Year: 2021

Judge Jane Beckering – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan

In 2007, Grand Rapids attorney Jane Beckering was named to the Michigan Court of Appeals, replacing Judge Janet Neff, who was elevated to the federal bench. This year, Beckering has, once again, been tapped to replace Neff: this time on the Western District of Michigan.

Background

56-year-old Beckering was born into a family of Michigan lawyers, with her father, grandfather, and great uncle all practicing. See James Prichard, Lawyering Runs in Beckering’s Family, A.P., Sept. 27, 2006. Beckering received her Bachelor’s degree from the University of Michigan in 1987 and her J.D. from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1990. After graduation, Beckering spent two years at McDermott, Will & Emery LLP in Chicago before moving to Grand Rapids to found Buchanan & Beckering PLC with her brother. See id.

In 2007, Beckering was appointed to the Michigan Court of Appeals by Governor Jennifer Granholm to fill the vacancy left by Judge Janet Neff’s elevation to the federal bench. Beckering still serves on the court, having won re-election unopposed in 2008, 2012, and 2018.

History of the Seat

Beckering has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. This seat opened on March 1, 2021, when Judge Janet Neff moved to senior status.

Legal Career

Beckering worked in private practice for approximately seventeen years before being appointed to the bench, the vast majority of it at the firm of Buchanan & Beckering PLC in Grand Rapids. While working in private practice, Beckering specialized in medical malpractice work representing both plaintiffs and defendants. See James Prichard, Lawyering Runs in Beckering’s Family, A.P., Sept. 27, 2006.

In addition, Beckering also worked as a mediator for the Kent County Circuit Court and was active with the Michigan Trial Lawyers Association.

Political Activity

In 2006, Beckering was nominated by the Michigan Democratic Party to be a candidate for the Michigan Supreme Court. See Kathy Barks Hoffman, Democrats Choose Williams for AG, Sabaugh for Secretary of State, A.P., Aug. 27, 2006. Beckering lost the election, however, coming in third behind incumbents Michael Cavanagh and Maura Corrigan.

Jurisprudence

Beckering has served on the Michigan Court of Appeals since 2007, issuing rulings and opinions in hundreds of cases since then. Some of her noteworthy decisions, opinions, and dissents are summarized below.

Criminal Law

In her rulings on criminal law, Beckering has generally interpreted statutes narrowly, holding ambiguities against the government. For example, in 2010, Beckering held that the Michigan Sex Offender Registry Act did not require an individual who has homeless to register with local police as they lacked a habitual residence. See Todd A. Heywood, Appeals Court Says Homeless Sex Offenders Not Obligated to Register, Michigan Messenger, Feb. 5, 2010.

Notably, in 2012, Beckering wrote for the court in overturning Jimmie Nelson’s murder conviction for killing Cherita Thomas in 1980, ruling that the evidence was insufficient for the conviction. Mich. Court Strikes Murder Conviction in 1980 Case, A.P. State & Local Wire, Aug. 24, 2012. Earlier this year, Beckering joined a unanimous decision making a juvenile prisoner who had spent nearly 50 years in custody eligible for release. Ed White, Juvenile Lifer Locked Up For Nearly 50 Years Could Go Free, A.P. State & Local, Jan. 22, 2021.

Civil Rights

In civil rights cases, Beckering has generally interpreted protections broadly. For example, Beckering wrote for the court in holding that a northern Michigan bar could be sued for failing to call the police when a black patron was attacked based on his race. Ed White, Bar Can Be Sued For Attack on Black Man, Michigan Court Says, A.P. State & Local, Apr. 23, 2021.

In one of her most notable decisions, Beckering partially dissented from a panel decision throwing out a lawsuit brought by prisoners suffering from sexual violence and abuse in the prison system. See Dana Leibelson, Court Decides Civil Rights Protections Don’t Apply to Kids in Prison, Huffington Post, Aug. 28, 2015, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/civil-rights-kids-prison_n_55e0a663e4b0b7a96338df8c. In her dissent, Beckering argued that the law governing the dispute, a 1999 statute excluding prisoners from civil rights protections, was unconstitutional, stating:

“The Legislature could no sooner enact an amendment [excluding] prisoners from the scope of the statute as it could…blue-eyed individuals, African-Americans, or anyone named, ‘Steve.’”

In contrast, in 2014, Beckering joined a unanimous decision throwing out damages awarded to a black state employee who had a 5-foot tall stuffed gorilla placed in her cubicle, finding that the 3-week long presence of the animal was not sufficient to prove a hostile work environment. Ed White, Black Worker Loses Appeal Over Stuffed Gorilla, A.P. State & Local, June 27, 2014.

Civil Liability

Beckering’s rulings in civil cases have generally read both liability and damages expansively. In 2011, Beckering ruled that a Michigan homeowner whose house was destroyed after 400 gallons of heating oil were mistakenly pumped into it could recover $100,000 in non-economic damages for the loss, finding that a plaintiff could suffer mental anguish from losing their home. See Ed White, Court Backs Verdict in Home Lost to Oil Mess, A.P. State & Local Wire, Aug. 26, 2011. In another case, Beckering joined a 2-1 decision held that a parking lane falls under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Transportation and that the agency could be sued for injuries in such lanes. Woman With Broken Ankle on M-22 Can Sue MDOT, A.P. State & Local Wire, Dec. 24, 2012.

Administrative Law

In her time on the Court of Appeals, Beckering has had the opportunity to opine on a number of agency decisions and regulations. In 2011, Beckering joined a panel decision upholding a Michigan Department of Environmental Quality regulation governing the amount of manure that factory farms could put in waterways. Appeals Court Upholds State ‘Factory Farms’ Rule, A.P. State & Local Wire, Mar. 30, 2011. In contrast, in 2012, Beckering overturned a $37 million rate increase imposed by the Michigan Public Service Commission, finding that the agency failed to provide evidence to support the increase. See Dan Testa, Mich. Appeals Court Rules Against Detroit Edison Rate Hike for Smart Meters, SNL Energy Finance Daily, Apr. 13, 2012.

In a notable ruling with Second Amendment implications, Beckering joined a 2-1 ruling holding that a public library exceeded its authority in barring patrons from carrying weapons on the premises. See Michael Kelley, No Guns in the Library: Curbing the Second Amendment in the Stacks, Library Journal, Jan. 1, 2013.

Statements

While a candidate for the Michigan Supreme Court, Beckering detailed her judicial philosophy, stating that the role of the courts are to remain “nonpartisan” and to “protect the minority against the majority when they have overstepped their bounds on civil rights, on constitutional rights, on that which the law is there to protect them. See James Prichard, Lawyering Runs in Beckering’s Family, A.P., Sept. 27, 2006 (quoting Jane Beckering). Beckering also criticized the conservative majority of the Michigan Supreme Court for “taking a very literal interpretation of the language” of statutes and stated that she would “apply a commonsense interpretation of the statute or the law which we are interpreting and have it make sense.” See id.

Overall Assessment

Having three decades of legal experience under her belt, Beckering would come to the federal bench well-prepared for its rigors. The flip side of this experience, however, is that Beckering has a long record to be parsed by senators. Expect Beckering to get questions about the judicial philosophy she expressed during her Supreme Court run, as well as her many decisions on the Court of Appeals. In the end, Beckering is likely to attract conservative opposition, but will likely still be confirmed to the federal bench.

4 CommentsLeave a comment

Judge Shalina Kumar – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Chief Judge Shalina Kumar from the Oakland County Circuit Court, is President Biden’s first nominee to the Eastern District of Michigan. If confirmed, Kumar would be the first Indian-American on the court.

Background

Shalina Deborah Kumar received a B.A. from the University of Michigan in 1993 and her J.D. from the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law in 1996.

After graduation, Kumar joined the office of Sommers, Schwartz, Silver & Schwartz PC as an associate. In 2004, Kumar moved to the firm of Weiner & Cox PLC. In 2007, Kumar was appointed to the Oakland County Sixth Circuit Court by Governor Jennifer Granholm. Kumar has served on the court ever since, including serving as Chief Judge since 2018.

History of the Seat

Kumar has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. This seat opened on February 24, 2021, when Judge Victoria Roberts moved to senior status.

Legal Career

Kumar has held two primary positions in her pre-bench career. From 1997 to 2004, Kumar worked as an associate at Sommers, Schwartz, Silver & Schwartz PC. Then, from 2004 to 2007, Kumar worked at the firm of Weiner & Cox PLC. In both positions, Kumar focused on commercial litigation, working on medical malpractice, and wrongful death, among other matters.

Political Activity

Kumar has occasionally given to political and judicial candidates. She was particularly active in the 2020 cycle, giving to President Biden, as well as Michigan Supreme Court Justices Bridget McCormack and Elizabeth Welch, as well as Indian American Democratic State Representatives Padma Kuppa and Ranjeev Puri.

Jurisprudence

Kumar has served as a circuit court judge in Oakland County since her appointment in 2007. In this role, she presides over civil claims over $25,000 and all felony criminal cases. Some of Kumar’s more prominent cases are summarized below.

Kid Rock Lawsuit

Early in her time on the bench, Kumar presided over a defamation and harassment lawsuit filed by rocker Kid Rock against Novi native Kelly Ann Kozlowski. See Judge Fed Up with Kid Rock For No-Show in Lawsuit Deposition, A.P. State & Local Wire, Nov. 15, 2007. After Kid Rock failed to show up for a court-ordered deposition, Kumar threw out his lawsuit and entered a default judgment on Kozlowski’s claims against him. See id. A jury later threw out Kozlowski’s suit.

Recall Drive

In 2007, Kumar ruled that a recall petition against Rep. Marie Donigan with the Michigan House of Representatives could not go before voters because it was unclear. See Donigan v. Oakland County Comm’n, LC No. 2007-087516-CZ, Shalina Kumar, J. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed Kumar’s decision, finding that she erred “by failing to uphold defendant’s approval of the petition language.” See Donigan v. Oakland County Comm’n, 755 N.W.2d 209, 212 (Mich. App. 2008).

Ben Wallace

In 2011, Kumar presided over DUI and gun possession charges against Detroit Pistons player Ben Wallace, and sentenced him to a year in probation, fines, and 30 hours of community service. See Corey Williams, Ben Wallace Gets Probation For DUI, Gun Charges, A.P. State & Local Wire, Dec. 13, 2011.

Tucker Cipriano

In 2012, Kumar presided over the case of Tucker Cipriano, charged with murdering his father and attacking his family with a baseball bat while under the influence of K2. Kumar sentenced Cipriano to life in prison after a no contest plea, while sentencing co-defendent Mitchell Young, who was convicted at trial, also to life in prison. See Life Sentences Given in Bat Attack on Mich. Family, A.P. State & Local Wire, July 24, 2013.

Overall Assessment

With a decade in private practice and fifteen years on the bench, Kumar has established a record of legal experience that would serve her well as a federal judge. Additionally, her time on the bench has established a reputation as a judge that’s not afraid to be bold. While senators may question Kumar’s reversal in the Donigan recall case, or her sentence of probation for Ben Wallace, Kumar is ultimately likely to attract the support needed to be confirmed.

6 CommentsLeave a comment

Jennifer Sung – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Labor-side attorneys aren’t commonly selected for the federal bench, even by past Democratic Administrations. As such, the nomination of Jennifer Sung, who has spent her entire career representing unions and workers’ rights organizations, to the Ninth Circuit is particularly notable.

Background

Jennifer Sung received her B.A. from Oberlin College in 1994 and then spent three years working as a labor organizer for the Service Employees International Union Local 74. She then spent three years as an organizer with the Service Employees International Union Local 1199 before joining Yale Law School. After graduating, Sung clerked for Judge Betty Binns Fletcher on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and then served as a Skadden Fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School.

In 2007, Sung joined the San Francisco office of Altshuler Berzon LLP, a union-side labor law firm established by now-Ninth Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon. In 2013, Sung became a Partner with McKanna Bishop Joffe LLP in Portland. Since 2017, Sung has been a member of the Oregon Employment Relations Board, where she helps to resolve labor disputes and conflicts.

History of the Seat

Sung has been nominated to an Oregon seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This seat is currently held by Judge Susan Graber, who has announced her intention to move to senior status upon confirmation of her successor.

Legal Experience

Consistent with her work as a labor organizer prior to law school, Sung has spent her career as a labor lawyer, frequently representing unions and worker’s groups. Some of her prominent cases are summarized below.

Challenge to Arizona SB 1365

In 2011, Sung represented the Local 5 Service Employees International Union in challenging Arizona SB 1365, which limited public employees’ ability to send payroll deductions to certain unions that engaged in political activity. See United Food & Commer. Workers Local 99 v. Brewer, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2011). The law was enjoined by U.S. District Judge Murray Snow, who found that it violated the First Amendment. See id.

Challenge to ACA Individual Mandate

In 2011, Virginia challenged the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional and won before the U.S. District Court. Sung represented the Service Employees International Union as amicus before the Fourth Circuit urging the court to uphold the mandate. See Virginia ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius, 656 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 2011). The Court upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate (and the U.S. Supreme Court eventually agreed). See id.

New York Transit Strike of 2005

In 2005, during negotiations over a new collective bargaining agreement between transportation unions and the the New York City Transit Authority, the Authority obtained an injunction pursuant to New York’s Taylor Law to prevent the unions from striking. See New York City Tr. Auth. v. Transport Workers Union of A., 35 A.3d 73, 75 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). When the Local 100 of Transport Workers Union of America initiated a strike anyway, it was found in contempt and fined $1 million per day. See id. Sung represented amicus in supporting the Union’s challenge to the contempt citation on appeal. See id. However, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court upheld the citation against the Union’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment challenges. See id.

Los Angeles Worker Retention Ordinance

In 2011, Sung represented amicus in defending the City of Los Angeles worker retention ordinance, which limited employers’ ability to replace their workforces. See California Grocers Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal. 4th 177 (2011). While the California Court of Appeals struck down the ordinance as being pre-empted by state law, the California Supreme Court upheld the ordinance. See id. at 210.

Legislative and Policy Work

While at the Brennan Center, Sung also worked on labor policy outside of the litigation context. For example, Sung advised the New York Working Families Policy in developing a proposal to tax companies, such as Wal Mart, who failed to provide health benefits for their workers. See Danny Hakim, Wal-Mart Looms Over 2 Bills to Improve Worker Health Care, N.Y. Times, Mar. 8, 2006. Sung also helped draft a Chicago ordinance requiring big box retailers, such as Wal-Mart, to provide a living wage to employees. See Gretchen Ruethling, In Chicago, New Pay Law Is Considered for Big Stores, N.Y. Times, May 28, 2006.

Overall Assessment

With extensive experience in labor law, Jennifer Sung has an unusual background for an appellate nominee. Not since Marsha Berzon was appointed to the Ninth Circuit in 2000 has such a nominee been picked for the Ninth Circuit. Based on her representations and her work in drafting ordinances and legislation, Sung is likely to attract opposition from most Senate Republicans. However, assuming that Democrats stick together, they should be able to confirm Sung by the Fall. Once confirmed, it is likely that Sung would establish a jurisprudential profile similar to that of Berzon’s.

18 CommentsLeave a comment

Myrna Perez – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

The Biden Administration has long telegraphed an interest in choosing judicial nominees who depart from traditional practice path, and, so far, has met this promise with their initial nominees. Myrna Perez, who made a name for herself as a prominent voting and elections scholar and litigator, fits into this pattern of nominee.

Background

Born in San Antonio to an immigrant family from Mexico, Perez received her B.A. from Yale University in 1996, an MPP from the Harvard Kennedy School in 1998, and her J.D. from Columbia Law School in 2003. After graduating, Perez clerked for Judge Anita Brody on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and for Judge Julio Fuentes on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. After her clerkships, Perez served as a Civil Rights Fellow at the firm of Relman Dale & Colfax in Washington D.C. before joining the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. Perez is still with the Institute, serving as Director of the voting rights and elections program.

History of the Seat

Perez 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 Denny Chin, who moved to senior status on June 1, 2021.

Legal Career

Perez started her legal career clerking for Judge Anita Brody on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and then for Judge Julio Fuentes on the Third Circuit. She then spent a year working on civil rights ltiigation at Relman Colfax, where, among other matters, Perez represented the Idaho Aids Foundation in a suit against the Idaho Housing and Finance Association regarding the cut-off of funding for the former’s programming. See Idaho Aids Found., Inc. v. Idaho Hous. and Fin. Ass’n, 422 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (D. Idaho 2006).

Since 2006, Perez has been with the Brennan Center, where she has focused on suits focused on election law and voting rights. For example, Perez has part of the legal team participating as amici in a state court suit involving the voting rights of convicted felons in Alabama. See Chapman v. Gooden, 974 So. 2d 972 (Ala. 2007). She also participated as amicus in a suit challenging the at-large voting system set up by the Village of Port Chester as violative of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Hispanic votes. See United States v. Vill. of Port Chester, 704 F.Supp.2d 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

More notably, Perez served as counsel for a number of plaintiff groups challenging Texas SB 14, which required photo ID in order to vote. Perez successfully persuaded a panel of the Fifth Circuit to strike down the law. See Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2016). Perez also challenged SB 5, the voter ID law passed to replace SB 14, but a panel of the Fifth Circuit upheld the new law. Veasey v. Abbott, 888 F.3d 792 (5th Cir. 2018).

In other notable cases, Perez represented amici in challenges to North Carolina’s voter ID law, N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP v. Raymond, 981 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2020), represented plaintiffs challenging restrictions placed on felon re-enfranchisement by the Florida legislature, Jones v. Governor of Fla., 975 F.3d 1016 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc), and defended Pennsylvania’s mail-in-voting scheme for the 2020 elections. See Donald J. Trump v. Boockvar, 493 F. Supp. 3d 331 (W.D. Pa. 2020).

Statements and Writings

In her role at the Brennan Center, Perez has frequently written, spoken, and made media comments about issues of election law and voting rights. We summarize some of the key issues she has spoken on below.

Voter I.D.

Consistent with the litigation she has participated in, Perez has frequently spoken out in opposition to attempts to require photo ID to verify voter identity at the polls. Perez instead argues that voter integrity can be preserved without restrictive ID requirements, but instead by modernizing the registration process and improving the integrity of voting rolls. See Myrna Perez, Election Integrity: A Pro-Voter Agenda, Brennan Center for Justice, Jan. 19, 2016, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/election-integrity-pro-voter-agenda.

Shelby County

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the preclearance coverage formula under Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013). Both before and after the decision, Perez wrote in strong support of the preclearance formula enacted by Congress. Perez was critical of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the formula and urged congressional action to fix the gap.

Voter “Purges”

Perez has been sharply critical of voter “purges” in which states remove large number of voters from voter rolls en masse. Perez has called out such “purges” in Mississippi, Louisiana, Montana, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, among other states. Nonetheless, Perez has spoken out supportively in favor of efforts to maintain accurate voter rolls, and has argued that states must strike the right balance between cleaning up voter rolls and not removing eligible voters. See Reid Wilson, Advocates Fear Ohio Decision Could Lead to More Voter Purges, The Hill, June 12, 2018 (quoting Myrna Perez).

Felon Enfranchisement

Perez has frequently written in support of restoring the right to vote to convicted felons. She also testified before the House Judiciary Committee in support of the For the People Act, an election reform bill which, among many provisions, restores voting rights to many Americans with felony convictions.

Overall Assessment

Because secure and accessible elections are fundamental to the health of a democracy, voting rights is an area of law that draws strong feelings from all sides. In investing her legal career in this controversial area of law, Perez likely recognizes that her nomination would draw an unusual degree of scrutiny and opposition.

Given Perez’s extensive experience litigating on the district court and appellate levels, opponents are unlikely to attack Perez’s intelligence, integrity, or skill as an attorney, but will likely instead argue that her record is too “political” to be a judge. Some senators may also argue that Perez’s specialized career does not prepare her for the spectrum of matters coming before the Second Circuit.

In short, expect virtually all Republicans to oppose Perez, but, as long as all Democrats can stay on board (likely with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer championing the nomination), Perez will be confirmed in due course.

39 CommentsLeave a comment

Judge Sarah Merriam – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut

As compared to the outspoken Judge Williams or the young Sarala Nagala, the nomination of U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Merriam represents the most conventional of the three Connecticut nominees for the district court.

Background

Sarah A.L. Merriam earned her B.A. from Georgetown University in 1993 and her J.D. from Yale Law School in 2000. After graduating law school, Merriam joined the Hartford office of Cowdery, Ecker, & Murphy as an Associate. In 2007, Merriam moved to the public sector as an Assistant Federal Defender, staying in the office for eight years. In 2015, Merriam was chosen to be a federal magistrate judge, replacing Judge Holly Fitzsimmons. Merriam currently serves in this capacity.

History of the Seat

Merriam has been nominated to a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut that opened with Judge Janet Hall’s move to senior status on January 21, 2021.

Legal Career

Merriam started her legal career as an associate at Cowdery, Ecker, & Murphy, where she worked alongside partner Steven Ecker, who now serves on the Connecticut Supreme Court. Among the cases that Merriam and Ecker worked on together, they represented Directors of Reflexite Corp. in defending against a suit alleging that they violated their fiduciary duties to the corporation. See Frank v. LoVetere, 363 F. Supp. 2d 327 (D. Conn. 2005).

From 2007 to 2014, Merriam worked in the Office of the Federal Defender, representing indigent defendants in Connecticut federal court. Among the cases she handled with the office, Merriam represented Michael Danzi, one of two brothers charged with participating in a drug distribution ring importing marijuana from Canada. United States v. Danzi, 726 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D. Conn. 2009).

Jurisprudence

Merriam has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge since her appointment in 2015, where she handles detention, discovery disputes, misdemeanors, and social security/benefits cases. As an example of a matter she handled, Merriam affirmed an administrative decision denying disability benefits for Dana Poole, finding that substantial evidence supported the determination that Poole’s disabilities were not sufficiently severe to qualify her for the benefits. Poole v. Saul, 462 F. Supp.3d 137 (D. Conn. 2020).

In another notable decision, Merriam ruled against the Libertarian Party of Connecticut, finding that the plaintiffs had not shown that Connecticut’s petitioning requirements were overly burdensome on the party. Libertarian Party of Conn. v. Merrill, 470 F. Supp. 3d (D. Conn. 2020).

Overall Assessment

With experience in private practice, as a federal defender, and as a federal magistrate, and with few controversial cases under her belt, Merriam is likely the least controversial of the group of three nominees put forward for the District of Connecticut. She will likely be confirmed with bipartisan support.

3 CommentsLeave a comment

Judge Omar Williams – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut

Omar Williams, a judge for Connecticut’s Superior Court since 2016, has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Williams’ nomination fits the pattern of former public defenders being nominated for the bench by the Biden Administration.

Background

Omar A. Williams earned his B.A. from the University of Connecticut in 1998 and his J.D. from the University of Connecticut Law School in 2002. After graduating law school, Williams joined the State of Connecticut Division of Public Defender Services as an assistant public defender. In 2016, Gov. Dannel Malloy appointed Williams to be a judge on the New London District Superior Court, where he currently serves.

History of the Seat

Williams was nominated to a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on October 15, 2019. The vacancy opened on August 31, 2018, with Judge Alvin Thompson’s move to senior status.

In March 2019, Judge Barbara Jongbloed, a Connecticut Superior Court Judge, was recommended by Connecticut Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy to the Trump Administration. Jongbloed was nominated by the Trump Administration to this seat on August 28, 2019, and was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 21, 2019. However, Jongbloed’s nomination sat on the Senate floor from that point onwards and was left unconfirmed at the end of the Trump Administration, leaving the vacancy for the Biden Administration.

Legal Career

William’s primary experience before becoming a judge was as a state public defender, where he represented indigent defendants in trial and appellate courts. Among the notable cases he handled with the office, Williams challenged, under the Fourth Amendment, the police officers’ use of statements his client had made while calling a third-party cell phone in the possession of the police. See State v. Gonzalez, 898 A.2d 149 (Conn. 2006). Specifically, officers were interviewing a suspected drug dealer when his cellphone rang and officers answered. Officers proceeded to speak with the caller (defendant) and arranged to meet with him for a “resupply.” The defendant was subsequently captured and raised a Fourth Amendment challenge to the police use of a third-party cellphone. The Connecticut Supreme Court held unanimously that “because the defendant spoken voluntarily to police and made no effort to ascertain the identity of the person to whom he spoke, he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in his words spoken during his call.” As such, the Supreme Court rejected the Fourth Amendment challenge.

Jurisprudence

Williams has served as a Judge on the Connecticut Superior Court since 2016, when he was appointed by Gov. Dannel Malloy. In this role, Williams has served as a trial court judge, presiding over criminal, civil, family, and housing cases. Williams’ duties include making bail and detention decisions. For example, in one case, Williams set a $250,000 bond for a defendant who forced his way into a woman’s home and attempted to sexually assault the occupant. See Karen Florin, Police: Man Attempted Apology After Home Invasion, Sexual Assault in New London, The Day, Jan. 26, 2015.

Additionally, Williams is also charged with making legal rulings and sentencing defendants who have been found guilty. See, e.g., Claire Bessete, Zane Megos Sentenced to Five Years for Violating Probation, The Day, Feb. 26, 2016. In this role, Williams has not hesitated to impose probation and diversion as an alternative to incarceration. For example, Williams sentenced Dr. Micha Abeles, a 71-year-old doctor charged with stealing medication from the UConn Health Center, to one year of probation. Former UConn Doctor Caught Stealing Drugs Gets Probation, A.P. State & Local, Sept. 13, 2016. Williams also approved an accelerated rehabilitation program for 19-year-old Tyler McKenzie, charged with making an online threat promising “a hail of bullets” against East Lyme schools. See Karen Florin, Court Grants Diversionary Program in East Lyme School Threat Case, The Day, July 14, 2015.

One case that may draw controversy is that of Brianna Brochu, a white University of Hartford student charged with breach of the peace and criminal mischief for allegedly applying bodily fluids, including blood and saliva, on items owned by her roommate Chennel Rowe, who was African American. See Jay Colby, Brianna Brochu Charged With Harassing Former University of Hartford Roommate, Gets Probation, The Black Detour, Mar. 13, 2018, https://theblackdetour.com/brianna-brochu-roommate-gets-probation/. Against the request of the NAACP, state prosecutors declined to charge Brochu with a hate crime, and Williams sentenced her to an accelerated rehabilitation program, allowing the charges to be dismissed with completion of 200 hours of community service and a mental health evaluation, among other requirements. Despite the views of activist groups, and the acknowledgment of the pain the harassment had caused her, Rowe testified that she had no objection to the diversionary disposition of the case.

Additionally, Williams co-chaired a task force with former Connecticut Chief Justice Chase Rogers to reform jury selection in Connecticut and reduce racial bias. See Zach Murdock, Reforms Designed to Reduce Racial Bias in Trial Jury Selection Advance, Hartford Courant, Apr. 7, 2021. The Committee’s recommendations included permitting felons and non-citizens to serve on juries, raising the age at which seniors can opt out of jury service, and increasing compensation for jurors. The recommendations were subsequently approved by the Connecticut legislature.

Overall Assessment

With over two decades of legal experience as both an attorney and a judge, Williams is likely to be deemed qualified for the federal bench. However, opponents are likely to raise three primary issues in opposition to his nomination. First, they may point to Williams’ time as a public defender to criticize his “fitness” for the bench. Second, they may argue that Williams’ willingness to offer probation and diversion, including in the Brochu case, reflects a lack of attention to crime victims. Third, they may criticize Williams’ work in reforming jury service and selection in Connecticut. How successful such arguments are likely to be depends on if any of the Senate’s Democrats find them persuasive in opposing Williams’ nomination.

4 CommentsLeave a comment

Sarala Vidya Nagala – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut

Sarala Vidya Nagala, a federal prosecutor in Connecticut, is one of three nominees put forward by the Biden Administration to fill vacancies on the District of Connecticut, in one of the biggest turnovers of the court since 1994.

Background

Nagala received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Stanford University in 2005 and her Juris Doctor from the University of California School of Law in 2008. After graduating law school, she clerked for U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Susan Graber on the Ninth Circuit, before joining the San Francisco office of Munger Tolles & Olson as an Associate. In 2012, Nagala moved to the public sector as an Assistant U.S. Attorney with the District of Connecticut, becoming Deputy Chief of the Major Crimes Unit in 2017. Nagala is still with the office.

History of the Seat

Nagala has been nominated to a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut opened by Judge Vanessa Lynne Bryant’s move to senior status on February 1, 2021.

Legal Career

Nagala started her legal career at the firm of Munger Tolles & Olson, a firm that has produced many prominent federal judges, including Justice Brett Kavanaugh and four sitting Ninth Circuit judges. At the firm, Nagala was part of the legal team representing Bank of America in seeking damages arising from financial fraud orchestrated by the Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. See Bank of Am, N.A. v. FDIC, 908 F. Supp. 2d 60 (D.D.C. 2012). On the pro-bono side, Nagala was part of the legal team, along with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, challenging a gang injunction imposed by Orange County. Vasquez v. Rackaukas, 203 F. Supp. 3d 1061 (C.D. Cal. 2011).

Nagala has spent the last nine years as a federal prosecutor in Connecticut, rising to become Deputy Chief of the Major Crimes Division. Among the notable cases that she has handled with the office, Nagala prosecuted Stavros Ganias for tax evasion. United States v. Ganias, 755 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2014). Ganias challenged his conviction on two grounds: that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when law enforcement copied three of his hard drives pursuant to a search warrant and then improperly retained materials beyond the scope of the warrant; and that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated by a juror’s Facebook activity. A divided panel of the Second Circuit reversed the conviction on the basis of the Fourth Amendment argument. However, Nagala petitioned for en banc rehearing, and the full Second Circuit reversed the decision based on Judge Peter Hall’s dissent, finding that, while the Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated, the “good faith” exception precluded suppression of the evidence. See United States v. Ganias, 824 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2016) (en banc). In other matters, Nagala is currently prosecuting New Britain resident Steven Knox for stealing 43 tires from the U.S. Postal Service. Don Stacom, Man Charged in Theft of 43 Tires From U.S. Postal Service Garage; Investigators: Suspect Admitted to Using Access Card He Kept From Repair Shop Job, Hartford Courant, June 10, 2021.

Overall Assessment

Despite being in her 30s, Nagala has already gained experience in both civil and criminal litigation. While some senators may raise questions about Nagala’s age, such inquiries are likely to be blunted by the relative youth of a number of Trump appointees. As such, one can expect Nagala to be confirmed in due course and make history as the first Indian-American judge on the Connecticut federal bench.

3 CommentsLeave a comment

Jia Cobb – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Relman Colfax Partner Jia Cobb, nominated for the federal district court in D.C., would come to the bench with extensive litigation experience on both the civil and the criminal side.

Background

Jia Cobb received her B.A. from Northwestern University in 2002 and then received her J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School where she served as Coordinating Editor of the Harvard Law Review.

After graduating, Cobb clerked for Judge Diane Wood on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and joined the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. In 2010, she became a Partner at Relman Colfax, where she practices civil litigation and civil rights law.

History of the Seat

The seat Cobb has been nominated for opened on April 3, 2021, with Judge Emmett Sullivan’s move to senior status. Cobb was recommended by House Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton for the federal bench on March 25, 2021.

Legal Experience

Cobb started her legal career as a clerk to Judge Diane Wood on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She then shifted to the Public Defender Service in D.C., where she represented indigent defendants in D.C. Superior Court and in the federal courts. Among her clients there, Cobb represented Christopher Timmons, who was charged with bringing a grenade and additional weapons near the U.S. Capitol complex. In his defense, Timmons claimed that he wanted to assist the police in their functions.

For the past eleven years, Cobb has served as a Partner at Relman Colfax, where she has practiced civil rights and civil litigation. Among her notable matters at the firm, Cobb represented an African-American bartender fired from Redline bar in Washington D.C. in an employment discrimination suit. The suit ended in a $687,000 judgment against the bar by a jury.

Additionally, in 2021, Cobb led the filing of lawsuits against the County of Stafford, the City of Fredericksburg, the District of Columbia, and other governmental organizations for allegedly infringing upon the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of Black Lives Matter protesters.

Statements and Writings

Throughout her career, Cobb has spoken out on issues of race, gender, and diversity, including from her college days. As a college sophomore at Northwestern, Cobb spoke as part of the school’s first conference on diversity on a panel on racial coverage at the Daily Northwestern. See Rebecca Orbach, Northwestern U. Holds School’s First Conference on Diversity, Daily Northwestern, Nov. 8, 1999. She also served on a committee reviewing the school’s University Sexual Assault Hearing and Appeals System. See Emily Bittner, Committee Reviews Northwestern U.’s Sexual Assault Hearing and Appeals System, Daily Northwestern, May 18, 2000. In another interview from college, Cobb noted that she wanted to speak for the disadvantaged to “honor[] those who have made sacrifices for her.” See Wailin Wong, DePaul Professor Praises King’s ‘Radical Legacy’ Despite Flaws, Daily Northwestern, Jan. 11, 2001.

Similarly, as a law student, Cobb co-authored a paper discussing the disparities in African Americans serving on law reviews. See Jia Cobb, Lauren Sudeall & Amanda Teo, Diversity on the Law Review, HARV. L. REC., May 2, 2005.

Overall Assessment

With an appellate clerkship, nearly two decades of criminal and civil litigation experience, and a lack of background in partisan politics, Cobb could be a fairly uncontroversial pick for the federal bench. However, she is likely to draw opposition primarily based on her work in criminal defense and civil rights, which opponents may argue reflects bias. She may also draw questions for her statements and writings on issues of race and diversity. Ultimately, as long as Democrats hold together, Cobb will likely be confirmed in due course.

15 CommentsLeave a comment

Veronica Rossman – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

In the history of the Tenth Circuit, only one Democratic appointee has ever been named to the court from Colorado: Judge Carlos Lucero.  With Judge Lucero’s move to senior status, Federal Defender Veronica Rossman is now poised to become the second.

Background

Rossman was born Veronica Sophia Parkansky to a Jewish family in Moscow in 1972.[1]  After getting a B.A. from Columbia University in 1993, Rossman joined the University of California Hastings Law School, graduating in 1997.  After graduating, Rossman clerked for Chief Justice A. William Maupin on the Nevada Supreme Court before joining Morrison & Foerster as a litigation associate.

In 2003, Rossman became an assistant federal defender in the Districts of Colorado and Wyoming for a year and then spent a year at Mastbaum & Moffat, and a year as a staff attorney with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit before becoming a professor at the University of Denver, Sturm College of Law.

Since 2010, Rossman has worked as a Federal Defender for the Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, serving as Senior Counsel since 2017.

History of the Seat

Rossman was tapped for a Colorado seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  The seat was vacated by Judge Carlos Lucero’s move to senior status on February 1, 2021.  

Legal Career

Rossman has held a variety of positions throughout her legal career, including as a law professor, federal defender, and attorney in private practice.  Rossman started her career as an Associate with Morrison and Foerster, where, among other matters, she represented Dr. Edward McSweegan, a National Institute of Health (“NIH”) doctor, in a cross-filed defamation lawsuit against the founders of the Lyme Disease Foundation (“LDF”).[2]

The bulk of Rossman’s career has been at the Federal Defender Service, representing indigent defendants in federal courts in Colorado and Wyoming.  Among the matters she handled with the office, Rossman represented Arlo Looking Cloud, who was charged with murdering Anna Mae Pictou-Aquash in Denver.[3] 

Much of Rossman’s work, however, has been in appellate courts.[4]  Among the notable cases she handled, Rossman successfully persuaded the Tenth Circuit to reject a probation condition allowing probation officers to require third-party notification by the defendant upon the probation officer’s determination of a threat by the defendant.[5]  In an opinion by Judge Carolyn McHugh, the Tenth Circuit agreed that the condition improperly delegated judicial power to the probation officer.[6]

In another case, Rossman argued that U.S. District Judge Philip Brimmer committed plain error in holding that the defendant’s 1992 conviction for “Sale or Transportation of Marijuana” constituted a drug trafficking felony under the sentencing guidelines.[7]  In an opinion by Judge Lucero, the Tenth Circuit agreed that Brimmer had committed plain error in finding that the offense was a “drug trafficking” offense, but affirmed on the basis that the error did not affect the defendant’s “substantive” rights.[8]

Additionally, Rossman joined a team of public defenders filing an amicus brief in Welch v. United States, asking the Supreme Court to hold that Johnson v. United States, which voided the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, should be applied retroactively.[9]  The Supreme Court agreed with Rossman’s position in a 7-1 decision (with Justice Thomas as a lone dissenter).[10]

Overall Assessment

With experience in private practice, academia, and indigent defense, Rossman appears to be qualified for a seat on the Tenth Circuit.  While she has few writings or policy positions expressed that can be triggers for opposition, some senators may nonetheless oppose Rossman on the basis on her representation of indigent defendants.  Needless to say, such opposition is unlikely to carry the day and Rossman should join the Tenth Circuit bench by the fall.

[1] Veronica S. Rossman Fact Sheet, Alliance for Justice, https://www.afj.org/document/veronica-s-rossman-fact-sheet/ (last visited Jun. 3, 2021).

[2] Vanderhoof-Forschner v. McSweegan, No. 99-1615, No. 99-1616, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 10682 (4th Cir. May 16, 2000).

[3] See Deborah Mendez, Judge Orders Denver Man to Face Murder Charge in South Dakota, A.P. State & Local Wire, Apr. 4, 2003.

[4] See, e.g., United States v. Paup, 933 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2019); United States v. Bacon, 900 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2018); United States v. Dunbar, 718 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 2013); United States v. Loya-Rodriguez, 672 F.3d 849 (10th Cir. 2012).

[5] United States v. Cabral, 925 F.3d 687 (10th Cir. 2019).

[6] See id. at 690.

[7] United States v. Castellanos-Barba, 648 F.3d 1130 (10th Cir. 2011).

[8] Id. at 1133.

[9] See Welch v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1257, 1260 n. 1 (U.S. 2016).

[10] Id. at 1261.

3 CommentsLeave a comment

Lauren King – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Native Americans are among the most under-represented groups on the federal judiciary, with only two judges serving in active status. President Biden has now nominated a third, Seattle attorney Lauren King.

Background

Born in 1982, King received a B.A. from the University of Washington in 2004 and a J.D. from the University of Virginia Law School in 2008.

After graduating, King worked as an associate at K&L Gates for a year and then at Byrnes Keller Cromwel for two years before joining the Seattle office of Foster Garvey P.C. where she currently serves as a Principal.

History of the Seat

King has been nominated for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. This seat opened on January 27, 2016, when Judge Robert Lasnik moved to senior status. On April 6, 2016, the Obama Administration nominated Judge Beth Andrus to fill the vacancy, but her nomination was never confirmed by the Republican Senate.

On July 13, 2018, the Trump Administration announced their intention to nominate federal prosecutor Tessa Gorman to the Western District. However, due to a dispute with Washington’s U.S. Senators over the Ninth Circuit nomination of Eric Miller, the Trump Administration chose not to proceed with Gorman’s nomination. President Biden nominated King on May 12, 2021.

Legal Experience

King, a citizen of the Muscogee Nation, has focused her career on Native American law, frequently representing Native American tribes in lawsuits seeking to protect their interests. Most notably, King represented the Quileute tribe in a suit seeking to protect the fishing boundaries designated for the tribe under the 1855 Treaty of Olympia. See Greg Geudel, Lauren King: “Rising Star” Defender of Tribal Rights, Native American Legal Update, May 6, 2016. King was able to get a favorable ruling on the suit from Judge Ricardo Martinez on the Western District of Washington. The decision was subsequently appealed and partially affirmed by a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe, 873 F.3d 1 (9th Cir. 2017).

King has also made a name for herself in litigating related Indian law cases before the Ninth Circuit, including a subproceeding involving the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Tulalip Tribes, 944 F.3d 11 (9th Cir. 2019). She also represented the Muscogee Creek Nation in a suit regarding the use of a tract of land in Wetumpka, Alabama. Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Civil Action No. 2:12cv1079-MHT, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47953 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 15, 2021).

Overall Assessment

Given the focus on her experience on Indian law, King is an unusual choice for a federal judicial appointment, and her selection shows a willingness by the Biden Administration to pick unconventional nominees. While King may draw some opposition for her youth, she is nonetheless favored to join the bench and may even be poised for elevation to the Ninth Circuit if a Washington seat was to open.

6 CommentsLeave a comment