]

David Lat is editor at large and founding editor of Above the Law, as well as the author of Supreme Ambitions: A Novel. He previously worked as a federal prosecutor in Newark, New Jersey; a litigation associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; and a law clerk to Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. You can connect with David on Twitter (@DavidLat), LinkedIn, and Facebook, and you can reach him by email at [email protected].

Non-Sequiturs: 04.08.18 republished via Above the Law

0 notes

maxwellyjordan · 4 years ago

Text

Trump releases new list of potential Supreme Court nominees

With just under two months remaining before the 2020 presidential election, President Donald Trump on Wednesday released a new list of potential Supreme Court nominees – his fourth such list since 2016. The announcement of the new list fulfilled a promise that the president made in a tweet in June, when Trump pledged not only to publish a “new list of Conservative Supreme Court Justice nominees” but also to fill any future vacancies on the court from that list.

In a news conference at the White House, Trump announced 20 new additions to the existing list of potential nominees. Like the prior lists, the new potential nominees include sitting federal judges, but they also include two former U.S. solicitors general, three U.S. senators, senior White House and Department of Justice officials, and the current U.S. ambassador to Mexico.

Trump released his first list of 11 potential nominees in May 2016, when he was the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. In a statement at the time, Trump indicated that his list was “representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value.” At a time when the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia remained open, the list was widely regarded as an effort to reassure conservatives that, if elected, Trump would choose a conservative to fill that seat and any others that became open during his presidency.

Trump included 10 additional names on a second list, which he released in September 2016. The second list added (among others) Neil Gorsuch, then a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, whom Trump later nominated to fill the Scalia vacancy on Jan. 31, 2017.

Trump announced a third list in November 2017. That list added five names – two women and three men – to the 21 whom Trump had previously announced. One noteworthy addition was Brett Kavanaugh, then a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Less than a year later, Trump nominated in July 2018 to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Trump’s tweet announcing his plan to release a new list came on the same day that the Supreme Court – by a vote of 5-4 – rejected the Trump administration’s efforts to end an Obama-era program that has provided a shield from deportation to young undocumented adults who came to the United States as children. Three days before that, the court – this time, by a vote of 6-3, with Trump nominee Gorsuch writing the majority opinion – ruled that federal employment discrimination laws protect LGBT employees. “Based on decisions being rendered now,” Trump said on Twitter at the time, “this list is more important than ever before.”

In his remarks at the White House on Wednesday, Trump proclaimed that many “cherished rights” will be at stake in the upcoming election, and he suggested that the next president could have the opportunity to appoint as many as four new justices. And although he praised Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, he pledged to fill any vacancies with candidates in the mold of three justices appointed by other presidents: Scalia, who was nominated by Ronald Reagan; Clarence Thomas, nominated by George H.W. Bush; and Samuel Alito, nominated by George W. Bush.

Like his earlier lists, the new potential nominees are predominantly male and white. They are also young, with only seven over the age of 50. The youngest potential nominee on the list – and the only Black candidate included – is just 34: Daniel Cameron, the attorney general of Kentucky. Three Republican senators made the new list: Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Ted Cruz of Texas (a former opponent of Trump’s during the Republican primaries in 2016) and Josh Hawley of Missouri. The list includes eight judges from the federal courts of appeals, two judges on federal trial courts, and one state supreme court justice: Carlos Muñiz, of the Florida Supreme Court.

Wednesday’s list also features Washington insiders who have never served as judges but who are well known to the conservative legal establishment: Paul Clement and Noel Francisco, both former U.S. solicitors general; Steven Engel, the current head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice; and Christopher Landau, the U.S. ambassador to Mexico. By contrast, some judges regarded as conservative rising stars – most notably, Neomi Rao of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and Andy Oldham of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit — did not make the new list.

Shortly after Trump concluded his announcement, Hawley took himself out of the running, tweeting that although he appreciated “the President’s confidence in listing me as a potential Supreme Court nominee,” he had “no interest in the high court.” Cotton appeared to be more interested: He tweeted that he would “always heed the call of service to our nation,” adding in a separate tweet that the court “could use more justices who understand the difference between applying the law and making the law, which the Court does when it invents a right to an abortion, infringes on religious freedom, and erodes the Second Amendment.”

Here is the full list of the president’s additions to his group of potential nominees:

Bridget Bade (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit)

Daniel Cameron (Kentucky attorney general)

Paul Clement (former solicitor general of the United States)

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.)

Stuart Kyle Duncan (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit)

Steven Engel (Office of Legal Counsel, DOJ)

Noel Francisco (former solicitor general of the United States)

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)

James Ho (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit)

Greg Katsas (U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit)

Barbara Lagoa (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit)

Christopher Landau (U.S. ambassador to Mexico)

Carlos Muñiz (Supreme Court of Florida)

Martha Pacold (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois)

Peter Phipps (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit)

Sarah Pitlyk (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri)

Allison Jones Rushing (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit)

Kate Todd (deputy White House counsel)

Lawrence Van Dyke (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit)

This post was originally published at Howe on the Court.

The post Trump releases new list of potential Supreme Court nominees appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/trump-releases-new-list-of-potential-supreme-court-nominees/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

#law #justice

0 notes

benrleeusa · 7 years ago

Text

[Jonathan H. Adler] The Judicial Nomination Train Keeps Rolling

Last weekend Beltway pundits may have proclaimed the White House was off the rails, but the Trump judicial nomination train remains on track. The White House announced its eleventh set of judicial nominees on Monday. As we've come to expect, the Administration put forward an impressive list of jurists, led by four noteworthy picks for appellate courts, including several who are guaranteed bipartisan support.

The latest appellate nominees are Andy Oldham (Fifth Circuit), Michael Scudder (Seventh Circuit), Amy St. Eve (Seventh Circuit) and Mark Bennett (Ninth Circuit). In addition, Trump nominated John Nalbandian (Sixth CIrcuit) and Joel Carson (Tenth Circuit) in January and December, respectively.

Oldham currently serves as General Counsel for Texas Governor Greg Abbott, and previously worked in the Texas Solicitor General's office, the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel, and in private practice in Washington, DC. He clerked for Justice Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court and Judge David Sentelle on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. His nomination is no surprise, as he is razor sharp and had been among those considered for prior Texas vacancies on the Fifth Circuit. Of this week's nominees, he's also the one most likely to end up on a future Supreme Court short list.

Two of this week's nominees are for Illinois seats on the Seventh Circuit. Scudder is a White House and Justice Department veteran who is now a partner at Skadden Arps. He clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy and has taught at both the Northwestern Pritzker and University of Chicago law schools. St. Eve is a federal district court judge in the Northern District of Illinois and former Whitewater prosecutor. She, too, has taught at Northwestern. Bennett is the former Hawaii Attorney General and a former Assistant U.S. Attorney who has taught at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa.

Although news stories tend to suggest the White House refuses to consult with Senators about potential judicial picks, this week's nominations tell quite a different story. All of the appellate nominations announced this week enjoy the support of their home-state Senators, including those from states with deep-blue delegations.

While Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) has led the attack against some of Trump's judicial nominees in the Senate Judiciary Committee, she joined Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) in praising Bennett as a "well-qualified" pick for the Ninth Circuit. Perhaps more surprising is the statement released by Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) praising the Trump Administration's Seventh Court picks:

We are pleased that the President has nominated Judge St. Eve and Mr. Scudder. They both have the experience, integrity, and judgment that we look for in federal judges, and we expect them to serve with distinction on the Seventh Circuit. We appreciate the Administration's willingness to work with us and with our nonpartisan screening committee to reach consensus on nominees who will serve the people of Illinois well. We look forward to guiding these nominations through the Senate.

The latest set of nominations illustrates that the Administration is more than willing to consult with home-state Senators before making judicial picks, even for appellate courts. All that's necessary is for Senators to negotiate in good faith. They also suggest that insofar as vacant seats on some courts languish without nominees, it's unlikely due to a lack of effort by the White House Counsel's office.

If Senators Hirono, Schatz, Durbin, and Duckworth could come to terms with the White House on potential appellate nominees, what's stopping Senate delegations from states with other longstanding vacancies? There are several vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which have been declared "judicial emergencies" - including one seat that has been vacant for over two years - and yet the California Senators seem completely unwilling to cut a deal.

Judge Alice Batchelder of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit announced her intention to take senior status upon the confirmation of her successor and there's still no nominee for her position. Judge Batchelder sits in Ohio, and there's no lack of highly qualified potential nominees the White House would readily put forward with Senator Rob Portman's enthusiastic support. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), on the other hand, appears to have been wholly uncooperative. It's as if he (and some of his Democratic colleagues) are looking for ways to make Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) ignore their blue slips.

Even with this week's announcement, there remain quite a few seats to fill. As of this week there are 146 vacancies on federal courts, which accounts for approximately 16 percent of the federal bench. An additional thirty seats are classified as "future vacancies," as the judges in these seats have announced their intent to retire on a date certain or upon the confirmation of their successor. Seventeen of the current vacancies are on federal appellate courts, as are seven of the future vacancies. Not including those announced Monday, there are 50 pending nominations, including seven for appellate seats. Although the Senate has sought to expedite the confirmation process, the nomination pipeline remains full. (Information on vacancies and pending nominees may be found here.)

The Trump Administration has made judicial nominations a priority. With a few notable exceptions, it has succeeded in putting forward highly qualified nominees. At the same time, it has shown a willingness to work with home state Senators in selecting nominees. Yet I doubt this cooperative posture will last forever. Where home state Senators are unwilling to engage in good faith consultation with the Administration, I expect the White House will evenutally proceed on its own -- and given the current make-up of the Senate, these nominees will get confirmed, with or without home state support.

0 notes

nancyedimick · 8 years ago

Text

D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown to step down

The Wall Street Journaland Buzzfeed are both reporting that Judge Janice Rogers Brown will retire from active service on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This decision will create a vacancy on the 11-member court and an opportunity for President Trump to nominate someone to this important court.

Brown has sat on the D.C. Circuit for a dozen years, after serving on the California Supreme Court and in state government. Brown was first nominated to the D.C. Circuit by President George W. Bush in 2003, though she was not confirmed until 2005 due to active opposition from Senate Democrats (including a filibuster of her nomination). Here, for instance, is then-Sen. Barack Obama’s speech against her confirmation.

Brown has been a distinctive voice on the D.C. Circuit, and has authored numerous provocative and attention-getting opinions. These include her recent opinion lamenting the lack of meaningful political oversight of drone strikes, an opinion raising doubts about rational basis review of economic regulations, and a dissent arguing that the Recovery Act does not preclude suits by Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation shareholders against the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

Though neither story specifies, it is assumed that Brown will take senior status. If so, Brown could continue to participate in three-judge panels and hear cases (and would be able to decide how large or small of a caseload she would like to have).

Speculation is already beginning about who might be tapped to succeed Brown on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Ohio State’s Chris Walker identifies four potential nominees: Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand, University of Minnesota law professor Kristin Hickman, Kate Todd of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs administrator nominee Neomi Rao (who is likely to be confirmed next week).

Another possibility is for Trump to use the D.C. Circuit opening to break the apparent logjam over nominations to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. As I understand the current state of play, there are three strong, highly qualified nominees for two “Texas seats” on the 5th Circuit, each with their own base of support: District Court Judge Reed O’Connor, Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett, and Andy Oldham, a deputy general counsel to Texas Governor Greg Abbott. Picking one of these jurists for the D.C. Circuit would enable Trump to place all three on the federal bench. For what it’s worth, there is precedent for this sort of thing. Then-District Court Judge David Sentelle, for example, was nominated to the D.C. Circuit because there was not a seat available on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

Originally Found On: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/07/d-c-circuit-judge-janice-rogers-brown-to-step-down/

0 notes

wolfandpravato · 8 years ago

Text

D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown to step down

The Wall Street Journal and Buzzfeed are both reporting that Judge Janice Rogers Brown will retire from active service on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This decision will create a vacancy on the 11-member court and an opportunity for President Trump to nominate someone to this important court.

Originally Found On: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/07/d-c-circuit-judge-janice-rogers-brown-to-step-down/

#Law #Lawyer

0 notes

duaneodavila · 7 years ago

Text

President Trump’s Eleventh Wave Of Judicial Nominees

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch: the beginning, but far from the end, of President Trump’s judicial nominees.

The Trump Administration is moving so quickly on judicial nominations that I’m having a hard time keeping up. Not long after I posted my last exhaustive roundup on federal judicial nominees (see Part 1 and Part 2), the White House announced its eleventh wave of judicial nominees.

There are nine nominees, four for the circuit courts and five for the district courts. Professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond, a leading analyst of the federal judiciary, shared these overarching thoughts with me:

The most important aspect of the latest wave is that three of the appellate nominations show how White House consultation and cooperation with home state Democratic senators can yield highly qualified, conservative nominees, who in turn will smoothly secure confirmation. Illinois and Hawaii nominees illustrate this idea. Senators Durbin and Duckworth expressed strong support for the two Illinois nominees, as did Senators Schatz and Hirono for the Hawaii nominee. This shows that the process can work effectively to yield nominees whom both parties can support.

The nomination of Andy Oldham for the Fifth Circuit means that Trump will have appointed five new judges to the court and further solidified its reputation as the most conservative appeals court in the United States.

The Senate will return to confirming judges next week. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has given notice that five nominees will receive cloture votes on the Senate floor.

I agree with all of Professor Tobias’s astute insights, and I thank him for sharing them. The nominees getting cloture votes are Terry Doughty (W.D. La.), Tilman Eugene “Tripp” Self III (M.D. Ga.), Karen Gren Scholer (N.D. Tex.), A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. (D.S.C.), and Elizabeth “Lisa” Branch (11th Cir.). Expect them to be confirmed soon.

If Senator McConnell and the Republicans would like to maintain or even accelerate the pace of judicial confirmations, Professor Tobias has this advice to offer:

Karen Gren Scholer is one of the four district nominees on whom Senator McConnell will move for cloture next week. If confirmed, she will be the fifth Obama nominee whom Trump has renominated and confirmed, which shows the efficacy of that approach because renominees only need an SJC [Senate Judiciary Committee] and floor vote. The practice could work well in California, New York, and New Jersey, where there are Obama nominees like Scholer. Rumors from 2017 said that the White House was considering some of them for New York and New Jersey vacancies. California and New York both have two circuit and nine district vacancies.

This is wise advice (at least for district-court nominees; I don’t expect the White House to give up circuit seats unless absolutely necessary). And it’s consistent with information I’ve previously reported as well. For example, federal prosecutor Diane Gujarati, said to be on the slate of judicial nominees that the White House floated to New York’s senators, was an Obama nominee to the Eastern District of New York.

I’ll now discuss the state of play in judicial nominations in more detail, proceeding circuit by circuit, as usual. If you have any comments, corrections, or additional information, please email me (subject line: “Judicial Nominations”). As you read this roundup, keep these useful links on hand for ready reference:

There are a number of circuits with no new nominees or other news. If you don’t see a circuit listed here, it’s because I don’t have anything to report.

Third Circuit

There’s a new district-court nominee within the Third Circuit: Peter Phipps, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. (Links to nominee names will generally go to their Wikipedia pages. I’ve noticed that every Trump judicial nominee seems to have a fresh Wikipedia page, in a consistent format, with generally positive information. Props to whoever in the White House or Justice Department came up with the idea of creating or editing these pages.)

Phipps is a graduate of Stanford Law School, a former Sixth Circuit clerk, a former associate at Jones Day (the go-to law firm for the Trump Administration), and a current lawyer at the Department of Justice (specifically, in the Federal Programs Branch of the Civil Division). During his 14 years at the DOJ, Phipps has earned significant recognition for his work, including the Attorney General’s Distinguished Service Award. With this strong background and the support of his home-state senators, Phipps should be easily confirmed.

Fourth Circuit

The Fourth Circuit seat of Judge Dennis Shedd of South Carolina is now officially open (after Judge Shedd took senior status on January 30). As reported by Kevin Daley of the Daily Caller, the White House reached out to Representative Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the former federal and state prosecutor who attained fame (or infamy) for leading the congressional investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email situation, to gauge his interest in judicial service. But Gowdy passed, and the seat awaits a nominee.

As for the district courts within the circuit, Thomas S. Kleeh, a partner at Steptoe & Johnson — the West Virginia firm, not the D.C. firm — has been nominated to the Northern District of West Virginia. He’s a seasoned litigator with deep West Virginia roots — he graduated from West Virginia University (summa cum laude) and the West Virginia University College of Law, where he served as editor-in-chief of the law review — and he enjoys the support of Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.). I don’t believe Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) has weighed in yet, but considering Kleeh’s credentials and Manchin’s general conservatism — he crossed the aisle to vote for Justice Neil Gorsuch — I predict that Kleeh will have a smooth confirmation.

Fifth Circuit

I previously predicted that Andrew Oldham would be nominated for the seat of Judge Edward Prado, whom the Trump Administration (brilliantly) picked to serve as ambassador to Argentina, and this prediction has come to pass.

Oldham, currently serving as General Counsel to Texas Governor Greg Abbott, is young (39). But as a 2005 graduate of Harvard Law School, he does have more than the 12 years that the American Bar Association likes to see in judicial nominees. His résumé is otherwise superb and extremely well-rounded: clerkships for Judge David Sentelle (D.C. Cir.) and Justice Samuel A. Alito, federal government service (at the Justice Department’s elite Office of Legal Counsel), private practice (at the uber-prestigious Kellogg Hansen law firm), and now state government service (in the Texas Solicitor General’s office and now to Governor Abbott). Oldham enjoys the support of Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, and I expect Oldham to be confirmed.

The Mississippi-based seat of Judge E. Grady Jolly still wants for a nominee. There was some concern in Mississippi that it might be losing this seat to another state, but it now seems that Mississippi will retain it.

Who will fill it? Here’s what one source said:

In the ongoing drama over replacing Grady Jolly on the Fifth Circuit, the name of U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman “Sul” Ozerden, a former naval flight officer and Turkish American, has been mentioned. He would be interesting.

Senator Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) is said to be continuing to push for Chief Judge Daniel Jordan (S.D. Miss.), while Governor Phil Bryant is supporting Judge Jack Wilson (Miss. Ct. App.), who’s young (in his late thirties; I could see him getting a district court spot instead). State Supreme Court Justice James D. “Jimmy” Maxwell has also been mentioned.

This is taking an awfully long time Have the state’s delegation and the White House Counsel’s office reached an impasse?

As for action on district-court nominees, last month Walter David Counts III (W.D. Tex.) got confirmed by a vote of 96-0. No surprise there: Counts, a long-serving magistrate judge, was previously nominated to the district bench by President Obama, and he had support from both of Texas’s senators.

Sixth Circuit

Last month witnessed confirmations of two nominees to the district bench: Thomas “Tommy” Parker (W.D. Tenn.), confirmed by a vote of 98-0, and William L. Campbell Jr. (M.D. Tenn.), confirmed by a vote of 97-0. In these polarized times, it’s nice to see senators agreeing on things (although note that even these non-controversial nominees are getting confirmed by roll-call rather than voice vote).

Seventh Circuit

The subject of nominees who enjoy broad support brings us to the two new Seventh Circuit nominees: Judge Amy St. Eve and Skadden partner Michael Scudder, nominated by President Trump but also supported by Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.). These were the nominees praised by Professor Tobias as “highly qualified, conservative nominees, who [should enjoy] secure confirmation.” As prominent Chicago lawyer Peter Baugher, chair of former Senator Mark Kirk’s Judicial Screening Commission, raved to me, “Judge Amy St. Eve and Michael Scudder are first-rate nominees to fill the Illinois Seventh Circuit vacancies.”

I highlighted Mike Scudder as a potential nominee back in May 2017: “He graduated from Northwestern Law, where he was editor-in-chief of the law review; clerked for SCOTUS, for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy; worked as a federal prosecutor in Manhattan; and served in the George W. Bush White House, as general counsel of the National Security Council. Plus, he’s a CPA!”

As for Judge St. Eve, the double-Cornell grad has a broad range of experience: private practice, at Davis Polk; in-house practice, at Abbott Laboratories; and government service, as an assistant U.S. attorney in Chicago and in the Whitewater Independent Counsel’s Office. Ken Starr’s investigation into the Whitewater scandal and then L’Affaire Lewinsky might have been controversial, but there’s no denying that his deputies have gone on to impressive legal careers. Fellow Whitewater alums include Judge Brett Kavanaugh (D.C. Cir.) and Judge Steven Colloton (8th Cir.) have been mentioned by the Trump administration as possible Supreme Court nominees, and Karin Immergut served as U.S. Attorney for Oregon (and is now in the running for a district-court seat there).

When she was nominated for the district bench back in 2002, Amy St. Eve earned a “Well Qualified” rating from the ABA, despite her youth (36 at the time). Now that she has more than 15 years of judicial experience added to her résumé, it would be hard to come up with a more qualified nominee than Judge St. Eve.

Eighth Circuit

It should have happened long ago, but better late than never: on January 30, Justice David Stras of the Minnesota Supreme Court won confirmation to the Eighth Circuit, by a vote of 56-42. In the past, a nominee this qualified and popular would have won confirmation in a landslide — but in our polarized times, the Democrats presumably want to protect their prerogative to vote against him should he be nominated to the Supreme Court. (Stras appeared on then-candidate Donald Trump’s first SCOTUS shortlist, and Democrats surely recall how President Trump got a lot of mileage out of the fact that Neil Gorsuch won confirmation to the Tenth Circuit without any Democratic objection.)

As for the district courts… whoa, President Trump nominated C.J. Williams to the Northern District of Iowa? How is a 28-year-old NBA player qualified to be a federal judge?

Actually, no; the judicial nominee is C.J. Williams, former federal prosecutor and current U.S. magistrate judge, not C.J. Williams, the Los Angeles Clippers shooting guard. Williams has the support of his two home-state senators, Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) — and Grassley is, of course, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Look for Williams to move up to the Article III leagues very soon.

The latest round of nominees features two picks for the District of Minnesota: Judge Nancy Brasel, currently a Minnesota State District Court Judge for the Fourth Judicial District, and Eric Tostrud, an of-counsel at Lockridge Grindal Nauen who also serves on the full-time faculty at Mitchell Hamline School of Law (from which he graduated — the William Mitchell part, not the Hamline part — summa cum laude).

Brasel and Tostrud should be easily confirmed, given their distinguished careers and bipartisan support. They’ve earned praise from Representative Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.) and Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who said, “They are both well-respected in the legal community and over their long legal careers they have proved that they are well-qualified. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I look forward to working with both of them throughout the confirmation process.”

Ninth Circuit

Last month, in discussing the nomination of assistant U.S. attorney Jill Otake to the district court with bipartisan support, I guessed that the White House and Hawaii’s two Democratic senators had cut a deal — and it looks like that was right.

The new Ninth Circuit nominee from Hawaii, Mark J. Bennett, enjoys bipartisan support. Currently a director in the Honolulu law firm of Starn O’Toole Marcus & Fisher, Bennett previously served as Hawaii’s attorney general. That was under the governorship of Linda Lingle, a Republican, but Bennett now boasts the support of Senators Mazie K. Hirono and Brian Schatz, both Democrats. Look for this Cornell Law School graduate, former assistant U.S. attorney, and seasoned litigator (with two SCOTUS wins under his belt) to join the Ninth Circuit soon.

The other Ninth Circuit news comes out of Oregon. The state’s two Democratic senators, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, made a big deal over their bipartisan judicial selection committee last fall — and complained that the Trump administration’s nominee, federal prosecutor Ryan Bounds, hadn’t gone through their committee.

The senators recently sent the White House a letter listing the four district-court and four circuit-court nominees approved by their committee. Lo and behold, Ryan Bounds was one of the Ninth Circuit picks.

So does that mean the senators now support his nomination? Alas, no — Senators Merkley and Wyden have moved the goalposts on Bounds, now finding new reasons to complain about him.

As I have disclosed before, I’m not an objective observer here; Ryan and I were classmates at Yale Law School, then co-clerks to Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain (whose seat Ryan is nominated to fill). But I do believe that an objective observer would and should join both the American Bar Association and the Oregon senators’ judicial selection committee in supporting his nomination.

For example, here’s the evaluation of Ryan Bounds from the Vetting Room, a website I’ve praised before for its detailed, thorough, non-partisan analyses of judicial nominees:

Ryan Bounds, a federal prosecutor, is President Trump’s first nominee for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. An Oregon native and an accomplished lawyer, with experience in private practice and the public sector, Bounds has not received the support of the state’s senators, who contend that his nomination was made in contravention of the state’s bipartisan selection process. [Ed. note: This was written before the bipartisan committee came out in support of Bounds.]

Bounds’ relatively long, diverse career in litigation makes him an experienced candidate for the bench. While Bounds’ political orientation is decidedly conservative, his public positions have not been dogmatic or particularly ideological. If Bounds is able to overcome the blue slip hurdle and gain the support of his home state senators, he will likely be confirmed.

And he should be confirmed, with the support of his senators. I would urge Senators Wyden and Merkley to take a page from Senator Amy Klobuchar’s playbook on the David Stras nomination. Senator Klobuchar, a Democrat, said that while she does not share all of Stras’s views — to wit, he’s more conservative than she is — “after carefully reviewing his record, I determined that he is qualified to serve.” She also stated, quite correctly in my view, that “at this moment in our history, I believe that in some small way it’s important that we respect those we don’t always agree with” — and support qualified nominees, notwithstanding the ideological disagreements we might have with them.

(For more analysis of the Ryan Bounds nomination, including my responses to the (rather weak) objections raised to him, read this Oregonian op-ed that I co-authored with prominent Oregon attorney Courtney Angeli, in which we urge the Senate to confirm Ryan without delay.)

Eleventh Circuit

As mentioned earlier, look for Judge Elizabeth “Lisa” Branch, currently serving on the Georgia Court of Appeals, to be confirmed as early as next week.

As for district-court nominations, last month Michael Lawrence Brown was confirmed to serve as a judge for the Northern District of Georgia, by a vote of 92-0.

************

And that’s a wrap. If you have any comments or corrections, please reach out by email (subject line: “Judicial Nominations”) or by text message (646-820-8477, including the words “Judicial Nominations” in your text, so I can find your message in my inundated inbox). Thanks!

President Donald J. Trump Announces Eleventh Wave of Judicial Nominees [White House]

Earlier:

President Trump’s Eleventh Wave Of Judicial Nominees republished via Above the Law

0 notes