Judge Ramona Manglona – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands

The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (“CNMI”), an unincorporated territory of the United States, is served by one federal Article IV court, which means that the judges who serve on the court don’t have lifetime tenure but are instead appointed for ten year terms. As such, the court is currently serving without a senate confirmed judge since Chief Judge Ramona Villagomez Manglona’s term expired on July 28, 2021. Two years later, President Biden has renominated Manglona to serve an additional ten year term.

Background

A native of the Mariana Islands, Manglona was born in Saipan on February 26, 1967. She subsequently attended the University of California at Berkeley, graduating with a B.A. in 1990 and then worked in her family’s real estate business before receiving a J.D. in 1996 from the University of New Mexico School of Law.

After graduation, Manglona clerked for the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands before joining the CNMI Attorney General’s Office in the criminal division. In 2001, Manglona shifted to the Civil Division and in 2002 was named Deputy Attorney General and later that same year became Attorney General (the first female attorney general in CNMI history).

In 2003, Manglona was named to the Northern Mariana Islands Superior Court. She held that position until 2011 when President Obama named her to succeed Judge Alex Munson on the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands. While Manglona’s term expired in 2021, she still serves on the court pursuant to a law permitting her to hold the post until a successor is confirmed.

History of the Seat

Manglona has been reappointed to replace herself on the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands. If confirmed, Manglona would serve an additional ten year term on the bench.

Legal Experience

Manglona has spent her entire career prior to taking the bench at the CNMI Attorney General’s Office. She has held a variety of positions with the office: the Criminal Division; the Civil Division; Deputy Attorney General; and as Attorney General. During this time, Manglona tried seven jury trials: five criminal; and two civil.

Manglona’s most notable criminal case involved the first prosecution for “shaken baby syndrome” in the Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Manila, Crim. No. 00-0509 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Oct. 21, 2001). Manglona led the prosecution of the defendant who was convicted after a jury trial and sentenced to sixty years in jail. Her most notable civil jury trial was in a Section 1983 lawsuit brought against three police officers on charges of police brutality, which ended in a jury verdict for the defendants on the pending counts. See Cabrera, et al. v. CNMI Dep’t of Public Safety, et al., Civ. No. 00-0022 (D.N.M.I. Dec. 18, 2001) (Hon. Alex R. Munson).

Jurisprudence

From 2003 to 2011, Manglona served on the Northern Mariana Islands Superior Court, a court of general jurisdiction that hears both civil and criminal cases. Manglona was also retained in a 2007 election to a full six year term. Through her tenure, Manglona presided over approximately 150 cases. Among her notable cases, Manglona presided over a request by Kazuyoshi Miura (a business whose case was dubbed the “O.J. Simpson case of Japan”) who was challenging an arrest warrant and extradition order to California for trial for the murder of his wife in Los Angeles. See In re Extradition Matter of Kazuyoshi Miura, Crim. No. 08-0030C (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Sept. 15 2008). Manglona denied Miura’s motion for a writ of habeas corpus and authorized his extradition to California.

As part of her role, Manglona also sat as Justice Pro Tem on the Guam Supreme Court and as a Judge Pro Tem on the Guam Superior Court.

Since 2011, Manglona has served as the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands. Of her notable decisions in that court, Manglona held that a limitation issued by the Commonwealth limiting voting in certain elections to individuals of “Northern Marianas descent” constituted a race-based restriction in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment. See Davis v. Commonwealth Election Comm’n, 844 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2016). This decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. See id. In another notable decision, Manglona held that a challenge by environmental groups to the relocation of training ranges onto Guam was barred by the “political question” doctrine. See Tinian Women Ass’n v. United States Dep’t of Navy, 976 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2020). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, but held that it should be for lack of standing, finding that the relocation was based on a treaty with Japan, which rendered the claims non-redressable. See id. at 834.

Overall Assessment

In 2011, Manglona was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to serve on the federal bench on the Northern Mariana Islands. Her record reflects little that should change that assessment. While judicial confirmation is significantly more partisan today than it was even a decade ago, a failure to confirm Manglona would not keep her off the bench as she could continue to serve until a successor was confirmed. As such, it is likely that, while Manglona will likely attract more opposition today than she did in 2011, she will likely be confirmed in due course.

196 Comments

  1. Governor Murphy has officially called don senator Menedez to resign. Murphy is quickly becoming my favorite governor. He is rock solid when it comes to picking judges, competent & now this.

    I can’t put Newsom higher than Murphy because he’s not nearly as good a picking judges. Michigan, Maryland & Massachuttsets all have great governors as well, but I think Murphy may be my favorite right now.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. When do you think that de Alba & Ramirez will get confirmed? Even if they vote individually on these 189 nominations, I have enough faith in them that I expect them to keep confirming 1 judge a week so they can say they haven’t stopped confirming judges. That would mean about 10 more judges confirmed in 2023.

    Like

  3. I’m thinking that de Alba and Ramirez will get confirmed this October (even though the confirmation process particularly with appeals court judges has slowed). It would be smart for Schumer to prioritize the more powerful appeals court judges in the confirmation scheduling.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I’d like to see de Alba confirmed as soon as possible. No reason we couldn’t file cloture on Tuesday and set up that first vote for Thursday afternoon.

    Ramirez I wouldn’t mind leaving out there for another 2 months to hopefully bring Cruz and Cornyn to the table on some more district nominees.

    Like

    • It really makes me wonder what the hell is going on between Cardin (Van Hollen is a back bencher senator, no chance he’s the one playing hardball and stonewalling a nominee especially with a Dem President) and Biden.

      Is Biden the one rejecting whoever Cardin is nominating? Is Biden turning down rockstar nominees in favor of someone milquetoast and centrist to ensure as little GOP hysteria as possible?? (newsflash: they’ll still find something to be outraged at)
      Is Biden turning down any suggestions from the MD senators in hopes that Prelogar will say yes to the nomination?

      I cannot for the life of me understand why likeminded senators and President would be unable to find a liberal judge and confirm them within a matter of weeks. ONE WHOLE YEAR is unacceptable and just emphasizes how much Dem senators don’t care about utilizing power and especially don’t care about confirming judges. It’s a matter of “eh, we tried, that’s all that matters” as opposed to “we will fill every vacancy and neither hell nor highwater will stop us from accomplishing that” Just utterly pathetic.

      The only thing that gives me a *sliver* of hope is the fact that we all thought the 10th circuit nominee would be an AUSA centrist blob and instead we got a really good red-state circuit nominee with a professionally diverse background and legal career. Am I inhaling massive amounts of hopium trying to manifest good things coming true in the future? You bet your ass I am, but that’s all I have left. 9th circuit en banc and 3-judge panels are routinely drawing conservative majorities and SCOTUS is planning another term of f*cking us all over, so just not making it all turn to mush is the best I can hope for currently.

      Fill all the remaining circuit vacancies with young liberal AF lawyers (Like the late great Stephen Reinhardt) and tell GOP senators (and some Dem senators unfortunately) to pound sand. There is no excuse to not have all vacancies for circuit courts filled by super tuesday. 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 10th. Get it done.

      Like

  7. My guess is it’s a lot more boring than that. Biden and the admin have someone they really want and Cardin is pushing for a political lackey. Most likely a family friend or former legal counsel. Thus the impasse. Usually Biden just defers to the home state senators but perhaps not since it’s Maryland.

    Either way, I agree. Needs to get resolved

    Like

  8. I’m looking at the vacancies for the Western District of Texas. One of the four vacancies is in Austin. If a package can be agreed upon, I can see state Judge Chari Kelly getting the nod. She’s been mentioned here before.

    Like

  9. I am attempting to list all judges (for now active) of the 9th Circuit from most liberal to most conservative (including the Biden judges, for those I will be predicting based on background and confirmation hearings). I’m curious to hear what you think:

    1. Sung
    2. Wardlaw
    3. H. Thomas
    4. Koh
    5. Mendoza
    6. Sanchez
    7. Desai
    8. Murguia
    9. Nguyen
    10. Christen
    11. Friedland
    12. Owens
    13. Johnstone
    14. Gould
    15. Rawlinson
    16. Bennett
    17. M. Smith
    18. Callahan
    19. Bade
    20. Ikuta
    21. Miller
    22. Lee
    23. Forrest
    24. Bress
    25. Nelson
    26. Collins
    27. Bumatay
    28. VanDyke

    (Upon the confirmation of de Alba, I think she would probably go to Number 3 or 4)

    If you guys disagree with the ranking, feel free to let me know (as long you stay respectful), it would only help my understanding of where judges’ ideologies stand.

    Like

    • @CJ

      Sung actually agreed with conservatives on a case within the last year (Forgive me I can’t remember the details at the moment), so I probably wouldn’t put her first. I would move Holly Tomas to first personally. I would move Desai up to second & move Mendoza & Sanchez ahead of Koh.

      On the conservative side I would probably move Forrest to #17 behind Bennett. I think the end of your list is fine, but you honestly could rearrange any of the last 3 & I wouldn’t argue.

      Like

      • @shawnee68

        Correct, that’s why I didn’t say Sung was conservative. I was answering @CJ question about who I felt was the most liberal to conservative. Looking at the record I’ve seen so far, I would move Sung lower on the list. Now if you have an argument that she should remain where @CJ put her I’m all ears. Let’s hear the argument.

        Like

      • @Dequan – I think it is too early to be rating recent appointees. I’ve said this many times before many of the cases on appeal are not left -right cases.

        Even if you were able to discern who is more “liberal” that doesn’t mean the result of the case would be any different. You have get another judge to agree with you and then they work out what the opinion will hold.

        It may be a worthwhile discussion, but in the end ,I don’t think the perceived variance between liberal judges makes any difference.

        Like

      • @shawnee68

        I specified in my answer in the second post that I’m including everything known at the time in my answer. So for instance if we are talking about a newer judge then I am taking a lot into account other than just their small number of opinions.

        For me, a judges background counts heavily when I give my opinion of them. So does their age which for instance is why I rank Trump judge Mark Bennett so high. Of course any of us could end up wrong on a judge but just giving my opinion based on what we know up to the moment.

        Like

      • I don’t see what the value of using your own personal biases about an individual’s background in order to rank them.

        What difference does someone background make? It only matters to me that a judge is fair and willing to listen.

        You made s statement earlier about Bennet being older and why would Trump do that. Well, Trump put 10 people on the 9th Circuit and had 3 Supreme Court picks. Even Trump knew that allowing Hawaii senator’s the nominee they wanted was not a big deal.

        There’s no one in the White House who thinks like you do. So, it’s unrealistic to expect them to find younger less qualified nominees for the judiciary.

        Like

      • It’s not bias if you’re using evidence & facts to judge something. And I do so consistently unless I specify otherwise.

        And what evidence do you have nobody in the WHC office thinks like me? I sent a letter to the WH prior to the first batch was released. They have nominated more than a handful of nominees I had in my list since. And just in the last couple of batches they have nominated my number one choice. So yea, I would argue your won’t again…Lol

        Oh & I’m not disagree it with you regarding Trump not caring about one bad pick for the 9h – Hawaii. I’m just saying I’m happy he didn’t care. You are wrong about the reasoning however. Bennett was the first Trump judge on the 9th. He had no idea he would have 10 vacancies on the court when he made that pick.

        Like

      • When Biden was elected Ron Klein was on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show “The Last Word.” O’Donnell was formerly a staffer for New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. They discussed judges and Klain said age would have some consideration but it wouldn’t be a major factor.

        I was so distressed with the Trump presidency that I totally tuned out. I did not follow which order that judges were confirmed. Were it not for my family I would not survived the Trump years,

        So, I am at peace with pretty whoever Biden chooses as a judge. No president has ever been able to not compromise on judges. They have other matters to address that are more important than a single judge candidate in Kentucky or wherever.

        Like

      • Yes they have other matters to address but judges is of the utmost importance & should be near the top of the list. And remember Biden wants to get re-elected. So he needs to get it right when it comes to judges.

        You are correct saying every president has to compromise on some judges. But most of my complaints are about seats that he shouldn’t need to do much compromising on. I as a voter want young progressive nominees in circuit court & blue state district court seats. That should be the floor with minimal exceptions.

        Like

      • The delays in getting nominees and getting judges confirmed are unacceptable. I’m at peace with whoever Biden chooses (with the exception of the Chad Meredith’s). I am NOT at peace with the 4 vacant circuit court seats and many vacant district court seats without a nominee and nominees taking over a year to be confirmed.

        Like

      • If you read the dissents to denial to re-hear a case en banc you get a sense of what the internal disputes are within the 9th Circuit.

        This guy Bumatay appears the leader of the conservatives. I see him front and center on dissents quite often.

        He wants the 9th Circuit to fall in line with rulings by the Supreme Court. I don’t see middle ground with the Democrat appointees. They are inclined to leave in place the earlier rulings by Rheinhardt, Norris and Betty Fletcher. The only exceptions are when there are no other circuits with conflicting decisions. They don’t want to be outliers because the Supreme Court intervenes in circuit splits.

        The version of the 9th Circuit we have today is more moderate than ever. They are not going provoke the Supreme Court to reverse their cases by going too far left. They know there are limitations to what they can do.

        Like

    • Nice list, as I follow the 9th Circuit pretty closely, heres how I would classify them
      Conservative ideologues: VanDyke, Bumatay, Collins, Nelson, Callahan, Ikuta
      Conservative: Bade, Bennett, Forrest, Bress, Lee
      Conservative-Moderate: M. Smith, Miller
      Liberal-moderate: Owens, Nguyen, Christen, Gould, Rawlinson
      Liberal: Murguia, Friedland, H. Thomas, Sanchez
      Very liberal: Wardlaw, Koh, Sung, Mendoza, Desai

      Johnstone has not ruled on any published opinions or en banc cases, so it’s hard to gauge where he’s at, but I suspect he is not very liberal, but who knows, he could surprise me. I didn’t expect Mendoza to be so liberal, or Holly Thomas to be not as liberal.

      Like

    • @raylodato

      I don’t think it has anything to do with any Democrat senators being out this week. Honestly the government will shut down by Saturday if a deal is not made so I just think all focus is on that right now. I doubt any judges will be confirmed this week. Schumer hasn’t even sent a cloture motion to the desk so with them being off today, even if he sent motions to the desk tomorrow (Which is unlikely), they couldn’t be confirmed until Thursday.

      I just don’t see it happening. After this week, the senate is in session next week, on recess the following week & then in session for FIVE straight weeks. I suspect we will get a heavy dose of judges for at least two of those five weeks, clearing much of the backlog. They are only taking one week off for Thanksgiving this year & then have three weeks in session before the Christmas & New Years recess. I’m hoping they use at least one of those last three weeks to clear most other pending nominees so Biden doesn’t have to renominate too many nominees this year.

      Like

    • Haaaaaa… Sullivan is a perfect example of why blue slips should at the very least be amended. He waits two years to change the process & start it all over. Let me guess, it will take him about six months to complete the process of identifying possibilities. That gets us to March.

      Then the WH will agree to somebody a month or two later getting us to May. Then Sullivan will all of a something find something wrong with the pick & tell the WH to pick somebody else. That should bring us into July & guess what… It’s too close to a presidential election & the people should decide who gets to fill the seat… So predictable

      Like

      • I trust @Ethan’s list as much as I trust governor Murphy picking judges. If he had Yvonne Lamoreux on his list & she was also one of the four names mentioned in the article, I truly hope she could be a compromise nominee.

        The issue I have is I don’t believe Sullivan is going to work in good faith whatsoever to fill this vacancy before the election. He stalled for 2 years, no reason to believe he can’t stall another 13 months. This is why blue slips anger me so much. You have a good senator like Murkowski that is willing to work in good faith to no avail.

        Like

  12. Click to access 20-15568.pdf

    Today, the 9th circuit ruled for a sexual assault victim in a Title IX case by a 8-3 vote. This is notable considering the importance of the issue and how rare it is for victims to win Title IX cases.

    The panel was pretty liberal. The 8 in the majority were Chief Judge Murguia, Senior Judge W. Fletcher (author), Judges M. Smith, Nguyen, Owens, Friedland, Koh, & Sung. The 3 dissenters were Rawlinson, R. Nelson, & Kenneth Lee.

    Like

    • @Ryan J

      Thanks for the info. It just further my answer to @CJ the other night about Rawlinson being the most conservative Democrat appointee active on the circuit courts. I hate to despise a Black woman on the courts but I truly wish she would step aside. Between her jurisprudence & the stunt she tried to pull by naming her successor, her leaving would be very welcome news.

      Like

      • I’ve noticed that Rawlinson is often unpredictable. At times (such as this case), she joins very conservative dissents, while in other cases (especially on qualified immunity) she joins very liberal dissents.

        M. Smith is more formulaic/pragmatic. He is frequently in the majority, and if he dissents in an en banc it’s usually joined by all or most of the conservatives (and occasionally dissenting with liberals if a conservative panel is drawn).

        Like

Leave a comment