Judge Marilyn Horan – Nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

A longtime state judge in Western Pennsylvania, this is Judge Marilyn Horan’s second chance at a federal judgeship, her first having ended in failure due to a blockade on judicial confirmations at the end of the Obama Administration.  Given the bipartisan support behind her nomination, her distinguished background, and moderate judicial record, Horan is likely to be confirmed smoothly this time around.

Background

A Western Pennsylvania native, Marilyn Jean Horan was born on September 13, 1954 in Butler, in the outskirts of Pittsburgh.[1]  When Horan was 10, her father, a foreman at Armco Steel, was killed in a lightning strike alongside three others.[2]  Horan attended Pennsylvania State University, graduating magna cum laude in 1976.  Horan continued on to the University of Pittsburgh Law School graduating with a J.D. in 1979.  As a law student, Horan interned at the Neighborhood Legal Services Association in Butler.[3]

After graduating, Horan joined the Butler law firm Murrin, Murrin & Taylor.  Three years later, Horan became a partner and the firm was renamed Murrin, Taylor, Flach & Horan.

In 1996, Horan was appointed by Republican Governor Tom Ridge to be the first female judge on the Butler County Court of Common Pleas.[4]  Horan continues to serve as a judge there today.  In addition, Horan became a Common Pleas Court Administrative Judge in October 2017.[5]

During Horan’s tenure on the Court of Common Pleas, she has received several awards and commendations from the community including the Susan B. Anthony Award from the Women’s Bar Association of Western Pennsylvania,[6] the President’s Award from the Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges,[7] the Outstanding Leadership Award from the Juvenile Justice Commission,[8] and the Anne X. Alpern Award from the Pennsylvania Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession.[9]

In 2013, Horan applied for a federal judgeship with the application committee set up by Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senators Bob Casey (D-PA) and Pat Toomey (R-PA).[10]  Horan interviewed with Toomey and his staff in early 2014 and with Casey in early 2015.[11]  In July 2015, Horan was then nominated by President Obama for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania created by Judge Terrence McVerry’s move to senior status.[12]  While Horan had bipartisan support for the seat and was unanimously voted out of the Judiciary Committee in January 2016, she never received a floor vote and her nomination was returned at the end of the 114th Congress.

History of the Seat

The seat Horan has been nominated for opened on April 24, 2013, with the unexpected death of Judge Gary Lancaster.[13]  On July 30, 2015, President Obama nominated Judge Robert J. Colville from the Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas to fill the vacancy created by Lancaster’s death.[14]  The nomination of Colville, a Democrat, was made as a package along with Horan’s nomination to a different seat as well as the nominations of two other Democrats.

While all four nominees in the package received a hearing on December 9, 2015, Colville and fellow Democrat John Milton Younge were blocked from Judiciary Committee consideration by Chairman Chuck Grassley, who was unhappy with their support of abortion rights.[15]  As such, Colville was not voted out of Committee and was returned unconfirmed at the end of the 114th Congress.  At the same time, Horan’s nomination for the McVerry seat was also returned unconfirmed to the President.

In January 2017, Toomey and Casey indicated their support for re-nominating Horan for the Western District.[16]  Horan was interviewed by the White House Counsel’s Office on May 15, 2017 and then maintained contact with their office while the nomination remained pending for seven months.[17]  Finally, Horan was nominated for the vacancy on December 20, 2017.[18]

Legal Experience

Horan’s sole legal occupation between law school and taking the bench was serving as an attorney at the firm of Murrin, Taylor, Flach & Horan in Butler, Pennsylvania.  At the firm, Horan handled family law, civil, and small business cases, practicing almost entirely in state court.[19]

Among other matters, Horan litigated many contentious family law cases.  In one case, Horan represented a father seeking visitation rights for his unborn child over the objection of the mother.[20]  In another case, Horan represented a mother in tracking down a child from a common law marriage who was kidnapped and taken to England by the child’s father.[21]  In another notable case, Horan successfully represented a mother in regaining custody of children that she had voluntarily relinquished to her parents.[22]

Jurisprudence

Horan has served on the Butler County Court of Common Pleas for the last twenty two years.  During this time, Horan has overseen over one thousand cases to verdict and judgment.[23]  Of these cases, the vast majority (approximately 75%) are civil cases, including municipal and administrative matters and family law.[24]

On the bench, Horan’s record has been relatively mainstream with a relatively low reversal rate.  Among over one thousand cases handled by Horan over the last twenty-two years, only approximately 26 have been reversed by a higher court.[25]  In one of her more notable reversals, Horan ruled that a defendant who had committed homicide by vehicle while under the influence had to pay restitution to the insurance company that paid out a life insurance policy to the decedent.[26]  In reversing, the Pennsylvania Superior Court found that an insurer did not constitute a victim that could claim restitution under Pennsylvania law.[27]

Political Activity

Horan is a Republican, and unsuccessfully pursued a Republican Party endorsement for a Superior Court seat in 2002.[28]  However, she has not been involved with any political party or campaign other than her own judicial campaigns.[29]

Overall Assessment

As of today, Horan’s chances of a smooth confirmation look pretty high.  She has a mainstream moderate record, is well-liked by fellow attorneys and has won several awards from legal associations.  Furthermore, she has the support of her Democratic and Republican home-state senators, as well as the backing of two different Administrations.  Finally, despite over two decades on the state bench, Horan has managed to avoid any hot-button decisions or cases.  As such, Horan looks set for a relatively painless confirmation.


[1] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Marilyn Jean Horan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 1.

[2] Karen Kane, Horan Honored as State’s Outstanding Jurist, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Aug. 22, 2004.

[3] See Horan, supra n. 1 at 2.

[4] See Kane, supra n. 2.

[5] See Horan, supra n. 1.

[6] Erin Giebler, Judge Horan Receives WBA Award, Alleghany County Bar Association Lawyers Journal, Mar. 3, 2006.

[7] Kane, supra n. 2.

[8] Metro, Butler County, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Dec. 8, 2005.

[9] Bill Vidonic, Marilyn J. Horan, Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Apr. 9, 2014.

[10] See Horan, supra n. 1 at 55.

[11] Id.

[12] Press Release, White House, President Obama Nominates Seven to Serve on the United States District Courts (July 30, 2015) (on file at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov).

[13] Michael Hasch and Bobby Kerlik, Gary Lancaster, Chief U.S. Judge for Western Pa, Dead at 63, Pittsburgh Tribune Live, April 24, 2013, http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/3906347-74/district-chief-died.

[14] Press Release, White House, President Obama Nominates Seven to Serve on the United States District Courts (July 30, 2015) (on file at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov).

[15] Philip Wegmann, After Facing Questions on Abortion, 2 Obama Judicial Nominations Fail to Advance, The Daily Signal, Jan. 29, 2016, http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/29/after-facing-questions-on-abortion-2-obama-judicial-nominees-fail-to-advance/.  

[16] See Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Marilyn Jean Horan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 55.

[17] See id.

[18] Press Release, President Donald J. Trump Announces Ninth Wave of Judicial Nominees and Tenth Wave of United States Attorney Nominees (December 20, 2017) (on file at www.whitehouse.gov/thepressoffice).

[19] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Marilyn Jean Horan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 47.

[20] Stroup v. Stroup (Butler County late 1980s).

[21] Jenkins v. Jenkins (Butler County approximately 1984).

[22] Cady v. Weber, 464 A.2d 423 (Pa. Super. 1983).

[23] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Marilyn Jean Horan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 17.

[24] See id.

[25] See id. at 35-40.

[26] Commonwealth v. Opperman, CA 124 of 1999.

[27] Commonwealth v. Opperman, 780 A.2d 714 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001).

[28] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Marilyn Jean Horan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 45-46.

[29] See id. at 46.

Ryan Bounds – Nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

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.

Background

Ryan Wesley Bounds was born on June 28, 1973 and is a Hermiston, Oregon native.[1]  He graduated from Stanford University in 1995 with a B.A. in psychology and political science.  At Stanford, he was an editor of the conservative student-run newspaper, The Stanford Review,[2] and of The Thinker, a Stanford newspaper that Bounds and a liberal student founded with the stated goal of providing a neutral forum to express opposing opinions about the topics du jour, an ethos captured in its masthead: “For every issue, there is another side; think about it.”[3]  In 1999,

Bounds graduated from Yale Law School, where he was editor-in-chief of the Yale Law and Policy Review, an editor of the Yale Law Journal, and vice-president of the Yale Federalist Society.[4]  He was also editor-in-chief of a 1998 Federalist Society symposium issue of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.[5]

From 1999-2000, Bounds clerked for Judge Diarmuid  F. O’Scannlain on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,[6] whose vacancy he would fill if confirmed.[7]  From 2000-04, he practiced commercial law at Stoel Rives LLP in Portland, Oregon.[8]  From 2004-07, he served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Chief of Staff in the Office of Legal Policy at the DOJ.  From 2007-08 and for part of 2009 he was the Special Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.  From 2008-09 he was the Special Assistant to the President for Justice and Immigration Policy for the Domestic Policy Council.[9]  From 2010 until the present, he has prosecuted federal crimes as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon.10

History of the Seat

Bounds has been nominated to an Oregon seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  This seat opened on December 31, 2016 with O’Scannlain’s move to senior status.  Bounds was recommended for the judge vacancy by U.S. Rep. Greg Walden (R – Or.), whose chief of staff is Bounds’ sister.11  Oregon’s two democratic senators, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley offered Oregon District Judge Marco A. Hernandez to the White House.  However, the White House nominated Bounds on September 7, 2017.

In response, both Wyden and Merkley declined to return blue slips on Bounds, noting, in a letter to White House Counsel Don McGahn that Bounds had not been approved by the state’s bipartisan judicial selection committee as of his nomination date, and that they had not been adequately consulted.12  McGahn disputed the lack of consultation and instread criticized the senators for not engaging with or vetting Bounds for several months after his name was first proposed.13  Bounds’ American Bar Association rating is ‘Unanimously Qualified.’14

Legal Career

Bounds has a well-rounded legal career: trial and appellate work, civil and criminal work, and government and private practice at a top firm in Portland.15  Bounds’ career as an Assistant U.S. Attorney has centered on prosecuting immigration crimes (2010-2011) and fraud and environmental crimes (2011-present).16

Most of the major actions Bounds has worked on are in immigration and criminal law. The following cases are examples of his work: U.S. v. Vasquez, 843 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (D. Or. 2012) (dismissing assault with a dangerous weapon indictment because prison floor that defendant inmate slammed his victim into was not a dangerous weapon); U.S. v. Trujillo-Alvarez, 900 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1170 (D. Or. 2012)(holding illegal entry defendant in custodypending prosecution violated his statutory right to pretrial release); U.S. v. Vidal-Mendoza, 705 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2013) (illegal entry defendant had been adequately informed that he was ineligible for voluntary departure due to previous rape conviction, and could not successfully collaterally attack his earlier removal order on grounds that he had not been so advised);Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 1000 (9th Cir. 2007) (Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion by denying defendant’s motion to reopen his case as untimely because equitable tolling applied); Price v. U.S., 985 A.2d 434, 435 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (affirming theft conviction).

Speeches/Writings

As Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Bounds advocated for the maintenance of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) when the issue was before the House of Representatives in 2007.  The question at bar was whether the PLRA’s terms, including the requirement that prisoners exhaust administrative remedies, that attorney’s fees are capped at 150% of any monetary recovery (i.e., if the recovery is $1, the PLRA caps attorney’s fees at $1.50), and that serial filers will be liable for court costs, have led to meritorious claims of prison abuses going unremedied.17  Bounds argued that the PLRA’s stated objective of decreasing frivolous prisoner lawsuits”has preserved the ability of legitimately harmed inmates to gain access to the courts and prevented the negative effects of frivolous cases in ever greater numbers.”18

While an undergrad at Stanford, Bounds co-founded The Thinker, a student publication aimed at providing a neutral forum where people of different political views can express their opinions freely and thoughtfully.20  Explaining what led him to co-found the paper, he expressed irritation “that there were some issues that I couldn’t talk about honestly on this campus.”  Bounds called Stanford’s conservative publication, The Review, “a service” in providing a forum where “people don’t toe the liberal line,” as in the liberal publication Stanford Daily, but saw the need for a single platform where “people with opposing viewpoints can meet on common ground.”21

Overall Assessment

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.


[1]1http://pioneercourthouse.org/board-members-bios.html; http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/09/trump_nominates_oregon_federal.html

[3]3https://web.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/95/950605Arc5195.html

[4]4https://ballotpedia.org/Ryan_Bounds

[5]5https://ballotpedia.org/Ryan_Bounds; http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hjlpp21&div=8&id=&page=

[6]6https://ballotpedia.org/Ryan_Bounds

[7]7https://www.congress.gov/nomination/115th-congress/987

[8]8https://ballotpedia.org/Ryan_Bounds

Unconfirmed: Judith Richards Hope

“Unconfirmed” seeks to revisit nominees who were never confirmed to lifetime appointments, to explore the factors why, and to understand the people involved.

On February 5, 1988, Robert Bork resigned his seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, having served less than six years on the bench.[1]  In the previous year, Bork had endured a famously contentious and bitter battle for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.  While Bork sought to move on from the bench, his resignation would trigger another confirmation battle, leaving a well-respected D.C. litigator and trailblazer as its casualty.

Shortly after Bork’s resignation, the Reagan Administration quickly settled on a nominee: U.S. District Judge Karen Henderson.[2]  Henderson was young, conservative, and had the solid support of Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Strom Thurmond.[3]  Furthermore, Henderson was a woman, and satisfied Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy’s push for more female and minority judges.[4]  However, with Henderson’s name all but ready to move forward, the judge unexpectedly withdrew from the process, citing family considerations in South Carolina.[5]  This left the Reagan Administration turning to their back-up, a prominent D.C. lawyer named Judith Richards Hope.

Hope was born Judith Richards in Cincinnati, the daughter of a Methodist minister and a social worker.  Hope grew up in the small town of Defiance, Ohio and started work at the age of twelve in a dry-cleaning plant, getting paid twenty-five cents an hour.[6]  She attended Wellesley College, graduating magna cum laude in 1961 and joining Harvard Law School as one of just fifteen women in her class.[7]  Hope graduated Harvard in 1964 alongside stalwarts including future Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and future D.C. Circuit Judge Judith Ann Wilson Rogers.

By 1988, Hope had established herself as one of D.C.’s most prominent attorneys.  She had become a partner at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, becoming the first woman to serve on the firm’s Executive Committee.  Furthermore, Hope had served on the White House Domestic Council in the Ford Administration and as vice chair of the President’s Commission on Organized Crime under Reagan.  In 1984, Hope served as the Chairwoman of Lawyers for Reagan-Bush.[8]  Additionally, she had a thriving practice, with clients including prominent screenwriter Nora Ephron.[9]

Despite her credentials, the Reagan Administration was unenthusiastic about her nomination, specifically doubting her commitment to conservative judicial principles.[10]  Additionally, Hope was reluctant to take the judgeship, which would constitute a significant pay cut.[11]  Nevertheless, with an important seat at stake, Reagan personally called Hope and persuaded her to accept the nomination.[12]  With her acquiescence, on April 14, 1988, Reagan officially nominated Hope for the vacancy.

Unfortunately for Hope, Bork’s resignation had left a tenuous balance on the D.C. Circuit, with six Reagan-appointed conservatives countering five older liberals (including future Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg).[13]  Furthermore, one of the leaders of the court’s liberal wing, Judge Spottswood Robinson, was facing health issues and was considering retirement.[14]  As such, many Democrats sought to block any Reagan appointee to the court, preferring to leave the seat open for a Dukakis appointment.[15]  However, other liberals argued that the moderate Hope was the best nominee they were likely to get from a Republican Administration, noting that, if Bush won the election, he would likely nominate a more conservative candidate.[16]  Caught between the two sides, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Joe Biden declined either to block Hope outright or to move her nomination forward.  Instead, her nomination sat in limbo.

Hoping to end the embargo on Hope’s nomination, Judiciary Committee Republicans excoriated the Democratic majority, with Sen. Alan Simpson calling the lack of action “inane, banal, and childish.”[17]  The attacks did not have the desired effect, however, as Democrats chose not to include Hope’s nomination in their final hearing of the year.  In his defense, Biden pointed out that he had processed “at least 10 more judges” than Republicans expected to get.[18]

Desperate, the White House reached out to Senate leaders seeking to put a package of nominees together for confirmation and noting that Hope was one of their top priorities.[19]  However, the outreach backfired.  As one journalist noted, “[p]recisely because the White House wanted them so badly, the Democrats were determined to bury…Hope”[20]  Instead, Democrats and Republicans cut a deal on a package that left out Hope.  As the 100th Congress came to an end, so did Hope’s nomination.[21]

Unfortunately for those hoping for a more liberal D.C. Circuit, Vice President George H.W. Bush kept the presidency in Republican hands in the 1988 election.  Paradoxically, this also hurt Hope’s chances as, during the 1988 primaries, she had advocated for a different candidate: Senate Republican leader Robert Dole.[22]  Perhaps sensing the political difficulties, Hope announced that she would not seek renomination, and Bush filled the vacancy with the then-Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, an African African conservative named Clarence Thomas.[23]

With Thomas’ subsequent elevation to the Supreme Court, it is hard not to wonder what could have been.  At only forty-seven at the time of her nomination, would the relatively moderate Hope have become the stealth candidate to replace Justice Brennan, rather than then-Judge David Souter?

Stepping back, it is clear that the nomination’s defeat had little to do with Hope.  Had she been nominated at a different time (or under a different Senate), Hope would likely have sailed to confirmation.  For her part, Hope has continued to blaze a trail for other female judges and attorneys, mentoring many as a law professor at Harvard and Georgetown.  She remains to this day one of the luminaries of Harvard Law School and the legal profession.


[1] Ruth Marcus, Robert Bork’s Last Day on Bench a Busy One; Judge Quotes Dr. King: ‘Free at Last’, Wash. Post, Feb. 6, 1988.

[2] Ruth Marcus, Woman from South Carolina Top Choice to Replace Bork; Trial Judge Recommended for D.C. Court, Wash. Post, Feb. 26, 1988.

[3] See id.

[4] See id.

[5] Ruth Marcus, Top Candidate for Bork Seat Drops Out; S. Carolinian Cites Personal Reasons, Wash. Post, Mar. 4, 1988.

[6] Judith Richards Hope, Pinstripes & Pearls: the Women of the Harvard Law School Class of ‘64 Who Forged an Old Girl Network and Paved the Way for Future Generations 7 (Lisa Drew Book/Scribner 2003).

[7] See id.

[8] Susan F. Rasky & Linda Greenhouse, Washington Talk: Briefing: A Second Chance?, N.Y. Times, Nov. 18, 1988, http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/18/us/washington-talk-briefing-a-second-chance.html.  

[9] See Chuck Conconi, Divorce with a Heartburn Clause, Wash. Post, June 28, 1985 (noting Hope as Ephron’s attorney).

[10] See Ruth Marcus, Woman D.C. Lawyer Picked to Succeed Bork, Sources Say; Reagan Reportedly Persuaded Her to Serve, Wash. Post, Mar. 24, 1998.

[11] See id.

[12] See id.

[13] Saundra Torry, D.C. Lawyer’s Nomination to Court of Appeals Appears Stalled, Wash. Post, Sept. 9, 1988.

[14] See id.

[15] See id.

[16] See id.

[17] Id.

[18] See Ruth Marcus, Reagan’s Judicial Nominees Face Judgment Day on the Hill, Wash. Post, Oct. 5, 1988.

[19] See Steven V. Roberts, Washington Talk: The Senate; As Adjournment Nears, Cutting a Judicial Deal, N.Y. Times, Oct. 19, 1988.

[20] See id.

[21] Jill Abramson, Failure of Appeals Court Nomination Means Next President to Fill Key Post, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 14, 1988.

[22] Susan F. Rasky & Linda Greenhouse, Washington Talk: Briefing: A Second Chance?, N.Y. Times, Nov. 18, 1988, http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/18/us/washington-talk-briefing-a-second-chance.html.  

[23] Ruth Marcus, EEOC Chief is Eyed for U.S. Court; Expected Nomination Pleases Conservatives, Wash. Post, May 9, 1989.

Michael B. Brennan – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

The last time the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had a full complement of judges was on January 16, 2010.  The next day, Judge Terence Evans moved to senior status.  Evans’ seat, informally assigned to Wisconsin, remains vacant to this day.  Due to infighting between his home-state senators, Michael Brennan, Trump’s nominee to fill the seat, is unlikely to see a smooth confirmation to the seat.

Background

Michael B. Brennan was born in 1963 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  Brennan received his B.A. cum laude from the University of Notre Dame in 1986.  He then proceeded to Northwestern University Law School, where he served as coordinating note and comment editor at the Northwestern University Law Review.  After graduating from law school, Brennan completed a two-year clerkship with Judge Robert Warren[1] on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.[2]

After his clerkship, Brennan joined the Milwaukee office of Foley & Lardner, where he served as an associate for four years.  In 1995, Brennan left Foley to clerk for Judge Daniel Mannion on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

In 1997, Brennan joined the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office as an Assistant District Attorney.  The next year, while maintaining his position, Brennan also joined the Wisconsin Criminal Penalties Committee, a Committee intended to study and recommend changes in sentencing, as a staff attorney.  In 2000, Brennan was appointed by Gov. Tommy Thompson to be a judge on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court.

In 2003, Brennan applied to the Wisconsin Federal Judicial Commission for a vacancy opening up on the Seventh Circuit.[3]  However, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Diane Sykes got the nomination (and was ultimately confirmed).  In 2007, Brennan applied simultaneously for vacancies on the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin.[4]  He was not selected for either vacancy, however, with the nominations going to fellow state judges Timothy Dugan and J. Mac Davis respectively.  However, neither candidate was ultimately confirmed.

In November 2008, Brennan unexpectedly announced his resignation from the bench to join Gass Weber Mullins LLC., a Milwaukee based complex litigation firm.[5]  He continues to practice there as a Partner.

History of the Seat

The seat Brennan has been nominated for is the longest pending appellate vacancy.  This seat opened on January 17, 2010 with the retirement of Judge Terence Evans.[6]  On January 22, 2010, Wisconsin Senators Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, both Democrats, recommended four candidates for the vacancy to President Obama: U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman; Prof. Victoria Nourse of the University of Wisconsin Law School; Judge Richard Sankovitz of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court; and defense attorney Dean Strang.[7]  On July 14, Obama nominated Nourse for the seat.[8]  No action was taken on Nourse’s nomination before the end of the 111th Congress.

In the 2010 elections, Feingold was defeated by Republican Ron Johnson.  Upon joining the Senate in 2011, Johnson indicated his opposition to Nourse’s nomination, claiming both procedural and substantive reasons for his opposition.[9]  Due to Johnson’s withholding of a blue slip, Nourse never got a hearing and her nomination was withdrawn at the end of 2011.

After Kohl was replaced by fellow Democrat Tammy Baldwin in 2012, Baldwin and Johnson struck a deal on a process to fill three federal judicial vacancies for Wisconsin, including the Seventh Circuit seat.[10]  The deal had both Johnson and Baldwin appoint three members to a Commission, which would then solicit applications and recommend no less than four candidates for each vacancy (for a candidate to be recommended, they needed support from five out of six commissioners).[11]

The deal allowed for the successful confirmations of Judges James Petersen and Pamela Pepper in 2014.  However, the Commission was unable to agree on four candidates to fill the Seventh Circuit vacancy, with only two out of eight finalists: Sankovitz and Madison attorney Donald Schott, receiving the requisite five votes.[12]  While Johnson offered to send only the names of Sankovitz and Schott to the White House, Baldwin instead sent all eight candidates, an action that Johnson characterized as breaking the original agreement.[13]

In January 2016, the White House nominated Schott to the vacancy.[14]  While Johnson initially demurred to support Schott,[15] he ultimately returned a blue slip to allow Schott’s nomination to proceed.  The Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Schott and advanced the nomination on a 13-7 vote on June 16, 2016.[16]  However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked all further action on the nomination, and it expired at the end of the 114th Congress.

After the election of Trump and the re-election of Johnson in 2016, Johnson and Baldwin renewed their 2013 deal for the recommendations for federal judicial vacancies.[17]  In March 2017, Brennan was contacted by the White House Counsel’s Office to gauge his interest in a federal judgeship.[18]  After interviewing with the White House Counsel’s Office and the Department of Justice in March 2017, Brennan applied to the Commission set up by Johnson and Baldwin.[19]  However, the Commission did not recommend Brennan (or any other applicant) due to the inability to secure five votes.[20]  Despite the lack of recommendation for Brennan (who secured votes from all three Republican Commissioners and one Democratic Commissioner), the White House submitted his nomination to the Senate on August 3, 2017.[21]

As Brennan had not been recommended by the Wisconsin Federal Judicial Commission, Baldwin has indicated that she is “troubled” by his nomination, and has not yet returned a blue slip enabling the Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing.[22]  Nevertheless, the Senate Judiciary Committee is moving to a hearing on January 24, 2018.

Political Activity

Brennan has a long history of contributions and volunteering for the Wisconsin Republican party.  Brennan has volunteered and held positions in the campaigns of several Republicans including Johnson, Gov. Scott Walker, Congressman James Sensenbrenner, and former Governor and Senate candidate Tommy Thompson.[23]  Brennan also served on the Finance Committee of the Wisconsin Republican Party for four years.[24]  Brennan has also contributed financially to Republican candidates, including $1500 to Johnson and $4000 to Thompson.[25]

Additionally, Brennan is connected closely with Walker, serving as the Chair of Walker’s Judicial Selection Advisory Committee.[26]  While he chaired the Committee, it drew criticism for relying heavily on partisan identification and contributions when selecting judges for the state court.[27]  Brennan is also the founding member of the Milwaukee chapter of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization advocating for an originalist and textualist interpretation of the Constitution.[28]

Legal Practice

Brennan’s first legal position after his clerkship was at Foley & Lardner as a litigation associate.  In this capacity, Brennan largely represented corporations in federal and state court.[29]  For example, Brennan represented Great-West Life Assurance Company in defending an action for ERISA benefits filed by a widowed plaintiff.[30]  However, Brennan also participated in some more political actions.  In a notable case, Brennan successfully challenged a Fond Du Lac ordinance regulating the sale of tobacco products, arguing that the ordinance was pre-empted by state regulations on tobacco distribution.[31]  In another case, Brennan represented the Wisconsin Republican party who sought to prevent the placement of white supremacist David Duke on the Republican primary ballot in Wisconsin.[32]

From 1997 to 1999, Brennan served as Assistant District Attorney at the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office.[33]  In that capacity, Brennan represented Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann in defending a Wisconsin statute requiring doctors to tell victims of rape and incest that services are available that allow women to listen to the heartbeat or view images of their unborn child.[34]  The Seventh Circuit upheld the statute in a 2-1 vote.[35]

After stepping off the bench in 2008, Brennan has served as a partner at Gass Weber Mullins LLC.  In this capacity, Brennan handles a combination of commercial litigation, catastrophic injury cases, and mediation.[36]  Among the more significant matters he has handled, Brennan has represented numerous correctional institutions in defending against §1983 suits.[37]

Jurisprudence & Reversals

Brennan served as a judge on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court from 2000 to 2008.  During that time, Brennan handled civil, criminal, landlord-tenant, traffic, juvenile, and probate matters.[38]  Brennan ran for re-election in 2001 and 2007, being unopposed both times.

During his tenure on the state bench, Brennan established a fairly conservative record, including as a strict sentencing judge.  In one notable case, Brennan sentenced a defendant to 66 years in jail after he drove drunk and caused an accident killing four people and injuring two others.[39]  In another case, Brennan sentenced a defendant charged with reckless homicide to 35 years in prison and an additional 20 years of extended supervision.[40]  In another notable case, Brennan presided over the sentencing of four Democrats, including the son of Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-WI), who had pleaded no contest to slashing the tires of Republican election vans.[41]  Despite prosecutors recommending no jail time, Brennan threw out the plea agreements and imposed sentences of four to six months.[42]

In one of his most widely reported cases, Brennan presided over the criminal trial of a school-bus driver, who was charged with physical and verbal abuse towards a student with disabilities.[43]  Part of the evidence against the driver was from a recorder placed by the student’s parents in his backpack.  Brennan declined to exclude the recorded evidence, holding that the statements were not barred by Wisconsin’s Electronic Surveillance Control Law.[44]  Brennan’s ruling was overturned by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals but ultimately affirmed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.[45]

Reversals

Over his eight years on the state bench, Brennan has been reversed in approximately fifteen cases.  The majority of these cases involved criminal convictions or rulings against defendants being reversed.[46]  For example, State v. Haas involved a defendant convicted solely on the basis of eyewitness testimony implicating him in a burglary.[47]  The defense sought to bring in the clothing the defendant was arrested in to impeach the eyewitness’ testimony.[48]  However, the clothing had been destroyed by the police and the defendant was convicted.[49]  Brennan denied a motion for a new trial.  However, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the destroyed exculpatory evidence clearly required reversal.[50]   Similarly, in State v. Alicea, a police officer failed to comply with a pretrial ruling barring all references to a robbery accusation against the defendant.[51]  Brennan, who presided over the trial, declined to declare a mistrial or allow the defense to explain that the robbery accusation was untrue, instead instructing the jury to disregard the reference.[52]  The Court of Appeals reversed for a new trial, finding that the police officer’s improper reference to the robbery accusation had violated the defendant’s rights.[53]

Surprisingly, some cases in which Brennan’s rulings were reversed by appellate courts appear to have been omitted from his Senate Judiciary Questionnaire.[54]  Among these cases is one where Brennan ruled that a tenant whose hair dryer caused a fire which damaged her rental unit was liable for the damage even without any showing of negligence.[55]  In reversing, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals found that the lease provision dictating liability was invalid under Wisconsin law.[56]  In another case, a landlord sought to evict a deaf tenant for breaching his lease by assaulting another resident.[57]  Brennan rejected the tenant’s argument that he had not been given an opportunity to remedy the breach, holding that quasi-criminal breaches were non-remediable as a matter of law.[58]  The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed, noting that Brennan’s ruling “cited no case law to support these conclusions…ignored the procedure set out in the statute and ignored the fact that Greenfield stated in its five’day notice that Tannehill could remedy the breach by having no future contact with Pell.”[59]

Speeches and Writings

Brennan has frequently written on legal issues, including Wisconsin court rulings, judicial politics, and trial tactics.  Brennan’s writings suggest strong conservative underpinnings in his judicial philosophy and will likely draw support from Republican senators and concern from Democrats.

Judicial Activism

Brennan has frequently written on the subject of judicial activism.  In 2005, as a sitting state judge, he authored an article criticizing the Wisconsin Supreme Court for “activist” decisions.[60]  Brennan’s article sparked a response from federal judge Lynn Adelman, who called the charge of activism “a rhetorically charged shorthand for decisions the speaker disagrees with.”[61]

In an earlier article, Brennan took the opposing perspective, disagreeing with calls for judicial restraint on the part of conservative judges, noting that “justices and judges faced with activist legislatures are not required to roll over in the name of judicial restraint.  That would leave in place a one-way ratchet of constantly expanding government.”[62]

Judicial Nominations

In 2011, as Johnson was blocking the Nourse nomination, Brennan, then the Chair of Walker’s Judicial Selection Advisory Committee, wrote in support of Johnson’s actions.[63]  In the op-ed, joined by other attorneys including two current Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices (selected by Brennan’s committee), Brennan notes that Johnson, as an elected Wisconsin senator deserves to “participate in the selection of a judge for a Wisconsin seat” and that the Nourse nomination was moved “in disregard of a senator’s duty of ‘advice and consent’ under Article II Section II.”[64]

Expert Testimony

In early 2012, Brennan and his partner J. Ric Gass gave a presentation on the Daubert standard for expert witnesses and the selection of experts in the context of scientific testimony.[65]  In his notes for the presentation, Brennan focuses on the inherent unpredictability of scientific testimony, noting that “[s]cience is inherently changeable” and “[p]roblems with scientific accuracy have always been with us.”  As such, Brennan encourages attorneys to prepare their scientific expert witnesses well and to recognize possible weaknesses in their scientific opinions.

Overall Assessment

There are two arguments that can made against Brennan’s nomination: one based on process, and one based on substance.  The procedural argument against Brennan’s argument is essentially parallel to the argument he and Johnson laid out against Nourse’s elevation.  Essentially, Brennan’s nomination is moving without the consent of the duly elected senator from his home state.  Democrats can reasonably argue that, given their past willingness to defer to Johnson’s objections to Obama’s nominees, Baldwin deserves the same deference with regard to Brennan.

The substantive argument against Brennan has little to do with his legal ability.  Given his experience as both a trial judge and a complex litigator, Brennan is well-prepared to handle the intellectual rigors of the Seventh Circuit.  As such, the argument against Brennan will likely focus on his conservative ideology.

Specifically, critics may look to Brennan’s strongly conservative rulings as a judge, alongside his ideologically charged writings, and his role in reshaping Wisconsin’s state judiciary in a conservative direction, and argue that Brennan lacks the requisite impartiality to be a federal judge.  In response, supporters will likely argue that the vast majority of Brennan’s rulings have been affirmed by higher courts, and that conservatives should not be denied seats on the federal bench purely based on their ideology.

With a narrow Republican majority in the senate, Brennan remains more likely than not to be confirmed.  However, given the opposition of his home state senator and the Republicans’ narrow margin of error, the outcome is not set in stone.


[1] An appointee of President Nixon, Warren was the Republican Attorney General of Wisconsin before his confirmation to the bench.  Wolfgang Saxon, Robert W. Warren, 72, Wisconsin Federal Judge, N.Y. Times, Aug. 22, 1998, http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/22/us/robert-w-warren-72-wisconsin-federal-judge.html.

[2] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Michael B. Brennan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 2-3.

[3] Tony Anderson, Twelve Apply for 7th Circuit Seat, Wisconsin Law Journal, July 23, 2003.

[4] See David Ziemer, 17 Apply for Vacancy on United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Law Journal, July 30, 2007.  See also Jack Zemlicka, U.S. District Court Judge Shabaz’s Seat Draws 16 Candidates, Wisconsin Law Journal, Dec. 10, 2007.

[5] Marie Rohde, Two Milwaukee Judges Resigning for Private Practice, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Nov. 14, 2008, http://archive.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/34502294.html/.  

[6] See Martha Neil, Longtime 7th Circuit Judge Terence Evans is Dead After Sudden Illness, ABA Journal, Aug. 11, 2011, http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/7th_circuit_judge_terence_evans_is_dead/ (noting Evans’ move to senior status).

[7] Adam Korbitz, Kohl, Feingold Forward Four Names to President Obama for Seventh Circuit, State Bar of Wisconsin, Jan. 25, 2010, https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/InsideTrack/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=2&Issue=26&ArticleID=5864.

[8] Adam Korbitz, President Nominates Victoria Nourse to Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, State Bar of wisconsin, July 15, 2010, https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/InsideTrack/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=2&Issue=14&ArticleID=8620.  

[9] Craig Gilbert, Ron Johnson ‘Filibuster’ of Nourse Nomination to Federal Bench Draws Fire, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 18, 2011, http://archive.jsonline.com/newswatch/125741928.html.

[10] Susan McDonald, Johnson, Baldwin Agree to Judicial Screening Panel, WISN, April 17, 2013, http://www.wisn.com/article/johnson-baldwin-agree-to-judicial-screening-panel/6314857.  

[11] Craig Gilbert, Baldwin, Johnson Bitterly Joust Over Appeals Court Vacancy, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Apr. 28, 2016, http://archive.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/baldwin-johnson-bitterly-joust-over-appeals-court-vacancy-b99715579z1-377503181.html/.  

[12] See id.

[13] See id.

[14] Id.

[15] Press Release, Office of Sen. Ron Johnson, Johnson Responds to Judicial Nomination of Donald K. Schott (Jan. 12, 2016) (on file at https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/1/johnson-responds-to-judicial-nomination-of-donald-k-schott).

[16] Shawn Johnson, U.S. Senate Panel Advances Wisconsin Judicial Nominee, Wisconsin Pub. Radio, June 16, 2016, https://www.wpr.org/u-s-senate-panel-advances-wisconsin-judicial-nominee.  

[17] Craig Gilbert, Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin Renew Deal on Picking Judges, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/13/ron-johnson-and-tammy-baldwin-renew-deal-picking-judges/97871500/.  

[18] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Michael B. Brennan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 51.

[19] See id.

[20] Margo Kirchner, Ron Johnson’s Hypocrisy on Federal Judgeship, Wisconsin Justice Initiative, Aug. 22, 2017, https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2017/08/22/op-ed-ron-johnsons-hypocrisy-on-federal-judgeship/.  

[21] Press Release, White House, President Donald J. Trump Announces Sixth Wave of Judicial Candidates and Fifth Wave of U.S. Attorney Candidates (August 3, 2017) (on file at www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office).

[22] Todd Richmond, Trump Court Appointee Never Cleared Commission, Sen. Tammy Baldwin Says, Wisconsin State Journal, Aug. 5, 2017, http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/trump-court-appointee-never-cleared-wisconsin-commission-sen-tammy-baldwin/article_82e4070d-4ec3-599d-a437-a9296980894b.html.

[23] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Michael B. Brennan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 34-35.

[24] See id.

[26] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Michael B. Brennan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 34.

[27] See Eric Litke, Party Politics Color Governors’ Judicial Picks, Green Bay Press-Gazette, Jan. 29, 2016, http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2016/01/29/wisconsin-judicial-appointments–partisanship-walker-doyle/79509122/.  

[28] Carrie Severino, Who is Mike Brennan, Nat’l Rev., Aug. 4, 2017, http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/450159/who-mike-brennan.  

[29] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Michael B. Brennan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 38.

[30] Edwards v. Great-West Life Assur. Co., 20 F.3d 748 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 512 U.S. 962 (1994).

[31] U.S. Oil Inc. et al. v. City of Fond du Lac, 544 N.W.2d 589 (Wisc. App. 1996).

[32] McCarthy et al. v. Elections Bd. et al., 480 N.W.2d 241 (Wisc. 1992).

[33] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Michael B. Brennan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 38.

[34] Karlin v. Foust, 188 F.3d 446, 490–91 (7th Cir. 1999)

[35] See id.

[36] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Michael B. Brennan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 38-39.

[37] See, e.g., Glisson v. Indiana Dep’t of Corrections, 849 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2012) (en banc), cert. denied sub nom. Correctional Med. Svcs., Inc. v. Glisson, – U.S. – (2017); James v. Eli, 846 F.3d 951 (7th Cir. 2017), reh’g granted, No. 15-3034, 2017 WL 1228561 (7th Cir. Mar. 31, 2017); Rowe v. Gibson, 798 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2015), reh’g en banc denied, No. 14-3316, 2015 WL 10767326 (7th Cir. Dec. 7, 2015); Estate of Rice v. Correctional Med. Svcs, Inc., 675 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2012).

[38] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Michael B. Brennan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 20-21.

[39] State v. Promotor, Case No. 2003-CF-2230 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Aug. 3, 2004).

[40] State v. Whitmore, No. 2003-CF-005697 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Oct. 13, 2004).

[41] Week in Review, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Apr. 30, 2006.

[42] See id.

[43] State v. Duchow, No. 2003-CF-002648 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Dec. 29, 2003).

[44] See id.

[45] See State v. Duchow, 749 N.W.2d 913 (Wis. 2008), rev’ing 303 Wis. 2d 744 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007).

[46] See, e.g. State v. Lord, 723 N.W.2d 425 (Wis. 2006); State v. Haas, 750 N.W.2d 518 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008); State v. Jackson, 735 N.W.2d 178 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007); State v. Basley, 726 N.W.2d 671 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006); State v. McGowan, 715 N.W.2d 631 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006); State v. Alicea, 650 N.W.2d 560 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).

[47] State v. Haas, 750 N.W.2d 518 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).

[48] See id.

[49] Id.

[50] See id.i

[51] State v. Alicea, 650 N.W.2d 560 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).

[52] See id.

[53] Id.

[54] See Shadley v. Lloyds of London, 776 N.W.2d 838 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009) (reversing Brennan’s award of attorney’s fees); Maryland Arms Ltd. Partnership v. Connell, 769 N.W.2d 145 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009) (reversing liability determination on fire in tenant unit); Greenfield Senior Housing V, LLC v. Tannehill, 736 N.W.2d 543 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007) (reversing finding that tenant’s breach of the lease was non-remediable); State v. McAdoo, 715 N.W.2d 240 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006) (reversing sentence because 27 months of extended supervision exceeded statutory max of nine months); State v. Simmons, 659 N.W.2d 507 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003) (reversing defendant’s convictions where defendant did not knowingly violate injunction).

[55] See Maryland Arms Ltd. Partnership v. Connell, 769 N.W.2d 145 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009).

[56] See id.

[57] See Greenfield Senior Housing V, LLC v. Tannehill, 736 N.W.2d 543 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007).

[58] See id.

[59] See id. at 552.

[60] Michael B. Brennan, Are Courts Becoming Too Activist, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Oct. 2, 2005.

[61] The Honorable Lynn Adelman and Shelley Fite, Exercising Judicial Power: A Response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Critics, 91 Marq. L. Rev. 425, 427 (Winter 2007) (quoting Kermit Roosevelt III, The Myth of Judicial Activism, Making Sense of Supreme Court Decisions 3 (2006).

[62] Michael B. Brennan, Conservative Judicial Activism: More than Whose Ox Is Being Gored, The Federalist Society, August 2001, https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/hot-topics-judicial-activism.  

[63] See Michael B. Brennan, James T. Barry, Steven M. Biskupic, Rebecca G. Bradley, Donald A. Daugherty Jr., Daniel Kelly, David W. Simon, Sen. Johnson Only Wants to Have His Say on Nourse Nomination, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, July 23, 2011, http://archive.jsonline.com/news/opinion/126042043.html/.  

[64] See id.

[65] See Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Michael B. Brennan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 14.

Dan Domenico – Nominee for the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

A district judgeship is a bit of a consolation prize for Daniel Domenico, who lost out on Neil Gorsuch’s seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to Colorado Supreme Court Justice Allison Eid.  Nevertheless, Domenico, who is well-established in Colorado conservative legal circles, is likely to have a smooth confirmation for a trial judgeship.

Background

A native Coloradoan, Daniel Desmond Domenico was born in 1972 in Boulder.  After a brief stint at the University of Colorado, Domenico attended Georgetown University., graduating magna cum laude in 1995.[1]  After graduating, Domenico joined the Bob Dole for President campaign as an Assistant to the Polling Director.  After the campaign, Domenico briefly worked at the Welfare to Work Partnership as a Research Associate.

In 1997, Domenico joined the University of Virginia School of Law.  Domenico graduated Order of the Coif in 2000, and joined the Denver office of Hogan & Hartson.[2]  After three years at Hogan, Domenico left to clerk for the newly appointed Judge Timothy Tymkovich on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[3]

After his clerkship, Domenico joined the Senate campaign of Rep. John Thune who was challenging Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle in South Dakota.[4]  After Thune’s successful election, Domenico joined the Department of the Interior as Special Assistant to the Solicitor.[5]

In 2006, Domenico was hired by Colorado Attorney General John Suthers to be Colorado’s Solicitor General, taking the position previously held by Tymkovich and Eid.[6]  Domenico held the position until 2015, when he left to join the firm of Kittredge LLC. as a principal.[7]

History of the Seat

Domenico has been nominated for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.  This seat was opened by Judge Robert Blackburn’s move to senior status on April 12, 2016.  On April 28, 2016, Obama nominated Hogan Lovells partner Regina Rodriguez to fill the vacancy.[8]  Rodriguez had the support of Democratic Senator Michael Bennet and Republican Senator Cory Gardner.[9]  However, despite their support, the Senate Judiciary Committee took no action on Rodriguez’s nomination and it expired at the end of the 114th Congress.

While Domenico had previously applied for the Blackburn seat in 2015, in 2017, he reached out to Gardner’s office to express interest in the Tenth Circuit seat opened with Gorsuch’s elevation to the U.S. Supreme Court.[10]  Domenico also expressed his interest directly to officials at the Department of Justice.[11]  Despite his lobbying, the nomination for the Tenth Circuit went to Colorado Supreme Court Justice Alison Eid, and Domenico was instead nominated for the vacant judgeship on the U.S. District Court.

Legal Experience

Domenico began his legal career at the firm of Hogan & Hartson LLP. (now Hogan Lovells).  At the firm, Domenico handled primarily transactional materials, not appearing in court during his tenure.[12]  After leaving the firm and completing a clerkship for Tymkovich, Domenico worked as Counsel for Thune’s campaign, again handling compliance and transactional work and not appearing in court.[13]

Department of the Interior

From 2005 to 2006, Domenico served as Assistant to the Solicitor for the Department of the Interior.  In this role, Domenico advised the Secretary of the Interior on various legal matters and worked with the Department of Justice on litigation issues.[14]  Among the cases he handled at the Department of the Interior, Domenico helped develop a memorandum for the Bureau of Land Management to handle the ownership of dirt back-roads in states.[15]

Colorado Solicitor General

In 2006, despite not having appeared in court, Domenico was selected to be Colorado’s Solicitor General, replacing Eid, who was appointed to the Colorado Supreme Court.  At just thirty four years old, Domenico was the youngest Solicitor General in Colorado history.

As Solicitor General, Domenico was charged with representing the state of Colorado in litigation, including the defense of Colorado laws against constitutional challenges.  In this capacity, Domenico defended Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, which required voters to approve any tax increases,[16] Colorado’s expansion of background checks on gun purchases,[17] and a Colorado statute preventing state funds from going to “pervasively sectarian” institutions.[18]

As Solicitor General, Domenico argued two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.[19]  In Wood v. Milyard, the Supreme Court was called onto decide if the Court of Appeals had the authority to raise a statute of limitations defense sua sponte and if the State of Colorado, in not challenging a claim on statute of limitations grounds, had waived the issue.[20]  Appearing for Colorado, Domenico argued that choosing not to challenge the statute of limitations did not constitute a waiver.  However, in a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court disagreed and held that Colorado had waived the statute of limitations defense.[21]  In the second case, Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl, Domenico lost 9-0 in his argument that a suit challenging Colorado’s implementation of an online sales tax is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act.[22]

Kittredge LLC.

From 2015, Domenico has been running a solo practice called Kittredge LLC. where he handles both litigation and public policy on behalf of individuals and businesses.  Notably, Domenico represented a team of plaintiffs in successfully enjoining a Colorado law criminalizing the showing of marked ballots to another party.[23]  Domenico also represented the Chamber of Commerce as amicus in a case challenging the exercise of Wisconsin jurisdiction over a corporation who appointed a registered agent in Wisconsin.[24]  The Wisconsin Supreme Court sided with the corporation in a 4-2 decision.[25]

Writings

While Domenico has not been as prolific as other Trump nominees, two editorials he authored may come up in his confirmation hearings.  First, in 2015, Domenico authored an op-ed criticizing the Obama Administration’s negotiation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with regard to Iran’s nuclear program.[26]  Specifically, Domenico argued that Iran’s development of nuclear power was unlikely to be “purely peaceful” and criticized the Obama Administration’s leadership on the issue.[27]

In a 2016 article, Domenico argued that Senate Republicans had the “right to delay the Supreme Court process” with regard to Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination.[28]  The article published alongside an op-ed by University of Denver law professor Alan Chen arguing the opposite perspective, argues that it is appropriate to delay a Supreme Court nomination to allow the American people to weigh in.[29]  The dueling articles drew many responses from local readers, with Greenwood Village resident Martin Berliner disputing Domenico’s perspective, arguing that American voters already weighed in by electing President Obama.[30]

Political Activity

Domenico has a long and active history in the Republican Party, going back to his role as an intern and an assistant in the Bob Dole campaign in 1996.[31]  While serving as Solicitor General in 2006, 2010, and 2014, Domenico advised the Attorney General campaigns of Republicans John Suthers and Cynthia Coffman.[32]  Additionally, Domenico also served as Counsel on John Thune’s successful senate campaign in 2004.[33]

Overall Assessment

While, Domenico’s record suggests a conservative judicial philosophy and political ideology,  his nomination will likely draw bipartisan support for several reasons.

First, Domenico has the support of Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, who has returned a blue slip on his nomination.  While returning a blue slip does not necessarily indicate support, Bennet could have used his blue slip to block Domenico had he considered the nomination particularly egregious.

Second, Domenico’s record both at the Colorado Solicitor General’s Office and in private practice is not particularly ideological.  As Solicitor General, Domenico has defended conservative laws as well as liberal ones, including gun control legislation that he presumably opposes.

Opponents of Domenico will likely point to his op-eds opposing the Iran Deal and supporting the Supreme Court blockade of Justice Scalia’s seat as evidence of conservative activism.  Furthermore, they may argue that his appointment as Solicitor General was not particularly successful, pointing to his two 9-0 losses at the Supreme Court.

However, such criticism is unlikely to carry much weight.  After all, regardless of the outcomes of his arguments, one could argue that appearing at the Supreme Court twice is itself a significant accomplishment.  As such, given his support from home state senators, Domenico is likely to be confirmed smoothly.


[1] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Daniel Domenico.: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 1.

[2] See id. at 2.

[3] See id. 

[4] White House Counsel Don McGahn, who handles the selection of judicial nominees, is also a Jones Day alumnus.

[5] See id. at 2.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Press Release, White House, President Obama Nominates Eight to Serve on the United States District Court (April 28, 2016) (on file at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov).  

[9] Press Release, Office of Senator Michael Bennet, Bennet, Gardner Urge Judiciary Committee to Consider Regina Rodriguez Nomination (July 12, 2016) (on file at https://www.bennet.senate.gov/?p=release&id=3735).  

[10] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Daniel Domenico: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 31.

[11] Id.

[12] Id. at 16-17.

[13] See id. at 17.

[14] Id. at 15-16.

[15] Joe Baird, Utah Case Now Model for New BLM Road Policy, The Salt Lake Tribune, Mar. 22, 2006.

[16] Kerr v. Hickenlooper, 880 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (D. Colo. 2012), vacated 744 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2014), petition vacated 135 S. Ct. 2927 (2015).

[17] Colorado Outfitters Ass’n v. Hickenlooper, No. 13-cv-1300 (D. Colo. 2015).

[18] Colorado Christian University v. Weaver, 534 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2008).

[19] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Daniel Domenico: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 18.

[20] See Wood v. Milyard, 132 S. Ct. 1826 (2012).

[21] See id.

[22] See Direct Marketing Assoc. v. Brohl, 134 S. Ct. 2901 (2015).

[23] See Hill v. Williams, 2016 WL 8667798 (D. Colo. Nov. 4, 2016).

[24] Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc., 898 N.W.2d 70 (Wisc. 2017).

[25] Safe Streets Alliance v. Hickenlooper, 859 F.3d 865 (10th Cir. 2017).

[26] Dan Domenico, Iran Deal’s Defenders Reveal Weak View of U.S. Leadership, Colo. Statesman, Sept. 25, 2015.

[27] See id.

[28] Dan Domenico, Senate Has the Right to Delay Supreme Court Nomination Process, Denv. Post, Feb, 19, 2016.

[29] See id.

[30] Martin Berliner, Debating GOP’s Plan to Block Any Nominee from Obama, Denv. Post, Feb. 28, 2016.

[31] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Daniel Domenico: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 13.

[32] See id.

[33] Id. at 23-24.

Unconfirmed: Fred Gray

Judicial confirmation is a business.  Over the last thirty years, a cottage industry of interest groups, nonprofits, and lobbying agencies have formed to support and oppose judicial candidates.  Behind the rhetoric on both sides, it is sometimes easy to forget that nominees are people: people who are frequently forgotten once their nominations are blocked or defeated.   “Unconfirmed” seeks to revisit nominees who were never confirmed to lifetime appointments, to explore the factors why, and to understand the people involved.  On this Martin Luther King Day, where better to start this series than with one of King’s fellow civil rights leaders, whose rejection for the federal bench was laced with allegations of racism and prejudice: Fred Gray.

When Jimmy Carter was elected Governor of Georgia in 1970, Fred Gray was already one of the most famous civil rights attorneys in the nation.  A native Alabamian, Gray was born in Montgomery in 1930, and grew up in a segregated city.  While attending an all-black school, Gray worked as a “boy preacher”, ministering to interracial crowds throughout his youth.[1]  After graduating from the Alabama State College for Negroes in 1951, Gray found himself barred from admission at an Alabama law school due to his race.  Nevertheless, Gray attended Case Western Reserve School of Law in Ohio, getting a J.D. in 1954, and returning to Montgomery shortly thereafter to fight segregation.

Back in Montgomery, Gray represented Rosa Parks and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in litigation stemming from the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955, as well as serving as lead counsel in Browder v. Gayle, which desegregated city buses nationwide.[2]  Gray also represented King in his tax evasion case, securing an acquittal from an all-white jury.[3]  Gray also successfully argued that Alabama State students who were expelled for participating in student sit-ins had their due-process rights violated, and successfully filed to protect marchers seeking to march from Selma to Montgomery in 1965.[4]

Furthermore, Gray also argued on behalf of African Americans at the Supreme Court in Gomillion v. Lightfoot.[5]  Among his other accomplishments, Gray was the leading attorney in successfully desegregating the University of Alabama and Auburn University, despite the opposition of politicians including Gov. George Wallace.[6]  In one of his most notable cases, Gray represented the African American victims of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study.[7]  Finally, in 1970, Gray was the first African American elected to the Alabama legislature, alongside Thomas Reed.[8]

When Carter was elected president in 1976, he and Attorney General Griffin Bell met with Coretta Scott King and assured her of their commitment to place qualified African American judges on the federal bench.[9]  In 1979, Gray was one of five candidates considered by Carter and Bell for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[10]  Despite his commitment to King, and Gray’s strong backing from Alabama African American groups, Bell declined to recommend Gray for the seat, ranking him fifth out of the five candidates being considered.[11]  The nomination and the seat instead went to the candidate ranked fourth, a white lawyer named Robert Vance.[12]

Instead, in 1979, Gray was recommended by Alabama Senators Howell Heflin and Donald Stewart (both Democrats) for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.[13]  However, despite the recommendation, the Carter Administration sat on Gray’s nomination for several months, allegedly due to Bell’s opposition.[14]  It took the personal intervention of Alabama African American power broker Joe Reed to break the impasse and allow Gray to be nominated officially in January 1980.[15]

Unfortunately for Gray, more obstacles stood ahead.  Citing Gray’s alleged misconduct on a bond issue as Tuskegee City Attorney, the American Bar Association (ABA) rated Gray “unqualified” for a federal judgeship.[16]  Additionally, Sen. Edward Kennedy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was challenging Carter in the Democratic Presidential Primary and believed that Gray’s nomination was intended to “buy” black votes in the Alabama Democratic primary.[17]  This gave him little incentive to disregard the ABA rating and move ahead on Gray’s nomination.

In response to the ABA rating, the National Bar Association, which is predominantly African American, stepped in to rate Gray and fellow black nominee U.W. Clemon, rating them “very well qualified.”[18]  In May 1980, Gray finally came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, sitting through a marathon 12-hour hearing.[19]  At the hearing, Gray’s supporters, including Clarence Mitchell from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, argued that the ABA’s opposition to the nomination was tinged by racism.[20]  In response, the ABA, represented by San Francisco attorney Robert D. Raven, fought back, noting:

“Do you think we want to find black judges unqualified?  Do you think we’re fools?”[21]

Ultimately, the hearing did not result in further action on Gray’s nomination.  In August 1980, Heflin withdrew his support for Gray.[22]  Facing certain defeat, Gray withdrew his nomination.[23]  In Gray’s place, Carter nominated an African American attorney in private practice in Montgomery, Myron Thompson.[24]  Despite Thompson being only thirty-three years old, he received a “qualified” rating from the ABA and was confirmed on September 26, 1980.[25]

Looking back on Gray’s short-lived judicial nomination, it is difficult to take race out of the equation.  Even if one accepts that the ABA’s rating was not based on Gray’s race (and there were many, even in 1980, who did not), it is hard to accept the conclusion that Gray, given his distinguished career, was unqualified for the federal bench where a thirty three year old attorney was not.  Nevertheless, while Gray was not able to take the bench, he broke barriers nonetheless.  In 2001, Gray became the first black president of the Alabama Bar and continues to be a civil rights leader today.[26]  Ultimately, Gray remaining unconfirmed in no way diminishes his significant legal achievements or his stature in the legal community.


[1] Barclay Key, Encyclopedia of Alabama “Fred Gray”, http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/h-1510 (last visited Jan. 14, 2018).

[2] Sheldon Goldman, Picking Federal Judges 266 (Yale University Press 1997).

[3] See Key, supra n.1.

[4] See id.

[5] 364 U.S. 339.

[6] Barclay Key, Encyclopedia of Alabama “Fred Gray”, http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/h-1510 (last visited Jan. 14, 2018).

[7] See id.

[8] See id.

[9] Sheldon Goldman, Picking Federal Judges 266 (Yale University Press 1997).

[10] See id. at 272.

[11] See id.

[12] Id.

[14] See id.

[16] See id.

[17] See id.

[18] See McFadden, supra n.13.

[19] See Babcock, supra n.11.

[20] See id.

[21] See id.

[22] Sheldon Goldman, Picking Federal Judges 267 (Yale University Press 1997).

[23] See id.

[24] See id.

[25] See id.

[26] Barclay Key, Encyclopedia of Alabama “Fred Gray”, http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/h-1510 (last visited Jan. 14, 2018).

Barry Ashe – Nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

A member of the conservative Federalist Society, Barry Ashe is President Trump’s first nominee to the New Orleans based Eastern District of Louisiana.

Background

Barry Weldon Ashe was born in 1956 in New Orleans, LA.  Ashe attended Tulane University, graduating summa cum laude in 1978.[1]  Ashe then joined the U.S. Navy, serving for three years.  In 1981, Ashe left the Navy to join Tulane University Law School, graduating in 1984 magna cum laude.

After graduation, Ashe clerked for Judge Carolyn Dineen King on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[2]  After completing his clerkship with King, Ashe joined the New Orleans office of Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann LLC as an Associate.  Ashe became a Member at the firm in 1991 and serves in that capacity today.

Ashe has served on the Executive Committee of the New Orleans Chapter of the Federalist Society since 2006.

History of the Seat

Ashe has been nominated for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  This seat was opened by Judge Ivan Lemelle’s move to senior status on June 29, 2015.  On February 4, 2016, Obama nominated federal public defender Claude Kelly to fill the vacancy.[3]  Kelly, a Republican, had the support of Louisiana Senators David Vitter and Bill Cassidy.[4]

Kelly received a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 18, 2016, and was approved without objection on June 16.  However, Kelly’s nomination never received a floor vote due to the blockade on confirmations imposed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Shortly after the election of President Donald Trump, Ashe reached out to Cassidy and Louisiana Senator John Kennedy (who replaced Vitter) to express his interest in a federal judgeship.[5]  In 2017, Kennedy recommended Ashe to the White House for the vacancy.[6]

After interviews with the White House Counsel’s Office and the Department of Justice, Ashe was officially nominated on September 28, 2017.[7]

Legal Experience

Ashe has spent his entire legal career at the firm of Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann LLC.  At the firm, Ashe primarily works in commercial and appellate litigation representing financial institutions, pharmaceutical companies, and oil, gas, & chemical industries.[8]

In one of his most notable cases, Ashe represented the Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education in a suit defending an evolution disclaimer adopted by the Board.[9]  The disclaimer, required to be read to students before presenting evolution, declared that the teaching of the scientific theory of evolution in class was not meant as an endorsement and should not be taken to dissuade or influence the Biblical view of creation.[10]  The disclaimer was struck down by both Judge Marcel Livaudais on the Eastern District of Louisiana and the Fifth Circuit as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[11]

In another notable case, Ashe argued on behalf of the Louisiana Attorney Discipline Board in favor of the constitutionality of restrictions on attorney advertising.[12]  While the Fifth Circuit upheld many of the challenged rules, it struck down restrictions on portraying judges or juries in advertisements and restrictions on the font size and speed of disclaimers.[13]

Writings

In 2000, Ashe authored an article titled “Constitutional Law: The Fifth Circuit’s War Against Religion in the Public Sphere.”[14]  In the article, Ashe argues that “the Fifth Circuit is waging a war against religion in the public sphere.”[15]  Looking at the Fifth Circuit’s decisions in five areas: public funding of parochial education; prayer at high school football games; disclaimers involving evolution; “clergy in schools” counseling program; use of school buildings for religious activities, Ashe concludes that the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in favor of a separation of church and state “evinces the court’s hostility towards religion.”[16]

Political Activity

Ashe has been a frequent donor to Louisiana Republicans, including Vitter, Cassidy, Kennedy, Rep. Steve Scalise, and former Governor Bobby Jindal.[17]  In contrast, Ashe has only donated to one Democrat: Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell.[18]

Overall Assessment

Members of both parties will likely agree that Ashe, who has over thirty years of legal experience, is professionally qualified to serve as a trial judge.  They may differ however based on his ideology and willingness to follow precedent.

Specifically, Ashe will likely be questioned as to whether he continues to maintain that the Fifth Circuit is waging a “war on religion.”  Furthermore, he is likely to be asked if he can continue to follow Fifth Circuit precedent that he disagrees with (as he will be bound to do as a district court judge).  If Ashe is able to sufficiently answer those concerns, he will likely be confirmed easily.


[1] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Barry Ashe.: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 1.

[2] See id. at 2.

[3] Press Release, White House, President Obama Nominates Two to Serve on the United States District Court (February 4, 2016) (on file at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov).  

[4] The Leadership Conference, These Republican Senators Want Their Judicial Nominees Confirmed. Majority Leader McConnell Isn’t Listening, Medium, Aug. 4, 2016, https://medium.com/@civilrightsorg/these-republican-senators-want-their-judicial-nominees-confirmed-1d87e6bfc615.

[5] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Barry Ashe: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 30.

[6] Tyler Bridges, 42-Parish Area of Western Louisiana Suffers From Vacant Judgeships, The Acadiana Advocate, Aug. 22, 2017, http://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/article_dad54e68-8791-11e7-9cfc-678529cbf1c6.html.  

[7] Press Release, White House, President Donald J. Trump Announces Eighth Wave of Judicial Candidates (September 28, 2017) (on file at www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office).  

[8] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Barry Ashe: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 15.

[9] See Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Bd. of Educ., 185 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 1999).

[10] Id. at 341.

[11] Id. at 348.

[12] See Public Citizen, Inc. v. Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Bd., 632 F.3d 212 (5th Cir. 2011).

[13] See id.

[14] Barry W. Ashe, Constitutional Law: The Fifth Circuit’s War Against Religion in the Public Sphere, 46 Loy. L. Rev. 973 (Winter 2000).

[15] Id. at 976.

[16] Id. at 1027.

[18] Id.

Judge Kurt Engelhardt – Nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

When Kurt Engelhardt was tapped for the federal bench in 2001, the young conservative looked poised for a swift elevation to the Fifth Circuit, and potentially even further.  Unfortunately, no Louisiana vacancy arose during the Bush Presidency and the election of Barack Obama foreclosed further opportunities.  With the election of Donald Trump, Engelhardt is getting an opportunity for elevation sixteen years after his initial court appointment.

Background

Kurt Damian Engelhardt was born in New Orleans on April 21, 1960.  Engelhardt attended the American Academy of Dramatic Arts and the University of New Orleans before graduating from Louisiana State University in 1982.  After graduating, Engelhardt joined Louisiana State University Law School, getting a J.D. in 1985.

After graduating, Engelhardt completed a two-year clerkship with Judge Charles Grisbaum on the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, and then joined the Metairie office of Little & Metzger, APLC.  In 1992, Engelhardt joined Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larman, & Papale, L.L.P. as an Associate.  In 1998, Engelhardt became a Partner at the firm.

On September 4, 2001, Engelhardt, then only 41, was tapped by President George W. Bush for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana vacated by Judge Morey Sear.  Engelhardt’s nomination was championed by then-U.S. Representative David Vitter, who was a close friend.[1]  Engelhardt was confirmed unanimously by the Senate on December 11, 2001.  He became Chief Judge for the Eastern District in 2015 and serves in that capacity today.

History of the Seat

Engelhardt has been nominated for a Louisiana seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  This seat opened on with Judge Edith Brown Clement’s announcement of her intent to take senior status upon confirmation of her successor.  Due to the nature of Clement’s announcement, the vacancy will not open until Engelhardt is confirmed.

In February and March 2017, Engelhardt conducted meetings with all the members of Louisiana’s congressional delegation other than Democratic Representative Cedric Richmond.[2]  In May 2017, Engelhardt interviewed with a judicial selection committee set up by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA).[3]  In June 2017, Engelhardt interviewed with the White House Counsel’s Office, and was nominated on October 5, 2017.

Political Activity

Engelhardt was active in the Louisiana Republican Party before his elevation to the bench, volunteering for various Republican campaigns and serving as Vice President of the Jefferson Parish Young Republicans.[4]  Engelhardt was particularly active in Vitter’s campaign serving as Chairman of his state legislative campaign committee and as Treasurer during Vitter’s congressional bids.[5]  Engelhardt has also donated to Vitter’s campaign, including a $1000 a few months before Engelhardt was nominated to the federal bench.[6]

Legal Career

After his clerkship, Engelhardt’s initial position was with Little & Metzger, APLC, where he worked in commercial litigation, handling contracts, business litigation, and bankruptcy.[7]  Among the cases he handled there, Engelhardt represented plaintiffs in a contract dispute who alleged material misrepresentations during the execution of the purchase contract.[8]

In 1992, Engelhardt joined the Hailey McNamara law firm.  There, Engelhardt continued a focus on commercial litigation, representing insurance companies, federal contractors, and shipyards.  While Engelhardt initially practiced only in the Eastern District of Louisiana, his practice eventually grew to envelop state court matters as well.[9]

Jurisprudence

Engelhardt has served as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for the last sixteen years.  In this role, Engelhardt has presided over hundreds or criminal and civil cases, including seventy six that have gone to verdict or judgment.[10]  We have summarized some of Engelhardt’s most significant cases below.

Danziger Bridge

In perhaps his most famous case, Engelhardt presided over the trials of New Orleans police officers charged in the “Danziger Bridge Incident”, where officers shot and killed unarmed storm survivors during Hurricane Katrina.[11]  In one of the trials, Engelhardt declared a mistrial based on the federal prosecutor’s mentioning “the name of a man who was beaten to death” in an unrelated case.[12]  In 2012, Engelhardt sentenced four of the officers to 38 to 65 years in prison for the shootings, while sentencing a fifth officer to five years for covering up the shootings.[13]  In sentencing the officers, Engelhardt criticized the prosecution for their reliance on cooperating witnesses and mandatory minimum sentences, indicating that he would likely have offered far lower sentences.[14]

A few months after the sentencing, news broke that key prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s office had engaged in a series of anonymous posts at news sites about defendants they were charging.[15]  In response to the news, the Danziger defendants moved for a new trial while prosecutors argued that there was no evidence that the anonymous posts had affected the verdicts.  In 2013, Engelhardt granted the motion for a new trial, noting:

“Re-trying this case is a very small price to pay in order to protect the validity of the verdict in this case, the institutional integrity of this Court, and the criminal justice system as a whole.”[16]

Engelhardt’s ruling drew criticism from the Washington Post Editorial Board, who called his reasoning “unconvincing in the extreme.”[17]

In 2016, Engelhardt accepted guilty pleas from the five Danziger defendants, speaking out at the sentencing against the Department of Justice and the conduct of then Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez, who Engelhardt argued, had covered up prosecutorial misconduct in the case.[18]

British Petroleum (Rainey)

Engelhardt presided over the trial of David Rainey, a vice president at British Petroleum who was charged with lying to investigators in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.[19]  Before trial, Engelhardt dismissed the lead count of the indictment: obstruction of Congress, only to see the dismissal overturned by the Fifth Circuit.[20]  Nevertheless, Engelhardt dismissed the count again on the first day of trial.[21]

The jury ultimately acquitted Rainey of the remaining counts of lying to investigators.[22]  In dismissing the jury, Engelhardt noted that he “agree[d] with the verdict.”[23]

FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Litigation

Engelhardt presided over a part of a multidistrict lawsuit brought against FEMA, trailer manufacturers, and contractors for providing trailers contaminated with formaldehyde after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.[24]  Early in the case, Engelhardt held that the hundreds of claims could not be considered a class action due to the uniqueness of each plaintiff’s situation.[25]  The claims ultimately ended in a settlement.

Overall Assessment

With sixteen years on the bench, Engelhardt has a long record of jurisprudence demonstrating a conservative judicial philosophy.  As such, one can conclude that Engelhardt would maintain a conservative voice on the Fifth Circuit, similar to Judge Clement, whom he would replace.

Depending on your perspective, Engelhardt’s conduct in the Danziger and Rainey trials are either a demonstration of those conservative values, or a deviation from them.  Some could argue that, in those cases, Engelhardt stood up to overzealous prosecutors and maintained the rule of law.  Others can counter that Engelhardt further denied justice to minorities by going out of his way to accommodate police officers and corporate defendants.

Ultimately, given Engelhardt’s mostly uncontroversial tenure on the District Court, he is likely to move through the confirmation process smoothly, and maintain the conservative majority on the Fifth Circuit.


[1] Stephanie Grace, ‘Fascinating Prospect’ David Vitter, President Obama Might Find Common Ground on New Orleans Judge, The Advocate, July 22, 2015, http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/stephanie_grace/article_017dafb2-2692-5a5b-a6fc-2b4763ed5aaf.html.  

[2] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Kurt Engelhardt: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 69-70.

[3] See id. at 70.

[4] See id. at 51-52.

[5] Id. at 51.

[6] Center for Responsive Politics, https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=kurt+engelhardt&order=desc&sort=D (last visited Jan. 7, 2017).

[7] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Kurt Engelhardt: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 53.

[8] See Ins. Underwriters Ltd. v. Oxford Mgmt., Inc., No. 87-13771 (La Civ. Dist. Ct.).

[9] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Kurt Engelhardt: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 53-54.

[10] Id. at 17.

[11] Patrik Jonnson, Danziger Bridge Retrial Takes New Orleans Back to Katrina Chaos, Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 19, 2013.

[12] Mistrial for Officer in Katrina Bridge Shootings Inquiry, Charleston Gazette, Jan. 28, 2012.

[13] Bloomberg News, Ex-cops Get Prison for Katrina Slayings, Windsor Star, Apr. 5, 2012.

[14] Campbell Robertson, Five Ex-Officers Sentenced in Katrina Shootings, N.Y. Times, Apr. 5, 2012.

[15] Editorial Desk, Perfidious Prosecutors, N.Y. Times, Dec. 3, 2012.

[16] United States v. Bowen, 969 F. Supp. 2d 546, 627 (E.D. La. 2013).

[17] Editorial Board, Injustice Restored, Wash. Post, Sept. 22, 2013.

[18] Denis Slattery, Interior Boss Ripped in Cop Katrina Slays, N.Y. Daily News, Apr. 24, 2016.

[19] See United States v. Rainey, No. 12-cr-291 (E.D. La.).

[20] Brian M. Heberlig, Congressional Gamesmanship Leads to an Acquittal in Deepwater Horizon Case, United States v. David Rainey: A Case Study, 20 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 260 (Fall 2015).  See also United States v. Rainey, 757 F.3d 234 (5th Cir. 2014).

[21] See id.

[22] Former BP Executive Found Not Guilty of Making False Statement Over Oil Spill, thespec.com, June 5, 2015.

[23] Id.

[24] See In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Prod. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 07-1873 (E.D. La.).

[25] Class Action Denied in FEMA Trailer Suit, Wash. Post, Dec. 30, 2008.

Howard Nielson – Nominee for the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah

A conservative Washington D.C. based attorney, Howard Nielson’s ties to Utah, where he grew up and where his father served as a state legislator and congressman, have secured him a nomination for the federal bench.  However, Nielson will find his confirmation complicated by his participation in many hot-button cases, including his role in defending California Proposition 8.

Background

Howard Curtis Nielson Jr. was born in 1968 in Provo, UT.  Nielson’s father (also named Howard C. Nielson) was a professor at Brigham Young University who went on to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives as a Republican between 1983 and 1990.[1]  Nielson Jr. attended Brigham Young University, graduating summa cum laude in 1992.  He went on to spend two years at Kobe University in Japan as a Mombusho Scholar.[2]

In 1994, Nielson joined the University of Chicago Law School, where he served as articles editor at the University of Chicago Law Review.  Nielson graduated Order of the Coif in 1997, and clerked for the conservative luminary Judge J. Michael Luttig on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[3]  After completing his clerkship with Luttig, Nielson was hired by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to clerk for him, joining other notable clerks that year including civil rights litigator Jeffrey Fisher, law professor Noah Feldman, Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett, and University of Georgia Law School Dean Bo Rutledge.

After his clerkship, Nielson joined the Washington D.C. Office of Jones Day as an Associate.[4]  After the election of President Bush, Nielson moved to the Department of Justice as Special Assistant to Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson.[5]  He later became Counsel to Attorney General John Ashcroft and in 2003, became Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, serving under then-head Jack Goldsmith.[6]

In 2005, Nielson left the Department of Justice to join the conservative law firm Cooper & Kirk as Of Counsel.  Nielson was made a Partner in 2010 and continues to serve in that capacity.  In addition to his work at Cooper & Kirk, Nielson also served as a Legal Consultant to The Boeing Company[7] between 2008 and 2014.  Nielson also taught at the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University between 2007 and 2014.

History of the Seat

Nielson has been nominated for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.  This seat was opened by Judge Ted Stewart’s move to senior status on September 1, 2014.  On December 16, 2015, Obama nominated former Centreville mayor Ronald G. Russell to fill the vacancy.[8]  Russell, a Republican, had the support of Utah Senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee.[9]

Russell received a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 20, 2016, and was approved without objection on May 19.  However, Russell’ nomination stalled on the floor due to the blockade on confirmations imposed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Democratic objections to expediting Russell’s nomination without confirming longer-pending Democrats.  Without floor action, Russell’s nomination was returned unconfirmed on January 3, 2017.

Shortly after the election of President Donald Trump, Lee reached out to Nielson to gauge his interest in a judicial appointment.[10]  In April 2017, Nielson interviewed with Hatch and was recommended by him as part of a slate of candidates to the White House.[11]

After interviews with the White House Counsel’s Office and the Department of Justice, Nielson was officially nominated on September 28, 2017.[12]

Legal Experience

Nielson began his legal career with clerkships at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court.  After the clerkships, Nielson spent two years in the Issues and Appeals Practice Group at Jones Day.  At Jones Day, Nielson primarily represented corporations in commercial litigation matters.[13]  However, he also represented the Michigan government in dismissing a suit charging the failure to provide adequate screening, diagnosis, and treatment services for Michigan children under Medicaid.[14]

Office of Legal Counsel

From 2003 to 2005, Nielson worked at the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which advises the Attorney General and the U.S. Government as to the legality of its actions and initiatives.  Nielson’s tenure at OLC coincided with a tumultuous time at the agency including the initial withdrawal of the Bybee memo and torture memos, the resignation of OLC head Jack Goldsmith, and the reinstatement of the Bybee memo by acting head Daniel Levin.[15]

Cooper and Kirk

In 2005, Nielson joined the Washington D.C. Office of Cooper & Kirk, a firm founded by Republican luminary Charles J. Cooper.  In his twelve years at the firm, Nielson has participated in many cases representing conservative causes.

In perhaps his most notable case, Nielson joined Cooper in defending Proposition 8 (“Prop 8”), the California voter initiative that restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples.  As defense counsel in the case, Nielson developed the arguments in defense of the Proposition, citing a state interest in the longstanding definition of marriage, and arguing that opposite-sex couples provide an optimal child-rearing environment.[16]  Nielson notably motioned (unsuccessfully) for the recusal of Judge Vaughn Walker from the case, noting that Walker was a “practicing homosexual” who could theoretically benefit from the expansion of same-sex marriage.[17]  During the subsequent trial, Nielson cross-examined Columbia professor Ilan Meyer, challenging his argument that Prop 8 causes stress to LGBT minorities.[18]  Nielson also challenged the conclusions of UC Davis Professor Gregory Herek, who argued that same-sex attraction is immutable.[19]  Instead, Nielson “attempted to show that gay [sic] and lesbians opt for their sexual preference at different points in their lives.”[20]  Nielson also argued, by citing a 1935 paper by Sigmund Freud, that homosexuals could change their sexual orientation through therapy.[21]

In addition to the Prop 8 case, Nielson has been involved in many other hot-button cases.  In King v. Burwell, the challenge to subsidies on state-run exchanges under the Affordable Care Act, Nielson represented a team of conservative lawmakers including Sen. Ted Cruz as amici.[22]  Nielson was also involved, as amicus, in challenging enforcement actions taken by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,[23] and served as part of the legal team on a successful challenge to D.C.’s restrictions on obtaining handgun permits.[24]  Nielson also represented Harvey Lembo, a resident in Maine affordable housing, who sought to avoid eviction for keeping a firearm at his residence for self-defense.[25]  Finally, Nielson represented Safe Streets Alliance in their challenge to Amendment 64, a Colorado ballot initiative decriminalizing marijuana.[26]

Writings

Two of Nielson’s writings may be brought up during his confirmation hearing.  While at Cooper & Kirk, Nielson joined a letter to the editor alongside eight other former OLC employees defending the actions of Steven Bradbury, who was then serving as the acting head of OLC.[27]  At the time, Bradbury was criticized for failing to maintain the professionalism of OLC and deferring to the legal pronouncements coming from the White House.  Nielson’s letter pushed back against that perception, arguing that Bradbury was “a careful lawyer of unimpeachable integrity and sound judgment.”[28]

As a law student, Nielson authored a law review article on the First Amendment protections offered to recklessly false statements made by public employees.[29]  The article argues that any recklessly false statements of fact made by public employees should not be protected under the First Amendment.[30]  In order to avoid a chilling effect on free speech, Nielson endorses proving the reckless falsity of a statement by “clear and convincing” evidence.[31]

Political Activity

Nielson has a long and active history of advocacy in the Utah Republican Party, going back to the 1980s when he campaigned alongside his father.[32]  As an adult, Nielson was a County and State Delegate for the Utah Republican Party, as well as a member of the Party’s Central Committee.[33]  Nielson also worked with Mitt Romney’s Presidential Campaigns in 2008 and 2012, advising them on justice related issues.[34]

Additionally, Nielson has supported Republicans financially, including contributions to the RNC, the NRCC, and the NRSC.[35]  Additionally, Nielson has donated to the campaigns of Trump, Hatch, Lee, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).[36]

Overall Assessment

In a recent release, LGBT rights organization Lambda Legal claimed that a third of Trump’s judicial nominees have anti-LGBT records.[37]  Regardless of whether you agree with that conclusion, Nielson’s nomination will likely be used to buttress it.  Specifically, Nielson has already drawn criticism for moving for Walker’s recusal in the Prop 8 case.[38]  He is likely to draw additional criticism for his reliance, as Prop 8 counsel, on studies from the 1930s to suggest that LGBT individuals can change their sexual orientation.  Overall, opponents will likely argue that Nielson’s record in the Prop 8 case reflects an anti-LGBT bias.

Opponents will likely also attack Nielson based on his participation in the King case, as well as his fight against gun regulations in the Wrenn and Lembo cases.  His push in the latter case to require an affordable housing unit to accommodate gun possession may also draw criticism from property rights activists.

In response, Nielson’s supporters will likely argue that his advocacy in the Prop 8 case was made on behalf of his client and pursuant to his ethical responsibilities to be a zealous representative.  They may also argue, as some did with the Barrett nomination, that criticizing Nielson’s opposition to same-sex marriage is an attack on his faith.

Overall, Nielson has a narrow margin in the Senate.  To avoid the fate of other failed nominees, he will need to demonstrate that he can separate his advocacy as an attorney from his behavior as a judge.  If he does so, his nomination should be able to unite Republicans and be confirmed.


[1] William E. Schmidt, 5 States Re-Elect Incumbents, N.Y. Times, Nov. 4, 1982.

[2] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Howard C. Nielson Jr.: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 1.

[3] See id. at 2.

[4] White House Counsel Don McGahn, who handles the selection of judicial nominees, is also a Jones Day alumnus.

[5] See id. at 2.

[6] Id.

[7] The General Counsel of Boeing at the time was Luttig, Nielson’s old boss.

[8] Press Release, White House, President Obama Nominates Four to Serve on the United States District Court (December 16, 2015) (on file at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov).  

[9] Press Release, Office of Senator Orrin Hatch, Hatch Applauds Nomination of Ronald G. Russell to U.S. District Court (December 17, 2015) (on file at https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/12/hatch-applauds-nomination-of-ronald-g-russell-to-u-s-district-court).

[10] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Howard C. Nielson Jr.: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 43.

[11] Id. at 44.

[12] Press Release, White House, President Donald J. Trump Announces Eighth Wave of Judicial Candidates (September 28, 2017) (on file at www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office).  

[13] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Howard C. Nielson Jr.: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 26.

[14] See Westside Mothers, et al. v. Haveman et al., 133 F. Supp. 2d 549 (E.D. Mich. 2001).

[15] Jeffrey Rosen, Conscience of a Conservative, N.Y. Times, Sept. 9, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/magazine/09rosen.html.  

[16] See Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. C 09-2292 VRW, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 555594 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2009).

[17] Christianna Silva, Trump Judicial Nominee Howard Nielson: Gay Judges Shouldn’t Hear LGBT Cases, Towleroad, Jan. 5, 2018, http://www.towleroad.com/2018/01/howard-nielson/.  

[18] See Howard Mintz, Prop. 8 Trial Day 4: Live Coverage From the Courtroom, Contra Costa Times, Jan. 14, 2010.

[19] See Howard Mintz, Prop 8 Trial Sees Joust Over Whether Homosexuality is a Product of Choice or Nature, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Jan. 22, 2010.

[20] See id.

[21] See Howard Mintz, Prop 8 Trial Day 9: Live Coverage From the Courtroom, San Jose Mercury News, Jan. 22, 2010.

[22] See King v. Burwell, 759 F.3d 358 (4th Cir. 2014).

[23] Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Gordon, 819 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2016).

[24] Wrenn v. Dist. of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

[25] Stephen Betts, Rockland Man Told He Couldn’t Have Gun in Apartment Says He Suffered Emotional Damage, Bangor Daily News, April 19, 2016.

[26] Safe Streets Alliance v. Hickenlooper, 859 F.3d 865 (10th Cir. 2017).

[27] John C. Eisenberg and Howard C. Nielson, In Defense of the Office of Legal Counsel, Wash. Post, Oct. 12, 2007.

[28] See id.

[29] Howard C. Nielson Jr., Recklessly False Statements in the Public-Employment Context, 63 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1277 (Summer 1996).

[30] Id. at 1279.

[31] Id. at 1307.

[32] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Howard C. Nielson Jr.: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 24.

[33] See id.

[34] Id. at 23-24.

[36] Id.

[37] Lydia Wheeler, Advocacy Group: Nearly a Third of Trump Judicial Nominees are Anti-LGBT, The Hill, Dec. 20, 2017, http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/365784-advocacy-group-nearly-a-third-of-trump-judicial-nominees-are-anti.  

[38] Christianna Silva, Trump Judicial Nominee Howard Nielson: Gay Judges Shouldn’t Hear LGBT Cases, Towleroad, Jan. 5, 2018, http://www.towleroad.com/2018/01/howard-nielson/.  

James Sweeney – Nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana

A white collar criminal defense attorney and commercial civil litigator from Indianapolis, James Sweeney has been tapped for the federal bench in Indiana’s Southern District, one of Trump’s first district court nominees in a state with a Democratic senator.

Background

A native Hoosier, James Russell Sweeney III was born in Indianapolis in 1961.  In 1979, Sweeney joined the U.S. Naval Academy, graduating with a B.S. in 1983.  He then joined the U.S. Marine Corps as an Officer of Marines, as well as earning certificates of completion from East China Normal University, The Basic School, Naval Flight Officer School, U.S. Air Force Electronic Warfare School, U.S. Navy/Marine Corps EA-6B Fleet Replacement Squadron Training, U.S. Air Force Squadron Officer School, U.S. Marine Corps Amphibious Warfare School, Weapons and Tactics Instructor Course, and the NATO Joint Service Advance Electronic Warfare Staff Officer Course.[1]

In 1993, Sweeney matriculated at Notre Dame Law School, graduating in 1996 magna cum laude.  After graduation, Sweeney clerked for Judge John Daniel Tinder on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,[2] and then for Judge James Ryan on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  After his clerkships, Sweeney joined Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Indianapolis office as an Associate.  In 2005, he was named a Partner and continues to serve in that capacity today.

History of the Seat

Sweeney has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to a seat vacated by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on June 30, 2014.  On January 12, 2016, President Obama nominated Winfield Ong, the Criminal Division Chief in the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana, to fill the vacancy.[3]  Ong, who had the support of Democratic Senator Joe Donnelly and Republican Senator Dan Coats,[4] received a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 18 and was approved by the Committee unanimously on June 16.[5]  Unfortunately, Ong’s nomination was blocked from a floor vote by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and the vacancy was left unfilled at the end of the Obama Presidency.

In March 2017, Sweeney submitted an application for the vacancy to Sen. Todd Young (R-IN), who replaced Coats.[6]  After interviewing with Young’s staff and with Young, Sweeney was recommended to the White House in late April.[7]  Sweeney interviewed with the White House and the Department of Justice in early May and then with Donnelly’s staff in late June.[8]  Trump formally nominated Sweney on Nov. 1, 2017.

Legal Experience

Sweeney has spent his entire post-clerkship legal career at the firm of Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, handling a mix of commercial litigation, criminal defense, and intellectual property cases.   Sweeney’s time was split approximately evenly between federal court proceedings and administrative actions, as well as between civil and criminal cases.[9]

Among the most notable civil case he handled, Sweeney represented the surviving members and families of the crew of the USS Pueblo, the research ship attacked by North Korean forces in 1968.[10]  Sweeney served as lead plaintiff’s counsel in the case, which ultimately led to a $65 million judgment against the Government of North Korea.[11]  In another case, Sweeney represented Burlington Coat Factory in defending against an infringement action based on a patent on a child’s safety seat buckle.[12]

On the criminal side, Sweeney primarily worked on white collar defense.[13]  Notably, Sweeney represented William Matthews, a former Executive Vice President at Blackwater Worldwide (now Academi), a defense contractring company.[14]  Matthews, along with four other officials, was charged in 2010 after federal officers discovered 22 weapons that had been purchased in violation of federal firearm laws.[15]  However, Sweeney and other defense counsel argued that the purchases had been made at the direction of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).[16]  Ultimately, Matthews ended up pleading to a misdemeanor charge with time served, avoiding the felony violations he had initially been charged with.[17]  The sentence drew criticism from investigative journalist Marcy Wheeler, who described the deal as “an undeserved and inexplicable sweetheart misdemeanor plea.” and suggested that the deal had been a product of “graymail.”[18]

Political Activity

Sweeney, a Republican, has served as a delegate to the Indiana State Republican Convention and as a Marion County Precinct Judge.[19]  The vast majority of Sweeney’s contributions are directed to fellow Republicans.[20]  For example, Sweeney has given to many Indiana Republicans including Coats, Young, former senator Richard Lugar, Gov. Eric Holcomb and Representatives Luke Messer, Todd Rokita, Larry Buschon, and Susan Brooks.[21]  All in all, since 2003, Sweeney has given more than $87000 to Republican candidates, organizations, and PACs, including almost $20000 to Young.[22]

Sweeney has also made a few contributions to Indiana Democrats, including a $1000 contribution to Donnelly, $250 to former senator Evan Bayh, and $250 to House candidate Scott Reske.[23]  Interestingly, in each of the above examples, Sweeney also donated to the Democrat’s Republican opponent.

Overall Assessment

As a well-credential federal litigator, Sweeney has a fairly typical background for a judicial nominee.  Furthermore, he does not have a record of controversial statements or blog posts similar to those that have brought down other nominees.

Senators who ultimately vote against Sweeney will likely do so for one of two reasons.  First, they may cite the criticisms made by Wheeler regarding his representation of Matthews.  Second, they may balk at his extensive political contributions, making criticisms similar to those made against Obama appointee John McConnell in 2010.[24]  Ultimately, both arguments have easy counters.  First, supporters can argue that, as a criminal defense attorney, Sweeney has the ethical responsibility to engage in zealous representation.  As such, barring any unethical conduct on his part, it would be unfair to hold his representation of an unpopular client against him.  Second, supporters can note that engaging in political contributions is a form of First Amendment activity.  Barring a quid pro quo, punishing a nominee for making too many contributions would be akin to punishing a nominee for writing too many editorials or engaging in too many protests.

Overall, it is likely that Sweeney will see a smooth confirmation.  After all, if Sweeney comes before the Senate Judiciary Committee, it’ll be because Donnelly has returned a blue slip on his behalf.  In such a case, Sweeney will have at least one Democrat in his corner.


[1] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., James R. Sweeney II: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 1-2.

[2] Tinder was later elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

[3] Press Release, White House, President Obama Nominates Winfield D. Ong to Serve on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (Jan. 12, 2016) (on file at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov).  

[4] Press Release, Office of Sen. Joe Donnelly, Donnelly and Coats Pleased Senate Judiciary Committee Will Hold Hearing on U.S. District Court Nominee Winfield Ong (May 16, 2016) (on file at https://www.donnelly.senate.gov/newsroom/press/).

[5] Michael Macagnone, Senate Panel Advances 4 Federal Judges, Hints at Floor Votes, Law 360, June 16, 2016, https://www.law360.com/articles/807489/senate-panel-advances-4-federal-judges-hints-at-floor-votes.

[6] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., James R. Sweeney II: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 37.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] See id. at 19-20.

[10] Massie v. Gov’t of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 592 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D.D.C. 2008).

[11] Rebecca Berfanger, Justice a Long Time Coming; Lawyers Win $65 Million for Tortured Crew, The Indiana Lawyer, Jan. 21, 2009.

[12] Galbreath v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of Arundel, Inc., No. 1:03-cv-0555 (D. Md. Dec. 22, 2003).

[13] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., James R. Sweeney II: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 20.

[14] United States v. Jackson, Case No. 2:10-cr-00008-FL (E.D.N.C. Feb. 21, 2013) (case dismissed pursuant to plea agreement).

[15] James Risen and Mark Mazzetti, Case Ends Against Ex-Blackwater Officials, N.Y. Times, Feb. 21, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/us/case-ends-against-five-ex-blackwater-officials.html.  

[16] See id.

[17] Id.

[18] Marcy Wheeler, DOJ Gives Blackwater a Whitewash on Felony Charges, Emptywheel, Feb. 21, 2013, https://www.emptywheel.net/2013/02/21/doj-gives-blackwater-a-whitewash-on-felony-charges/.

[19] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., James R. Sweeney II: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 17.

[21] See id.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24] John O’Brien, Obama’s Judicial Picks Sent Back to Senate, Legal News Line, Sept. 15, 2010, https://legalnewsline.com/stories/510523503-obama-s-judicial-picks-sent-back-to-senate.