Judge Brett Kavanaugh – First Amendment Rulings

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is colloquially known for establishing the right to free speech, but it actually encompasses several rights, including the freedom of the press, and the right of assemble, demonstrate, and petition your elected representative.  Additionally, the religion clauses of the First Amendment guarantee the right to practice your religion without government interference, as well as prohibiting government endorsement or establishment of religion.  The myriad rights recognized by the First Amendment have been further fleshed out by the Supreme Court and lower courts.  Kavanaugh himself has written several opinions in First Amendment cases.  In these opinions, summarized below, Kavanaugh has generally taken an expansive view of First Amendment rights, showing a willingness to strike down regulations that impinge, even slightly, on First Amendment territory.

Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech to all Americans.  In other words, we cannot be punished by the government for expressing our views.  As noted above, Kavanaugh has taken an expansive view of this freedom, particularly as it relates to campaign and communication regulations.

Campaign Regulations

The most recent frontier in free speech cases has involved campaign finance.  In its landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court struck down government restrictions on independent expenditures made by corporations and unions in campaigns, ruling that such restrictions were an infringement of the First Amendment.[1]  Since then, numerous campaign regulations have been challenged on First Amendment grounds.

In 2016, Kavanaugh decided one such challenge in holding that the Independence Institute, a non-profit organization, should be allowed to proceed in its First Amendment challenge against federal regulations requiring them to disclose their donors.[2]  In his majority opinion, Kavanaugh acknowledged that the Supreme Court had upheld disclosure requirements in the past (including in Citizens United) but noted that the Independence Institute was a 501(c)(3) organization, rather than the 501(cv)(4) involved in Citizens United.[3]  This distinction, Kavanaugh ruled, was sufficient to allow the case to proceed.[4]

In dissent, Judge Robert Wilkins argued that the First Amendment challenge was precluded by Citizens United, and that the factual distinctions drawn by Kavanaugh were “immaterial.”[5]

Kavanaugh also has the notable distinction of having struck down campaign finance regulations on First Amendment grounds before Citizens United.  In Emily’s List v. FEC, Kavanaugh struck down a series of FEC regulations limiting the use of “soft money” by non-profits in election spending.[6]  In striking down the regulations, Kavanaugh noted:

“Donations to and spending by a non-profit cannot corrupt a candidate or officeholder, at least in the absence of some McConnell-like evidence establishing such corruption or the appearance thereof.”[7]

Judge Janice Rogers Brown refused to join Kavanaugh’s First Amendment analysis in the case, noting:

“I have grave doubts about the court’s analysis, which bears at most a passing resemblance to the parties’ briefs, and which will profoundly affect campaign finance law in this circuit.”[8]

Communications Regulation

Kavanaugh has also sought to apply the First Amendment in the context of communications regulation.  As the D.C. Circuit upheld Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations barring exclusive contracts between cable operators and affiliated cable programming networks, Kavanaugh dissented.[9]  In his dissent, Kavanaugh argued, as cable networks and operators both engage in protected speech, that the FCC regulations (which are intended to avoid monopolies) implicate First Amendment rights.[10]  Applying the First Amendment, Kavanaugh found that a changed competitive marketplace for cable means that the FCC bans no longer further an interest in fair competition and must be struck down.[11]

Press

The First Amendment also protects a free press from both government censorship and excessive regulation or litigation.  As such, the Supreme Court has recognized fairly broad protections from journalists against defamation suits (which seek damages for the publication of false information).  Kavanaugh reaffirmed this principle in one notable defamation case.[12]  In the case, a prisoner filed a defamation action against the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) for attributing some negative comments during his sentencing hearing to the judge rather than the prosecutor.[13]  After the district judge denied BNA’s motion to dismiss, Kavanaugh reversed the ruling on appeal, noting that the First Amendment protected the BNA’s actions as long as they were not made with “actual malice” and that the plaintiff could not make such a showing.[14]

Freedom of Assembly + Petition

In addition to the Freedom of Speech and the Press, the First Amendment encompasses the Freedom of Assembly, or the right of people to come towards to express their ideas collectively.  Encompassed within that right is the right to associational freedom: the right to join organizations that are formed around causes you believe in; as well as the right not to join organizations you disagree with.  Additionally, the First Amendment includes the right to peacefully petition your elected representatives on issues that are important to you.

Kavanaugh authored a notable opinion discussing the latter right.  In We the People Foundation, Inc. v. United States, the plaintiffs submitted “petitions with extensive lists of inquiries” related to questions about the government’s violation of the taxing and war powers clauses.[15]  When the government agencies to whom the petitions were addressed failed to respond, the plaintiffs brought suit, alleging two claims: first, that the First Amendment right to petition encompassed a right to a “good faith exchange” between the government and the petitioner; second, that the First Amendment prohibited the government from retaliating against plaintiffs for filing the petition.[16]  Kavanaugh wrote for a majority of the D.C. Circuit rejected the claim under the First Amendment, finding that, under the Supreme Court’s holding in Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, there was no “affirmative obligation” under the First Amendment to have the government respond to a petition.[17]

In concurring with the main opinion, Judge Judith Ann Wilson Rogers noted the depth of historical sources that plaintiffs had cited, and suggested that, as such evidence had not presented to the Supreme Court in prior cases, that the outcome of Smith and other precedent may have been different had the record on the right to petition been fully explored.[18]

Freedom of Religion

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects the right to worship and believe in accordance with any and no faith.  Congress extended the protections of the Free Exercise Clause in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which required any government action or regulation that substantially burdened a sincerely held religious belief to be narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest.

In one notable case, a panel of the D.C. Circuit found that the religious rights of Catholic nonprofits were not violated by the ACA’s “religious accommodation” opt-out from its contraceptive mandate.[22]  The full D.C. Circuit then declined to take the case en banc, with Kavanaugh in dissent.  In his dissent, Kavanaugh argued that the challenged accommodations substantially burden Catholic non-profits by making them “conduits” to providing contraceptive coverage through an alternative means.[23]

Establishment of Religion

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prevents the government from endorsing, establishing, or placing a stamp of approval on one faith or kind of religious service.  While Kavanaugh has generally interpreted the other rights in the First Amendment broadly, he has not done so for the Establishment Clause.

In In re Navy Chaplaincy, Kavanaugh rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to the retirement system for Navy Chaplains, which plaintiffs alleged discriminated in favor of Catholic chaplains.[19]  Kavanaugh found that the plaintiffs, current and retired non-liturgical Protestant chaplains lacked standing to raise an Establishment Clause claim, finding that being exposed a “message” of preference for Catholic chaplains is insufficient to constitute an injury.[20]

In dissent, Judge Judith Ann Wilson Rogers wrote that Kavanaugh’s opinion “ignores all of this precedent in adopting the novel conception that appellants are not harmed for purposes of standing…”[21]

 


[1] See Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

[2] Ind. Institute v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 816 F.3d 113 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

[3] Id. at 117.

[4] Id.

[5] See id. (Wilkins, J., dissenting).

[6] Emily’s List v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 581 F.3d 1, 4 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

[7] See id. at 18 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

[8] See id. at 25 (Brown, J., concurring in part).

[9] Cablevision Sys. Corp. v. F.C.C., 597 F.3d 1306, 1315 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting).

[10] Id. at 1322.

[11] Id. at 1325.

[12] Kahl v. Bureau of Nat’l Affairs, Inc., 856 F.3d 106 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Von Kahl v. Bureau of Nat. Affairs, Inc., 138 S. Ct. 366, 199 L. Ed. 2d 269 (2017).

[13] See id. at 110.

[14] Id. at 117-18.

[15] We the People Found., Inc. v. United States, 485 F.3d 140, 141 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

[16] Plaintiffs alleged that the federal government had retaliated by prosecuting plaintiffs who refused to pay federal income taxes out of protest.

[17] See id. at 145.

[18] See id. at 145-48 (Rogers, J., concurring).

[19] In re Navy Chaplaincy, 534 F.3d 756, 758 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

[20] Id. at 764.

[21] Id. at 770-71 (Rogers, J., dissenting).

[22] Priests for Life v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 772 F.3d 229 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

[23] Priests for Life v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 808 F.3d 1, 14 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).

Judge Mary Rowland – Nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

The Dirksen Courthouse - where the Northern District of Illinois sits.

When the White House negotiates judge packages with Senators, it is inevitable that both sides have to accept nominees they would not otherwise have chosen.  That is likely what led the Trump Administration to nominate Judge Mary Rowland, an otherwise left-of-center nominee, for the federal bench.

Background

Mary Margaret Rowland was born on October 8, 1961 in Akron, OH.  Rowland graduated from the University of Michigan in 1984 and then worked for seven months as a field coordinator for the Senate campaign of Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).[1]  Rowland then attended the University of Chicago Law School, graduating in 1988.

After graduation, Rowland clerked for Judge Julian Cook on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  She then joined the Federal Defender’s Office in Chicago, becoming the Chief Appellate Attorney in 1995.[2]  In 2000, Rowland became an Income Partner at Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd.[3]  In 2012, Rowland was appointed as a Magistrate Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.[4]  She continues to serve on that Court.

In 2009, Rowland was recommended to the Obama Administration for a federal judgeship by Sen. Dick Durbin, which could have made her the first openly gay nominee to the federal bench.[5]  The Administration ended up nominating three other choices: Sharon Coleman; Gary Feinerman; and Edmund Chang.

History of the Seat

Rowland has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  This seat opened on May 25, 2018, when Judge Amy St. Eve was elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Unlike Seeger and Pacold, who had their first contact with the White House, Rowland applied directly to the screening committee set up by Durbin and Sen. Tammy Duckworth.[6]  In February 2018, she interviewed with Durbin and his staff.[7]  She interviewed with the White House in April and was officially nominated in June.

Legal Career

Rowland’s legal career before she became a judge largely focused on criminal defense and civil rights work.  As a federal defender in Chicago, Rowland tried five jury cases.[8]  She also served as Chief Appellate Attorney, arguing, among other cases, to successfully overturn the sentence of Mr. Stanback, convicted of a firearms offense.[9]

In private practice, Rowland notably represented a group of 3000 African Americans in a disparate impact suit against the City of Chicago after they were denied jobs as entry-level firefighters.[10]  Her team secured a trial verdict in favor of the firefighters.[11]  After the verdict was overturned on appeal, it was reinstated by the Supreme Court.[12]

Jurisprudence and Reversals

Rowland has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge since her appointment in 2012.  In this role, she presides over arraignments, bail hearings, and non-dispositive motions.  She also handles civil cases by consent of the parties.  In her six years on the bench, Rowland has presided over three jury and two bench trials.  One of her jury trials involved a false arrest and excessive force claim brought against the Chicago police, which concluded with a partial verdict for the plaintiff.[13]

Over the course of her six year tenure on the state bench, Rowland has been reversed by higher courts in three cases.[14]  Two of those cases involved Rowlings’ rulings supporting ALJ denials of benefits being reversed by higher courts.[15]  The final case reversed Rowland’s use of a multiplier in determining fees in a class action case.[16]

Political Activity

Rowland has a limited political history, mainly consisting of her work for former Sen. Carl Levin and volunteering for President Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008.[17]

Overall Assessment

If Rowland had been nominated by President Obama in 2010, she would have been the first LGBT judge on the Illinois federal bench (an honor that went to Judge Staci Yandle in 2014).  It speaks to the Trump Administration’s assertiveness with judicial dealmaking that they proceeded with Rowland’s nomination.  That being said, her nomination by Trump and support from Durbin and Duckworth essentially guarantees Rowland a comfortable confirmation and gives Trump his first LGBT judicial appointee.


[1] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Mary M. Rowland: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 1.

[2] Id. at 2.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Bill Dwyer, Oak Park’s Rowland Possible Nominee for Federal Bench, OakPark.com, Aug. 25, 2009, http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/8-25-2009/Oak-Park’s-Rowland-possible-nominee-for-federal-bench/.

[6] See. Rowland, supra n. 1 at 47.

[7] Id. 

[8] See id. at 35-36.

[9] See United States v. Stanback, 113 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 1997).

[10] Lewis v. City of Chic., 2005 WL 693618 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2005), rev’d, 528 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2008), rev’d, 130 S. Ct. 2191 (2010).

[11] See id.

[12] See Trudy Ring, Lesbian Attorney Becomes Federal Magistrate Judge in Illinois, Advocate, Nov. 16, 2012, https://www.advocate.com/society/law/2012/11/16/lesbian-attorney-becomes-federal-magistrate-judge-illinois.  

[13] See Fox-Martin v. Tryba, No. 09-cv-1690, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99237 (N.D. Ill. July 16, 2013).

[14] Rowland, supra n. 1 at 29.

[15] See Cullinan v. Colvin, No. 15-cv-11499, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171975 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2016), rev’d, Cullinan v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 598 (7th Cir. 2017) (reversing ruling holding that ALJ decision was supported by substantial evidence); Stahl v. Colvin, No. 13-cv-0752, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5841 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2015), rev’d, 632 F. App’x 853 (7th Cir. 2015) (reversing finding that substantial evidence supported ALJ determination).

[16] In re Sears, Roebuck & Co. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig., 867 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 2017).

[17] See Rowland, supra n. 1 at 32.

Martha Pacold – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

The Dirksen Courthouse - where the Northern District of Illinois sits.

Martha Pacold, only 39, is part of a 3-judge package for the Northern District of Illinois negotiated between Senators Richard Durbin & Tammy Duckworth, and the White House.  While Pacold is currently based out of Washington D.C., she has spent the majority of her legal career in Chicago and is favored to return there as a federal judge.

Background

Martha Maria Pacold was born on February 3, 1979, in Richmond, VA.  Pacold attended Indiana University, graduating with highest honors in 1999 (at just 20).[1]  She then attended the University of Chicago Law School, graduating with honors in 2002.

After graduating, Pacold clerked for Judge Arthur Raymond Randolph on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, for Judge Jay Bybee on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and then for Justice Clarence Thomas on the U.S. Supreme Court.  In the latter position, Pacold was co-clerks with former Solicitor General Jeff Wall.

After finishing up her clerkships, Pacold joined the Department of Justice as Counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.[2]  After a year, she joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia as a Special Assistant United States Attorney (SAUSA).[3]

In 2007, Pacold joined the Chicago Office of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP as an Associate.  She became a Partner at the firm in 2010.[4]  In 2017, she left that position to serve as Executive Secretary in the Department of the Treasury.  She became Deputy General Counsel a few months later and currently serves in that capacity.

History of the Seat

Pacold has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  This seat opened on March 1, 2017, when Judge John Darrah moved to senior status.

In June 2017, Pacold was contacted by the White House to gauge her interest in a federal judgeship.[5]  In February 2018, she applied with a screening committee set up by Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, both Democrats.[6]  Pacold was chosen as a prospective nominee for the Northern District by the end of February and was nominated as part of a three-judge package on June 7, 2018.

Legal Experience

While Pacold has held many legal positions throughout her legal career, the most significant and longest is her ten year tenure at Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP in Chicago.  In this position, Pacold primarily handled civil litigation on behalf of corporations.  For example, Pacold represented chemical company DuPont in defending against allegations of environmental contamination in New Jersey.[7]  She also represented Bayer Pharmaceuticals in a patent suit against Novartis.[8]

Notably, Pacold represented the City of Chicago and a team of Chicago police officers against a 1983 action based on claims of excessive force and false arrest.[9]  The case emerged from the defendant’s arrest while she was questioning police officers regarding their simultaneous arrest of her son.[10]  After a jury verdict in favor of the officers, Pacold successfully defended the decision on appeal.[11]

Political Activity

Over the last ten years, Pacold has made a handful of political contributions, all to Republicans.[12]  Among the recipients included the Presidential campaigns of John McCain and Mitt Romney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Sens. Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton.[13]

Writings

Of Pacold’s writings, two may draw attention.  First, as a law student, Pacold authored a paper discussing fee shifting provisions in class actions.[14]  In the paper, Pacold argues that current fee shifting statutes give plaintiff’s attorneys too strong an incentive to settle rather than take cases to trial, as their attorney fee recoveries are often higher during settlement.[15]  Pacold notes that this is counterintuitive as “the desire of plaintiffs’ attorneys to obtain higher fees at the expense of their clients is not a legitimate reason to increase the rate of settlements further.”[16]  Instead, Pacold proposes reforming the statutory fee shifting structure by not applying it in the settlements context.[17]

Pacold’s second notable writing is a Letter to the Editor written as an undergraduate, in which Pacold argues that laws prohibiting sex discrimination do not prohibit same-sex sexual harassment (relating to the then-pending Oncale case).[18]  Instead, Pacold argues that Oncale, a male who suffered sexual harassment from his male boss, cannot prove sex discrimination because his workplace has no females.[19]  The Supreme Court disagreed in a unanimous decision.[20]

Overall Assessment

While Martha Pacold is, ultimately, a package nominee, to be considered with two others supported by Senators and the Administration, she may draw more opposition than her fellow nominees.  This is for three reasons: first, Pacold is the youngest of the nominees at only 39 (although she does meet the ABA’s 12 years of practice requirement); second, Pacold is on record indicating that Title VII does not protect same-sex sexual harassment, a controversial position given the current focus on Title VII’s protection for transgender and LGBT individuals; third, Pacold clerked for Justice Thomas, who is notorious for selecting many deeply conservative individuals to clerk for him.  The combination of these factors may draw some raised eyebrows from Democrats.

However, with support from Durbin and Duckworth, Pacold remains likely to be ultimately confirmed with a strong bipartisan majority.


[1] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong. Martha M. Pacold: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 1.

[2] Id. at 2.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id. at 31.

[6] Id. 

[7] In re Environmental Contamination of Pompton Lakes, N.J.: Super. Ct. (Bergen Cnty.).

[8] See In re Bayer HealthCare LLC and CSL Behring LLC, Case No. 2010-M918 (Fed. Cir.).

[9] Whitehead v. Bond, 680 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2012).

[10] See id. at 922-25.

[11] See id. at 926.

[13] See id.

[14] Martha Pacold, Attorneys’ Fees in Class Actions Governed by Fee-Shifting Statutes, 68 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1007 (Summer 2001).

[15] Id. at 1028.

[16] Id. at 1029.

[17] See id. at 1030-32.

[18] Martha M. Pacold, When is Sexual Harassment Discrimination, Wash. Post, Dec. 17, 1997.

[19] See id.

[20] See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Srvs, Inc., 523 US 75 (1998).

Steven Seeger – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

The Dirksen Courthouse - where the Northern District of Illinois sits.

Steven Seeger, a trial attorney for the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) is part of a 3-judge package that Trump has put forward for the Northern District of Illinois.

Background

A native Illinoisan, Steven Charles Seeger was born in Normal on March 18, 1971.  Seeger attended Wheaton College, a small liberal arts school, receiving his B.A. summa cum laude in 1993, and then spent a year working as an English teacher in Japan.[1]

Seeger received his J.D. magna cum laude from the University of Michigan Law School, where he served as Articles Editor at the Law Review.[2]  Seeger then clerked for Judge David Sentelle on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and then joined the Chicago Office of Kirkland & Ellis as an associate.  He was made a Partner at the firm in 2003.[3]

In 2010, Seeger joined the Securities & Exchange Commission, based in Chicago as Senior Trial Counsel.[4]  He has held that position since then.

History of the Seat

Seeger has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  This seat opened on October 21, 2016, when Judge James Zagel moved to senior status.  As the seat opened with only three months left in President Obama’s presidency, no nomination was ever made to fill the seat.

In early 2017, Seeger reached out to Illinois Republicans to express his interest in a federal judgeship.[5]  In February 2018, he applied with a screening committee set up by Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, both Democrats.[6]  Seeger was chosen as a prospective nominee for the Northern District by the end of February.

On March 20, 2018, Seeger interviewed with Durbin and Duckworth.[7]  President Trump announced Seeger’s nomination as part of a three-judge package on June 7, 2018.

Legal Career

Seeger has spent his legal career primarily in two positions: at Kirkland & Ellis, and at the SEC.  In the former, Seeger primarily worked in general litigation, while in the latter, Seeger worked exclusively on the enforcement of SEC matters.  Over the course of his legal career, Seeger handled two jury and one bench trials.[8]

At Kirkland, Seeger handled the linerboard antitrust litigation, a series of lawsuits that paper companies had violated the Sherman Act by artificially restricting the supply of linerboard.[9]  In the litigation, Seeger represented International Paper, and the suit eventually led to a settlement.  Additionally, while at Kirkland, Seeger co-authored an amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court in support of McCreary County’s display of the Ten Commandments before a courthouse.[10]  The display was ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the First Amendment.[11]

Since 2010, Seeger has worked as an SEC trial litigator.  Among his more prominent cases, Seeger prosecuted radio talk-show host Pat Kiley for allegedly soliciting clients for a Ponzi scheme,[12] and investor Jason Bo-Alan Beckman for running an investment fraud scheme.[13]

Writings

In 1997, Seeger authored an article on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the proper test in evaluating religious burdens under the law.[14]  In the article, Seeger weighs three competing tests for evaluating burdens under RFRA and adopts the broadest: the religious motivation test.[15]  The religious motivation test asks if a burdened act is “motivated” by a religious belief to determine if RFRA protects it.[16]  In supporting this test, Seeger argues that it allows for the broadest application to RFRA’s test, while tests that require the burdened act to be “central to” or “compelled by” faith leaves out non-Abrahamic faith traditions that apply faith restrictions more loosely.[17]  Seeger also argues that this approach keeps judges out of the task of parsing the weight of religious prohibitions, noting:

“Courts cannot decide whether a practice is central to or compelled by a litigant’s religion without making a theological interpretation of the believer’s faith.[18]

Overall Assessment

Generally speaking (although not guaranteed), package nominees generally sail to confirmation as both the White House and senators have an incentive not to let the package die.  Seeger is similarly favored.

Nonetheless, Seeger may face questions regarding his views on RFRA.  Specifically, senators may probe Seeger’s endorsement of a “religious motivation” view, noting that corporations and individuals may use “religious motivation” to avoid compliance with civil rights and discrimination laws.  Seeger may be asked to clarify his view on the application of RFRA in such circumstances.  With the backing of Durbin and Duckworth, however, Seeger is, nonetheless, likely to overcome such questions and be confirmed.


[1] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Steven C. Seeger: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 1.

[2] Id. at 3.

[3] Id. at 2.

[4] Id.

[5] Id. at 26-27.

[6] Id. at 27.

[7] Id.

[8] See id. at 10.

[9] See In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., C.A. Nos. 98-5055, 99-3141, MDL No. 1261 (E.D. Pa. filed March 16, 1999).

[10] See McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), brief at 2004 WL 2825469.

[11] See id.

[12] See Dan Browning, Kiley Denies Role in Cook Ponzi Scheme; Talk-show Host Pat Kiley Alleged That His Former Lawyers Had Taken Orders From Convicted Schemer Trevor Cook, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Oct. 15, 2010.

[13] David Hanners, Federal Judge Freezes Beckman Assets in Investor Fraud Case, St. Paul

[14] Steven C. Seeger, Restoring Rights to Rites: The Religious Motivation Test and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 1472 (1997).

[15] See id. at 1475.

[16] Id.

[17] Id. at 1503-05.

[18] Id. at 1510.

Judge Gary Brown – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Judge Gary Brown has been waiting over three years for confirmation to the federal bench, a very long wait for a nominee with virtually no controversy about his record.  However, as he has now been renominated by a Republican Administration and has the support of his Democratic home state senators, he may see the bench before too long.

Background

Brown was born in Brooklyn in 1963.  He graduated summa cum laude from Columbia in 1985 and then attended Yale Law School, graduating in 1988.[1]  Brown then clerked for Judge Jacob Mishler on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

After his clerkship, Brown joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York as an AUSA in the Civil Division.[2]  In 1996, Brown shifted over to the Long Island Criminal Division, becoming the Chief in 2003.[3]

In 2005, Brown became Senior Counsel at Computer Associates International, a company that itself had attracted some attention from federal prosecutors.[4]

In 2011, Brown became a federal magistrate judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, based in Central Islip in Long Island.  He serves on that court today.

History of the Seat

Brown has been nominated (for a second time) to fill a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  This seat opened on January 21, 2015, when Judge Sandra Feuerstein moved to senior status.  President Obama first nominated Brown to fill the vacancy on July 30, 2015.[5]  While his nomination was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, it was blocked from a final confirmation by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

In June 2017, Brown’s name was broached by the White House as part of a package of nominees.[6]  Brown was officially nominated on May 15, 2018.

Legal Career

Brown started his legal career by clerking on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  He then worked as a Civil AUSA in the Eastern District of New York, handling civil lawsuits over scams, contract, tort, and environmental issues.  Notably, Brown helped handle a civil lawsuit based on the largest food stamp fraud perpetrated by a meat market in Brooklyn.[7]

From 1996 to 2005, Brown handled criminal matters out of the Long Island Office.  During this time, he prosecuted serial killer Michael Swango, a doctor who killed several of his patients by injecting them with poisonous substances.[8]  The doctor was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to five years in prison.[9]

In 2005, Brown was hired by Computer Associates International as Senior Counsel.  Over the next six years, Brown represented the company in intellectual property, qui tam, and other lawsuits.[10]

Jurisprudence 

Brown has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge since his appointment in 2011.  As of 2015, Brown had participated in nine consent trials.[11]  Among them, Brown presided over a trial regarding the seizure of an expensive sports car by city officials without due process.[12]

Brown also handled a notable case emerging from damage from Hurricane Sandy.[13]  The case involved damage to a Long Island home that insurance companies refused to cover, arguing that the damage was caused by long-term deterioration and not the hurricane.[14]  However, Brown and plaintiffs discovered that the insurance reports demonstrating this had been secretly altered.[15]  The case eventually resolved with a full insurance payout and attorney’s fees.[16]

Writings

In 1993, Brown wrote an article arguing for the reform of civil forfeiture proceedings.  Specifically, he wrote that civil forfeiture proceedings should be automatically stayed pending the resolution of parallel criminal proceedings.[17]  In the piece, he argues that such a provision would protect the rights of defendants while also helping the government by protecting the secrecy of criminal proceedings from civil discovery.[18]

In a second article, written as a criminal AUSA, Brown discussed the Criminal Street Gangs statute (CSGS) and attached sentencing enhancements.[19]  In the article, Brown argues that the enhancements are ineffective in preventing gang activity because they are burdensome to use, require proof of many elements, and, as such, are rarely used.[20]  As such, Brown advocates for reform using a potential mandatory minimum statutory sentences.[21]

Overall Assessment

Looking at Brown’s record overall, there is little that is likely to draw opposition.  Brown has not written on any hot-button issues and few of his rulings are likely to attract attention.  As the failure of Brown’s initial nomination to the federal bench had little to do with Brown himself and everything to do with the President who nominated him,  his confirmation is likely to be much smoother this time around.


[1] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 114th Cong., Gary Richard Brown: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 1.

[2] Id. at 2.

[3] Id.

[4] Ken Schachtner, Computer Associates International Names New Senior Counsel, Long Island Business News, Mar. 18, 2005.

[5] 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).

[6] Zoe Tillman, The White House Has Pitched a Nominee for Manhattan’s Powerful US Attorney Opening, Buzzfeed News, Aug. 7, 2017, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/the-white-house-has-pitched-a-nominee-for-manhattans.  

[7] Selwyn Raab, Food Stamps Used in Scam to Sell Meat, N.Y. Times, Oct. 28, 1992.

[8] Charlie LeDuff, Prosecutors Say Doctor Killed to Feel a Thrill, N.Y. Times, Sept. 7, 2000.

[9] Scottsdale Abortion Doctor Sentenced to Five Years in Prison, Arizona Daily Sun, May 4, 2001, http://azdailysun.com/scottsdale-abortion-doctor-sentenced-to-five-years-in-prison/article_d08ec172-9b1c-55da-9a1f-b94c9f9ada55.html.  

[10] See Brown, supra n. 1 at 33.

[11] See id. at 15.

[12] Ferrari v. Cnty. of Suffolk, Case No. 10-CV-4218 (GRB).

[13] Raimey v. Wright Nat’l Flood Ins. Co., No. 14-CV-461 (JFB) (SIL) (GRB).  

[14] David Chen, Storm Victims Say Damage Reports Were Altered, N.Y. Times, Feb. 17, 2015.

[15] See id.

[16] See Brown, supra n. 1 at 20.

[17] Gary R. Brown, The Civil Justice Reform Act: Reforming Civil Forfeiture Law: The Case for an Automatic Stay Provision, 67 St. Johns’ L. Rev. 705 (Fall 1993).

[18] See id. at 711-12.

[19] Gary R. Brown, Less Bark, More Bite: Fixing the Criminal Street Gang Enhancement, 16 Fed. Sent. R. 148 (2003).

[20] See id. 

[21] See id. at 158.

Judge Richard Sullivan – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

When the 43 year old Sullivan was confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 2007, legal observers predicted that the young judge would go far. However, the election of President Obama in 2008 short-circuited Sullivan’s expected rise to the Second Circuit (and potentially further).  Now, ten years later, the 54-year-old conservative is getting the long-delayed promotion.

Background

A native New Yorker, Richard Joseph Sullivan was born in Manhasset on April 10, 1964.  Sullivan received his B.A. from the College of William & Mary in 1986 and his J.D. from Yale Law School in 1990.[1]  After graduating, Sullivan clerked for Judge David Ebel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and then joined the New York firm Watchell Lipton Rosen & Katz as an associate.

In 1994, Sullivan joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, working as a prosecutor for the next 11 years.  In 2005, Sullivan joined Marsh Inc. as General Counsel.[2]  Two years later, President George W. Bush nominated Sullivan to be a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filling the seat opened by Judge Michael Mukasey’s move to senior status.  Sullivan was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on June 28, 2007.  Sullivan currently serves in that capacity.

History of the Seat

Sullivan has been nominated for a New York seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  This seat was vacated by Judge Richard Wesley, who moved to senior status on August 1, 2016.

In March 2017, Sullivan was contacted by the White House to gauge his interest in the Second Circuit.[3]  Sullivan’s name was suggested to Schumer and Gillibrand as one of four potential nominees for the Second Circuit.[4]  Once approved, Sullivan began the nomination process in November 2017 and was nominated on May 7, 2018.

Legal Career

Sullivan has spent the most significant portion of his pre-bench career as a federal prosecutor.  Notably, Sullivan served as head of the Narcotics Unit at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.  As such, Sullivan prosecuted a number of cases involving international drug trafficking, drug-related organized crimes, and drug-related corruption cases.[5]

From 2005 to 2007, Sullivan served as Deputy General Counsel for Litigation at Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. and then as General Counsel at Marsh, Inc.  In this role, Sullivan managed the in-house legal team at Marsh, a large insurance broker.

Jurisprudence

Sullivan has served as a federal trial judge for approximately eleven years.  His record on the bench is generally conservative, particularly on criminal issues.[6]  One observer has noted that the assignment of a criminal case to Sullivan strikes “fear into defense attorneys and their Wall Street clients…”[7]  Notably, New York federal prosecutors were criticized by the Second Circuit for maneuvering to keep criminal cases before Judge Sullivan rather than risk a random assignment to another judge.[8]  Below are some notable decisions by Sullivan in Constitutional cases:

Lederman v. New York City Department of Parks & Recreation[9] –  In this case, two visual artists who usually sold their works on New York sidewalks challenged an ordinance that limited the sales of expressive works to certain designated spots.  Sullivan upheld the restrictions, finding that they were narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s interest in “alleviating congestion and improving circulation” in parks and sidewalks.[10]  Sullivan’s decision was itself upheld by the Second Circuit.[11]

Nnebe v. Daus[12] – This case (and its successors) were challenges to New York’s policy of suspending the licenses of taxi drivers summarily after their arrest for certain enumerated crimes.  The plaintiffs argued that, by not providing them with a hearing prior to the suspension, New York had deprived them of their rights under the Due Process Clause.  They also argued that their rights were violated due to the inadequacies of the notice of the suspension and the post-suspension hearing.  Sullivan held that the hearings (or lack thereof) did not violate the plaintiff’s substantive or procedural due process rights.  He held, however, that the notice was inadequate, but declined to impose either injunctive relief or damages beyond nominal damages.

United States v. Scott[13] – This was a criminal case involving the Defendant’s unlawful re-entry after deportation.  Lacey Scott was born in Jamaica to unmarried parents.  His father later immigrated to the United States and Scott joined him under his legal custody.  Scott’s father later became a naturalized citizen, and a few years later, Scott was convicted of multiple felonies and deported to Jamaica.  In the proceedings before Sullivan, Scott argued that he should have received “derivative citizenship” by being a minor in the lawful custody of a U.S. citizen parent.  Sullivan held that Scott did not receive derivative citizenship because the statute does not extend such citizenship to children whose parents did not have a “legal separation.”  Furthermore, Sullivan rejected an Equal Protection Challenge to the statute, holding that “Congress had a rational basis here for distinguishing between legitimate (or legitimated) and illegitimate children.”[14]

United States v. Torres[15] – This case questioned whether officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk the Defendant.  Sullivan found that the officers had reasonable suspicion for both the stop and the search where the defendant was in a high-crime area and ran away from the police.  In doing so, Sullivan rejected the Defendant’s argument that it was reasonable to run from plain-clothes officers where they failed to identify themselves as police.

United States v. Ortiz[16] – This case involved the suppression of incriminating statements made by the Defendant after officers threatened to arrest the Defendant’s mother and aunt.  Sullivan found that the threat rendered the subsequent statements involuntary and suppressed them.  However, he declined to suppress additional incriminating statements made by the Defendant in a later interview at the precinct, finding that sufficient time had elapsed since the threat to make the statements voluntary.

Overall Assessment

There is little doubt that Sullivan is well-qualified for a seat on the Second Circuit.  There is also little doubt that, if confirmed, Sullivan would add a new conservative voice to the Second Circuit, particularly on criminal issues.  Given the support that Sullivan has received from the influential Schumer and Gillibrand, it is likely that he will be confirmed before the end of the year.  The only question is whether that confirmation will look anything like his unanimous approval eleven years ago.


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

[2] See id. at 2.

[3] See id. at 77.

[4] Zoe Tillman, The White House Has Pitched a Nominee for Manhattan’s Powerful US Attorney Opening, Buzzfeed News, Aug. 7, 2017, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/the-white-house-has-pitched-a-nominee-for-manhattans.  

[5] See, e.g., United States v. Martinez, 464 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Magana, 322 F. Supp. 2d 359 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); United States v. Madrid, 302 F. Supp. 2d (S.D.N.Y. 2003); United States v. Maisonet, 213 F.3d 637 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

[6] See Charles Levinson, Tough Judge Richard Sullivan’s Rulings Are in the Spotlight, The Wall St. Journal, April 30, 2014, https://www.wsj.com/articles/tough-judge-richard-sullivans-rulings-are-in-the-spotlight-1398898973.

[7] See id.

[8] See Alison Frankel, Judge-Shopping Accusations Resurface Against Manhattan Federal Prosecutors, Reuters, June 15, 2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-shopping/judge-shopping-accusations-resurface-against-manhattan-federal-prosecutors-idUSKBN1962Q9.  

[9] 901 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), aff’d, 731 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2013).

[10] See id. at 475.

[11] See 731 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2013).

[12]184 F. Supp. 3d 54, 72 (S.D.N.Y. 2016), appeal dismissed, (May 25, 2016),

[13] 919 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).

[14] Id. at 431.

[15] 252 F. Supp. 3d 229 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)

[16] 943 F. Supp. 2d 447 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

Carl Nichols – Nominee for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Last year, the White House’s nomination of Matthew Petersen self-destructed during his Judiciary Committee hearing after an embarrassing exchange with Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) revealed the nominee’s lack of courtroom experience.  In attempting to mitigate that issue, the White House’s next nominee to the seat has extensive litigation experience: Carl Nichols.

Background

Carl John Nichols was born in Rhinebeck, NY on June 25, 1970.  Nichols graduated cum laude from Dartmouth University in 1992 and then spent a year as a paralegal at McKenna & Kuneo in Washington D.C.[1]  He then attended the University of Chicago Law School, serving as Editor of the University of Chicago Law Review and graduating with high honors.[2]

After graduating, Nichols clerked for Judge Lawrence Silberman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and then for Justice Clarence Thomas on the U.S. Supreme Court.  In the latter position, Nichols clerked alongside Solicitor General Noel Francisco, and federal appellate judges Sri Srinivasan, Stephanos Bibas, Raymond Kethledge, and John Owens.

After finishing up his clerkships, Nichols joined the D.C. office of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP as an associate.[3]  Four years later, he became a partner at the firm.  In 2005, Nichols left the firm to join the Department of Justice as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, where he worked with future D.C. Circuit Judge Greg Katsas.[4]  Nichols became Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General in 2008.

In 2010, Nichols joined Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP as a Partner.  He continues to serve in that role today.

History of the Seat

The seat Nichols has been nominated for opened on March 16, 2016, with Judge Richard Roberts’ move to early senior status.  Roberts, an appointee of President Clinton, claimed the move was based on health reasons, but many speculated that Roberts was actually motivated by a different reason: a civil rights suit filed against him based on his relationship (while a young prosecutor) with a key witness in the trial he was managing.[5]   On April 28, 2016, President Obama nominated D.C. Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman to the vacancy.  However, the Republican controlled Senate Judiciary Committee did not take any action on Edelman’s nomination, and it was returned to the President at the end of the 114th Congress.

On September 11, 2017, President Trump nominated Matthew Petersen, a Commissioner with the Federal Election Commission, to fill the vacancy.  Petersen was prominent as a Republican election lawyer, was close to White House Counsel Don McGahn, and initially looked slated for a swift confirmation.  However, during his confirmation hearing, Petersen faced a sharp series of questions from Sen. John Kennedy, revealing that the nominee had never tried a case, taken fewer than five depositions over his career, and could not identify basic legal concepts including the definition of a motion in limine.[6]  With the video of Petersen’s inability to answer going viral, Petersen quietly withdrew his nomination on December 18, 2017.[7]

On December 21, 2017, three days after Petersen withdrew, Nichols was contacted by the White House Counsel’s Office to gauge his interest in a federal judgeship.[8]  Nichols was interviewed by the White House on January 5, 2018 and was preliminarily selected as a nominee on February 12, 2018.[9]  Nichols was officially nominated on June 18, 2018.

Legal Experience

Nichols’s legal career can be broken down into three distinct periods for analysis: the first is from 1998-2005, where he worked as an associate and partner at Boies Schiller;  the second is from 2005-2009, where Nichols worked as a DOJ attorney; the final is from 2010-present, where Nichols has worked at WilmerHale.

From 1998 to 2005, Nichols worked in the D.C. office of Boies Schiller focusing on civil litigation.  For example, Nichols represented Philip Morris in defending against a Sherman Act suit brought by rival tobacco companies seeking damages based on Philip Morris’ retail marketing programs.[10]  Nichols successfully defended summary judgment in favor of Philip Morris at the district court and court of appeals levels.[11]

From 2005 to 2008, Nichols served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, supervising the Federal Programs Branch, which handled civil cases across the nation.  During his tenure, Nichols was responsible for handling lawsuits related to the warrantless wiretapping of Americans.  For example, Nichols argued that a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation against AT&T should be dismissed for infringing on national security.[12]  In another case, Nichols sued Maine officials and Verizon to prevent the release of information related to Verizon’s participation in warrantless wiretapping.[13]

From 2008 to 2009, Nichols served as the Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General for the Civil Division, working directly under Assistant Attorney General Kevin McDonald.  In this role, Nichols helped supervise and run the entire Civil Division.[14]  During his tenure, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives sued the White House to seek access to subpoenaed information regarding the dismissal of U.S. Attorneys.  Nichols defended against the suit in D.C. federal courts.  Ultimately, Judge John Bates ruled in favor of the House of Representatives, but the decision was stayed by the D.C. Circuit until the end of the Bush Presidency.

Since 2010, Nichols has been a partner at WilmerHale, working in the Government and Regulatory Litigation Group.  Notably, Nichols represented Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum in defending against a suit filed by Governor Rick Scott to invalidate Florida’s campaign finance laws.[15]  Nichols also represented the Association of California Egg Farmers in defending a California law banning the sale of eggs that do not conform to certain safety regulations.[16]

Political Activity

Nichols has an extensive record of political contributions to Republicans.  Since joining WilmerHale in 2010, Nichols has given almost $9000.[17]  Among the recipients included Sens. Rob Portman, Mike Lee, former Sen. Scott Brown, and Congressmen Darrell Issa and Liz Cheney.[18]  Additionally, Nichols served as a transition team advisor for the Romney-Ryan campaign in 2012.[19]

Overall Assessment

After Petersen, the White House is looking to ensure that no questions can be raised as to the next nominee’s qualifications.  By that standard, they have succeeded with Nichols.  Nichols has extensive litigation experience and has been described by former Clinton White House Official Jamie Gorelick as a “spectacular” nominee.[20]

This is not to say that Nichols will not face any controversy in his confirmation.  Nichols may face questions regarding his work at the Department of Justice, particularly focused on his involvement in defending warrantless wiretapping and in fighting the House suit against the White House.  While Nichols will argue that any controversial positions he took were solely those of the Department, senators will nonetheless probe his views of warrantless surveillance and the role of Congress in enforcing subpoenas.

As a bottom line, given Nichols’ extensive experience, he is likely to fare better than Petersen and will likely add a conservative voice to the D.C. bench.


[1] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong. Carl J. Nichols: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 1.

[2] See id. at 3.

[3] Id. at 2.

[4] Id.

[5] Ann E. Marimow, Chief Judge of the District’s Federal Court Retires as Lawsuit Accuses Him of Sexual Assault, Wash. Post, Mar. 16, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/chief-judge-of-the-districts-federal-court-retires/2016/03/16/2ff09bf0-ebc1-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html?utm_term=.38886e556276.  

[6] See Brian Naylor, Video Shows Trump Judicial Nominee Unable to Answer Basic Questions of Law, Nat’l Pub. Radio, Dec. 15, 2017, https://www.npr.org/2017/12/15/571060681/video-shows-trump-judicial-nominee-unable-to-answer-basic-questions-of-law.  

[7] Lydia Wheeler, Trump Judicial Nominee Withdraws After Humiliating Hearing, The Hill, Dec. 18, 2018, http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/365455-trump-judicial-nominee-withdraws-after-humiliating-hearing.

[8] See Nichols, supra n. 1 at 32.

[9] See id.

[10] See RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 67 Fed. Appx. 810 (4th Cir. 2003).

[11] See Perry, et al. v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co., et al., No. 99-0089, Circuit Court of Jefferson County (Miss.) (Judge Pickard), Vadino, et al. v. American Home Products Corp., et al., No. MID-L-425-98, Superior Court, Middlesex County (N.J.) (Judge Corodemus).

[12] See Judge Rules EFF Can Keep Sealed Documents in Domestic Spying Lawsuit, San Jose Mercury News, May 17, 2006.

[13] Elbert Aul, U.S. Sues State, Verizon to Block NSA Revelations; Maine is the Third State Sued for Probing the Firm’s Alleged Role in Surveillance, Portland Press Herald, Aug. 22, 2006.

[14] See Nichols, supra n. 1 at 15.

[15] Scott v. Roberts, 612 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2010).

[16] State of Missouri et al. v. Harris et al., 58 F. Supp. 3d 1059 (E.D. Cal. 2014).

[18] See id.

[19] See Nichols, supra n. 1 at 14.

[20] Zoe Tillman, Trump is Expected to Nominate a Seasoned Former Justice Official for a Judgeship After His First Pick Bombed, Buzzfeed News, Mar. 12, 2018, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-is-expected-to-nominate-a-former-justice-department (quoting Jamie Gorelick).