Six months ago, Judge Andrew Brasher was narrowly confirmed to be a U.S. District Court Judge. Now, the 38-year-old Brasher is ready to move on from the position to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Andrew Lynn Brasher was born in Milan, TN on May 20, 1981. Brasher moved to Alabama to attend Samford University, a private Christian University in Homewood, where he graduated summa cum laude in 2002. Brasher went on to Harvard Law School, graduating cum laude in 2006.
Upon graduation, Brasher clerked for Judge William Pryor on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. He then joined the Birmingham office of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP as an Associate.
In 2011, Brasher was appointed by Luther Strange, then the Attorney General of Alabama, to be Deputy Solicitor General. Brasher served in that capacity until 2014 when he was appointed Solicitor General of Alabama.
In April 2018, Brasher was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, filling a longstanding vacancy opened by the resignation of Judge Mark Fuller. Brasher was confirmed by the Senate in a 52-47 vote on May 1, 2019, and has served on the Middle District since then.
History of the Seat
Brasher has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The seat is being vacated by Judge Edward Carnes, who has a reputation as one of the most conservative judges on an already conservative court.
Setting aside his clerkship, Brasher had two main legal jobs before he joined the federal bench: as an associate at Bradley Arant; and as Deputy Solicitor General and Solicitor General of Alabama. During his time at Bradley Arant, Brasher worked in complex civil litigation, including product liability cases. At the firm, he notably represented Republican Gov. Bob Riley in defending a controversial line item veto (later overturned by the Alabama Supreme Court).
As the Deputy Solicitor General and Solicitor General of Alabama, Brasher defended Alabama laws and convictions before state and federal courts. As such, Brasher argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In McWilliams v. Dunn, Brasher defended the imposition of the death penalty on James McWilliams, who alleged that he had serious mental health issues. McWilliams argued that Supreme Court precedent required him to have access to a defense expert to provide evidence of mental incapacity, which Brasher disputed. The Supreme Court ultimately sidestepped the question of whether McWilliams was entitled to a defense expert, ruling instead that the judge erred in denying any expert examination of McWilliam’s mental state.
In Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, Brasher defended the constitutionality of Alabama’s state legislative districts. The districts were ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander intended to disenfranchise African American voters. Additionally, in Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transp., Inc., Brasher defended an Alabama tax on diesel for rail carriers while exempting competitor industries against charges that it was discriminatory. The Court ultimately held that Alabama had violated federal law.
In addition to his Supreme Court work, Brasher has also litigated extensively in Alabama state and federal courts. Notably, Brasher defended the constitutionality of “admission privilege” requirements for abortion providers in Alabama, struck down by Judge Myron Thompson, and ultimately enjoined after the Supreme Court struck down a virtually identical law in Whole Woman’s Health. Brasher also successfully defended Alabama’s ban on PAC-to-PAC transfers against allegations that it violated the First Amendment.
Brasher has served on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama since May 2019. In the six months that he has served on the bench, Brasher has issued a number of orders and opinions in cases. Many of the cases in which Brasher has authored opinions have been cases of employment discrimination. In most of these, Brasher has sided with the employer, granting summary judgment in their favor in cases alleging racial, age-based, and disability-based discrimination.
However, Brasher has shown himself to be open to employee claims in some cases. For example, in one case, Brasher allowed the sexual harassment claims of a male employee against Koch Foods to move to trial, noting that the employee had offered evidence that his female boss had terminated his employment shortly after he denied her sexual advances. Similarly, he granted summary judgment in favor of restaurant workers who were improperly denied minimum wages and overtime payments under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
In other cases, Brasher ruled against a Dothan-based doctor who sued the federal government seeking refunds of tax payments, and held that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) could not seek the maximum statutory penalty of disgorgement against corporations who had violated the Commodity Exchange Act.
Writings and Speeches
Setting aside the official positions he took as Alabama Solicitor General, Brasher had written and spoken extensively on legal and political issues before he joined the bench.
On July 21, 2015, Brasher moderated a debate titled “Fat Cats and Philanthropists: How the IRS Governs Your Charitable Donations.” The discussion was between Dr. Craig Holman from Public Citizen and Hans Von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation. While Brasher did not interject often in the debate, he did ask a couple of questions to each panelist.
On February 4, 2017, Brasher served on a Federalist Society panel titled “Combating Federal Overreach.” The panel consisted of Brasher and the Solicitor Generals of Florida, West Virginia, and Texas, moderated by Allen Winsor, a former Florida Solicitor General who is now up for a federal judgeship. Brasher specifically discussed the litigation over the EPA’s control of “navigable waters” as defined by the Clean Water Act and interpreted by the Army Corps of Engineers. Brasher criticizes the rule as overly broad and beyond the statutory intent of Congress. Later, Brasher also criticizes local regulations, noting:
“…oftentimes, you actually see a locality within a state that’s really, sort of, in league with the federal government against the state’s authority.”
In 2015, while defending Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriage before the U.S. Supreme Court, Brasher wrote an article on the subject on SCOTUSBlog. In the piece, Brasher argues that the Supreme Court “should at least reject the argument that these laws serve no legitimate state interest.” Instead, he argued that states maintained a legitimate interest in limiting marriage to opposite sex couples, noting:
“I hope that . . . [the Court] does not malign the majority of voters in a majority of states as irrationally prejudiced.”
Shortly after the Supreme Court narrowly upheld Oklahoma’s lethal injection procedure in Glossip v. Gross, Brasher authored an article in SCOTUSBlog supporting the decision. In the article, Brasher argues that disputes about the method of administering the death penalty are actually about the legality of the penalty itself, stating:
“Why pretend these disputes are about a particular method of execution when they clearly go to the viability of capital punishment itself?”
However, Brasher also acknowledges some of the arguments of death penalty opponents, noting:
“It is hard to argue that the death penalty is a strong deterrent when capital cases take twenty-five years to process.”
Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down North Carolina’s redistricted maps in Cooper v. Harris, Brasher published an article critical of the decision. Brasher suggested that the decision would lead to more judicial intervention in redistricting without providing adequate standards for them to do so, and suggested that courts impose a requirement on plaintiffs to offer a map that would meet the partisan goals of the legislature.
Brasher, a Republican, has worked as a volunteer on the 2010 campaigns of Luther Strange to be Attorney General and of Bradley Byrne (now a U.S. Representative) to be Governor of Alabama. Brasher also served on the Trump Transition Team, coordinating criminal justice policy with the incoming Administration.
In addition, Brasher donated $300 to the Alabama Republican Party in 2015, his only notable political contribution.
Despite Brasher’s significant experience with litigation, his youth and strongly conservative writings and experience made him a controversial nominee at the district court level and caused his nomination to sit for over a year before confirmation by a narrow vote. Now, as an appellate nominee, Brasher may well have a faster confirmation, simply because Republicans tend to prioritize appellate nominees. Nonetheless, Brasher’s brief tenure as a district court judge, as well as his youth and conservative ideology, is likely to make him a controversial nominee.
 Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Andrew Brasher: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 1.
 Compare Pema Levy, Jeff Sessions has a History of Blocking Black Judges, Mother Jones, Jan. 9, 2017, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/jeff-sessions-blocked-black-judges-alabama/ with Mary Troyan, Judicial Vacancies in Alabama Pile Up, Montgomery Advertiser, April 22, 2015, http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/local/alabama/2015/04/22/judicial-vacancies-alabama-pile/26166537/.
 See Brasher, supra n. 1 at 40-41.
 McWilliams v. Dunn, 137 S. Ct. 1790 (2017).
 Alabama et al. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Service, et al., No. CV-16-00593 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 29, 2016).
 See 135 S. Ct. 1257 (2015).
 135 S. Ct. 1136 (2015).
 See Planned Parenthood Southeast v. Strange, 2:13cv405-MHT (M.D. Ala.).
 Alabama Democratic Conference v. Attorney Gen., 838 F.3d 1057 (11th Cir. 2016).
 James v. City of Montgomery, Case No. 2:17-cv-528-ALB, 2019 WL 3346530 (M.D. Ala. July 25, 2019).
 See Knowles v. Inzi Controls Alabama, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-839-ALB, 2019 WL 4551609 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 19, 2019).
 See Hughes v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, Case No. 2:17-cv-225-ALB, 2019 WL 6048878 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 14, 2019).
 See Fuller v. Koch Foods, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-96-ALB, 2019 WL 3072633 (M.D. Ala. July 12, 2019).
 See Moulton v. W.W.I., Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-67-ALB, 2019 WL 3558032 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 5, 2019).
 Turnham v. United States, 383 F.Supp.3d 1288 (M.D. Ala. 2019).
 U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Dinar Corp., Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-538-ALB, 2019 WL 3842069 (M.D. Ala. May 30, 2019).
 See Brasher, supra n. 1 at 20.