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

Quinnipiac University law professor Sarah Russell has devoted her career to advocating for the rights of the indigent. She has now been nominated to a seat on the federal bench in Connecticut.

Background

Born in Boston in 1976, Sarah French Russell received a Bachelor of Arts degree magna cum laude from Yale College in 1998 and her Juris Doctor from Yale Law School in 2002. After graduating law school, she clerked for Judge Michael Mukasey on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and then for U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Chester Straub on the Second Circuit, before joining the Office of the Federal Public Defender in New Haven, Connecticut. In 2007, Russell moved to academia as a Scholar in Law at Yale Law School. Since 2011, Russell has been a Professor at Quinnipiac University School of Law.

History of the Seat

Russell has been nominated to a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut opened by Judge Sarah Merriam’s elevation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on September 28, 2022.

Legal Career

Russell started her legal career as a federal public defender in Connecticut representing indigent defendants. While in this role, Russell notably argued against now Second Circuit Judge William Nardini that her client’s prior Connecticut conviction for distribution of a controlled substance counted as a “controlled substance offense” for federal sentencing purposes. See United States v. Savage, 542 F.3d 959 (2d Cir. 2008). The Second Circuit agreed with Russell that the record for the prior plea was insufficient to establish that he had plead guilty to a controlled substance offense. See id. at 967.

In 2007, Russell shifted to academia. First at Yale University and then at Quinnipiac University, Russell supervised clinical work relating to civil cases that run collateral to criminal ones, including prison conditions and reentry. Notably, Russell argued the first case in the nation to strike down the Bureau of Prisons process for imposing reimprisonment on those on home confinement, finding that the procedure violated Due Process rights. See Tompkins v. Pullen, No. 3:22-CV-00339, 2022 WL 3212368 (D. Conn. Aug. 9, 2022). In another notable case, Russell secured a ruling that requiring a Muslim inmate to be subjected to non-emergency pat searches from male employees. See Forde v. Baird, 720 F. Supp.2d. 170 (D. Conn. 2010).

Political Activity

Russell has been a frequent donor to Democratic candidates, including Gov. Ned Lamont and DNC Chair Jaime Harrison.

Writings

As an academic, Russell has particularly focused on issues of criminal sentencing, on which she has written extensively. See, e.g., Sarah F. Russell, Second Looks at Sentences Under the First Step Act, 32 Fed. Sent. R. 76 (2019). Notably, Russell has criticized the use of “recividist enhancements” or mechanisms in sentencing guidelines that enhance a sentence based on prior criminal history. See Sarah French Russell, Rethinking Recidivist Enhancements: The Role of Prior Drug Convictions in Federal Sentencing, 43 UC Davis L. Rev. 1135 (2010) (available at https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/43/4/articles/43-4_russell.pdf). In the article, Russell suggests that the enhancements are not justified by traditional sentencing criteria, and can lead to significant sentencing disparities. See id. at 1142.

Overall Assessment

Given her extensive experience as an advocate and an academic, there is plenty in Russell’s background to draw opposition during the confirmation process. However, while Russell’s nomination is likely to be contentious, she is nonetheless favored to join the bench, and will likely be a liberal presence on the court.

146 Comments

    • @Aiden

      I completely agree with you your post. Governor Lamont has been disappointing in his SCOT-CT picks, including one being so bad she was rejected. And Russell is an A+ in my book as well. I’ll go even further. I think Russell should have been the pick for the 2nd circuit instead of then-justice Khan. The WH should have nominated Sarah Merriam for Cabreras seat & once she was confirmed & off the bench, Russell should have been the pick to replace Judge Carney.

      Like

      • @Aiden

        That information is correct. However that’s why I said Biden should have switched the seats, so Merriam was nominated for Cabranes seat instead of Carney’s. Merriam is left of center but no firebrand liberal. Once Cabranes was out, Biden could have nominated Russell, Justin Driver or anybody else to Carney’s seat since she was Democrat appointee.

        Like

  6. @Harsh

    We have yet another glitch with Word Press. Now when you reply to a post, the page doesn’t change making the blogger think the post didn’t send. You have to refresh the page then check if the reply went through or not now… Just fyi

    Liked by 1 person

    • Technically we would need another batch by this Friday. That would be 28 days before missing the next SJC slot which is four Wednesday’s form now. Traditionally the administration releases it 30 days prior albeit in honor of de Alba who is getting confirmed today, I believe her & Ramirez were announced on a Friday.

      Like

    • I would look for nominees this Wednesday, though as Dequan has pointed out in the past, there have been exceptions in the past. That would fill out hearings through the rest of 2023.

      No clue when hearings will start up in January, but I suspect we’ll see another batch sometime in December to set up the first one of 2024.

      Like

  8. Susan K. DeClercq finally received her commission so she will have seniority over Brandy R. McMillion who has not received her commission. This is good because as I have said in the past, when judges receive their seniority in order of seniority then that maximizes the potential for future Biden chief judges. Now I hope Kenly Kato receives her commission before Mónica Ramírez Almadani to continue the trend.

    Like

  10. Although only one of the two are for judges, the senate is having TWO votes today. I have been saying it makes no sense to only have one vote on Mondays. Hopefully this will be a sign of things to come.

    (At approximately 5:30 p.m., the Senate will proceed to two votes:
    1.Confirmation of the nomination of Ana de Alba to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.
    2. Cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R.815, vehicle for a continuing resolution.)

    Like

      • No I wasn’t aware of that but good stuff. I’m still not satisfied though. We need some more retirements announced. I would love for him to get one on the 8th which is the only one he hasn’t had an opportunity to put a judge on or a second one on the 11th which is the only one he hasn’t been able to put more than one judge on. I guess that’s just me being greedy… Lol

        Like

      • Dequan, the 8th circuit will not even come to close any meaningful change in ideology even if 3 republicans resign.
        A 11th circuit suprise republican resignation would be great, putting it to 6-5 republicans way.
        A retirement in 3rd would finally give Democrats the edge. Also another one and Rovner resinging in the 7th. Thats my dream

        Like

      • The 8th, like the 5th is gone for a generation. But at least I would like to get Jane Kelley some help. She’s currently the only woman & Democrat appointee on the court so a vacancy would likely lead to Biden ending both.

        For the 11th, i was thinking Charles R. Wilson more than any Republican appointee. Then my dream scenario could play out. Nancy Abudu could transfer her duty station to Florida, allowing Ossoff & Warnock to recommend a nominee instead of Rubio & Scott… Haaaaa

        Liked by 1 person

  11. Speaking of the two votes, it looks like the vote was pulled for the CR tonight, and Schumer apparently will go along with the House plan?

    That means unless something is agreed to by UC, that means nothing will be going on in the Senate tomorrow?

    Like

  12. I dont get why joe manchin voted against cloture for de alba he voted for her for district judge so what changed?
    Out of the pending district nominees that are already approve by the senate judicary maria gaston is the best

    Like

    • It wasn’t just Manchin, the usual trio of Republicans that have supported most of Biden’s judicial nominees didn’t back her for the 9th circuit either. During her confirmation hearings Republicans went after her for some of the cases that she handled as a district court judge, which caused the little Republican support she had to evaporate.

      Also, the next time you see cloture motions filed on judicial nominees, if you remember any of the executive calendar numbers, Edelman is the only remaining nominee with a double-digit calendar number (34 or 36 I think). The nominees with the calendar numbers in the 170s are also going to be contentious votes, if you see those numbers teed up (Bjelkengren, Crews, Gaston).

      I was checking the SJC site to see if the agenda for this week’s hearing and business meeting were updated yet, I imagine they’re going to hold off posting the nominees until tomorrow night in the event Sherriff is sent to the Senate tomorrow? For the business meeting, the only thing they’ll likely vote on if you’re curious is the subpoena and the amendments Republicans are trying to tack onto the subpoena, but the nominees who had a hearing on 11/1 should eventually get listed and held over as well.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. I have to disagree with @aiden on the 8th Circuit. 3 Repub retirements and replacements w/Biden noms would be significant, even if it left the 8th 7R/4D. For one, there would be a lot more panels with a D-appointed judge not named Jane Kelly, and for another, there could occasionally be a 2D, 1R panel if they are doing something approaching random assignment.

    Along with what everyone else said about the 11th and 7th, I’m sure Biden is eager to get Jordan to retire in the 3rd so he can name another DE judge there. Also, we could get parity on the 6th when Gibbons is replaced and if Griffin retires.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I am not saying that 8th circuit resignations wouldnt be signficant at all. Its just that for the three resignations which is so huge, there wouldnt be a significant change for what it is. It would become similiar to somewhat the 5th circuit or perhaps 11th but with the 5th. They are very big on en banc rehearings and they use the full court, To stamp out democratic influence and use some overly expansive rulings with dicta cristing even basic democrat interpretation just to further limit influence. So even if it became like the 5th it still would be insignificant for what the change actually is. But yes change on the 7th and 11th would be amazing.

      Like

      • @Aiden, Loken is definitely the most moderate of all the Republican appointed judges on the 8th circuit, but he seems like the type who would die on the bench. Erickson is the next most moderate and I’d say Benton is the third most (albeit a distant third).

        Fun fact: I found Benton in my mother’s Northwestern University yearbook since he was one class ahead of her there.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Also there were a few articles done recently that show Biden appointees are taking longer to have influence and are having smaller amounts compared to at the same time for Trump and Obama appointees. Especially at the appellate level

        Like

    • It looks like Lee and Kasubhai, just double-checked the executive calendar (405 and 406). They were both voted on party-line votes last week. My first guess was that maybe there was a proxy vote recorded on one of them and they’d need every Democrat to vote in-person on them, but the SJC meeting results document shows that every Democrat voted in-person on them.

      Click to access 2023-11-09_-_ebm_-_results.pdf

      Liked by 1 person

      • I remember when I was watching the SJC meeting last week, a couple of the Dems voted proxy. When it’s a party line vote that’s not allowed. I remember one of them showed up & changed their vote to in person but I never heard the second senator do that. I figured it was just me over thinking it since they were voted to the floor.

        It looks like Durbin screwed up. He must of been too occupied planning the big parade for the next SJC hearing with five nominees that had Republican senators turn in their blue slips.

        Like

      • Rewatching the tape, Coons and Klobuchar were initially proxy votes on Kasubhai. Coons got back before the Lee vote and requested to have his vote changed to as being in-person.

        For Lee, only Klobuchar was a proxy vote, she got back right before the committee adjourned and asked to be recorded as present for “both votes.”

        In the past, if a Senator votes by proxy and returns later in the meeting, they’ve been able to request having their vote changed to being in-person, so it’s not that there’s no precedent for this. For example, on the vote-a-rama at the beginning of the year, I remember on Rikelman’s committee vote this year, Klobuchar had to step out, she voted by a proxy, came back and requested to have her vote change to in-person for Rikelman, and there were no issues with Rikelman’s committee vote.

        Maybe their votes weren’t properly recorded as in-person on some technicality? Did Coons/Klobuchar maybe need to specify the nominations to have their votes changed on? Or did Durbin maybe not ask consent on that request (typically he’d say “without objection” to one of those requests)?

        I wonder if they’ll just be re-voted out on Thursday or if this means they’d need to get held over again, lol.

        Like

  16. de Alba finally confirmed!!! Around 3:20pm I started muttering “Close the vote, say the words” (“the nomination is confirmed”). At this time the Yes’s were up 47-43. Blumenthal voted at about 3:28pm (he was the last senator to vote) and they closed the vote around 4:09pm. I don’t know who was presiding, at first I wasn’t sure they were a senator but I presume that they are.

    Like

  18. Does seem like a bit of a waste. But I know a lot of the time they do random floor votes for amendments. Still, would have been great to see movement on the LA and TX nominees or some other low hanging fruit.

    Like

  19. What will be most frustrating to me, is that 9th circuit judges take so long to hear oral arguments and they dont write very many opinions. Sung has probably right at most maybe 5 or 6, probably less. I feel koh might have done 4, Sanchez is similiar. So there influence takes so long and is smaller. Compared to idk Heytens in the 4th who was pretty active quite quickly and Rosmman in the 10th. Also the first circuit judges since there are only 6, are very active upon appointment.

    Like

    • I have some level of suspicion that 9th circuit influence is heavily based on seniority. I feel like the 9th circuit’s liberal wing still sees senior judges like Berzon as their leaders, and the Biden judges are largely just in the shadows. I don’t mind Berzon continuing to be the liberal leader but I would like to see more opinions from the Biden appointees.

      Like

      • I havent seen the influence of those judges. I this yes some of those clinton and obama apointees are more respected and vote as a block. But biden judges have dissented together along with wardlaw, showing their willingess to make a mark. I just think that even compared to trump jduges their influence is taking longer and is more limited. I think Milan Smith, Ikuta, Christen and Friedland are idk yeah more senior. But judge berzon seems to have little influence, she cant participate in en banc cases for exmaple

        Like

      • Berzon frequently writes “statements” respecting the denial of en banc (which are effectively dissents except that senior judges can’t vote).

        M. Smith is one of the most prolific writers, if not the most, on the court. He writes many opinions, both liberal and conservative. Ikuta is definitely a key conservative leader, as well as Bumatay (previously, O’Scannlain, Bea, & sometimes Kozinski were the key conservative leaders).

        Senior judges can sit on en banc panels if they were on the original panel, or if they were active judges at the time of the drawing. So judges like Berzon, Hurwitz, SR Thomas, etc. are still holdovers in some en banc cases. However, the number of en banc cases with panels drawn before the Biden judges took office is waning, so soon we should see an increase of Biden judge influence. I see upcoming en banc cases (where the panel has been drawn but the case isn’t yet decided) with 3 or 4 Biden panels on each.

        Like

      • I did a little bit of digging on recent 9th circuit opinions and found key opinions by Biden judges on

        Tribal rights (Sung)

        Click to access 22-35140.pdf

        Enforcement of NLRB ruling against anti-union business (Sung)
        https://www.pfaw.org/blog-posts/biden-judge-orders-enforcement-of-nlrb-ruling-against-anti-union-business/?

        Click to access 21-70225.pdf

        Protecting Hmong community against proselytizer (Sanchez)
        https://www.pfaw.org/blog-posts/biden-judge-rules-that-hmong-group-could-properly-prevent-proselytizing-in-area-they-rented-at-state-fairgrounds/?

        Click to access 22-15931.pdf

        Like

      • Ahhh ok so I don’t completely agree. In my view, a senior judge counts as less than 1 but more than 0 (unless they are inactive). It depends on how big their caseload is; for example, if a senior judge is taking a 50% caseload, I would consider them as 1/2 a judge.

        If you look at the 9th circuit opinions, you can get a glance on which senior judges are still hearing a lot of cases and which are not hearing very many (generally, the judges who went senior more recently tend to hear more cases). Some of the 9th circuit judges are near-inactive, so I would not count them as very much.

        Like

      • Berzon is definitely not one of the most active senior judges based on orals argument cases. Also it can be different circuit to circuit. The 9th has a very large en banc caseload and no senior judges can hear them so i think it minimises their power, perhaps this is different in say the 7th circuit or the 2nd cirucit. With the second circuit senior judge can participate en banc if they were apart of the opinion. Also en banc is very rare, making thier opinions more powerful in a way ig

        Like

      • Thats incorrect, senior judges can not sit on en banc cases in any case even if they were on the original panel. This is different to circuits such as the 2nd. Also I agree, Milan Smith is a moderate conservative and an extremey senior and influential judge on the court. I just also named Ikuta and Christen and Friedland as others

        Like

  20. I gotta say I love the new users on this blog. You all are very knowledgeable & bring meaningful discussions to the subject if the judiciary compared to many past bloggers on here that were one sided or fixated on one agenda. I can’t remember her name but we had one who would advocate for George Hazel to be the pick for the 5th circuit vacancy in Texas. You could ask her what’s the weather & she would answer it’s raining but it wouldn’t be if George Hazel was Biden’s pick for the 5th. I literally thought she was George Hazel dressing in Drag on the blog… Haaaaaa

    Anyway thanks to all the new users & great input. Keep it coming

    Liked by 2 people

      • I think Judge Childs and Judge Pan were such boring nominees. Judge Childs did have some progressive rulings on civil NON UNION issues but on criminal pfttt. And she was just so moderate. I like Judge Garcia and It would be nice to have Deepak Gupta figured crossed Henderson resigns.

        Like

      • Judge Childs was such a horrible pick for so many reason. She wasn’t particularly progressive for a circuit that had no Republican senators to worry about not turning in their blue slips (Not that I care if they don’t even in a red state). Childs is in her mid to late 50’s so we easily could have gotten a younger pick of about a decades or so.

        The reason she was really so unacceptable to me was there eas a vacancy in the 4th circuit. Of course Clyburn just wanted to get two circuit court picks & Biden felt he owed it to him after he picked KBJ to the SCOTUS but Childs to the DC circuit should have been a red line. I would rather he just pick somebody he wants in a red state with a vacancy such as Tennessee or Kansas if he wanted a second circuit court judge or even nominate Benjamin to the DC circuit instead of the 4th. The only reason I stopped bashing Childs on this blog is because Irma Ramirez took her place as the worst Biden circuit court pick.

        Karen Henderson retiring would be an absolute dream of mine. Deepak Gupta, Elizabeth Prelogar or my real dream of Dale Ho should be her replacement if Biden is still president & the Dems some Joe stay in the majority.

        Like

      • She was most active some months after Greg Costa announced he was going to retire. So around the Summer of 2022. She talked over multiple write ups from Harsh on multiple nominees.

        I remember another user was tired of us bashing J Childs so I said something nice about her, saying she at least had a masters of Law. The user I’m talking about above interjected & said George Hazel also had a Masters of Law & he runs marathons too so his age shouldn’t be a problem because he’s healthy… Haaaaaaaa

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Joe

        Haaaaaa… Fair enough. For the record it’s nothing personal against Childs. When I say she she is a horrible pick for the DC circuit, I’m strictly speaking from a position of what I’m looking for in circuit court picks by Biden which is young & progressive nominees.

        Then I throw in other factors. If the nominee is a district court judge that we now have to backfill, I usually take some off my grade for them unless they were clearly one of if not the best pick such as KBJ or a future Dale Ho elevation. Throw on top of it there was a vacancy in the 4th at the time & I just saw Childs as the worst Democrat circuit court nomination this side of Julie Carnes. But as I said before Childs had a Masters in Law & they don’t just hand those out so she’s certainly qualified.

        Like

    • The only thing ill take issue with is Childs possible appointment to the 4th circuit. Absolutly not, the court has several criminal en banc polls that were evenly divided. She would probably vote with republicans, we need a actuall liberal judge so it can be a true democractic circuit court. Deborah boardman would be great but ikkkk (we dont wanna backfill district courts)

      Liked by 1 person

      • Also ill say something controversial, im not the biggest fan of De Albas appointment. I think there are better, more qualified and more progressive options for California. Her judicial hearing was pretty bad. I enjoy watching Judge Desai on the court and not so much mendoza. So it would be nice to those intellectual idk more qualified for appellate courts. I think mendoza is a liberal but should of stayed on the district court. I think his great but there were also better appointees that could better challenge conservatives. However Mendoza is still better than De Alba

        Like

      • de Alba is good & will likely turn out to be a solid liberal. But I too felt there were better choices that would have been an A+, even if you just wanted a Latina.

        Mónica Ramírez Almadani was my top choice from the beginning & she hadn’t had her district court hearing at the time Watford announced he was resigning. Araceli Martínez-Olguín was my second pick. Whine VP Harris was needed to cast a tie breaking vote for her, three Dems were out that day.

        But I still gave de Alba an A. She will be the youngest judge on the circuit, has a pretty progressive career & liberal district court run. I believe Padilla is close with her so that put her over the top.

        Like

      • I think for a blue state with both blue senators. Ill give her a B+. Yes those appointments would of being better. Kelli evans would of being pretty good, but there as so many better nominees than De Alba. Shell be a solid liberal vote, but i want more than that. Shell be similiar to Mendoza. I want people like Desai and Koh that really challenge and go at republcians intellectually especially during en banc cases

        Liked by 1 person

      • The best intellectual choice from California would have been Goodwin Lui. He likely didn’t want to go through a second confirmation battle, especially after seeing one of his fellow SCOT-CA justices be a runner up for the SCOTUS. Governor Newsom really should have elected him to chief Justice instead of a slightly left of center justice that had only been on the bench about a year.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yes Judge Liu would of being a great Chief Justice, i disagree with his choice for chief Justice. Even Kruger or Groban would of being better. I think she might be the most moderate liberal on the court apart from maybe jenkins. I dont think he would want to be on the 9th circuit, he was hostile to federal jurisdiction in some cases. And California Supreme court is straight to SCOTUS it’s probably the only court for that

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yea definitely a California justice could be considered for the SCOTUS & is probably one of the few, if not only state Supreme Court’s that can reasonably justify such an elevation. I completely understand why Lui would not want to go through an ugly confirmation battle again.

        On a side note, California state court judges/justices make a lot of money comparably speaking. When I checked, I believe they made almost the same if not more than federal judges. That should never be the case in my opinion but yet another reason for Lui not to want the 9th.

        Like

      • Oh don’t get me wrong, if it was soley up to me Childs wouldn’t be on ANY circuit… Lol

        But I get it, Biden felt he owed Clyburn so I don’t have a problem with elevating her. Just not the second highest court in the land, or of course the highest court either. The 4th will be fine as long as Biden wins reelection. There are at my last count a handful or so judges eligible right now for senior status. No way Biden goes a second term without having at least a couple vacancies on the 4th, probably closer to 3-4.

        Like

      • I have to disagree, as to the pay of Supreme court of California, i dont think its wrong that that they are paid as much as federal Judges. They are well respected and one of the most cited courts in the country. They have the most populous states, a large caseload and leaves to appeal. I think Its just the state v federal courts that some people debate as to importance. I think that people were very shocked pierre louis denied appointment to the third circuit. Cause people here are are very obessed with federal courts. I value state courts and them having a bigger role. That was my concern with elizabeth preloger, as a scotus appointment considering the arguments in the pig animal welfare opinion

        Like

      • I also was shocked and would never have done what adrienne nelson dead when she left the oregan Supreme Court, just to be a district court judge. Unless perhaps it was similiar reasoning jenkins when he left the district court to be a state appellate judge. In that they wanted trial experience instead of appellate experience. (Opposite of jenkins) i just find it funny that Adrienne nelson was on the oregan supreme court when forrest was a trial judge. Now look

        Like

      • Yea my mistake. I meant George Hanks. I wouldn’t have been thrilled about George Hazel being elevated but nowhere near as pissed as I would have been about George Hanks. But my God, that user would advocate for him daily. I was like that has to be George Hanks or a relative… Lol

        Like

    • Also on a side note, the Oregan Supreme courts composition is probably one of the best in the nation. With lots of public defenders and only maybe 1 or 2 prosecutors.

      I think also the New Jersey Supreme court has had a massive improvement. All 3 of his democrat appointees have being amazing.

      Im also excited to see who Healey picks for the Mass SJC

      Like

      • The Oregon Supreme Court is definitely one of the finer ones in the country. I wish they picked younger justices, but I’ll take it.

        The New Jersey Supreme Court is phenomenal. I trust Governor Murphy with my life when it comes to picking judges. Hell, even when he was forced to pick a Republican because of that stupid partisan divide rule, he picks older moderate Republicans. So he is phenomenal on both sides.

        Like

    • I dont think the oregan Justices are that old.
      3 that were appointed, in their 40s The newest one is 52 which isnt that bad, and Justice Bronson James graduated in 94’ from undergrad, so they cant be more than early 50s. They could still be on the court for 20+ years.
      So they arent too bad.
      I dont have an issue with requiring republicans on the court, diversity of opinions can help sharpen opinions. However I obviously would love all democrats. Yes his appointees have being amazing, all 3 are great for 3rd circuit, any of them for the SCOTUs eventually too but unlikely.
      Okay another side tangent

      Possible SCOTUS appointees;
      Montecalvo
      Rikelamn
      Desai
      Sung
      Nathan
      Myrna perez

      Like

      • One of the 7 Oregon justices is in his 60’s & two more are in their late 50’s. But yes, the rest are all 53 or younger so the majority are decent on age.

        As for possible SCOTUS picks, it depends on what justice leaves & also when the vacancy occurs. For instance, if Sotomayor leaves, I think there’s zero chance Biden leaves the court without a Hispanic. So I would say my guess would be Myrna Perez or Brad Garcia.

        But if any of the other justices left (If Roberts left, I think Biden would elevate one of the existing justices so we would be back to square one to backfill their seat, I think there are several strong possibilities.

        I will still go with my number one pick being Allision Nathan. Biden would make history by appointing the first openly LGBT justice, plus she’s from the majority leader’s home state.

        I do think Biden would consider the first AAPI justice. That scenario plays out a little scarier because I think Biden would give Florence Pan serious consideration. Even Lucy Koh & John Lee would get serious consideration. Of course, Dale Ho would be my number one AAPI choice but as a district court judge, I doubt he would get serious consideration.

        I do see some additional names getting heavy consideration for a non-Sotomayor vacancy. I could see Toby Heytens, Roopali Desai & possibly DeAndrea Benjamin getting heavy consideration. As long as I don’t see J Childs name I’m good.

        Like

      • If Beth Robinson was 10 years younger she would be my choice.

        Allison Nathan is good.
        Id also reslly consider Kelli Evans, LGBT and a poc.

        I think Biden would want a female majority scotus so i Dont think he would nominate a man. So i think myrna perez would definitely be a big contender.

        I think he is pretty concious about age, with scotus. So i dont see Lucy Koh getting consideration.

        I think Judge Sung, Pan and Desai.

        For me Desai would be a personal favourite. Kelli Evans would be fine.

        I think in 20 years terms limits and mandatory retirement will hopefully be much bigger considerations

        Like

      • @Aiden

        Everybody knows how big I am on Democrat presidents nominating younger judicial nominees. Even with Beth Robinson being born in 1965, I still gave her an A. That’s how good she is. I don’t think I would be as kind if she was nominated to the SCOTUS but as you said if she was 10 years younger, I absolutely would give her an A+ for the 2nd or the SCOTUS.

        Same with Kelli Evans. She’s just a tad bit too old for me to consider her for anything other than her current SCOT-CA seat.

        I agree with you Biden would likely take a male justice leaving the SCOTUS to turn the court into a majority female court. I disagree he wouldn’t consider Lucy Koh for an AAPI nomination. Especially now that her husband has a new job which is headquartered in Washington DC.

        Like

      • I dont see the adminstration going for Dale Ho who has made the comments he has. So i dont think he would ever be a contender unless a more liberal president gets elected which is not happening.

        I dont see John Lee being a serious consideration for the same reasons as Garcia.

        I think he would want someone with even a bit of professional diversity neither Garcia nor lee had that.

        Thats also my fear a bit with Desai

        Like

  21. Now that Biden’s had 150 different Article III nominees confirmed, I’ve updated my senior status eligibility calendar, and here’s how they break down:

    2029-2033 administration:
    121st congress: 1 circuit
    122nd congress: 1 circuit, 7 district

    2033-2037 administration:
    123rd congress: 7 circuit, 11 district
    124th congress: 1 SCOTUS, 3 circuit, 25 district
    125th congress: 1 district

    2037-2041 administration:
    125th congress: 6 circuit, 17 district
    126th congress: 6 circuit, 11 district
    127th congress: 1 circuit

    2041-2045 administration:
    127th congress: 2 circuit, 15 district
    128th congress: 5 circuit, 12 district

    2045-2049 administration:
    129th congress: 2 circuit, 5 district
    130th congress: 1 circuit, 7 district

    2049-2053 administration:
    131st congress: 1 district
    132nd congress: 1 circuit, 1 district

    Liked by 1 person

  23. So far today it doesn’t look like the senate is voting on anything, why waste time, they would’ve teed up a district vote last night and confirmed today.

    Just no sense of urgency, the senate’s almost definitely going red after Manchin’s retirement means the GOP has an extra $30-$40 million to spend on the other races instead as Jim Justice can sleep to a victory now.

    Like

  24. Checked the SJC site this morning. Still nothing new on what nominees will appear at the hearing tomorrow, but we have more information on Thursday’s SJC meeting. As expected, the nominees from the 11/1 hearing will be held over, and Lee and Kasubhai appear slated to get another committee vote after being returned to the committee last night. The subpoena is still on the agenda as well, so it sounds like between rehashing Kasubhai and another crack at the subpoena, the committee meeting will be lively.

    If Sherriff were to appear for a hearing tomorrow, the White House would pretty much have until the end of today to send him to the Senate, no?

    Like

  25. Due to Robert King doing what he did on the 4th with his senior status and many Clinton judges on the 9th Circuit still sticking around, those are the two courts I worry the most about flipping if Biden loses or the Senate flips Republican.
    The 9th is already more conservative then it has been in a long time with the ten right wing judges put on there under Trump, three of those flipping seats of centrist/very liberal judges.
    Would hate to see what could happen in the future there.
    Hope it won’t come to that.

    Like

  26. I just don’t get why more Clinton and even some Obama judges won’t take senior status. They still can work, and they get their salary and benefits, but probably without pay increases.

    God help us all if Trump gets a 2nd term, right wing judges will only be one of the many very significant problems that will transpire

    Like

  27. The nominees for tomorrow’s hearing are posted. Both Oklahoma nominees, unsurprisingly, and Manglona (Northern Mariana Islands). No Holland or Sherriff.

    Have to imagine all of the red state nominees from the first will still appear on the 29th. Holland or Sherriff could fit into a 12/13 hearing, but hopefully we have more nominees tomorrow to fill up that hearing further.

    https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/11/15/2023/nominations

    Like

    • What’s going on with Holland. I’m starting to get those Jabari Wamble vibes with her. We kept wondering why he missed hearing slots & eventually his names was withdrawn. I can’t think of a good reason why a nominee from the majority leaders home state would kiss a third straight hearing slot.

      Like

      • Didn’t they also delay Maddox’s hearing for a while? That turned out OK.

        When Holland was first announced, someone on here commented that she’s the sort of candidate that “Professor” Kennedy loves to really grill. I assumed that the initial delays were the prep team really trying to get her ready so as to avoid another Bjelkengren or Crews situation.

        But it is a little surprising that they are delaying her again.

        Like

      • It is true Matthew Maddox & a few others missed a couple hearings. But the only one I can think of that missed THREE is Jabarri Wamble. I mean she is in her 30’s & has never been a judge so I can see the need for the extra Kennedy prep. But my God, three shearing slots worth? Plus all the time between her being identified as the pick until the time she was announced.

        And she is from the home state of the majority leader, so I just don’t get it. Perhaps she had a family death or sickness. I really can’t think of any other reason as a lack of available slots in the past three hearings certainly isn’t the reason.

        Like

  28. That may just be because of timing of other hearings. Holland was announced 76 days ago. 3 circuit and 30 district nominees waited at least 89 days from announcement to hearing. Four waited >126 days: Schopler, 152; Merchant, 145; Bjelkengren, 145; Simmons, 139.

    Like

    • @star0garnet

      There were extenuating circumstances that lead to the long delays you mentioned above. in each case…

      Schopler & Simmons were nominated on July 14, 2022. There was a five week recess the next month when they would have first been eligible for a hearing.

      Merchant had a family member (I believe her mother if I remember correctly) die after she was nominated. She mentioned it in her introduction I remember.

      Bjelkengren was nominated to fill the seat of Mendoza when he was elevated. Biden announced her before Mendoza was confirmed so just like Sherriff, he did not send her name to the senate until after he was confirmed.

      Like

      • Even going off her nomination date, Bjelkengren’s 128-day gap is still slightly longer than the next group of nine with 119-126 day gaps.

        Looking more directly to your question, the number of hearings skipped that occurred at least 31 days after the nomination was received before having a hearing (after tomorrow, Holland will be sitting at 2):
        0: 129 nominees
        1: 20 nominees
        2: 14 nominees
        3: 12 nominees
        4: Abudu, Childs, Kobick, Rita Lin, Merchant, Simmons
        5: Cartwright, Schopler, Nina Wang

        Like

  30. Does anyone know the timeline or roughly how long it would take for Judge De Alba to receive her commission. Following on that, is commission date decided by the court or the individual, how does the process work?

    Like

  31. “Conservative Republicans launched what they called a “sneak attack” on the Senate floor on Tuesday afternoon, forcing a vote on the House-passed Israel aid bill.

    Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) moved to proceed to the House’s bill, and Democrats were unable to stop him because there was no current business before the Senate. That allowed the GOP to move to the House’s Israel bill, which Democrats do not support because it contains cuts to the IRS.”
    Per Politico.

    I swear, Democrats in the senate are some of the dumbest political tacticians on the planet. Could’ve set up a circuit vote on Monday night or Tuesday morning, and not needed to do anything until Wednesday if everybody went to the Israel march.

    Instead all these democrats now have a vote against Aid for Israel on their record and all it cost them was another Appeals Court judge.

    Liked by 1 person

    • So I guess they’ll spend the rest of the week passing the CR that was approved in the house.

      Just WOW, I feel like I’m going crazy here.

      The Democrats in the Senate used a 5 week session to confirm 9 judges! It took them FIVE WEEKS to confirm NINE people. In the 10 weeks since coming back from the August recess, Senate Dems have confirmed 14 judges.

      5 of those people were confirmed in a 3 day timespan. There are 21 people waiting to be confirmed!!!

      I’m done, I have ZERO faith in Chuck Schumer’s ability to confirm judges.

      Liked by 1 person

      • 9 judges in 5 weeks… Mitch McConnell confirmed 16 judges in one day. You want to know how? Because he threatened to keep the senate in session instead of starting their recess. And Democrats knew he meant business, so they gave in. That’s leadership. I can’t stand McConnell’s politics but I wish my side had his backbone.

        Like

    • I can’t believe how dumb the senate Democrats were on this. I’m not a lawyer nor have I ever stepped foot inside of a law school, yet I said on this very blog the other day Democrats need to have a cloture motion filed. If not a judicial nominee, anything. I don’t care if it was for a new janitor. How can they be this dumb. And worst of all, no cloture motions sent today so that on Thursday they can at least vote for cloture & be ready to confirm whoever it is when they return in a week & a half.

      Like

  32. Hello new posters and old hands. I feel like every time real life takes me away from here I come back to some major updates on the judiciary.
    I see a couple of newbies, so I won’t say “we’ve discussed that multiple times on here already” to the judicial commission question.

    The issuance of judicial commissions is based on one or more of three factors:
    1 – an actual vacancy. Whether the office exist at the moment (nominee theoretically confirmed before a judgeship becomes statutorily established) OR is vacant (nominee theoretically confirmed before the current judge leaves the court).
    2 – presidential delay. A president can actively delay the signing of a commission for however long he wants.
    3 – nominee’s timeline (most common). This controls the vast majority of when people “receive” (more accurately read as “accept”) a commission. Sometimes after you’ve gone through a brutal confirmation battle, and have been delayed for years, you just want to go on a three month vacation before you set up court.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Regarding 2), I wonder whether there was ever a case where a judicial nominee was confirmed by the Senate and then the president refused to give them their commission (whether it be because the president changed their mind or is upset about the nominee saying something critical about the president/ruled in a way the president didn’t like while a nominee for a higher court).

      I have not found an example of a president’s deliberate refusal to give their own nominee a judicial commission, but it could happen, particularly with someone like Trump who demands absolute loyalty.

      Like

      • Absolutely. See Marbury v Madison

        And I’ve read of various presidents holding on to US Attorney commissions as bargaining chips to force their home state senators to do things.

        This tactic can also be used to enforce package deals that, say, senators are reneging on. Let’s pretend that Irma Ramirez was in a package deal. If her nomination goes through the confirmation process before the others, the president can refuse to give her a commission until all the others complete their confirmation process, especially if one of the senators try to hold up the others in the package.

        And it doesn’t have to be like for like.
        The president can delay the signing of commissions for the TN senators’ choice for the leadership of the Tennessee Valley Authority until they release a hold on other sets of nominations in the senate.

        (None of these apply to Biden, of course, as he’d be the last president to do anything harsher than glare at a senator.)

        Liked by 1 person

  33. Hello all, it’s been some time since I last commented but I’ve been following the blog off and on and referring to Ethan’s excellent Google Doc. Actually wanted to comment to bring to Ethan’s attention a name that sadly must be removed from the list – Nicole Ducheneaux, who’s listed under the potential nominees to Eighth Circuit from Nebraska, passed away a couple of months ago.

    Like

    • It looks like Word Press is acting up again. I just got about two dozen new post that are old all at once. I’ll respond to two of them below;

      @EJ

      Rest in peace Nicole Ducheneaux. She would have been a wonderful nominee for the 8th. And only 44 years old… Sad indeed

      @Aiden

      I’m one of the ones that have criticized the Lucy Koh nomination. I know she has turned out to be liberal & to be honest that was never a concern of mine. I’ll speak for myself but when it comes to circuit court nominees, it’s not just about them being liberal or not. To be honest, almost every circuit court nominee (Particularly in a blue state) in this day in age will most likely end up being liberal with the amount of vetting that goes into the nominee before they are selected.

      For me, I take other things into account. For instance, I usually take some off my grade of a nominee if they are a district court judge & now we have to take time backfilling their seat., which was the case with Koh, versus going with just as good of a nominee who wouldn’t require a backfill of their seat in the same category such as Cecelia Wang. I definitely take some off my grade if the nominee is in or near their mid 50’s as was the case with Koh.

      There are certainly some exceptions to those rules for me. KBJ had to have her DC district court seat backfilled, but I still gave her an A+. de Alba had to do the same, but I still gave her an A. As for age, Beth Robinson & Nicole Berner are both older than Koh but I gave them an A & A+ respectively. But the exceptions are few & far in between & with the number of A+ possibilities in California, I didn’t think the exception had to be made. But I do understand she was a failed Obama nominee, so I get it, Biden wants to do right by many of the nominees that were screwed over by McConnell.

      Like

  34. @Aiden

    Everybody knows how big I am on Democrat presidents nominating younger judicial nominees. Even with Beth Robinson being born in 1965, I still gave her an A. That’s how good she is. I don’t think I would be as kind if she was nominated to the SCOTUS but as you said if she was 10 years younger, I absolutely would give her an A+ for the 2nd or the SCOTUS.

    Same with Kelli Evans. She’s just a tad bit too old for me to consider her for anything other than her current SCOT-CA seat.

    I agree with you Biden would likely take a male justice leaving the SCOTUS to turn the court into a majority female court. I disagree he wouldn’t consider Lucy Koh for an AAPI nomination. Especially now that her husband has a new job which is headquartered in Washington DC.

    Like

    • I think i’m probably less concerned with age. I draw the line at late 50s. So Kelli Evans would only apply till next year. However this is only for SCOTUS, and the hope that she would serve for at least twenty years and would retire when their is a democratic president. I just love her intellectual capabilities so far, and would love to see her on SCOTUS. However by the time a SCOTUS retirement happens, timeline etc, theres no chance for her nomination most likely.
      It was purely ig a hypothetical for an immediate vacancy.

      I personally a really big fan of Judge Desai for the court, does anyone of any LGBT POC Judges that could be considered for SCOTUS

      Judge Robinson was probably one of my top three Nominees so far easily. I just wish she could of being nominated.

      Anyway I just have to disagree as to Judge Koh, she is a year older than Kelli Evans, (Koh is 55). I just think that Biden considers age and i dont think she would be in consideration. I think Sung, Desai and Pan would be the leading contenders. Though I have a feeling that he wouldn’t go for the DC circuit (Pan), to have circuit diversity. This is something I have a good feeling on but no actual objective basis for.

      I wish Aldamani was the 9th circuit appointee, I’d definitely love her for SCOTUS. I just dont wany De Alba type nominees.

      Liked by 1 person

  35. This is so random, but I randomly have recreated the Supreme Court with new nominees if I was following a new jersey type restriction and had to recreate the bench., Clearly I have too much time on my hands and am a little too obsessed with new nominees, i’m creating my own 9 fake SCOTUS vacancies hahah.

    Here it goes;

    Chief Justice: Goodwin Liu (California SC)

    – Roopali Desai (9th)
    – Myrna Perez (2nd)
    – Elizabeth Preloger (Solicitor General)
    – Candace Akiwumi (7th)

    – Britt Grant (11th Circuit)
    – Justin Walker (DC)
    – Amul Thapar (6th)
    – Stephanos Bibas (3rd)

    I really happy with my 4 Conservative Judges, they are very intellectual and have extremely persuasive opinions and are not the ideologues of Judge Ho (5th circuit)

    I am happy with all of my democratic appointees expect possibly Akiwumi. Now she has defintely being an amazing influence and has being a great intellectually on the 7th. However I dont know if its enough to get her on SCOTUS. However I am then thinking possibly Andre Mathis.
    I think my court is diverse, intellectual and would write extremely good opinions, while still being collegial.

    I know Bibas has criticized ideological and overheated opinions. Myrna perez has being very collegial and respectful and does do stuff across the aisle.

    I am a little concerned about the lack of LGBT nominations so i am still considering changing prelogar to Allison Nathan

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think I change my mind maybe, Perhaps instead Akiwumi, i could consider Abudu. But i do really enjoy the public defender experience.

      Also Nathan is great but I believe Preloger may be more liberal on some anti
      trust issues etc. However i think for diversity Nathan could edge her out. Just not sure

      In a hypthetical nomination would you guys consider prelogar or Nathan

      Like

    • Wow. Berner is LGBT, represents a Union, was previously a staff attorney at Planned Parenthood, and has worked on cases including helping to defend the Affordable Care Act, legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act and marriage discrimination, and a successful challenge to Pennsylvania’s onerous voter ID requirement.

      Cannot wait to see how the SJC Republicans react to her.

      Like

      • Absolutely agree we might get a senate vacancy or two, with the heart attacks Berner is going to give Cruz, Blackburn and Hawley HAHA. I just cant wait!!!! And she done Reproductive Law, Obamacare, Union law and Voting law. 4 of their worst nightmares.

        This might actually be one of my favourite nominees so far. Also this nominee is so desperately needed with some evenly divided en banc polls in the 4th. This should definetly help the liberal wing of the court.
        OMG this nominee is so good. Ill be interested to see the timeline and background for her, that is revealed in the SJC questionnaire.

        Like

  39. Ive done some research and both seem to be great

    Berner is an A+, addressing the massive lack of union and anti trust appointments.

    Mangi is an A, still pretty good but nothing extraordinary, unless ive missed something

    Like

    • @Aiden, from Mangi’s law firm bio:

      ”
      Adeel Mangi is a litigator with extensive experience trying “bet the company” and high-stakes cases to judges and juries in state and federal courts around the country. Benchmark Litigation named Mr. Mangi to its 2024 and 2023 lists of the “Top 100 Trial Lawyers” in the U.S., which consists of “partners who have been venerated by peers and clients as being the best in breed at the nuanced practice of trial law . . . based on an intensive peer-and-client review.” Mr. Mangi recently secured the largest jury verdict in the history of the Virginia court system with a $2 billion verdict after a seven-week jury trial in a case involving theft of trade secrets in the software industry. Mr. Mangi also secured the largest settlement with New York state in history in cases involving the death of a state prison inmate on the morning of closing arguments after a two-and-a-half week jury trial in the Southern District of New York. Mr. Mangi has represented other clients in a variety of industries in state and federal courts around the country across a range of subject matters including commercial contracts, false advertising, and consumer protection statutes.

      Benchmark Litigation also named Mr. Mangi as a 2024 and 2023 Litigation Star and has noted that peers describe Mr. Mangi as “meticulous and relentless,” and “an unflappable whiz at everything he does.” Benchmark awarded its “Impact Case of the Year” recognition for 2023 to Mr. Mangi and his team. In 2023, Mr. Mangi was also named to The National Law Journal’s General Litigation Trailblazers list. In 2022, he was featured in The American Lawyer’s ‘Litigators of the Week’ section in connection with a jury trial verdict. He has also been highlighted repeatedly, including in 2022, as a “Client Service All-Star” by The BTI Consulting Group. This award recognizes attorneys who “stand above all the others in delivering the absolute best in client service.”

      Earlier, Mr. Mangi was named a “Future Star” for the years 2017-2022 by Benchmark Litigation. From 2016-2018 Mr. Mangi was also named to Benchmark’s “40 & Under Hot List.” The list recognizes “the achievements of the nation’s most accomplished legal partners” ages 40 and under. Mr. Mangi was previously named a “2014 Rising Star” by the New York Law Journal, which recognizes the most promising lawyers under the age of 40 who have demonstrated that they are top contributors to the practice of law and their communities; a “Rising Star” by the Minority Corporate Counsel Association’s Diversity & the Bar magazine, which selected 12 up-and-coming attorneys for 2014; and as one of the National Asian and Pacific American Bar Association’s “Best Lawyers Under 40” for 2014. Mr. Mangi is also a 2013 graduate of the Microsoft Litigation Group’s highly prestigious Trial Advocacy Academy.

      Mr. Mangi has also litigated numerous high-profile civil rights cases. These included some of the most closely watched religious freedom cases of the Trump era, which involved two different Muslim communities denied permission to build mosques in Bernards Township and Bayonne. These lawsuits were the subject of seven editorials in New Jersey’s largest newspaper and were covered extensively in the national press. Both cases eventually resulted in settlements under which the mosques were approved and the municipalities involved paid significant compensation to the affected Islamic groups. Mr. Mangi also tried a lawsuit in 2020 involving the death of a mentally ill African-American inmate who was alleged to have been killed by white prison guards in a retaliatory beating. The resulting landmark settlement included an unprecedented provision requiring New York to install a comprehensive network of video recording cameras and microphones throughout the Sullivan Correctional Facility. Mr. Mangi has filed a series of amicus briefs on behalf of a coalition of cross-faith religious groups on issues including DACA, the border wall, and on LGBTQ+ civil rights issues. Between 2017 and 2019, based upon work pioneered and led by Mr. Mangi, Patterson Belknap was awarded the “Outstanding Service Award” by the Alliance of Families for Justice; the “Legal Leadership Award” by the American Civil Liberties Union—New Jersey; the “Champions of Justice” award by the Muslim Bar Association of New York; the “Religious Liberty Award” (2018) and the “Landmark” litigation award (2017) by the New Jersey Muslim Lawyers Association; and the Trailblazer Award by the South Asian Bar Association of New Jersey. Mr. Mangi was also declared Pro Bono Attorney of the Year by the South Asian Bar Association of New York. “

      Like

  41. Lund ran for city court as a Republican, so that’s clearly a 1-for-1 exchange. Hope something similar, if not better, can be arranged for W.D.N.C. and D.S.D. The older vacancy on N.D. Ind. was the third-oldest without a nominee, so it’s good to see that fixed.

    Like

Leave a comment