Lisa Wang – Nominee to the U.S. Court of International Trade

Less than two years ago, Lisa Wang was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate for a position in the U.S. Department of Commerce. Wang is now up for a seat on the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Background

Lisa Wang received a B.S. from Cornell University in 2002 and her J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center in 2006. After graduating, Wang joined Dewey and LeBoeuf as an Associate. In 2009, under the Obama Administration, Wang became the Senior Import Administration Officer for the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. In 2012, she shifted to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative as Assistant General Counsel.

In 2014, Wang joined the Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance in the Commerce Department and in 2016, became a Partner at Picard, Kentz & Rowe LLP. In 2021, Wang was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance. She currently holds that role.

History of the Seat

Wang has been nominated for a seat vacated by Judge Leo Gordon, an appointee of President George W. Bush, on March 22, 2019. Late in the Trump Administration, he nominated Joseph L. Barloon to fill this seat. However, the Senate did not act on Barloon’s nomination and the seat remained vacant.

Legal Experience

Wang started her legal career at the firm of Dewey & LeBoeuf, where she litigated before the U.S. Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit as well as handling administrative litigation before the U.S. Department of Commerce.

After a subsequent stint in Beijing, Wang worked for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, where she litigated against the People’s Republic of China in trade disputes before the U.S. Court of International Trade. China Manufacturers Alliance, LLC, et al v. United States, 1:15-cv-00124-TCS (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015). In 2014, Wang moved to the Department of Commerce, where she again handled matters before the U.S. Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit, as well as providing enforcement guidance in duty laws.

In 2016, Wang returned to private practice to work at Pickard, Kentz and Rowe LLP, where she advised various commercial industries on navigating trade issues, including the softwood lumber, shrimping, and stainless-steel keg manufacturing industries. Notably, Wang served as chief counsel for the United States Lumber Coalition in administration litigation before the U.S. Department of Commerce. See Certain Softwood Lumber Imports from Canada: Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Proceedings, C-122-858 and A-122-857 (Dep’t Comm. 2016-2021).

In her current role at the Department of Commerce, Wang doesn’t litigate but instead works on antidumping and countervailing duty laws, and their interaction with the U.S. ‘s trade agreements.

Overall Assessment

Wang has spent virtually her entire career developing expertise in the field of International Law. Her background makes her a strong fit for the specialized docket of the Court of International Trade, and she will likely see a smooth confirmation.

42 Comments

    • Thomas's avatar

      These seats are open since 2019 and 2021 respectively, so I think it’s time to fill them again.
      Wang and Laroski have obviously both been contacted for the vacancies in March 2023, so there was obviously no effort before, but then it went forward pretty quickly.
      As there are no senators or a defined process, these posts on special courts often seem to be filled more by accident.

      Like

  2. dequanhargrove's avatar

    With two vacancies on the International Trade Court & one mandated to be a Republican by statute, this was a good pick for the Democrat pick. She’s young, very experienced, worked in the Biden administration & has a lengthy career. Her SJC hearing was uneventful last week. Hopefully she can be confirmed via voice vote.

    Like

  3. Gavi's avatar

    Sharing without commenting on the arguments in this article:

    https://www.northjersey.com/story/opinion/2023/07/31/time-for-the-aba-to-admit-its-bias-and-work-to-correct-it/70477803007/

    I am very glad that the Biden WH decided against going back to ABA’s pre-clearance role for judicial nominations. I know some of the old hats here might prefer a return to those days, even if they have fairness qualms with how ABA conducts its review.
    The judicial vetting/selection process already has too many veto points/players as it is.

    Like

  4. dequanhargrove's avatar

    I’m liking Richard E. N. Federico more & more every day. I just read on his LinkedIn that he “Represented Guantanamo detainees being tried by military commissions for alleged war crimes. Assistant Defense Counsel for Yemeni detainee charged in a joint, capital trial for plotting the 9/11 attacks. Lead defense counsel for an Afghan detainee charged with providing material support for terrorism.”

    Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        I gave him an A- but I am going to change my grade for him to an A. He is a solid nominee for a red state. I expect the 10th will have a better nominee then the 3rd & depending on if Cardin gets his way he may be better then the nominee for the 4th too.

        Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        Actually it’s the opposite. Had Delaney defended Guantanamo prisoners or had anything whatsoever in his background along with being 8 years younger like Federico, I would have hailed his nomination. The problem was he was the worst out of everything I’m looking for in circuit court judges. He was in his mid 50’s, had little in his background that was progressive & didn’t add any diversity to a circuit that is less diverse today then it was the day Trump left office.

        Now if you remember I had nothing but good things ti say about Beth Robinson when she was nominated to the 2nd circuit. She is older than Delaney but she has a solid progressive background. It’s one thing not to check one box while checking all or most others. Delaney checked none.

        Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        That’s pure nonsense. To defend people who tried to kill Americans burnishes the credentials of a nominee. Give me a break!

        We need a program that would allow people like you to spend an unsupervised visit at Guantanamo Bay. Then I would like to get your perspective after a week or so visit.

        Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        I didn’t say I was or was not a progressive. Nor did I say there weren’t progressives that were bigots. I said I’m looking for judicial nominees with a progressive background. Does that mean 100% of them will turn out that way, of course not. It’s what I want in my nominees & judicial nominees is my number one issue when I vote.

        Like

      • Frank's avatar

        Let’s not use ad hominem here, shall we? Of course Guantanamo Bay houses the worst of the worst, but that doesn’t make Federico a terrorist for defending those housed there. Everyone housed there deserves representation. What I haven’t seen anyone here mention about Federico is that he received a M.L from Georgetown in 2012, which makes him one of Biden’s most well qualified nominees. In addition he has also spent time both as a prosecutor and defender in the federal court system, which many nominees don’t bring. There is something there for everyone with this pick.

        Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        @Frank

        I completely agree with you. Both sides should truly be happy with Federico. I’m not sure you can find a much more consensus nominee that pleases somebody like me as much as he does while simultaneously checking a lot of boxes a Republican can realistically expect from a Democrat president with a Democrat senate majority.

        Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        That’s the point that I was trying to make. I had mentioned Delaney as an example of someone who was representing a client.

        I think what Dequan said was that someone engaged in Federico’s line of work is someone who be more inclined to “progressive” causes. He’s probably not a conservative.

        Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        My point was you can’t say for sure how a person will rule over the span of their career as a judge. Once confirmed, they have lifetime tenure. So since we can’t say for sure how a person will rule, all we have to go in is their past. So yes, I would rather take my chances on somebody who spent some time as a public defender or other civil rights work over somebody who has nothing in their background similar to that. Plus being 8 years younger is a plus.

        Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        Okay that’s fine but not everyone can be a public defender. The job doesn’t pay much and there less of those positions than prosecutors.

        KBJ was a public defender but her folks had money and she married to a doctor. It’s expensive to go to law school and have to pay for your undergraduate tuition too.

        Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        Oh yea, of course. And for the record not being a public defender or having civil rights in your background doesn’t mean the nominee is automatically bad. But if your looking for what I want in judicial nominees in which a Republican senator can’t block with blue slips (Young, progressive background with diversity being a big plus), can you understand why somebody like Delaney who checks none of the boxes I want doesn’t knock my socks off?

        Had he been a district court nominee in a red or purple state then that would have been fine. But I feel we should be maximizing all circuit court & blue state district court seats with nominees that check at least ONE of the boxes I mentioned above.

        Like

    • Hank's avatar

      And not a moment too soon given the BS the Republicans are trying to pull in Wisconsin. Let’s hope the new majority gets to work right away to bring back abortion rights, throw out the gerrymander, and be a real court again instead of a joke.

      But let’s not kid ourselves – Wisconsin has been a swing state (if not Democratic leaning) since the 90s, and using it to justify wasting money in places like Tennessee when there are much, much competitive opportunities is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard.

      Also, Rich Federico’s LinkedIn indicated that he has also been a military prosecutor – could explain why the KS senators are surprisingly OK with his nomination.

      Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        Great news @Gavi. Thanks for the article.

        @Hank

        We do not know if it would be a waste of money in Tennessee. I’m sure there were people that said Democrats shouldn’t waste their money in Kentucky & Louisiana yet both have Democrat governors now. Some probably said don’t waste money in Georgia but now both senators are Democrats.

        Just because a state has had a Republican for a long time doesn’t mean a Republican can’t lose with the right Democrat candidate & money behind them. And we are talking about a state that has had its young, Black & progressive voters energized & motivated recently. I think Democrats should dip their toes in the race to see if there’s a shot to win it & if they feel there is, go all in. I don’t want another North Carolina situation where the Democrat loses by 3 points with no money put into the force from national Democrats.

        Like

  7. Hank's avatar

    1. North Carolina has always been close, and Georgia was trending blue by the time Dems decided to focus on it in the Trump era – neither are anything at all like Tennessee, which gave Trump a bigger raw vote margin (700k+ votes) than Texas (630k-ish votes).

    2. It’s well documented that voters in solid blue/red states are willing to vote for the other party for governor – see Maryland and Massachusetts on the Dem side, yet you don’t see a push from McConnell to buy ads in Boston and Baltimore. As for Bel Edwards and Beshear, they’re definitely to the right of the median Democrat and have never run as an unabashed progressive.

    3. Again, there aren’t enough Black and progressive voters in Tennessee. Trump won by 23% in 2020 and the state is 16% Black, so even if no Black voters voted in 2020 and all of them voted in 24, that still wouldn’t be enough to win. Dems spent plenty of money on Bredesen, a Dem who had won in TN before as governor, and he still lost by over 10 points.

    Sure a 50-state campaign would be nice in theory, but in the real world Dems need to prioritize the races where they have the best shot of winning – TN may become one of them by 2050 or it might not, but it is definitely not one of them in 2024. What is so hard to understand about that.

    Liked by 2 people

    • dequanhargrove's avatar

      I think we are talking about two different things. I agree Democrats should prioritize. Nobody is suggesting pulling money out of senate races in Montana, Arizona & other winnable races to divert to Tennessee.

      What I’m saying is to write off Tennessee & Florida is not smart. You test the waters. Get a feel for the enthusiasm of the electorate. Look at polls. If Blackburn & Scott are showing weakness then yes, I think you invest in races like that. In a post Dobbs world where real people are getting rights ripped away from them that their mothers had, we don’t know how things can turn out.

      Do I think Blackburn & Scott will lose? No not really. But I do think they CAN lose. If all the stars are aligned, put money in the races. If not, then move in to other races. But without flipping a red state, Democrats will have to hold on to all their incumbents assuming West Virginia flips to Republicans. It would be nice to go on the offense in at least one state to get a little breathing room.

      Like

    • dawsont825's avatar

      Agreed, but let me try and steelman Dequan & Gavi’s point to try and understand where they’re coming from.

      We all know that on the federal level (Pres, Senate, Majority of U.S Representatives) that Tennessee is a heavy GOP state and will comfortably vote for whichever nominee the GOP voters choose, and whichever senatorial candidate has a “R” next to their name. What I think their point is, is that you never know what can happen and that it’s always beneficial to be ready (financially and organizationally) as opposed to scrambling around trying to find a backup plan in the event of a really bad GOP nominee in a red state.

      The IRL examples of the GOP taking advantage of a bad Dem cycle, new nominee, or weak incumbent and using that to compete for (and win) the senate seat would be 2014 (Mark Udall ousted by Cory Gardner in a reliably Dem state), 2010 & 2016 (Pat Toomey winning a 6-year term and reelection over Joe Sestak and Katie McGinty, respectively. Even though Obama won Pennsylvania in ’08 and ’12), 2010 (Mark Kirk beating Alexi Giannoulias in a very heavy Dem state), 2012 (Dean Heller winning in Nevada while Senate ML was Harry Reid from the same state), and 2010,2016, 2022 (Ron Johnson beating Russ Feingold to break up the all-Dem senate delegation from Wisconsin, then defeating him again, along with eking out a 1% win against Mandela Barnes).

      The easiest thing for a naysayer to point out is that with the exception of Illinois and Colorado, the rest of the GOP senatorial upsets (or slight election night shockers/nail biters) have been in swing states. Even with the surprise GOP wins in Illinois and Colorado, those incumbents were easily defeated in their reelection efforts. But I think that even with their defeat, the fact that they were even in the senate and made Dems spend more money in those states to guarantee a Dem win is the whole point. Not to mention that with Dean Heller and Pat Toomey in the senate, the GOP was able to confirm Gorsuch and Kavanaugh with enough votes to spare. If Toomey lost in 2010 or 2016, and ditto for Heller, McConnell and the GOP would’ve had to really sweat to get Kavanaugh confirmed.

      The main point is that I think they’re advocating for Dems to invest money and have an active ground game in those red states in the hopes that with a weak GOP nominee or a weak incumbent and an unfavorable election for the GOP. Make it so that there is a fighting chance for the Dems, or at least make the GOP waste money they could’ve used in a swing state. Recent history has shown us that Dems can benefit from a weak GOP nominee in a red-leaning state to outright Republican state (Bill Nelson in 2012, Doug Jones in 2017, Claire McCaskill in 2006 and 2012, Joe Donnelly in 2012, Heidi Heitkamp in 2012) and with those sitting senators in red states, Dems were able to confirm qualified and non-FedSoc hacks to district courts all across the country.

      Do I think it’s fruitful to dump a nice chunk of change into Tennessee or Idaho in hopes of getting a Dem senator across the finish line this cycle (or next)? Absolutely not. But I can see where the disconnect is and why there might be a mix-up in understanding the other’s philosophy.

      No one here (other than our resident troll) would advocate for Dems nationally to not contest or spend money on winnable state Supreme Court seats in swing states. Wisconsin has been good to Dems for the better part of the 21st century and looks like it will for the foreseeable future. Where I think the disconnect comes from is when some advocate to strike while the iron is hot and swing for the fences in red states hoping for a big backlash against the overreaching party that primarily controls that state. I think someone said that you don’t see McConnell buying ads in Hawaii or Connecticut because they have no prayer of winning there, and that is true on the surface, but you just know that the GOP has a rabid and loud minority in that state laying the groundwork for future electoral swings. I can definitely see understand and appreciate the enthusiasm and optimism, but some states are just far gone and it’s ok to admit that while still investing in a strong ground game.

      A Dem won’t win in Tennessee for a long time and that’s ok, just get the states you can win in and throw up Hail Mary’s in the red-leaning states to try and win where you normally wouldn’t. Even if that Dem wins and gets slaughtered in their next cycle, you at least got 6 years, hopefully a few district court judges in that state, and you denied the GOP a seat for half a decade. Take the hit, lick your wounds, and regroup for the next chance.

      Like

  8. Joe's avatar

    A bit bored today so I checked out all the current vacant district seats without nominees:

    ED California
    SD California
    D Connecticut
    ND Illinois
    ED Michigan
    D New Jersey
    D New Jersey
    SD New York
    WD New York
    ED Pennsylvania
    WD Virginia
    D Oregon
    D Oregon
    D Hawaii
    D Hawaii
    D Rhode Island

    I may be missing one or two (seems like I always do). But assuming these 16 get filled plus the other pending nominees (not counting Colom) get confirmed that would put Biden at 143 district nominees confirmed.

    If the senate confirms all current and future appellate nominees that would be an additional 43. All total Biden would have confirmed 187 Article III judges to the federal bench.

    I am assuming that some more red state packages will be forthcoming (3 rumored SDFL picks, a D. SC pick, a ED Wi pick, likely some more Indiana picks too) and additional blue state vacancies will occur. To me it seems likely that Biden will hit 200 before the end of his first term, but I think Trumps mark may be out of reach barring a significant amount of unforeseen Red state packages.

    Like

    • Ethan's avatar

      @Joe and I have absolutely no idea who might get picked for the WDNY (Rochester duty station) vacancy. The only two names on my list are:

      -Jeffrey Ciccone (1976) from the Federal Defender’s office.
      -Langston McFadden (1973). A private practice lawyer who is active in the community and would be the first Black judge on that court.

      Like

  10. Pingback: Joseph Laroski – Nominee to the U.S. Court of International Trade | The Vetting Room

Leave a comment