Judge Salvador Mendoza – Nominee to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

U.S. District Judge Salvador Mendoza has served on the Eastern District of Washington since 2014. He has now been tapped for elevation to the Ninth Circuit.

Background

Born November 30, 1971 in Pacoima, California in an immigrant family from Mexico, Mendoza attended the University of Washington and UCLA School of Lawl. After graduating from law school, Mendoza had quick stints with the Washington Attorney General’s Office, and the Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, before he started his own practice, staying with the practice while working as a Municipal, Juvenile, and District Court Judge Pro Tempore until 2013.

In 2013, Mendoza was appointed by Governor Jay Inslee to be a Superior Court Judge in Franklin County.

In 2014, President Obama appointed Mendoza to replace Judge Lonny Suko on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Mendoza was confirmed 92-4 on June 17, 2014, and has served as a federal judge since.

History of the Seat

Mendoza has been nominated for a Washington seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This seat will open when Judge Margaret McKeown takes senior status upon the confirmation of her successor.

Writings and Statements

While a student at UCLA, Mendoza authored a note that was sharply critical of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hernandez v. New York, which permitted the striking of bilingual jurors from a criminal jury that was likely to hear testimony in Spanish. See Salvador Mendoza, Jr., When Maria Speaks Spanish: Hernandez, the Ninth Circuit, and the Fallacy of Race Neutrality, 18 Chicano-Latino L. Rev. 193 (Fall 1996). In the note, Mendoza is also critical of permitting “race-neutral” justifications for such strikes, arguing that the language of race neutrality allows prosecutors to hide covert biases. See id. at 204. Mendoza argues that, in the context of prejudice and hostility to Spanish speakers, Hernandez “can be seen as a continued attempt to place a badge of inferiority and continue the racial subordination of the Latino community.” Id. at 209.

In a speech given at his investiture when he joined the federal bench, Mendoza highlighted the “guiding principle” of his judicial career as “equal justice under law.” See Kristin M. Kraemer, Sal Mendoza Jr. of Kennewick Becomes First Latino Federal Judge on East Side, Tri-City Herald, Aug. 1, 2014.

Legal Experience

Before joining the bench, Mendoza worked in a variety of positions, but primarily worked as a solo and dual practitioner in state and federal criminal law. Throughout this time, Mendoza tried seventy-seven cases as either sole or co-counsel, including approximately sixty jury trials. Among these trials, Mendoza secured an acquittal for a client charged with conspiracy to distribute meth-amphetamines in federal court. United States v. Cisneros, No. CR-05-206-3-FVS, (E.D. Wash.).

Jurisprudence

In 2013, Mendoza was appointed to the Franklin County and Benton County Superior Court, where he presided over 36 cases to verdict/judgment, including twenty-two jury trials. Notably, Mendoza presided over the ongoing litigation in the Arlene’s Flowers case, which involved a florist who had declined to provide flowers for a same-sex ceremony and was sued for violating civil rights laws. State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers Inc., et al., No. 13-2-00871-5 (Franklin Cnty. Super. Ct.).

Since 2014, Mendoza has served as a U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Washington. In this role, Mendoza has handled a number of high profile cases. Most notably, Mendoza presided over the criminal case against James Henrickson, charged with hiring hitmen to murder a business partner and an employee. See Rachel Alexander, MURDER-FOR-HIRE TRIAL MOVED; Judge Cites Publicity in Sending Henrikson Trial to Richland, Spokesman Review, Sept. 18, 2015. The case involved many twists, including Henrikson’s decision to plead guilty and then to withdraw his guilty pleas. See Kip Hill, Henrickson Withdraws Guilty Plea in Murders: Spokane Businessman Was Killed in his South Hill Home, Spokesman Review, Nov. 4, 2015. The case ended with guilty verdicts, after which Mendoza sentenced Henrickson to two life sentences. See Kip Hill, Henrickson Receives Two Life Sentences: Showed No Remorse For Ordering Killings, Spokesman Review, May 25, 2016.

In other matters, Mendoza granted an injunction ordering Pacific Northwest University of Health Sciences to accommodate the needs of a deaf student. See Molly Rosbach, Judge Orders PNWU to Accommodate Deaf Student, Yakima Herald-Republic, July 23, 2014. Mendoza also granted a restraining order requiring a local jail to release an inmate granted bail (the inmate was being held pursuant to an immigration hold). See Phil Ferolito, Federal Judge’s Order to Lift Immigration Hold on Yakima Inmate Could Have Nationwide Impact, Tri-City Herald, July 27, 2017.

Overall Assessment

While Mendoza’s first confirmation was widely bipartisan, it is likely that his elevation will attract strong opposition. Setting aside the more partisan attitudes towards confirmation today, Mendoza may attract questions about his injunctions on immigration holds. Additionally, his law school note and his role in the Arlene’s Flowers case, which largely avoided controversy when he was up for a trial court position, may be raised again in his elevation.

Nonetheless, Mendoza remains favored for confirmation, albeit with a significantly reduced margin.

34 Comments

  1. This is a good nominee. Him being in his low 50’s is the only thing preventing me from saying he is a great nominee as there were younger options that were just as, if not more progressive. Nonetheless with the lack of Hispanic circuit court nominees I can understand why the administration went this route.

    Like

  2. Well it’s 9:30 on east coast and no announcement of nominees so looks like WH won’t have any this week….I guess it’s no surprise, WH got their SCOTUS appointment, so they’re just coasting now….All those circuit vacancies that aren’t be filled

    Like

    • If we can’t even get a measly five nominees today, The White House truly is throwing in the white flag of surrender. It’s almost to the point I don’t want another SCOTUS vacancy this year. We wouldn’t get another package of nominees until after the new year if we did.

      At this point the first two years is a loss when it comes to countering Trump’s impact on the judiciary. The only hope is for Democrats to hold the senate. It sucks because this administration got off to such a great start but the Breyer vacancy exposed them as not being able to walk & chew gum at the same time. Ending this week without any new nominees might expose them as not being able to walk even without chewing gum…smh

      Like

  3. It’s absolutely mind boggling with what’s happening with voting rights and now likely abortion, that this WH doesn’t put laser focus on judicial nominees……We are in this mess because of right wing judges……At least some of this mess can be countered by filling circuit court seats….They are showing no urgency

    We still may be able to keep senate in large part because of some astonishingly bad candiates on GOP side as well as the potential of abortion repeal which in my view is a very big deal…

    Like

  5. Ok folks, we finally have some nominees. The White House just announced (Drum roll please)… A bipartisan Slate for the United States Sentencing Commission… WTF

    (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/05/11/president-biden-nominates-bipartisan-slate-for-the-united-states-sentencing-commission/)

    Oh & still no judges from the Abudu/Childs hearing added to the SJC executive calendar cote tomorrow after not putting them on the calendar last week. So instead of them being voted on to the floor tomorrow, they haven’t even been held over once yet. Today is shaping up to being one of the most disappointing days of the administration yet when it comes to the judiciary.

    Like

  7. @ Gavi,

    “” for this week. Will we now go 4 weeks to a month with actual Article III nominations?”

    Just because no nominees were announced today, couldn’t the WH release names Thurs, or next Mon, Tues….There is no hard and fast real as to when nominees are announced is there?

    Not that this WH would release more than 3-5 nominees anyway…..It’s so pathetic how they completely shut down nominations since the KBJ confirmation…..It’s like they’re content having one SCOTUS nominee and they can’t be bothered to fill anymore seats..

    Like

    • There’s a LOT of room for this Admin to pleasantly surprise us, but so far the WH has been releasing noms around the same time.
      But you are right, there’s no hard and fast rule. The releases have been generally timed to coincide with when the SJC would hold hearings.

      Like

  8. Under the radar:
    Do you know who I would love as a nominee for a New York 2nd or DC Circuit seat?
    FTC Commissioner Lina Khan
    She’s already a senate confirmed head of an agency and only 33 years old. And more importantly, very progressive. As well as a woman of color and foreign born.
    GOP heads would explode.
    I’d hate for her to be on the Federal Circuit, because, what a waste that would be!

    Like

    • @Gavi

      I actually was thinking the opposite. I didn’t write it here in this blog, but I was thinking to myself with the advanced ages of many Federal Circuit court judges, maybe Biden can rethink strategies somewhat.

      Since the nominees to that court usually go more under the radar then any other circuit court, perhaps Biden should nominate some of the more progressive possibilities that don’t currently have vacancies in their states if a vacancy occurs in the Federal circuit such as Melissa Murray or your example of Lina Khan. For all intense purposes if there was a future SCOTUS vacancy, they can be considered as a sitting judge on that appeals court just as much as any of the other 12. I know it’s not a route taken before but no reason why a solid job she on that court can’t be considered. And I think they would have an easier time getting confirmed then if you nominated them to the DC circuit or a circuit in a state with at least one Republican senator.

      Like

      • @Dequan thanks for responding.
        Good points. But I would push back a little bit on one aspect: that any circuit nominee would be easy to confirm. Easy confirmations of judicial posts are vanishingly rare. If plain old Leonard Stark could only get 11 GOP votes to go on the Fed Cir. how many would you think would confirm Lina Khan for ANYTHING?
        When it comes to confirming judges, I think we should only concern ourselves with either “confirmable” or “unconfirmable” not easy or not easy. I just care that we could get 50 plus 1 votes.
        Otherwise, i do agree with you that Dems could use the Fed Cir. as an appeals court for nominees without open seats in their state.

        Now that the FTC is fully staffed, expect to hear about Lina Khan a lot more. I just hope that all the talk will eventually get her on an appellate court.

        Like

      • Yea I’m definitely with you. All I care about is getting to 51 at this point. Voice votes, 100 to 0 votes or even overwhelming bi-partisan votes don’t mean anything to me anymore.

        I actually am not familiar with any of the FTC members but if she’s as good as you say, bring her on. I’ll always take a progressive as a lifetime appointed judge over positions with fixed terms.

        I am actually upset at some of the black men that have been appointed US attorney’s. New York, Washington state, Indiana & Louisiana all have young black men I would rather see as life time appointed judges instead of jobs that end once a Republican becomes president. Especially since it’s been 3,038 days since the last black man has joined any circuit court on the country & Andre Mathis is still waiting.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The Federal Circuit docket used to be somewhat broad, but over the past decade or two it has become extremely specialized in patent litigation. And patent is one of the most specialized areas of law. Nobody without major patent experience could handle it.

        Like

  9. I’m following judicial nominations less closely these days because Biden’s sluggish pace is infuriating. It’s frankly ridiculous that a substantial number of the currently vacant appellate seats will not be filled by this administration (unless we miraculously keep the Senate in the midterms). Even knowing all of that, the fact that this batch was entirely for the USSC is honestly just insulting. Just when you think this administration could not do any worse, it finds ways to surprise you.

    Given that I’m in a safely blue state and house district, I’m wondering if it’s even worth voting in November if this kind of BS is what we get for it.

    As for @Dequan and @Gavi’s discussion about the Federal Circuit, the reason it’s less controversial (and there’s never been a SCOTUS justice elevated from Fed. Cir.) is that it’s a specialized court. It only hears cases involving patent & copyright issues (and appeals from the Court of Federal Claims, which are like federal employee/contractor disputes). There’s not much room for a unapologetic progressive to leave an impact when all they’re deciding is if one multinational corporation infringed on another multinational corporation’s patent. The most hot-button and political issues that other circuits (and SCOTUS) decide are not even on the table for the Federal Circuit, which is why it’s not considered on the same level as the numbered circuits in terms of elevation to SCOTUS.

    Furthermore, because of the Federal Circuit’s narrow focus, most nominees either have patent litigation experience or were district court judges in a district (like D. Del. or N.D. Cal.) that sees a lot of patent litigation. Lina Khan is a great antitrust scholar, but patent law and antitrust law are two different things, and her expertise would be a bad fit for the federal circuit. We want progressive folks in their area of expertise so they can actually implement change, so I actually think the FTC makes the most sense for her.

    In terms of making sure we have enough possible SCOTUS candidates, the Dems should be focused on nominating folks with progressive backgrounds to appellate court seats in blue states. I agree that we need to be nominating 40-year-olds because after 2022, it could be at least a decade before Dems have both the presidency and the Senate again. But I guess Schumer is too busy confirming White House Janitor #1 or White House Gardener #2 to do anything meaningful.

    Like

    • @Hank

      Very well said. Today is probably the most demoralized I’ve felt since Inauguration Day when it comes to the judiciary. I wish I could disagree with you but the fact of the matter is, sadly you hit the nail on the head. I was worried if we would be able to fill all of the current circuit court vacancies by the end of the year. Now I would give it even odds if we even fill 15 of them.

      Like

      • Democrats are doing the Triple Crown of suck right now..

        The WH is releasing few nominees & the, recent circuit nominees were middle aged centrists..

        Sen Durbin is slow walking the SJC, another week will go by, probably for no good reason either, that Childs, Abudu and the 3 district court nominees are not on calendar.

        And Schumer is doing nothing to move anyone on senate floor other than executive nominees & silly symbolic votes (ie today’s abortion vote)

        Like

      • @Rick

        I never thought about it like that but your right. It’s a triple crown of failure right now. All three major players, Biden, Schumer & Durbin are failing. And at the worst time, after the Roe leak. I don’t even want to watch C-Span tomorrow around 3pm just to see them adjourn until Monday at 5pm, let alone do so without even filing cloture for Mathis, Davis or discharge/cloture for Freeman.

        It’s truly sickening to think about the opportunity that is being lost. Mitch McConnell had every circuit court seat filled at one point. Democrats won’t even have a nominee for every circuit court seat by the end of the year. Not even the expected measly 5 nominees announced today. Maybe they were too busy waiting in line for their social security check to be announced. What a joke

        Liked by 1 person

      • I hope that some of the judges who are waiting for their successors should threaten to rescind their vacancy if Biden doesn’t make a nomination soon. I think a rescinding would absolutely be justified if they’ve waited a year without even a nominee to replace them. Additionally, I hope that no more judicial vacancies arise (unless it’s a conservative judge vacating) because it’s highly unlikely their successor will be confirmed by the end of this year.

        Like

      • At this point I almost wish that there had been less judges who chose to take senior status (especially those who are doing so at set dates). I would rather have 70+ year old Clinton liberals stay on than have the seat stay vacant because of Biden’s laziness.

        Like

      • Lot’s of folks concerned with the pace of judicial nominations, Having followed the judicial nominations process over the past 30 years I believe the Democrats have done pretty well.

        When Biden was elected many of his supporters demanded judicial nominees from more diverse backgrounds. I think Biden has achieved this goal so far.

        There have been more black women nominated and confirmed to the Courts of Appeal than all previous administrations combined. That’s no small feat. What’s more, most of these nominees passed through the SJC without incident,

        For example ,Andre Mathis the nominee 6th was not approved by his home state Senators. There was a time when a nominee like Mathis would not receive a hearing at all, What’s at work here is the Tennessee Senators are slow walking the Mathis nomination.

        Also, Nancy Abudu is outstanding nominee who was well prepared by OLC before she appeared before the committee. The Republicans attempts to smear her went nowhere. The Southern Poverty Law Center has had serious charges leveled against it’s deposed former leader Morris Dees. Abudu will get stacks of requests of information regarding charges faced by her employer.

        It’s worth repeating that many young lawyers who are approached by the administration do not want to be judges at the earliest stages of their careers,

        We’ve seen the recent “retirements” od Greg Costa and Abdul Kallon. They were appointed when they were too young. As soon as they shed their exalted status as federal judges they will be handsomely rewarded by a big law firm or corporation.

        Lastly, much has been made about whether Biden,Schumer and Durbin are doing the best they can to relieve the bottleneck of judicial nominations. None of us know what backroom machinations
        are in play. It’s there. The real question is are these folks who are canvassing the houses of anti -Roe Justices interested in voting in the upcoming election?

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Kevin Collins

        I agree with you the Dems have done a good job. The issue I have is good isn’t enough. Trump did an absolute great job when it came to judges. And he had four years to do it. The Dems need to exceed what he did to make a substantial dent into his impact on the judiciary because they are likely to only have two years to do it.

        And yes you are also correct there may be some back room machinations going on but they are not even doing the bare minimum. At the very least work one Friday a month. Durbin has now missed two Thursday’s he could have put the Adubu/Childs group on the executive calendar for a hold over then vote to the floor. Biden will now miss a would be scheduled SJC nominations hearing in four weeks because he couldn’t even put out five nominees this week.

        Even when Schumer does a little good like file for cloture on three nominees yesterday, it’s the wrong three. He is bypassing younger & more progressive nominees that have been waiting longer. All 50 Dems are in town & healthy now. This is the time to discharge & confirm the more progressive nominees. There’s no reason for nominees to be stalled when we are in the majority. Them working a 4 day (Really 3 day when you count half days on Monday & Thursday’s) work week isn’t gonna cut it when anytime one senator goes out with Covid for any other reason, we basically lose the majority temporarily.

        So yes I agree with you Biden has done good, even a lot of good on the judiciary. He, Schumer & Durbin deserve some credit. But if I’m on a team that just scored 4 runs in the bottom of the 7th inning, but we were down 8 runs, it’s a little hard for me to clap or get excited. Time is running out & the other teams lock down close is warming up in the bull pen.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Have you noticed that while the Republicans and Trump were great on judges neither of them are in power? They were removed from power because they were too busy stacking the courts and neglecting their legislative responsibilities. Let’s not do the same.

        Your points are well taken. However these persistent internecine squabbles are not the way to resolve what’s wrong in America, Have you noticed that none of the judges that Trump installed (lower courts and Supreme Court) ruled in his favor on any of the lawsuits to overturn the election?

        In real time there’s no such thing as perfect or great judges, It will take several years to know how any judge will rule on the matters we care about, As such, I can only say the judges selected so far are “good” in the sense that vacancy is being filled.

        I’ve never come across anyone voter who thought judges have a higher priority than anything else.(it would be nice)However, the problems we have now with rulings on voting rights and reproductive rights can only be corrected by changing the laws not installing judges.

        So please, let’s not compare Republicans to Democrats as the former caters to a constituency that is unaffected by the adverse effects of 19th Century policies on women and minorities.

        Like

      • I’m with you on your first three paragraphs. The fourth paragraph is where I would disagree however. I very much so think with the dysfunction of the congress (No matter who’s in the majority) it will be judges, not congress passing laws that will make or break this country. I’m not saying that’s the way I think it should be, I’m saying I think that’s the way it is & will be.

        You know the funny thing about what you said regarding judges aren’t at the top of voters minds is… Your right, judges aren’t, until they are. I just saw a poll last night that says abortion rights is now in a statistical tie with the economy (1 point behind) for what’s most important to voters. The ONLY reason that happened is because of judges (Or in this case justices).

        I’m sorry but while voting rights, civil rights, the economy, Covid & so many more things are super important, they all come back to judges in the end. Republicans get that. Now I am not under any illusion that having a Republican president or senate would be better. I am voting & advocating for Democrats up & down the ballot with few exceptions (Evan McMullin, Liz Cheney & Lisa Murkowski for example). But I do think it serves a greater purpose to call out your own side when they make mistakes as well. It brings you more credibility when you call out the other side.

        Liked by 2 people

  11. Guys go spend time with your friends and those you love, i have stopped wasting my time and effort when it only increases the anxiety i have and causes depression. The democrats just don’t care alout about judges ive accepted that and left the denial stage. Ive already accepted several vacancies both circuit and district court would be left open for years once mcconell regains control in janaury which all polls and analysts indicate. its not worth the headache, the joy this has taken out of my daily life and the time i have devoted to this when the dems don’t even care.. At this point i pray and hope they get crushed in the midterms. i urge all black men to sit out the elections and actively vote against the democrats, more than 1 year and a half in and biden administration and we have less than 5/6 black men confirmed, a demographic that votes in the 80s or 90s nearly every time for the democrats. As a black man i find it insulting that andre mathis who was nominated before alison nathan, still has not even gotten his cloture motion invoked, dale ho is still stuck in committee, no new judicial nominations..
    They don’t care, they work four days a week, which is actually 3 days because mondays they dont open until 5pm in the afternoon.

    They adjourned with no votes on andre mathis, no votes on stephanie davis, not even a discharge motion on arianna freeman? or dale ho? but yet they had time to discharge mary boyle who was deadlock in the commerce committee to be commissioner of the consumer product safety commission, which we all know is far more important than life time judicial appellate positions. They don’t care guys, how many other ways do they have to show you? They are openly spitting in our faces and telling us its water, they are feigning outrage about the SCOTUS LEAKED draft opinion overturning roe, when they cant do the bare minimum that’s within their power to confirm judges. its a joke. Ive stopped caring and stressing and giving myself depression when these people don’t care. I pray they lose their job and every black man make a deliberate effort to sit out this midterm, the willful neglect is insulting.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Who are you and what are you doing in my head? Yes to you comments!
      I just wish that I could stop caring. I really do. When Trump won, I almost totally avoided the news and kept it that way for 4 years. Now, I just need to stop paying attention to news about the judiciary, which, admittedly, will be more difficult, since I live and breathe for this branch of government.
      Judges matter!
      It’s so sad to see others on here saying that all the GOP’s emphasis on judges during the Trump years have come to nothing because they are out of power. WhAT? Roe v Wade is going to be overruled by 3 justices borne out of that emphasis, EVEN with GOP out of power! How can people not understand playing the long game? Is it some kind of genetic condition? Only McConnell and GOP can play the long game?
      Given the choice between temporary political majorities and long term dominance on the courts, Republicans would choose the latter in a heartbeat. Dems would probably argue among themselves about a third option. I need to stop caring…

      Liked by 2 people

      • I have to dispel this notion that the Republican’s power has to do with their ability to select judges. That’s not entirely true. The Republicans have done well because their voters show up for each and every election. Indeed, when they lost elections or were on the losing side of court cases they persevered. Nothing can be gained by ignoring the news or hiding under your bed,

        President Ronald Reagan nominated Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court in 1981. It was a campaign pledge that people on religious right led by Jerry Falwell were highly skeptical of O’Conner. Nevertheless, the nomination was confirmed.

        Having defeated Democrats in the 1980,1984 and 1998 Elections that allowed the Republicans to put O’Conner, Kennedy, Scalia, Rehnquist (elevated to Chief Justice), Souter and Thomas.

        After getting all these conservatives on the court and still having appointees of Nixon and Ford still there: Roe was still intact.

        When George W Bush was elected in 2000 and reelected in 2004. The base of the Republican party was primed and ready to reshape the federal judiciary. When Justice O’ Conner announced her intent to retire in 2006. Shortly after George W Bush chose White House counsel Harriet Miers.

        The Republican establishment from the Senators to the talking heads from Fox “news” were outraged. Eventually Miers had to ask Bush to withdraw her name.

        There’s a lot of history on judicial nominations. The Republicans and their electorate have had more focus because they been on the losing side of court rulings. When you look at all the appointments made by Republican Presidents it’s astonishing that Roe was not overruled years ago. It’s worth repeating that Republican voters gave Senate Republicans the opportunity to reshape the judiciary.

        In our form of government ,it’s the Legislative and Executive branches that run this country. To get the policies you have to vote.
        The judiciary itself was not created to tend to the needs of the people.

        Lastly, in the 1984 Election Ronald Reagan won 49 of 50 states. The Democrats got wiped out and lost control of the Senate. Yet, we bounced back. We are only 2 Senate seats away from expanding the Supreme Court and re-authorizing the Voting Rights Act. Lets not forget that,
        . .

        Liked by 1 person

  12. First, I just want to note, that it’s generally a sad matter, that the priority is not to make the judiciary working, I know the reasons why, but it’s sad, anyway.
    On the other side it’s going too far to see it just as a partisan play, as some people here do, I think it still has to play a role how bad reinforcement is needed prior to strategic considerations.

    I won’t forget the DC Courts, Tovah Calderon is waiting since 6 October 2021 for her confirmation, the seat she’s designated for is unfilled for 8 years. The Superior Court has 13 vacancies again, after 2 left the bench after the 5 new ones have been confirmed, but Adrienne Jennings Noti it also ready for a floor vote.

    So I also disagree with the opinion, that Biden mustn’t confirm a judge in a red state before all blue states are full. Or he should have wait until there is a second Democratic Senator in Pennsylvania, especially the Eastern District is short of 5, has a high age, so waiting is no option, while it’s very doubtful, that they can all be filled until the end of the year. Results can be seen at all four Californian courts and the Western District of Washington, the more of workload judges like Martinez and Jones have to bear, not Senators Murray and Cantwell.

    Hence I think, equally horrified thinking about FedSoc lawyers on the bench than the others here, that the list with the Judicial Emergencies should be considered more. As somebody mentioned, the three nominees Schumer has filed cloture for are the wrong ones, they all are on the emergencies list, and at the Northern District of California a further vacancy will open next week, so it’s not wrong, although I would also like to have Mathis and Dawkins confirmed and Freeman discharged. .

    But in the moment, there are just 8 district judges waiting for a floor vote, while 4 more have to be discharged before. That’s not that much as it can’t be done in the remaining two weeks. That makes me worry is, that these seats are really unfilled and need replacement, while most of the circuit court seats are still incumbent. The number of vacancies have always oscillated between 65 and 75 since Biden have started to confirm judges in June 2021, but never fallen under 60. With 3 – 4 judges going senior per month, this number can’t be reduced significantly until the end of the year and will then remain open for many years.

    Another factor I see is the average age of some courts, though I have not completely checked it, the Eastern District of Louisiana seems to be the eldest one, even since Judge Feldman passed away, youngest judge is 57 years old, like at the Central District of California before Biden has started to refill it, District of Massachussetts is also and old one and, as already mentioned, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
    If they won’t get proper reinforcement, they might look in the end like the one in Seattle and can’t hardly work.
    The more after the Biden Administration is planning to work with promotion from district courts now. I just remind you, that from the three judges, who have been promoted in 2021, just one was backfilled, and the other two have not even a nominee yet.

    So my priority would be to get them filled, as well as the smaller ones and the Dennis vacancy in LA at the Fifth Circuit. That nobody really cares about the fact, that here really every day counts, and this is a real matter of urgency.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Pingback: Charnelle Bjelkengren – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington | The Vetting Room

Leave a comment