Judge Michelle Williams Court – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

For the past twelve years, Judge Michelle Williams Court has served on the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Judge Court has now been nominated for a promotion to the federal bench.

Background

Born in 1966, Court received her B.A. from Pomona College in 1988 and a J.D. from Loyola Law School in 1993. Court then spent a year at Gilbert Kelly Crowley & Jennett and a year at the ACLU of Southern California before joining Litt & Marquez.

In 1999, Court moved to the Department of Housing and Urban Development as a fellow and civil rights specialist and then spent two years at Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach.

In 2002, Court joined Bet Tzedek Legal Services, becoming Vice President and General Counsel. In 2012, she became a Judge on the Los Angeles County Superior Court, where she serves as supervising judge in the civil division.

History of the Seat

Court has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to a seat vacated on May 1, 2024, by Judge Dale Fischer.

Legal Experience

The first decade out of law school, Court moved between a number of different positions, both in private practice and in government. During this time, while at Litt & Associates, Court represented Julie Biggs, who filed a civil rights lawsuit against the City of Redlands, claiming that the City had threatened to cut ties with Biggs’ law firm as retaliation for the political activities of Biggs’ husband. See Biggs v. Best, Best & Krieger, 189 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 1999). The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. See id. at 997.

In 2002, Court joined Bet Tzedek Legal Services. While at the firm, Court represented amici in support of a City of Los Angeles ordinance preventing landlords of public housing from increasing rents on tenants after the Section 8 housing contract is terminated. See Apartment Ass’n of L.A. v. City of L.A., 38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 575 (Cal. App. 3d Div. 2006). Court also represented amici supporting a City of Santa Monica suit against a landlord for alleged violations of the health and building codes. See City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez, 182 P.3d 1027 (Cal. 2008).

Jurisprudence

Since 2012, Court has served as a judge on the Los Angeles County Superior Court. In this role, Court has presided over trial court matters in criminal, civil, family, and other state law matters. Currently, Court presides in the civil division of the court. Notably, Court presided over a lawsuit brought by Kiara Belen, a model who alleged that the show Shahs of Sunset used her likeness without her permission. See Belen v. Ryan Seacrest Prods. LLC. et al., 65 Cal. App. 5th 1145 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2021). Court denied a motion to strike/dismiss the complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP law, which was largely affirmed by the Court of Appeals. See id.

Among her notable cases, Court granted summary judgment against claims brought by a man who fell over a retaining wall on a trail, significantly injuring himself. See Arvizu v. City of Pasadena, 21 Cal. App. 5th 760 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2018). Court ruled that the trail immunity statute barred the plaintiff’s claims and the Court of Appeals affirmed. See id. By contrast, the Court of Appeals reversed Court’s dismissal of product liability claims brought by plaintiffs alleging injuries from Memory Gel breast implants. See Mize v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, 51 Cal. App. 5th 850 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2020).

In another notable case, Court was reversed by the Court of Appeals where she denied a motion to compel arbitration in an employment dispute. See Alvarez v. Altamed Health Services Corp., 60 Cal. App. 5th 572 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2021). Similarly, in another case, Court was again reversed for refusing to enforce an arbitration contract as substantively unconscionable under California law. See Basith v. Lithia Motors, Inc., 90 Cal. App. 5th 951 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2021).

Overall Assessment

If confirmed, Court would join the federal bench with extensive experience with litigation as well as California law. That being said, she may draw questions in the confirmation process regarding her reversals from the Court of Appeals on issues of arbitration.

111 Comments

  1. No doubt Judge Williams Court will be questioned about the number of reversals she’s received.

    Another issue is that she seems to have little experience in Federal law. She been focused heavily on California law. I’m surprised she was interested in a Federal Judgeship instead of a higher state court position. I don’t expect that to be a problem though.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I thought Court would receive more questioning at the SJC hearing. I guess Netburn took up most of the oxygen. The only knock against court is she is in her high 50’s.

      I’m actually really surprised judge Garnett was picked before her a couple of years ago. Court is a Black woman too, but seems to be much more progressive & she would have only been in her mid 50’s then. Either way her background is so solid that I still give her an A despite her age & look forward to seeing her get confirmed.

      Like

  2. It’s so frustrating that Manchin won’t run for reelection which could’ve diverted tens of millions of GOP super pac money from Ohio, Montana and other states into WV but has decided to vote like he is and made the Dems majority into an effective minority unless Collins or Murkowski vote in support of a judge.

    Just wildly unhelpful.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Aframe received his commission yesterday. The only other two judges that can take the bench now are the two South Dakota judges, and the closest one after that is Lanham on June 1.

    Speaking of the First Circuit, I’d imagine that going forward Lipez will probably be the easiest appeals court nominee remaining to confirm, given that I’d be surprised if Collins didn’t return a blue slip on her (and I’m sure Collins of all of the Republican Senators is not the Senator Biden would want to kick a hornet’s nest with).

    With blue slips, as I mentioned yesterday Rick Scott still hasn’t returned a blue slip on Shaw-Wilder, but I wonder if Rubio has. While I highly doubt they’d split on blue slips for Kidd, even getting Rubio’s blue slip there would be big.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I saw the comment on how GOP senators have been getting worse. Because judges tend to seek like-minded successors, Leahy’s insistence on keeping blue slips as well as decisions by GOP senators from that era will still have an impact long after blue slips are gone.

    – TENNESSEE: Alexander and Corker approved of Jane Stranch & Bernice Donald, making room for Andre Mathis & (probably) Karla Campbell. Had Alexander & Corker been more obstructive, we might have 2 FedSoc hacks instead of Mathis & Campbell.

    – ARIZONA: John McCain & Jon Kyl approved of Murguia & Hurwitz. Hurwitz was succeeded by Roopali Desai, and Murguia is not going to let a Republican president replace her.

    – ALASKA: Morgan Christen was approved by Lisa Murkowski (other senator was a Dem). Unless Christen lets a GOP president or GOP Senate replace her, Dan Sullivan will have no say in who her successor is.

    On the other hand:

    – KENTUCKY: Turtle & Rand Paul held Boyce F. Martin Jr.’s seat open, filling it with Amul Thapar.

    – WISCONSIN: Ron Johnson held Terence T. Evans’s seat open, thus making both Wisconsin seats conservative so Johnson doesn’t have to worry about Biden shoving a circuit judge down his throat.

    – ALABAMA: Richard Shelby & Jeff Sessions held a circuit court seat open, allowing Trump to fill the seat with Kevin Newsom.

    And some large state GOP senators wanted the appearance of being reasonable, allowing Dem judges for some seats while other seats are saved for FedSoc hacks:

    – TEXAS: Cornyn & Cruz approved Gregg Costa, who then resigned and was succeeded by Irma Ramirez. Costa’s resignation also (arguably) paved the way for 3 district judges. However, Cornyn & Cruz held the other 2 Texas seats open. Willett & Ho are not going to let a Democrat replace them. It was crucial that Cornyn & Cruz didn’t have blue slip power this time, because if they did, Costa’s successor might have been a FedSoc hack instead of Irma Ramirez.

    – GEORGIA: Chambliss & Isakson allowed Obama to appoint 2 liberals (Martin, J. Pryor) in exchange for 1 conservative (J. Carnes). J. Carnes was succeeded by a Trump judge, but Martin was succeeded by Abudu (now that Georgia’s senate seats have flipped). I do not expect any of these seats to flip anytime soon.

    Liked by 4 people

      • Also, I haven’t really been able to see a correlation between circuit court vacancies and GOP Sens. returning blue slips for district court judges (other than Texas and perhaps a couple other states).

        GOP approved circuit and district judges: Texas (1; 3/8), Louisiana (1; 3/6), Indiana (2; 3/4), South Carolina (1; 1/1), Maine (1; 1/1) (presumptive)

        GOP opposed circuit judge, GOP approved district judges: Pennsylvania (1; 4/5), Ohio (1; 4/4)

        GOP approved circuit judge, no district judges: Kansas

        GOP opposed circuit judge, district court seats held open: Montana (1; 1), Tennessee (3; 1) (further evidence that Blackburn isn’t very smart because there is literally only 1 vacant district court seat; Blackburn’s strategy would at least make more sense if she was holding 10 district court seats open)

        GOP approved district judges; no circuit vacancy: FL (at the time), IA, NE, OK, SD, UT, WY

        I probably missed some states so feel free to add on states that I forgot to mention.

        Liked by 1 person

    • The Wisconsin flip is the most inexcusable. Victoria Nourse was nominated the year before Johnson became a senator. It’s ridiculous senate Democrats didn’t confirm her before he took his seat.

      The Georgia situation is the one that upsets me the most. In addition to a 61 year old Carnes, they also got a couple conservative district court judges as well. Thank God judge Boggs didn’t get confirmed, but Trump eventually got to fill his seat anyway.

      Abdul Kallon ended up resigning from his district court seat so the Alabama situation was a double whammy. Trump got to fill the 11th seat & no way Biden will get to backfill Kallon before the end of the year.

      Like

      • Yeah, basically the point is that these senators are allowed to obstruct because they or their predecessors obstructed during Obama’s presidency. I wish that more red state liberals who went senior during Obama’s presidency would have hung on until Biden’s presidency. Part of the reason that Biden has gotten so few red state seats is because GOP senators have stacked these seats up with conservatives by using blue slips to prevent Obama or Clinton from filling the seat

        Liked by 1 person

    • Another example is Wyoming, the GOP senators agreed to Gregory Phillips, a Democrat who was the state AG for a GOP Governor (came from the same law firm).

      I’ll say one more thing, if the GOP had abused the blue slips even more, Leahy may well have gotten rid of blue slips after the end of the filibuster. If there had been 10 open circuit seats instead of 5, the pressure to get rid of them would have been stronger.

      Liked by 3 people

  5. Good overview by Ryan J of the Obama era behavior by GOP senators.

    Let’s do a what-if on Leahy on blue slips, say he makes them optional after 6 months of consultation with the senators not resulting in a nominee. Whom would we have gotten for the other circuit court seats?

    Kentucky- Obama nominates Lisabeth Hughes in 2014 (as he did in 2016).

    Wisconsin- Victoria Nourse.

    Alabama- Probably Abdul Kallon.

    Texas- Obama supposedly had a deal with Cornyn and Cruz for Costa, Marina Marmolejo, and GWB district judge Xavier Rodriguez. I’d guess that in this world, all three are on the 5th Circuit.

    Georgia- No change.

    I don’t think the Obama admin had the mentality to force through three liberals in Texas or Georgia.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. I find it interesting that after waiting so long for Ritz to be nominated to Gibbons’ seat, Campbell was nominated almost within 4 months of Stranch announcing her senior status – that’s got to be the fastest that a red-state circuit nominee has ever been announced, right?

    Between Campbell getting announced so quickly and Tillis’s complaints about the CA4 nominee, looks like the WH is finally giving up on finding consensus with Republican senators (who are very clearly trying to stall the appointment of any more judges until after the election). If every circuit nominee other than Lipez is going to be a party-line vote at this point (and if Collins/Murk vote against Maldonado, then we can probably assume that they’ll vote against all the others), then there’s no point in waiting around to announce a nominee or going with a barely left-of-center “consensus” candidate.

    Hopefully this means some great nominees to the CA4 seat and maybe the CA3 ones too (if/when they withdraw Mangi – Delaware’s all corporate lawyers, so I wouldn’t expect anyone great/I’d bet on it being one of Jordan’s former clerks).

    Liked by 2 people

  7. A part of me is glad that Biden, Schumer, and Durbin seem to be united in their goal of leaving no circuit court seats unfilled (3rd CCA – Mangi, notwithstanding). But I can’t help but wonder if it would be better to play hardball with the circuit court in exchange for blue slips returned for district court nominees. (Yes, I know GOP senators don’t work in good faith in judicial vacancy negotiations)

    I could be wrong, but I don’t think the district court seats that Biden was able to fill in Texas came as a *direct* result of Biden settling for Irma Ramirez for the 5th. My thoughts are that it was a backroom deal where Biden nominated Ramirez and Cruz and Cornyn gave their approval to a few older consensus nominees to non-single division vacancies (we all know how much the Texas GOP loves those single division judges). The 5th circuit as a result became more conservative going from Costa to Ramirez, but the overall composition of the circuit didn’t change. So, was it a good deal? Could Biden have gotten more district court judges if he threatened to nominate a late 30’s-something Latina ACLU laywer in exchange for 4-5 guaranteed district court nominees? There is a chance that Cruz would’ve called his bluff and there would be 8+ vacancies left unfilled (creating another blank canvas for the next GOP president to paint on)

    I know that Circuit Court seats are more valuable than district court seats on principle (No GOP senator in ND/SD/AR/MO/IA/NE is scared of liberal district court judges because they are assured of a very conservative 8th circuit reversing them. Likewise, there is no concern for any GOP appointee in the upper Northeast because an all-Dem 1st circuit will keep them in check. I just wonder if further expanding the Dems district court lead nationwide would be worth it in exchange for less liberal circuit court judges.

    Moderate district court judges from Dem presidents are always preferred to absolute FedSoc hacks like Kasmaryck, Reed O’Conner, Judge Tipton, etc.,

    Overall, Biden getting 45+ circuit court seats after having a 50-50 senate for two years is beyond impressive, and it’ll stem the tide of the right-wing judicial insurgency in this country. If only something could be done about SCOTUS…

    Liked by 2 people

      • Yeah agreed, Joe – Ramirez has a pretty traditional background, but there’s no basis from her record on CA5 so far to conclude that Ramirez is more conservative than Costa (who was a career prosecutor and a center-left judge, not some liberal lion). Folks here just dislike the fact that she’s old and assume that means she’s a moderate, which doesn’t actually make any sense.

        Also, CA5 is so far off the deep end b/c of its insane conservatives that a progressive vs. a moderate Dem appointee isn’t going to change anything – especially when the far-right majority will go en hanc to overturn any noteworthy liberal panel decision.

        Liked by 2 people

  8. @Dequan, Agree with you about Victoria Nourse.
    No excuse for that seat being open as long as it was, nor some of the other seats as well.
    I know it’s over and done with but it still irks me that the 7th and 11th Circuits could be moderate/liberal courts right now.
    At least we seem to be learning for the most part (stupid comments about bringing the blue slip and Irma Ramirez aside) from those mistakes, especially with the 6th Circuit vacancies.
    It does seem Biden and whomever is in charge of sorting out nominations understands the fact Blackburn and some others aren’t going to happy with Circuit Court nominees unless they’re far right extremists that make Alito look like a hippy.
    Given that, what’s the point of trying to work with them?
    If nothing else, it’s nice to see Blackburn’s temper tantrum and attacks on Ritz blow up in her face.
    I think if she had been reasonable with Ritz, Campbell likely wouldn’t have been nominated.
    But she wasn’t so she was and we’re better for it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I totally agree. Had Blackburn taken the approach we saw in Indiana, Louisiana, Kansas, South Carolina & Texas, I think we would have seen a different scenario take place.

      If Blackburn had initially offered a hypothetical package deal of Camille McMullen (6th) & Edward Stanton (WDTN), the WH almost certainly would have accepted that, Thankfully she’s not that smart or we wouldn’t have gotten Andre Mathis.

      If all are confirmed, you can make the argument that out of Biden’s eventual five 6th Circuit Court judges, the four red state judges are better picks than the one blue state judge. Stephanie Davis is good, but she was in her mid 50’s, was put on the court by Trump (Albeit in a package deal as a Democrat pick) & we had to backfill her seat. Kevin Ritz is 7 years younger & has a pretty decent background himself. Andre Mathis had a good background with work with The Innocence Project. Both he & Karla Campbell, who herself is a solid liberal, are in their low 40’s. And of course Rachel Bloomekatz is an A+.

      Like

  10. Saw an interesting tidbit on Twitter where Sen. Tillis claims the Biden WH has a 4th Circuit nominee to replace Judge Wynn but that other Democratic senators opposed that nominee.
    No clue who he could be talking about.
    Wouldn’t it expect to be Ryan Park, maybe Allison Riggs?

    Liked by 1 person

    • We talked about this a few weeks back. Go back and watch the hearing from two weeks ago.

      Tillis said that the WH was all set to announce a CA4 nominee that the NC senators found to be unacceptable. So Tillis went to 2 Dems to get assurance that they would not support that nominee, which, from, what Tillis said, resulted in the WH no longer nominating that person.

      There were speculations as to who the two Dems are. Most of us assumed one is Manchin.

      Liked by 1 person

    • We flaked about this extensively during the SJC executive meeting a few weeks ago. When Blackburn was crying about not being consulted about Kevin Ritz, Tillis spoke about his experience with the vacancy in the 4th.

      There was also an article last week that gave more insight. It stated Tillis & Budd presented 4 recommendations & the WH presented 4. The WH has picked one of the 4 they presented to Tillis & Budd. We assume that nominee is being vetted now.

      Like

      • Dequan, are you saying that you think 1 of the 4 being processed is the one that Tillis whipped the 2 Dems against?

        If so, I have a different reading of the situation. Base on what I remember Tillis saying at the hearing, I think the WH may have backed down from picking that person, since the nominee would be unconfirmable, with the 2 Dems in Tillis’ pocket. (Assuming Tillis isn’t BSing.)

        Further, from reading the recent articles on the NC senators’ negotiations with the WH on district court vacancies, it seems like they are still working on the CA4 vacancy. If the WH was sticking to its choice over the objections of the senators, then they’d be no need for them to further negotiate on the lower court vacancies. remember Tillis said they won’t even touch those 2 vacancies until they’ve come to an agreement on CA4.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The article just made a reference to the WH went with one of the four recommendations they have Tillis & Budd. It didn’t state if it was the same one Tillis whipped two Democrats against.

        And I read the article & Tillis statement (A couple weeks apart) different from you. Tillis statement at the SJC made it seem as though he was trying to negotiate the 4th & three vacancies together. The article made it seem Tillis said he can’t even begin discussions on the three vacancies until they get the 4th vacancy situated.

        Like

      • I don’t think we’re in disagreement regarding your second paragraph. I think the two things (Tillis statement and article) are essentially the same. The sens are using the lower court vacancies as leverage in their negotiations with the WH for CA4. This would mean that the WH isn’t nominating someone over their objection, otherwise the negotiations would come to an end.

        Of course, I’d rather the WH go with a stellar nominee even if that means leaving the district court vacancies behind. We shall see (hopefully soon!)

        Liked by 1 person

      • I think it’s most likely the WH wanted to nominate one of their 4 that was likely an A+. Somebody like Riggs (Probably not her though). That person is probably who Tillis got two Democrats to oppose so more than likely the WH went with one of the other 3 who are more like an A- or B+ type.

        I don’t think it looks good for the 3 district court seats until after the election unless the WH went with one if Tillis 4 recommendations. They are more likely in line with a Kolar type & in sure at least one of the court are more in line with a Ramirez type.

        Like

  12. Let’s say Tillis has in fact convinced 2 Dems to pledge no votes for a potential nominee. Why announce it now? Wouldn’t it do more hard to announce it after the WH announces the name bc that way they’ve already publicly committed to support someone who isn’t able to be confirmed and have to deal with a way to replace the nom and save face?

    Tillis’ announcement now in combination to dangling the district seats def feels like a bargaining chip IMO.

    I suspect that Tillis might be offering someone like Former NC Supreme Court Justice Mike Morgan (Who is a decent pick aside from the fact that he is turning 69 later on this year).

    With regards to a Kolar type, that would most likely be Glenn Gerding – early 50’s white, male, JAG officer, who is a long time Appellate Defender.

    Liked by 1 person

    • @keystone

      Not sure I understand your first point. Are you saying you think it would have been better if the NC senators pull a Ron Johnson by pulling their support for a nominee that they previously told the WH they’d return blue slips for?

      I don’t think Tillis’ statement was some big announcement. He was just speaking off the cuff on the Ritz nomination and used his own experience.

      If you really want to stop a nominee, I think it’s much better to try to preemptively sink it, especially by lining up the votes against it. Because administrations usually dig in once an announcement is made.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I too believe that too. Coons did the same thing with Blackburn about Ritz. I can’t imagine a senator from the home state of the President blocking a nominee to appease a bad faith Republican who had no problem voting for judges shoved down Democrat senators’ throats just 4 years earlier.

        I have been right on a lot of things on this blog. I predicted 9 of Biden’s 48 circuit court nominees. That’s not counting Luch Koh would I just didn’t think Biden would go with despite her being the most likely or Childs who I predicted for the 4th, not DC circuit. But one thing I was wrong on was last year when I said Biden wouldn’t nominate any more circuit court nominees without Republican blue slips. Since then, we have gotten Ritz, Campbell & we will see about Kidd. I am most happy I was wrong about this. I see no reason to believe the 4th will continue this trend.

        Like

  13. My guess is Tillis is afraid the WH could convince the non Manchin senator to change their vote to yes. Particularly if Biden and/or senate Dems lose the election, in the lame duck. Tillis former mind the WH changing their minds & going with one of his 4 picks because out of the 3 district court nominees, one will likely be a White man in his 60, a Dena King type & the third possibly a Republican or moderate.

    As for the four names Tillis recommended, I could definitely see both names you mentioned. I hadn’t thought about Mike Morgan but he seems like the type Tillis would push for. Glenn Gerding I definitely thought of, particularly being a veterans. He would be straight out of central casting for a Kolar type.

    Like

  18. Just a reminder all, Harsh has informed me the Embry Kidd article I wrote will likely be published in the next day or two. Therefore, I will continue to write any of my thoughts here on this page until the article after Kidd’s is posted.

    I hope you all enjoy it. It’s my second time being a guest writer & I once again want to thank Harsh for such a great opportunity. I also want to thank @Ethan for proofreading it & offering his suggestions.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Finally got to watch parts of Wednesday’s committee hearing (I was out of town for work.)
    It’s clear Sarah Netburn will be a party line vote and is going to be moved to the back of the line confirmation wise.
    If the bigotry around the one case wasn’t so angering, it would be laughable.
    Show me any other instance sans the January 6th traitors where Republicans care about anything that happens to people in prison, especially female inmates.
    The you deserve what you get mantra is strong with Republicans and this gaslighting over concern over female inmates doesn’t change that.
    Just a way to attack trans people, nothing more.
    As to the one article, if they are vetting someone who is LGBT for a seat, I’ve got to believe it’s Christopher Howland for the 3rd Circuit.
    Had him as a nominee for a DE seat since day one with his background and being LGBT and Kent Jordan’s seat would be a good fit for him.

    Liked by 1 person

    • @Zack

      Yea I always love when Republicans all of a something care about prison reform. I guess better late than never… Lol

      As for the article I posted, Christopher Howland is also my front runner for the 3rd too. I’m just not sure that’s who the article is talking about. Jordan announced rather recently. Unless he gave Biden a bigger heads up than the federal vacancy site shows, I’m not so sure that nominee is already being vetted.

      If I had to put my money somewhere, I would put it in one of the California vacancies. Between how long some of the seats have been vacant combined with one of the two senators being openly LGBT, I would say one of those seats are the favorites.

      Like

      • Honesty, it could be any number of possibilities.

        We recently discussed Tiffany Palmer for EDPA.

        Lisa Beane is a former Wilhelmina Wright clerk who was recently a finalist for the MN Supreme Court. She could be a contender for the MN seat.

        There’s still an open seat in Arizona and Sinema is the only openly bisexual Senator. Perhaps her final pick will be queer as well.

        Speaking of the 3rd Circuit, maybe they’re considering Jeremy Feigenbaum to replace Mangi.

        This is just to name a few.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oh I forgot Lisa Beane was LGBT. Yea, she could definitely be the person the article was talking about if so. The Minnesota vacancy has been announced long enough that a nominee should be going through the vetting process & as I said when the two Minnesota Justices were picked, I wouldn’t be surprised whatsoever if one of the runner ups were selected for the district court vacancy.

        As for a replacement for Mangi, apparently this White House didn’t get the memo from the Trump administration & thinks 37 years old is too young for this seat. Unless they change their mind, Jeremy Feigenbaum is likely out. Hopefully they don’t think 38 is too young since it’s been a year now.

        If there was more time, perhaps the WH would try to change Fabiana Pierre-Louis’s mind but there’s not enough time for second guessing now. Out of the remaining names mentioned in the article (Below), I would imagine Jose Almonte would be the front runner. Michael Farbiarz isn’t progressive enough plus we would have to backfill his seat, Vikas Khanna isn’t much better & Lisa Perez Friscia is damn near a Republican.

        (https://newjerseyglobe.com/fr/adeel-mangi-is-top-candidate-for-third-circuit-court-of-appeals-seat/)

        Like

      • Howland’s unlikely – looks like he transferred from Delaware to DC, as he’s been prosecuting the January 6th cases: https://wsvn.com/news/us-world/capitol-police-officer-who-aided-jan-6-rioter-gets-probation/. It’s more likely that they’d pick someone currently practicing in Delaware. There’s also nothing in the article to suggest that the LGBT candidate is for a circuit seat rather than a district seat, and former Jordan clerk Jennifer Hall is likely to be perceived as easier to confirm given that she’s been a magistrate judge and is now a district judge. To the extent that Howland is nominated for anything, it would more likely be to fill Hall’s seat.

        Liked by 1 person

  22. There’s an article on NY Times about former DC Circuit judge David Tatel.

    It might be paywalled but for (christ sakes it’s only 4 bucks a month). He talks about meeting with RBG and how she was annoyed with people calling for her to retire.

    He said, that she should have because that led to ACB going on the the Supreme Court.

    Those events led him to retire but also he wanted to speak out against the Supreme Court.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/27/us/david-tatel-vision-blindness-supreme-court.html

    Liked by 2 people

  23. Senate Finance Committee posted a hearing for the first three Tax Court nominees back from February for next Tuesday:

    https://www.finance.senate.gov/hearings/hearing-to-consider-the-nominations-of-james-r-ives-of-virginia-to-be-inspector-general-department-of-the-treasury-vice-eric-m-thorson-rose-e-jenkins-of-the-district-of-columbia-to-be-a-judge-of-the-united-states-tax-court-for-a-term-of-fifteen-years-vice-elizabeth-crewson-paris-term-expired_adam-b-landy-of-south-carolina-to-be-a-judge-of-the-united-states-tax-court-for-a-term-of-fifteen-years-david-gustafson-term-expired-and-kashi-way-of-maryland-to-be-a-judge-of-the-united-states-tax-court-for-a-term-of-fifteen-years-mark-van-dyke-holmes-term-expired

    Liked by 2 people

      • I checked on the Homeland Security Committee schedule for that matter (since I know there’s two DC Appeals Court nominees needing a hearing), I guess there’s also a hearing next Tuesday in that committee for five DC superior court nominees (the Wiki page doesn’t note who was voted out of committee and is pending a Senate vote like the federal judges page).

        https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/nominations-6/

        Liked by 1 person

      • I don’t know the answer on Dequan’s question, but suppose, that committees other than Judiciary and Foreign Relations have not to deal with nominees on a bi-weekly or monthly frequency, at least not after the first two years of a presidency have passed, so they might have just two or three slots for nominees per year, no matter when WH send them in.

        Just glad, that they have not scheduled, I don’t think the DC Superior Court will be complete at the end of the year, because CJ Josey-Herring will retire at the end of the year, probably when her term as CJ will end, and two others have no nominee yet, so a hearing in September or in November won’t be in time to get them confirmed, no matter, what priorities they have.

        But last year HSGA schedules two hearings back to back in September for the DC Superior Court judges, so I think the DC CoA nominees will follow soon.

        If the Finance Committee will do the same I don’t know, but would be nice.

        Liked by 1 person

  24. I posted this on an earlier post, but I don’t believe my comment went through… with the nomination of Julia Lipez to the 1st, her father (Judge Kermit Lipez) has indicated he will retire when she is confirmed. This has happened before I believe on the district court level (Arkansas maybe?).

    Why then was Judge Betty Binns Fletcher required to assume senior status, but not fully retire from the court when her son (Judge William Fletcher) was confirmed to the 9th Circ.? She continued as a senior judge for another twenty some years. Does anyone know if the law requires a judge to outright retire when a close relative joins the court, or just go senior?

    Also cool trivia about Judge Betty Binns Fletcher (according to Wikipedia), so far Biden has nominated more judges who clerked for Fletcher than for any other judge (Judges Cartwright, Nathan and Sung)

    Liked by 1 person

  25. While I can see the points made about Jennifer Hall being a likely nominee for the 3rd Circuit, I would rule out Chris Rowland just yet.
    Julie Rikelman had much stronger legal ties to NY and Alaska then she did to Massachusetts with her last work in MA being in the early 90’s.
    So the fact Chris Howland is in DC right now doesn’t rule him out for a return to DE and the 3rd Circuit.
    Whomever the nominee is, expect a dogfight, because if Democrats can sort out the Mangi nomination and flip Kent’s seat, they will have outright control of the 3rd Circuit.
    That is something Republicans won’t like one bit.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. @Mike S

    28 U.S. Code § 458 is the only statuary mandate I know of. The relevant part states:

    No person may be appointed to the position of judge of a court exercising judicial power under article III of the United States Constitution (other than the Supreme Court) who is related by affinity or consanguinity within the degree of first cousin to any judge who is a member of the same court.

    The Betty Fletcher example was brought up before, but remember the senate out right refused to confirm her son unless she took senior status, which she did. Statutorily, her taking senior status shouldn’t have changed anything as the statute includes senior status in its definition of “position of judge.”

    Nor were the Fletchers the only family members to serve on a court together since the 1998 law. You had the two Arnold brothers on CA8, though they got on the court before the enactment of the law. And wasn’t there a married couple on CA5?

    But the most important word in the statute is “appointed.” Congress has no power over appointment. Sure, the Senate can refuse to confirm someone. But only the president may exercise the appointment power as he sees fit, assuming there’s someone to appoint. This is ultimately why Mama Fletcher could placate the Senate to confirm her son merely by going senior, even though as I said, this action still would not satisfy the law. If she was going by the letter of the law, she would’ve had to retire outright.

    So, short story, like many things, this ultimately comes down to power and will. If a president wants to nominate a judge to a court on which a family member is already serving, all that matters is how willing the Senate is to approve the nomination. If such a dispute gets to the courts, they would side with the president on his sole appointment power, or use the political question doctrine to dismiss the case.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Replying to two different things brought up…

      First, in regards to a nominee being confirmed to a court with a relative on it, as @Gavi said it comes down to power. If a judge is appointed for life, what can be done if a relative is nominated to the same court… If the senate confirms that nominee, the initial judge still has lifetime tenure. I would assume the only thing to be done is a future Congress could theoretically impeach & convict the first judge. We all know that will never happen but I’m just speaking hypothetically. Other than that, I can’t see any other way to force the judge off the court.

      In regard to Christopher Howland, I agree him currently working in DC doesn’t eliminate him from contention for the 3rd. Trump nominated a couple circuit court judges that the Democrat home state senators said didn’t have close ties to the state. As mentioned above Juile Rikelman had closer ties to other states besides Massachusetts. You can even make the argument Mangi had more ties to New York than New Jersey. Ultimately without blue slips in play it comes down to math. If Biden wants to nominate somebody from another planet & can find 50 senators to vote to confirm them while the VP is in town, that’s ultimately all that matters.

      Liked by 1 person

  27. Someone on Bluesky pointed out that they amended 28 USC 458 after the William Fletcher confirmation, and the current version of the statute clarifies that a senior judge also cannot serve on the same court if their immediate relative is a “member” of that court. Specifically, subsection (b)(1)(B) explicitly states that a “member” of a court includes a judge in senior status, but not a judge who has retired – in contrast, the 1998 version of the statute did not address senior status, so Betty Fletcher was able to go senior and stay on CA9.

    All the power vs. will stuff that Gavi’s talking about is irrelevant here because the statute is clear – as long as Kermit Lipez retires, there’s no problem. Luckily so, because nothing suggests that this off-the-rails SCOTUS would give a damn about the appointment power or the political question doctrine when they have the chance to deal Biden another loss.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thank you to all who replied. Hank, I believe you are correct in that the statute must have been subsequently amended AFTER Judge Fletcher went senior once her son was confirmed.

      From her obit in 2012 (from the NYT):

      “In 33 years on the bench, Judge Fletcher generally wrote liberal opinions on matters like employment discrimination, environmental protection and the death penalty. In 1996, conservatives saw a chance to oust her when President Bill Clinton nominated her son, William A. Fletcher, to the same bench, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

      The conservatives, led by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, the Utah Republican, who then headed the Judiciary Committee, said a mother and son serving on the same court violated a 1911 federal anti-nepotism law. After some contentious debate, Judge Fletcher agreed to resign as an active judge and accept senior status if her son was confirmed. Senior judges usually sit part time, do not handle death penalty cases and do not sit outside their home city, in her case Seattle.

      By agreement, her seat was filled by a person acceptable to Senator Slade Gorton, Republican of Washington. Richard Tallman, a Republican, filled the position.

      But Judge Fletcher had the last laugh. She never reduced her caseload, continued hearing capital cases and not only traveled to other cities to hear cases but also volunteered to help out on other circuits as a visiting judge. She ruled in more than 400 cases last year and presided at a hearing as recently as last week in San Francisco.”

      Liked by 2 people

  28. Betty Fletcher was truly a wonderful judge — one of Carter’s best nominees for sure, and I’m confident that her former clerks will carry on her progressive legacy now that they are on the bench (Sung at least appears to be just as great as Fletcher was).

    William Fletcher had this very touching tribute to his mother that also gives us a peek behind the curtain of how things work on the courts: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4639&context=wlr

    Liked by 1 person

    • This is the perfect storm to get judgeships added. Pretty much everybody knows they’re needed, and it’s politically feasible, with Dems having about 80% confidence they’ll control the WH next year and some hope in the senate, and the GOP having about 80% confidence they’ll control the senate next year and a party leader who anathematizes anybody for doubting his ability to win.

      Also, nice writeup.

      Liked by 1 person

  31. While way too many progressives STILL don’t seem to appreciate how their votes (or lack therefore) affect who sits on the Supreme Court, I hope that Dem members of Congress do as a result of Alito’s & Thomas’ I-don’t-give-f**k brand of judicial ethics; enough for Dems to do SCOTUS reform. While Dem attempts to impeach and convict sitting justices might be a non-starter for Republicans, Dems should finally be receptive to SCOTUS membership expansion…and ONE WAY TO GET THERE WITH LESS FEAR OF REPUBLICAN RETALIATION IS GIVING DC 2 SENATORS!!! This was briefly considered early back in 2021 before Manchin quickly put the kabash on it by saying he would never support it. Well, Machin’s about to be gone…and to the extent that any other Dem senators may have felt the same but hid behind Manchin (like Tester or Casey maybe), Alito’s/Thomas’ results oriented disdain for judicial integrity since then (and Tester’s/Casey’s re-elections) should embolden them to play ball. Remember, a simple majority vote in the Senate is all that’s needed to give DC their 2 Senators…and once we get that, it’ll be SUBSTANTIALLY more difficult for Republicans to ever regain a majority in the Senate. That means Dems should be more comfortable killing the filibuster in order to expand SCOTUS membership…and even if we still don’t pull the trigger on membership expansion, it still means mo judges mo judges mo judges…just so long as we hold the White House.

    Liked by 2 people

    • DC statehood was one of the two biggest mistakes of Obama’s first term. I still say his first mistake was not parking himself in Georgia for the runoff at the height of his popularity in 2008. Jim Martin lost by 3% in the general election that led to the runoff. Had Obama put the full weight of his popularity into the runoff, explaining how vital that 60th vote was (We didn’t know the Franken & Coleman Minnesota results for about 7 months), that would have given Obama a 7-month head start with 60 votes.

      Not getting DC statehood is probably the biggest mistake. Imagine every election having those two extra seats. Plus DC has more people than two US states have & those two states have a total of 4 Republican senators.

      Liked by 2 people

  32. If Leslie Southwick really is going to leave the bench next year & Biden is re-elected while Democrats find some way to salvage a 50/50 senate majority, I thought of an interesting idea. Biden could nominate Tiffany graves to the seat. She’s born c. 1975 & was the former Executive Director, Mississippi Access to Justice Commission, so she checks the boxes of being in her 40’s, a Black woman with progressive chops.

    Almost equally important is she is the daughter of judge James Graves. With all the talk yesterday about not being able to serve on the same court as a close relative, this would mean James would have to leave the bench. That would open up another seat that Biden could then use to nominate Scott Colom to. I know it’s a lot to think of but strategically that would be a homerun way to handle the vacancy.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. @Rick

    I will keep checking the site that post articles that are paywalled. If they post the Atlanta Journal-Constitution article about Ossoff & Warnock filling the NDGA seat, I’ll post it.

    @Gavi

    Haaaaaa… I don’t think we disagree as much as you make it out when it comes to “identity politics” for federal judges. I think your focus is on the word “identity”. You don’t want that taken into account. My focus is on the word “politics”.

    Remember my hypothetical question that I asked you last year. If Biden picked nothing by Dale Ho’s for all of his circuit court picks but they are straight White males, would YOU take that deal? You said yes. My answer to that question is also yes. I then asked you if Biden did that, would he lose votes. I believe you agreed with me that he would.

    That’s where our disagreement comes. I don’t want Biden to lose votes. So if putting woman, Hispanics, LGBT, AAPI & any other demographic on the bench, even if they are not Dale Ho’s, means we get another four years of Biden over Trump, then I am 1000% for that. Now of course you as a voter & an American have a right not to agree. But if your desire is to get more Dale Ho’s on the bench, we would need a President Biden, not Trump in office for the next four years. Not taking demographics into consideration for high profile positions makes that less likely. You may not like that but this is real life so we must live in reality.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Something I don’t think we have ever discussed on here is the number of non previous judges Biden has put on the circuit courts. I count 19 out Biden’s 48 confirmed or pending circuit court nominees never having been a judge anywhere before being nominated to the circuit court. I didn’t realize it was that many. I’ll put the 19 below. The list does not include Federico since he was a military judge or Sung since she was a “quasi-judicial” on as a member of the Oregon Employment Relations.

    Cunningham
    Lee
    Rossman
    Perez
    Heytens
    Desai
    Mathis
    Montecalvo
    Chung
    Johnstone
    Garcia
    Abudu
    Rikelman
    Bloomekatz
    Berner
    Aframe
    Mangi
    Ritz
    Campbell

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Both senators McConnell & Durbin spoke on the Maldonado nominations today on the senate floor. I wonder if that means she’s close to getting her vote. McConnell also spoke about the Mangi nomination as well.

    Like

    • I am reading the SJCQ’s for the nominees tomorrow. Joseph F. Saporito Jr. might get more fireworks than I initially thought, looking at his answer to one question on page 5 of his…

      “During the course of my completion of this Questionnaire, I first became aware of
      a 1994 allegation of discrimination at Fox Hill Country Club wherein some
      women alleged a discrimination practice involving the scheduling of starting tee
      times. I later learned, anecdotally, that there had been a time when women and
      mixed-gender groups were prevented from scheduling tee times on certain days
      and times. I was unaware of this practice, and had I been aware, I would have
      taken steps to rectify these discriminatory tee times.”

      Liked by 1 person

  38. Here’s my recap for panel one of todays SJC hearing with Embry Kidd…

    Durbin started opening the hearing. He passed it over to Lee who started talking about the sitting president indicting his political opponent & a lack of judicial independence. 

    Cardin & Van Hollen then introduced Abelson. Casey then introduced Saporito, who he said he has known for over 50 years since they went to high school together. 

    Durbin then introduced Embry Kidd. He also read a statement for Vacca but said he believes Schumer will show up later to introduce her. After a brief pause, Schumer showed up. Schumer thanked Durbin & the SJC for processing over 200 lifetime appointed judges by Biden.

    Kidd gave his introduction speech. He said he’s proud to be a nominee for the 11th circuit which covers three states, one he was born, one he went to college in & the state he lives in now. Durbin spoke about Kidd having over 13,700 written opinions & has only been reversed 9 times. Durbin asked him about two child pornography cases he ruled the accuser would get home confinement with a GPS monitor. 

    Lee then asked about an article from college classmate, now-professor Monica Bell about child pornography laws. He then asked if Kidd agreed with her views from the 2007 article & he said he does not. 

    Hirono went next & gave Kidd a chance to speak more about the article Lee asked about. She then said as a judge, Kidd couldn’t engage in pro bono activities but gave him a chance to speak about speeches he gave to youth & under represented communities. 

    Kennedy then asked about the war powers clauses. Kidd answered the president has powers over war by Congress has to authorize it. Kennedy then asked about the Non delegation doctrine. Kidd also answered that question which caused Kennedy to say he doesn’t follow his answer regarding Congress delegating some of its power. Kennedy ended with a touching moment asking Kidd’s son who was sitting behind him if he had any questions for his dad to which his son said NO. Everybody laughed in the room. 

    Butler then spoke about she graduated from a historical Black university & wanted him to speak about his time at Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University (FULL DISCLOSURE, I sent a semester going to college there). Padilla asked about diversity. 

    Blackburn then asked about a case Kidd released an illegal immigrant from Mexico that had violent charges. She then asked about the child pornography cases mentioned by Lee & the article from professor Monica Bell again. Durbin then gave Kidd a chance to finish answering about the article to which Kidd said he didn’t write anything in the article & barely remembers it. 

    Liked by 1 person

      • I agree, Kidd was able to answer all of his questions so he’s certainly knowledgeable. They had to use an 2007 article written by a college classmate for their main line of defense so that’s a good sign they couldn’t touch Kidd much on his record. The fact that Kennedy ended with a touching moment tells me Kidd is in play (Albeit a very small chance) to be another Black man to get Kennedy’s vote.

        The hearing was one of the most tame I’ve seen in months. Of course not having Cruz, Hadley or Cotton there helped a lot. The biggest push back seemed to be against Vacca. Kennedy went after her on membership she has had in the past. He ended accusing her of being a political activist.

        Like

    • I just watched the Finance hearing from yesterday; Crapo, Grassley, and Blackburn didn’t throw any punches for the slate of tax court nominees and it seems like voice votes may still be in the cards. It’s remarkable; in today’s hearing, Blackburn made a fool of herself in her typical style, but in yesterday’s, her questions were ‘how do you plan to help reduce the backlog?’ and (to one nominee) ‘how are remote hearings different than in-person hearings?’, with minimal commentary.

      Liked by 2 people

  39. For the second time, Mitch McConnell is suggesting to President Biden who he should nominate to a circuit court in a blue state. I just listened to his speech on the senate floor yesterday that started at 10:27am.

    McConnell blasted the Mangi nomination again then proceeded to the Maldonado nomination. After talking about why she is unqualified for elevation, he then suggested Biden should nominate judge Mary Rowland instead. He said she’s progressive & the only difference between her & Maldonado is she would actually be qualified. He then had the biggest smirk on his face at the end of his speech. Of course he didn’t mention Rowland is about a decade & a half older, born 1961. I’m sure that part of the speech slipped his mind… Lol

    Liked by 1 person

  40. It looks like an additional two more Republican senators have joined Marco Rubio, Rick Scott, Mike Lee, J.D. Vance, Tommy Tuberville, Eric Schmitt, Marsha Blackburn, and Roger Marshall saying they won’t vote to confirm any of President Joe Biden’s nominations for federal judges. Now Josh Hawley and Ron Johnson have added their names as well.

    Like

  43. David Lat is reporting on who was the 2nd circuit court judge who received the multiple complaints from law clerks. I remember we were trying to guess which judge or if it was a circuit or district court judge. Lat is reporting the judge is Sarah Merriam & the complaints were from the short time she was a district court judge. @Ethan forwarded me the article. It’s long but I’ll copy/paste some of the key parts below…

    “Who is the subject judge? Chief Judge Livingston’s order did not identify her, but I can report that it’s Judge Sarah A.L. Merriam. Isaac clerked for her during her final months as a trial judge in the District of Connecticut. On September 23, 2022—the very day that he filed his judicial misconduct complaint—Judge Merriam began her service on the Second Circuit, where she currently sits.”

    ”The complaint also alleges that the Judge improperly engaged in text message communication with a defense attorney on a pending criminal case in the Judge’s court. A limited inquiry revealed that the text message exchange at issue involved an attorney sending the Judge a text message congratulating the Judge on a professional accomplishment, and was followed by a perfunctory back and forth of a few exchanges related to that accomplishment. The Judge was not assigned to the criminal case referenced in the complaint.”

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment