Margaret Garnett – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

S.D.N.Y. federal prosecutor Margaret Garnett has worked on a number of prominent cases throughout her career, including one described as the largest criminal tax case in U.S. history. Garnett has now been nominated for the federal bench.

Background

Margaret Garnett received her B.A. from the University of Notre Dame in 1992, an M.A. from Yale University in 1995, and a M. Phil. from Yale University in 1997, before getting a J.D. in 2000 from Columbia Law School. After law school, Garnett joined Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz as an associate. In 2004, she left to clerk for Judge Gerald Lynch on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Lynch was later elevated to the Second Circuit). After her clerkship, Garnett joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, where she rose to be Chief of Appeals. In 2017, she left to join the New York Attorney General’s Office and subsequently joined the New York City Department of Investigation.

In 2021, Garnett rejoined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, serving initially as deputy U.S. Attorney and then as Special Counsel to the U.S. Attorney since 2023.

History of the Seat

Garnett has been nominated to the vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York vacated on April 21, 2023 by Judge Vincent Bricetti’s move to senior status.

Legal Career

Garnett started her career as an associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, and then as a clerk before becoming a federal prosecutor in New York, where she has spent the vast majority of her career. In her first stint with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Garnett notably prosecuted “the largest criminal tax case” in American history, covering multiple partners and employees at KPMG, who were indicted with conspiracy and tax evasion. See U.S. v. Stein, 452 F. Supp. 2d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Garnett also argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See, e.g., United States v. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2007).

In 2017, Garnett left to join the New York Attorney General’s Office and then joined the New York City Department of Investigation. In this role, Garnett was sued by groups challenging the state’s eviction moratorium during the Covid-19 pandemic. See Chrysafis v. Marks, 15 F.4th 208 (2d Cir. 2021).

Writings

During her time with the New York City Department of Investigation, Garnett notably authored a critical report of the New York Police Department’s response to the George Floyd protests, noting that the response “lacked a clearly defined strategy” and that officers lacked training to respond. The 115 page report (available here) detailed multiple officer and civilian injuries, and issues with the response, and recommended that a civilian independent board exercise oversight over the police department, noting that none of the three oversight agencies currently overseeing the NYPD have the ability to bind the department on specific allegations of misconduct.

Overall Assessment

Garnett has a powerful champion in her corner for confirmation in Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. However, while her prosecution-heavy experience is generally less “controversial” in the confirmation process, Garnett may nonetheless draw attention for her critical report of the NYPD and its role in the 2020 protests. It will be interesting to see, how much attention, if any, her writings on that front draw in the confirmation process.

111 Comments

  1. Grade: D
    An even bigger disappointment is the fact that she’s a Schumer recommendee, not Gilibrand’s.

    “However, while her prosecution-heavy experience is generally less “controversial” in the confirmation process…”
    This SHOULD be more controversial these days. No one can tell me that this isn’t a nominee Bush or Trump would make, especially with blue state senators.

    The worst part is her work on the NYPD report will make Republicans hate her nomination. So what’s the point? We could have gotten a more decent nominee worthy of Republican’s rage.
    Such a terrible disappointment, especially coming on the heels of the great confirmation of Dale Ho.

    Like

  2. I absolutely completely agree with @Gavi. This has Gilibrand written all over it. The fact that this is a Schumer pick is even more disappointing. This could have been a Trump pick without her being part of a package deal. She still likely will only get the normal three GOP votes if that. D+

    Like

    • Wrong. This nomination will not get the three Republican support because there will not be a vote, due to Blackburn’s hold. Oh, well. (In reality, I think Hochul has rescinded that policy.)

      On a pleasanter note, Dale Ho must be enjoying a nice, long, and well-deserved vacation before he takes the bench.
      Nusrat Choudhury accepted her commission but hasn’t taken her oath yet.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Haaaaaaaaaa… OMG @Gavi how could I forget about Blackburn’s hold. I guess New York will be short on judges for a while until she shows the majority leader mercy & let him confirm some NY judges… Lol

        Oh yes, let Dale Ho get all the time off he needs before starting. Hopefully he will be very busy over the next few decades once he is commissioned.

        Like

    • Sometimes I think you and Gavi are the same person. It sounds a lot like group think. This nominee earned a doctorate from Yale and a law degree from Colombia.

      Oh sure, what a less than average individual. If you had accomplished what Garnett has would your folks say you are a D+

      The comments on here are beyond ludicrous at times.

      Like

      • No @Gavi & myself are definitely different people. We have opposite views on the SCOTUS affirmative action ruling for one example. Once again our grades have nothing to do with a nominee’s accomplishments. Nobody gets nominated to be a federal judge by the president without having some sort of accomplished career. Even Trump nominees I disagree with heavily were almost all qualified.

        Our grades are soley based on what we want in a nominee from a Democrat president with a Democrat majority in the senate & based on the seat they are nominated for. I don’t want to speak for @Gavi but what I want are young, progressive nominees for all circuit court seats, district court seats & as close to that in red & purple states. Had Garnett been nominated for a district court seat in Texas my grade would be higher because I know blue slips are in play there. But we should not he settling in blue states. Now if you are not looking for the same thing I am then of course you would feel different.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The job of judge is to hear and decide cases. Is this a person who will be fair?

        None of things you mentioned have anything to do with how this person will perform as a judge.

        I am pleased that Biden isn’t playing games with the Judiciary as you would prefer him to do.

        Like

      • Clarence Thomas & Samuel Alito are judge that hear and decide cases. Sorry but progressives ain’t waiting in line for hours to vote for a Democrat president that would be willing to nominate anybody in their mold to the federal bench.

        Vice versus for conservatives voting for a Republican president that would nominate judges in the mold of Sotomayor & KBJ. Sounds nice for you to say but it’s not based in reality.

        Like

      • Why aren’t Thomas & Alito fair? They hear a case & decide the cases. Based on your logic there’s no reason Biden shouldn’t pick somebody in their mold. You can’t say they are corrupt because in this country you are innocent until proven guilty & last I checked neither have been charged let alone convicted of a crime. So using your logic what’s wrong with Biden picking a bunch of Thomas & Alito’s? I would think you would advocate for it as long as they are qualified.

        Like

      • You lost me when you made the leap to Thomas and Alito. I was just talking about a district court nominee. A dc judge and Supreme Court justice are world’s apart.

        A district court judge has limits and they know that. In fact all lower court judges have limits on their rulings. The only exception was Stephen Reinhardt he didn’t care about Supreme Court precedent.

        We really won’t know what these judges will do until they make some rulings. It’s too early to assign grades or things like that. Let’s give people a chance to do their job.

        Like

      • I didn’t say Thomas & Alito themselves. I said somebody in the mold of Thomas & Alito. You criticized @Gavi & me because we gave a low grade to Garnett who we all admit is highly qualified, because judges only “hear & decide cases” (Your words).

        So I was asking what’s wrong if Biden picked a slew of district court nominees that were in the mold of Thomas & Alito. Using your logic, as long as they are qualified & agree to hear & decide cases, they should be fine for Biden to nominate right?

        If your answer to that is no, then I’m asking why not? If your answer to that is because they are too conservative for Biden to nominate despite being qualified, then what’s the difference between you & @Gavi & myself? Lol

        Like

      • I also said “fair” which you are willfully ignoring. We don’t see the interviewing process which really takes place at the White House.

        I trust Biden and his judicial nominations team to make the right decisions. I am not going to second guess them unless something comes up. They know more about the nominees than you and I.

        I don’t think Thomas and Alito were they district judges would be freer to be what they are on the Supreme Court.So, someone in their “mold” whatever that means would get more scrutiny in the appeals process.

        It’s highly unlikely.

        Like

      • You are referencing instances when cases that have political implications go the other way.

        Our form of government is electing people who represent us. The courts are open to all but people here who think they know more don’t bother to go there.

        The SDNY docket is largely white collar crimes and things of that nature. What’s wrong with having a prosecutor being judge there.

        There’s nothing wrong with questioning things. My only concern is that you know what you’re talking about. We can do better by not jumping to conclusions i.e Wamble nominations and Feinstein out with illness. You are overreacting at times.

        Like

      • Why does somebody not know what they are talking about when they want young people with progressive backgrounds chosen for the courts? Nobody said Garnett isn’t a fine person who will not turn out to be a good judge. We are saying she’s not what we are looking for for that seat. We are voters. Don’t we get an opinion?

        It’s “not jumping to conclusions” if we are giving our opinion without saying how somebody will turn out. At no point did @Gavi or myself say Garnett will be a horrible conservative judge. We said she’s not what we are looking for in nominees to seats on the S.D.N.Y.

        We are voters, Americans & this is a blog about the judiciary. We are giving our opinions on a judicial nominee. If you disagree with our opinion that’s fine. But I don’t think that qualifies the opinions of others as not knowing what they are talking about. I would expect that from some of the Wikipedia idiots that are on here spying on us but I would expect better from you… Lol

        Like

      • It’s because “progressive” is a phony label that has no relevant meaning for a judicial nominee. It’s a term created to suit the purposes of the evaluator.

        The character of an individual who is seeking a lifetime appointment is important. If you’re just interested in aesthetics then I guess we get Taylor Swift or someone like that. It’s the same mentality.

        Like

  3. My guess is that Schumer went with her after seeing how long it look the likes of Dale Ho, Nusrat Choudhury, and Natasha Merle to get confirmed. Even then, we could’ve gotten an AUSA with more experience fighting public corruption. With her being nominated to the White Plains vacancy, I can give her a C rather than a D-.

    There is one another SDNY vacancy based in Manhattan. I hope we get someone better.

    Like

    • I’m hoping out of the two NY vacancies remaining, Gilibrand gets the pick for up state & Schumer gets the SDNY. If that happened, I hope Schumer goes with a pick like we saw the first year & a half from him then his last three picks of Merchant, Reyes & now Garnett.

      Like

    • @Ethan
      I must have blinders on or something, but I don’t see the logic of this thinking. If you’re a senator that cares about the courts, and have made great recommendations, you aren’t going to stop just because your recommendees take longer to confirm. This might be the case for mediocre moderates who wouldn’t recommend controversial picks in the first place. As I have said, Republicans are not going to be rushing to confirm Democratic judicial nominees, no matter the caliber.
      This logic dictates that all of Schumer’s picks going forward will be in the mold of Garnett.
      I think the likelier explanation is that Schumer has a relationship with Garnett and want to see her on the court. If your hypothesis is correct, how very shortsighted of Schumer. What is a year-long or two delay compared to a lifetime tenure?

      Like

      • @Ethan
        This wasn’t the case, though.
        Yes, Schumer usually sends multiple recommendations. But we know that in this instance, he only sent one, because we have the news article about it, which I posted for Dequan when this nomination was announced. I can’t blame the WH for going with bad nominees when that’s all that was recommended to them. Though, I’d love for the WH to push back, as unlikely as that is.

        Like

      • This is why I wanted the White House to push back against Warner & Kaine when they sent two nominees they knew had no chance of getting picked along with Heytens for the 4th. Although Heytens was a great pick, it set the tone for senators hand picking their choices versus sending multiple nominees that realistically could be picked.

        Once they let them get away with that in Virginia, it set the tone going forward for others to follow in suit. Unfortunately there will be no push back from this WHC office the rest of Biden’s first term.

        Like

      • I see a logic behind the fact, that Schumer wants to have a full completement at his courts, ease the workload and that it will happen faster, when he will recommend more uncontroversal nominees.

        But I know many other people here see in the whole process much more a tactical game than ensuring a working judiciary.

        Like

  4. I agree with Gavi, this is likely either just a favor to Garnett or there is a personal connection between her and Schumer.

    However, given the consistent high quality of SDNY picks it’s hard to get for me to get too upset about someone with a traditional prosecutors background.

    Like

  5. Margaret Garnett made local headlines in 2021 while director of the NYC Department of Investigations. She claimed that then-Mayor Bill DeBlasio misused city security detail for political purposes and to run personal errands. Her report created such an uproar that Garnett resigned a week later, with rumors that DeBlasio forced her out behind the scenes. DeBlasio was embarrassed and damaged by the report. Garnett returned to the U.S. Attorney’s office afterwards.

    Garnett is a local celebrity in NYC politics though she’s never sought elective office.

    Like

    • Great news to see Bloomekatz confirmed. I’m also happy to see senator Tim Scott missed the vote. Hopefully he will continue that trend. She’s the last A+ circuit court judge I expect to see confirmed before the end of Biden’s term but it was a great run while it lasted.

      Like

      • @Michael

        Here is my list of A+ nominees I would give that grade to for each circuit court vacancy without s nominee left.

        1st:
        Gilles Bissonnette

        I can be persuaded on Sarah Mattson Dustin but as of now I would give her a very high A.

        3rd:
        Rachel Wainer Apter
        Jeremy Feigenbaum
        Ryan Haygood

        And there are lots of high A’s.

        4th:
        Ajmel Quereshi
        Brendan Hurson

        I am torn between an A & A+ for Erek Barron. If he was nominated tomorrow I would probably away A*.

        Like

  10. Bloomekatz confirmed 50-48 (Manchin was a no, but 2 Rs didn’t show). Last of the truly exciting nominees, though de Alba is decent.

    Garnett is traditional and boring, but not a huge issue given Schumer’s other recommendations. I’m willing to trade progressiveness for quick confirmation on a few district court nominees – though Senators only recommending traditional candidates (AKA the NJ senators) is an issue. The appellate courts are a different story, and that’s where the administration really has faltered recently – I’d much rather just fill the CA7 and CA10 seats with proven progressives even if it means leaving the district court seats vacant in IN and KS. I realize that such a proposition is a pipe dream with this WHC though.

    Shawnee is clearly a troll, not sure why anyone bothers engaging.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Been thinking that way for a while now, no one can be that wrong and strong with their takes, right?

      I think I mentioned how dissatisfied I was in the circuit court judges rammed down the GOP senator’s throats in comparison to what McConnell and co. did to Dem senators during Trump’s administration, and he accused me of racism against Andre Mathis lmaooo.

      Like

      • Did you know that almost 90% of black associate with the Democratic Party ? If you have a problem with them then obviously think lesser of black people.

        I don’t know what you belong to but betcha it looks a lot like you and not me. That makes you a “progressive.” Don’t forget to make up your bed before you leave.

        Like

      • Like I said, ever since you’ve been called out for being the biggest hack and troll that you are, absolutely nothing you say has any merit. Made my day to know that others see through your bullshit and we all know shawnee68 as nothing more than a noise maker. Especially with how much you comment here, that says a lot about your contributions (if you can even call it that) I would say you should feel embarrassed, but you wouldn’t have the capacity to feel shame. Carry on with your miserable shill-filled life.

        Go on about your night you miserable troll, I will always be better than you at life. Your shilling and boot licking is just to pass time in your miserable life. Get fucked.

        Like

      • Exactly, I was merely pointing that out when the troll himself came out the woodworks to cry racism. Obviously the point flew over his head, he isn’t very bright as is.

        I wanted Biden to nominate really young progessive laywers like Abudu to circuit courts around the country to stick it to the GOP senators who went along with McConnell’s nonsense instead of nominating left-of-center nominees (or even centrist in Ramirez’s case) for red state circuit seats.

        17-3, just look at that ratio! The 2nd, 3rd, and 9th circuit will never be the same. I just want payback in the form of similar judges, just left-wing ones. Would be nice, but we have Mr. “nothing will fundamentally change” as president.

        Like

      • I have news for you. No self respecting black person over 40 refers to themselves as a “progressive.” I don’t see Nancy Abudu or KBG allowing that label to be affixed to themselves.

        It’s pretentious yuppies like your self who wallow in terms that were created about 10 years ago well after the real civil rights movement that people like you can’t comprehend.

        A movement for you takes place on Twitter or some other social media site. lol

        Like

      • Your ideology and way of thinking is exactly why black americans are in the state they are today. You are exactly the kind of person Harriet Tubman would’ve shot. You establishment shill, career bootlicker and unpaid troll.

        Keep up the shilling, it’s gotten you far in life and has gotten black people very far. Dance some more and maybe massa will throw more crumbs your way. Pathetic

        Like

      • @dawsont825

        That’s the reason I didn’t include Mississippi in my probabilities for another A+ nominee for the 5th. There are actually two Mississippi judges on the 5th eligible to take senior status right now. It shouldn’t take longer for the ink to dry on the retirement letter for Biden to nominate Scott Colom who would be an A+.

        But I got about as much hope in that happening over the objections of a home state senator who said she would happily sit in the front row of a hanging as I do getting an A+ nominee out of New Jersey for the 3rd. I honestly don’t see any more circuit court nominees who do not get both home state senators blue slips returned the rest of Biden’s first term sadly.

        Like

      • The Texas (5th circuit) was the perfect opportunity to plant a young progressive ACLU/SPLC lawyer and have them rule on cases for 3-4 decades. But no, we got a 60 year old centrist magistrate judge and a consensus builder in Anthony Johnstone in Montana.

        I don’t see the difficulty of doing what was done to you in the previous administration. But I forgot the Dems are the party of “turning the other cheek”. Ram a SCOTUS nominee down America’s throat while people are voting in a pandemic? Just angrily speak on the senate floor and then send a few tweets, that’ll show ’em.

        Like

      • One correction. Anthony Johnstone from Montana is on the 9th circuit. I actually like him & he was my pick from the start. I think you meant Dana Douglas along with Ramirez for the 5th. And you’re absolutely correct. After Ramirez is confirmed, the 5th will be moved to the right since Biden took office because both judges that were replaced are more liberal than their replacements. An awful situation indeed.

        Like

      • I just worded by response in an awkward way. I’m well aware that Montana is in the 9th circuit, just pointing out the caliber of nominee/judge in that state in comparison to what Biden could’ve done.

        On another note, I’ve been curious when the 9th circuit will be broken up. It really is HUGE and I wonder which party will be the first to create the 12th circuit and appoint judges there. I have no idea how it would be broken up, but it genuinely is HUGE and hard to keep geographic continuity with states like Montana and Hawaii judges having different upbringing and whatnot.

        Like

      • @dawsont825

        I figured that… Lol

        No worries. And we discussed on this blog last year numerous proposals for splitting up the 9th. I think it should only happen if Republicans agree to adding the needed judgeships the non partisan judicial committee says the nation needs. I’d even be ok to roll the dice & say half the seats added now & the other half at a year in the future, perhaps 2027 since we do not know who will be president & the senate majority at that time.

        @Mike S

        And don’t forget ACB was replaced on the 7th too. The only surprise I still can’t believe is they didn’t replace the Puerto Rico judge on the 1st. Trump nominated one of his two district court judges & he got a SJC hearing after Christmas but no vote. I’m totally surprised they didn’t call the senate back in session on New Years Day to get him confirmed but they probably figured they would win at least one of the two Georgia runoffs. If I haven’t said it before let me say it again… THANK YOU GEORGIA

        Like

      • I slept on it and I have no idea how splitting the 9th circuit would turn out, especially if the goal is to keep a circuit intact by bordering states with similar geographic features. I was thinking of a way to keep Arizona and Montana together, but they’re really far apart. Unless the 8th circuit wants to take in Montana and the 10th circuit wants to take in Arizona, the 9th circuit will still be huge. Unless the designers of the new 12th circuit wants to leave Cali, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington in the 9th, and then make Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii and the territories part of the new 12th, but that would be a smaller circuit than the 1st circuit. So there would have to be some rearrangement of the 8th circuit and 10th circuit to make it work.

        I don’t care how much Sen. Sullivan bitches and whines on the senate floor, Alaska will still end up paired with Hawaii and other liberal states to create a majority liberal circuit. He better hope the next Dem president isn’t court/judge-focused, because he/she could find a way to create a new circuit and stack it with all liberal judges with jurisdiction over Alaska lolololol.

        Any way you slice it, the 9th needs to be broken up, 27 judges is way too many judges to have on active duty at any time, plus en banc hearings don’t accurately reflect the opinion of the majority of the circuit. Need to make that 12th circuit so the 9th can go from 27 judges to about 15-17.

        Would love to hear your thoughts.

        Like

      • I think there needs to be serval changes actually. I wouldn’t want to add another circuit. If I was being non partisan (Albeit I do like anything that pisses senator Sullivan off) & not worried about keeping any liberal majority (Which can change over the span of a presidency or two anyway), I would make the following changes;

        No circuit should only have three states/territories.

        Move Puerto Rico to the 11th circuit.

        Combine the remaining 1st circuit & 2nd circuit.

        Move Connecticut to the 3rd.

        Move Arkansas to the 5th.

        Move Missouri to the 7th.

        Move both Idaho & Montana to the 8th.

        The new 2nd circuit (Remember we combined the 1st & 2nd) would be Arizona, Nevada, Oregon & Washington state.

        The 9th will now be California, Hawaii & Alaska.

        Any chief judge disputes in the new circuits would be resolved with the most senior of the two remaining chief judge but both keep their chief judge pay until their date would have ended.

        Like

      • That’s a very interesting set of ideas/proposals. I must say that the one that I agree with the most is putting Puerto Rico in the 11th circuit. It’s closest to Florida as it is, so I see no reason for a Boston-based appeals court to have jurisdiction over decisions there. I have no problem with adding Puerto Rico, and I hope that happens officially one day

        I have to disagree on combining the 1st and 2nd circuits, that would create an enormous circuit which would be a close second to the 9th circuit in terms of total active judges. (29 for the 9th circuit, and 19 for the hypothetical combined circuit) although you’re also in favor of breaking up the 9th circuit, I still personally prefer to keep the entire upper Northeast region in 2 separate circuits.

        I slightly disagree with putting Arkansas in the 5th circuit, but only if it goes in without a buddy. I would prefer Oklahoma enter the 5th circuit by itself to create a neat geographic square of states bordering, but I could be talked into Arkansas AND Oklahoma being made into the new 5th circuit.

        I also disagree on Connecticut being moved to the 3rd circuit. I think it’s fine where it is, unless you were going to suggest it move into the 1st circuit to give that circuit some new blood, which then New Jersey or Pennsylvania would be ripe for the picking for the now Connecticut-less 2nd circuit.

        I think the 8th circuit already encompasses too many states as is, so I think I dislike Montana and Idaho replacing Arkansas and Oklahoma.

        I think I have a great idea, but I’m happy to be told otherwise… How about Montana, Idaho, Washington and Oregon split off to create the new 12th circuit, and then California, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii and Alaska remain in the 9th circuit. (I can be talked into Nevada joining the new 12th circuit if you’re hellbent on drastically reducing the 9th circuits population and geographical size.

        I have no idea how it would work with confirmed circuit judges assigned to a duty station and whatnot, along with case precedent and whatnot, but I think I’ve done a good job breaking up the 9th circuit, and preventing the 2nd from becoming the east coast version of the 9th lol.

        I think my proposal would please everyone except for the perpetually bothered Sen. Sullivan. Maybe then he’ll leave circuit judges from Washington alone and he’ll finally work in good faith to help Biden appointee a Judge Brailsford-like Judge to Alaska’s vacant district court. But knowing his level of audacity, he’ll just end up demanding to speak to every circuit judge nominee in California and Hawaii from now on. Oh well. *shrug*

        Like

      • @dawsont825

        I don’t necessarily disagree with any proposal that included a 14th circuit. I actually think that would be the easiest fix. But doing that would cost more money so for budgeting reasons I would favor reorganizing the current 13 circuits to make them more balanced.

        The most obvious disparity is the six judges in the 1st & 29 judges on the 9th. That’s where my idea of combining the 1st while breaking up the 9th came into play. Any changes to the current structure will face push back for the normal reasons such as politics. So I was trying to remove money & increased budget as an additional obstacle.

        Like

  11. Awesome to see Bloomekatz confirmed! Hope Tim Scott stays into the presidential race until the very end. Mullin also missed the vote (he seems like a wackadoo, hope he stays in OK more often).

    Agree with the comment about the troll, I think this blog is kind of at its worst when folks are fighting in the comments. Let’s keep it focused on judges!

    I think the most exciting confirmation vote so far has been Abudu, waiting on Coons to drive back to DC to confirm her. Hoping for more nominees tomorrow, we’ll see…

    Can anyone speak to Senate rules and filing for cloture? I know this week the Senate is focusing on the defense bill, but couldn’t Schumer have filed for cloture on deAlba and then proceed back to consider the defense bill, with a cloture vote on Thursday? I’m always confused on how exactly that works…

    Liked by 1 person

    • @Mike S

      Cloture rules are basically a cloture motion has to be sent to the desk first. This is assuming a Monday – Thursday schedule. Let’s say Schumer sends a motion today on a Tuesday. The first day the senate can vote on ending cloture is 48 hours later on Thursday. Now if that’s a district court nominee, the senate can wait 2 hours & confirm them that same day if they like. If it’s a circuit court nominee, the senate has to wait 30 hours unless they get a unanimous consent to shorten that. Most likely in that case the confirmation vote would be Monday.

      And yea I totally agree it would be great if the blog went back to just focusing on judges. Unfortunately when you have an open blog, anybody can come on it including trolls sadly.

      Like

  12. I think there’s a chance we could get another A+ Appellate nominee. There have been several such district count nominees (including two from MD) from this WH Counsels Office. I would argue De Alba is pretty close in her own right, maybe an A- or and A.

    It would have to come at the recommendation of the NJ, NH, or MD senators though. The WHC seems to be deferring to those more than the last group did

    Like

    • Here’s the best hope I see at another A+ for the circuit courts.

      If Gould leaves I could see Whitehead or Cartwright (Most likely the former) being the replacement.

      The next California vacancy is a Feinstein pick so if there are two more Padilla certainly could give us an A+. de Alba I gave an A only because her ACLU work was just one year. She also had some immigration work. She’s young & clearly progressive, I just think there were three better California picks that were Latina plus we have to backfill her district court seat. But am A is still really good, no complaints.

      Unfortunately the other states I think we could get another A+ from likely won’t have any more vacancies before 2025. New York, Georgia, Arizona& a few others I just don’t see with the potential of vacancies. Of course New Jersey would be a prime target of Menendez & Booker weren’t the senators & horrible at picking judges.

      Like

  13. I was actually thinking Judge King for Gould’s replacement. Can’t figure out why he still hasn’t gone senior.

    I am thinking if Biden is re-elected (if he runs against Trump, good chance he will be), then we could be looking at another 2 years of a 50-50 Senate. That’s going to be difficult in the short term, but gives Biden a great opportunity to keep getting judges confirmed. Honestly, I think a Trump run is our best shot at a Dem senate for the next two years – fingers crossed!

    I know its tough for some on this blog to see judges nominated who aren’t always progressive stars, but every seat filled is preventing Trump from appointing a hard line conservative – you just gotta look at it from that perspective. That’s why I am OK with some of the more moderate, traditional picks. Even with those, Biden has diversified the courts to a level not seen since the Carter administration.

    Liked by 1 person

    • @Mike S

      I absolutely agree. Definitely some disappointing nominations, particularly with an increase to 51 senators but still Biden has been the best at judges of any president I’ve ever seen. I am really hoping for the economy to stay good through the election & nothing too crazy between now & then.

      Biden needs to hire a team just to walk in front of him & clear his walk way. We can’t afford any more trips, falls or slips that feed into the he’s too old narrative. Russia pulling out of Ukraine would be surprisingly amazing news before the election. I’m still holding out hope that can happen. Then hopefully Trump can screw up a senate seat or two & Democrats can salvage another 50/50.

      Like

    • Gould is one of the most moderate Dem appointees left on the appellate bench at this point, so it’s not entirely surprising that he doesn’t seem to care who replaces him – which is really such a shame given the wealth of options on the WDWA bench. It’s solidly liberal judges like Wardlaw, Moore, and Clay who haven’t gone senior that are more surprising.

      Unfortunately, I wouldn’t expect any more Clinton judges to voluntarily leave the bench at this point – they’ve chosen to stay active despite having three years at this point to be replaced by someone who won’t immediately undermine their legacy. I’ve also been frustrated/confused by Wynn, Graves, and Stranch, who are all solidly liberal and have been eligible to go senior for almost a year now. At least Greenaway knew when to step down, and let’s hope Kayatta follows.

      Like

  14. My biggest gripe with the Biden administration has not been moving quickly enough to fill seats, especially at the appellate level. I understand the need to negotiate with district court judges, but they are needlessly rolling the dice with appellate court seats.

    One area I give the Trump administration credit is how quickly they moved to make a nomination. Case in point, Judge Pamela Reeves in TN died in early Sept 2020, the Trump administration nominated her replacement SIX DAYS LATER! and she was confirmed by the end of his presidency. I just don’t see that occurring with the Biden administration. I have been disappointed with the speed on nominations this year so far. Let’s fill up every hearing date with nominees – no seat left behind!

    Like

    • Is there such a thing as toxic optimism?
      The sky could be falling, and Joe would still find something good and positive about it. Everything is NOT fine.
      I agree with Frank. This WHC is in no rush to do anything on judges, regardless of timeline so forget about nominations after a certain point.

      Biden’s nominations delays have started to look a lot like those Obama years, when judicial nominations were deprioritized (“I don’t give a shit about judges — CoS Emmanual).

      Compare this current trickle to the speed with which GHW Bush made his SCOTUS (not some lowly district court seat) picks. 4 days! I forget exactly how quickly Souter was announced, but Thomas was named just FOUR days after Marshall announced his retirement.
      If you want to see something depressing to start your day, watch Marshall’s announcement at SCOTUS. You can see two things: 1- he really was falling apart. 2 – you can start the clock at the exact moment his hard-earned legacy would not just end, but be rolled back.
      Sure, I think most of us here think that he should have just stayed and died on the bench to allow Clinton to replace him. But this would never have been an option for him, since he saw the disintegration and embarrassing actions of William O Douglas.

      —

      Now to those who are surprised that some eligible COA judges aren’t going senior. There are Reagan and Bush appointees still in active service throughout the judiciary. Why’d you think that’s so? Simple. Some people genuinely enjoy what they do, whether or not you like it. And just because they don’t go senior now doesn’t mean that they will when a Republican is president. Sure, a couple could die, but they won’t all drop dead during the next Republican admin/senate.
      Maybe I am just jaded to the idea of Biden getting more opportunities to do nothing or nothing significant on filling seats. Look what he’s doing now.

      I won’t be one of you who claim to want more but will ultimately accept the scraps that you get just out of fear that it would be worse under a Republican. Fear is not enough for me. But by all means, bon appetit.

      Like

      • @Gavi

        Uuuggghhh, reminding me of that Rob Emmanual quote. That alone is enough for me to want him to be the ambassador of any country as far away from the US as possible so he won’t be within email range of the WHC office. It almost makes me want to vomit thinking about it.

        As for the date any purple or red state seat could be announced & Biden wouldn’t fill it before the end of his first term, you & I differ in the date but I believe Stevie Wonder could see July 2024 ain’t the date. I believe you said any vacancy not announced by the end of October this year. I was a little more optimistic & said by the end of January. Hell after looking at the 1st & 4th I might have to add even circuit court seats in blue states to that list. It’s inexcusable.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I agree with your point about judges liking their job as being the primary reason why some haven’t taken senior status. That being said, for a center-right country like the United States is, what Biden did on judges in the first two years was amazing and can’t be dismissed out of hand. Even Obama-lite nominees, which is pretty much what we are getting now, are far better than the FedSoc hacks Trump was nominating, so even if I wish we’d see more professionally diverse nominees it is still better than almost any alternative.

        Like

      • Thomas was chosen quickly because Bush wanted to nominate him to replace Brennan. The WHC Boyden Gray talked him out of it because it would be “unfair” to Thomas since he recently installed as a judge.

        This was explained in I think it was ” Strange Justice.” The debate was that Bush would not get any credit from black voters so another candidate Emilio F Garza of the 5th Circuit would be interviewed. However, when Bush met Thomas he decided on him.

        Like

  16. I guess my optimism comes from the fact that the senate will more or less have nothing to do by late 2024.

    We’ve seen that the WH can move quickly when motivated. They moved very quickly on many openings in late 2022. Deandra Benjamin for example was nominated in August, had a hearing in November, and could have been confirmed prior to end of the year if necessary. Anthony Johnstone had the same timeline even with home state opposition. I see no reason something like that couldn’t happen again with plenty of time for cloture/final vote in the post election session.

    It’s purely a hypothetical, so we may never know. But I’ll stick to my July 1 cutoff, even if the vacancy is unexpected.

    Like

    • @Joe

      Those are great examples but there are a few differences between now & then. The WHC office is completely different. Klain & Paige are gone so I’m not sure we have seen anything that would make me believe their replacements have the same urgency towards the courts as they did.

      I also don’t think we will see the same level of Democrat unanimity we saw in 2022. We already have seen an erosion of that with the increase in Manchin no votes. Hell Manchin himself could be running against Biden for president by then.

      That doesn’t account for other Democrat senators being out often running in tough races. I know we all joke about Tim Scott staying in the primary as long as possible so he can keep missing votes but the reality is even with that, Democrats still could have attendance issues just in their own re-election races.

      There’s only one 2024 advantage I see over 2022 for Democrats. There is no Georgia senate race next year so we don’t have to worry about Ossoff or Warnock missing a month to campaign. But besides that all roads point to the days of the Thurmond Rule returning next year.

      Like

      • Very true Frank. I just meant there wouldn’t be a tremendous logjam of nominees like there was in 2022. By that point there should be no appellate nominees pending at all and only a handful of district nominees.

        The ambassadorships, deputy cabinet posts, and other bipartisan bills could be put off until the next Congress if required.

        Like

  17. I do agree that not having Paige and Klain is a big blow. But I still think it would get done.

    Probably would not be an A+ pick though. The WH would likely just pick whatever current district court judge or maybe magistrate/US Attorney makes the most sense and go from there.

    Like

  18. On splitting up CA9, it’s long been a pretext for conservatives to try and undercut a circuit with a liberal majority (notice how calls from the right to split it quieted down after Trump confirmed 10 Fed Soc hacks to the court). However, I think progressives should actually back such a proposal because CA9’s en banc process limits the liberal majority’s ability to correct bonkers panel opinions – with 13 conservatives, it’s not hard to draw a 6-conservative majority for an en banc panel that is unrepresentative of the true CA9 majority’s views on the law. Compare this to CA5, which has no such restriction and thus the Fed Soc nuts go en banc on pretty much every other opinion by a sane panel.

    The issue is always how to split up CA9 – as the article below mentions, the issue is that whichever states get put with CA will essentially be a sideshow since California has so many cases. I personally think that’s not that big a deal and worth it if both the new CA9 and new CA12 maintain a similar partisan composition as the current CA9. Any attempts to split up the circuit so one or both of the new circuits suddenly have conservative majorities (let’s be honest, that’s the goal behind any Republican push to split the circuit) should be recognized as the BS it is.

    https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/story/2021-03-14/splitting-9th-circuit-court

    Liked by 1 person

    • I split up CA9 in a school study. I was convinced by that exercise that splitting up the circuit won’t automatically mean that the remaining court will be conservative or that the breakaway states will make other courts conservative. At worst, any conservative result would only be temporary.

      When the idea of splitting up CA9 gained traction by partisan Republicans, circuit court blue slip was a veto. That’s since changed since 2017.
      For example, splitting off Montana from CA9 won’t make the circuit that gets Montana’s judges permanently conservative even if Montana only sends conservative Republicans to the Senate going forward. With a Dem WH and Dem Senate, we can expect more Anthony Johnstones. The opposite is also true. The progressiveness of California’s senators cannot protect it, or its circuit from Republicans putting more Patrick Bumatays in its circuit seats.

      In short, I would support splitting up the circuit. As it is, it’s so big that it can be too unwieldy. In my own reimagined “successor” circuit (it wouldn’t be CA9, it would be CA12 as the entire appellate system gets reorganized for contiguity, from east to west), all the Pacific states make up their own circuit; 5 states in the slimmed-down circuit.

      Like

      • Agree that CA9 is unwieldy, but I’m less optimistic about any conservative majority on a new CA9 or CA12 being temporary – Republicans since GWB have been very good about nominating partisan hacks who will never go senior under a Dem (Smith on CA3 was the last one I would expect). As a result, the chances of Dems flipping a conservative circuit seat essentially come down to the small chance of a judge involuntarily leaving the bench.

        Dems have not been as good at nominating judges who will go senior under a Dem president, so any liberal majority is far more fragile and worth safeguarding at all costs.

        Like

  19. I’m just finding out give it Sununu isn’t running for reelection. I know he decided against running for president but it’s my first hearing about governor. Let’s see if the Democrats can field anybody with a chance.

    Like

    • Haaaaaa… I can’t imagine them doing any worse. Maybe New Hampshire will take a page out of New Jersey’s playbook. Have tow horrible senators when it comes to picking judges yet have a solid governor. I guess we should look at the glass half full. When Menendez & Booker finally go to the nursing home & roll out whoever they are gonna recommend for the 3rd, at least the government will save money on retirement payments until they retire… Hey, I’m trying to be positive here… Lol

      Like

  21. I’m surprised liberal advocacy groups aren’t pushing harder for a stellar choice from NJ. Either way, I’ll be relieved once a nomination is finally made so we can move forward. It has been 6 months at this point so one should hopefully be forthcoming.

    Like

    • I remember during Obama’s presidency watching Bill Maher on his Real Time show on HBO. He was saying he hated GW Bush policies, but he was good at getting crap passed while Obama had good policies yet had a hard time getting them passed into law. He said Obama needed some Bush in him.

      That’s how I feel about Biden & this new WHC office. I hate what Trump did to the courts but at one point he left no circuit court vacancy unfilled. ACB was confirmed to SCOTUS in late October 2020, yet they got her seat filled before the end of the year. Biden & this WHC office needs a little Trump & his WHC office in them. The situation with the 4th is just downright unacceptable even if it was a purple or red state, let alone blue state. We already know we are gonna get at best Salas or Neals for the 3rd but possibly worse. We may get a good nominee for the 1st only because the New Hampshire senators were embarrassed into making a good pick Hochul-esse. There’s a good pick & a really good pick being rumored for the 1st so let’s hope they go with the latter. I’m not even gonna talk about the 10th.

      Like

  22. I agree that urgency would be greatly appreciated.

    Ideally all 5 vacancies would have nominees who are confirmed prior to the end of the year, but I’m sure that will not be the case. In a perfect world 2024 would be spent almost purely on filling red state and then new district court/appellate vacancies that arise.

    Like

    • I actually hope he increases his no votes on non judicial nominees anyway. Most of them will get at least one GOP yes vote or isn’t important enough for all Republicans to show up for the vote. Those commercials saying “Senator Manchin voted with president Biden 95% of the time” is much worse than 78% of the time.

      Like

  25. To recap: this week we got one (very good) CCA confirmation (yay!) and one nominee moved out of SJC (um, yay, I guess).

    We didn’t get any new nominees which, according to ancient scripture, can only be announced on Wednesdays.

    No one is teed up for a cloture or confirmation vote for next Tuesday, and they won’t work after, say, 3 p.m. next Thursday.

    But it’s okay since time is limitless and it’s not as if they’re going on a long vacation anytime soon. /s

    Like

    • @Rayspace, honestly I feel pretty good about the job Schumer has done. Especially considering most of it was done post Feinstein’s return.

      I am slightly worried about Kato, Crews, and Bjelkengren but everyone else currently pending should be confirmed in a fairly straightforward manner after the recess.

      The biggest issue remains getting more nominees in a timely manner.

      Like

      • One thing we have to remember is although Trump got 230 judges in 4 years, over a dozen of them were out right Democrats. He agreed to numerous package deals that resulted in not just Democrats but some fairly liberal judges to be a part of that 230.

        To my knowledge, none of Biden picks outside of the International Court nominee (Where by statue one of the two had to be a Republican) were outright conservative or Republicans. Biden nominees in Idaho, EDPN & Iowa were certainly not Democrats but also were good centrist picks.

        Biden not caving to ultra conservative picks might be the reason we have been so slow to get some red state picks. If that’s the case then I’m fine with holding off for a bit to get more nominees in the mold of the ones I mentioned above. I just don’t want any Chad Meredith’s for the sake of chasing 230. I’d rather Biden get to 210 with no right wingers than 230 with 20 of them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Dequan

        Not sure if you would have this kind of information handy, but do you know any of the judge’s names off the top of your head? The ones that were outright Democrats as part of a package deal (like Pennsylvania, etc.,)

        The only non-hack judge (that I can remember) that Trump appointed was Circuit Judge Mark Bennett from Hawaii. I think he was the former GOP AG of the state and was deemed acceptable to Sens. Hirono and Schatz for the vacant 9th circuit spot.

        (Which by the way, they did an amazing job getting an older moderate Republican to occupy that spot when Trump could’ve found the kookiest FedSoc hack to park in that seat for 3 decades. I’m sure when Judge Bennett retires from active duty, Hirono and Schatz will be there to pick his replacement and hopefully shepherd whatever young liberal lawyer from Hawaii they agree on.)

        But I can’t seem to remember any of outright Democrats nominated from Trump, since McConnell was hellbent on getting young white male FedSoc judges confirmed.

        In terms of reaching Trump’s number of 230 total judges, I don’t think Biden and Schumer value judges THAT much to confirm another 90-100 more by this time before Biden’s second term or Trump’s (god help us). I think they’ll be happy to reach the milestone of 200 and then they’ll celebrate 200 individuals being confirmed when they hit 206 or something. Schumer isn’t willing to shorten the Senate recess or to schedule more work days to confirm nominees, get through the mandated debate time for each nominee, etc., so I doubt they’ll get to surpass Trump’s record for a single term.

        On top of that, the rate of nominees is slowing down precipitously. If Biden can’t even get his fellow Dem senators to give him a suitable name for vacant circuit court seats in the 1st and 4th circuits (plus, I have no confidence that Booker and Menendez won’t find the most elitist AUSA, Columbia law graduate with deep ties to a campaign fundraiser to stick on the 3rd circuit vacancy). If he can’t even get those low-hanging fruit plucked, how in the hell is he supposed to get district court vacancies filled in Alabama, Wyoming, Montana, Missouri, and other GOP states?

        I’ll just be happy that Biden stopped the judicial branch from turning into an overtly GOP rubber stamp, and the focus after his reelection after 320 judges get confirmed is to elect another Dem president and senate majority to reverse some of the f*ckery going on SCOTUS and the uber-conservative circuit courts (5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 11th).

        Like

  26. Here is a copy/paste from the latest newsletter from Alliance for Justice. It is focused on state supreme courts…

    “Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Lorie Gildea announced that she will step down from the bench this fall. Missouri Supreme Court Judge George W. Draper III, the second Black judge to ever serve on the court, will retire in August. In West Virginia, Supreme Court Justice John Hutchison announced that he will not seek reelection beyond his current term which expires at the end of next year. In Massachusetts, Supreme Judicial Court Justice Elspeth Cypher announced that she will retire in January.

    In Oregon, Governor Tina Kotek released the names of 13 finalists for the Supreme Court vacancy created by the confirmation of former justice Adrienne Nelson to the US District Court for the District of Oregon. Importantly, the slate includes multiple candidates with direct experience fighting for civil rights and protecting individuals’ freedoms.”

    Like

  27. That’s a really great point Dequan, and I think folks forget that Trump actually nominated quite a few liberals/center left moderates for the district courts. That has not occurred really with Biden. I wish they would pick up the speed with the nominations, particularly in blue states. My concern is some senators are running the clock at this point.

    When do we expect another batch of nominees? My guess is early August so we can get a hearing in right after Labor Day.

    Like

    • I’ll consider it an abject failure if Biden doesn’t appoint at least 5 judges in both Texas and Florida. There are way too many vacancies to leave for the next GOP President to fill to leave them open. If the GOP senators in Texas and Florida are continuously dragging their feet on agreeing to nominees, that should be all of the proof Dick (bipartisan fetish) Durbin needs to modify or eliminate the blue slips.

      Durbin was happy to return blue slips for partisan hacks in Illinois, but cannot stand by while Cancun Cruz, Cornyn, Little Marco, and Voldemort stymie consensus nominees to be district court judges in their state.

      As much as I want Biden to leave no vacancy behind, I’m happy to leave Alabama and Arkansas courts vacant if Biden can appoint young left-of-center judges to Florida and Texas.

      Like

    • I agree with @Joe as well. There’s not really much benefit to announce another batch next week because they would get the same SJC hearing as they would if announced the week after. We have a nominations hearing Wednesday & that will be the last one until the senate returns in September.

      Like

  29. I take @Joe’s point about the progress since Feinstein, but I really wish they would at least confirm all the district court nominees who’ve cleared SJC before this incredibly long recess. It doesn’t seem like much to ask.

    I agree also with @dawson825 that we’re probably going to get to 200 at most by the end of Biden’s first term. But it would be much easier to do that if we were at 150 by the August recess, which we won’t be unless there are a bunch of nominees next week who don’t require cloture votes.

    Anyway, hopping onto the next post…

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment