Adeel Mangi – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

A long search to replace Judge Joseph Greenaway on the Third Circuit led the White House to civil attorney Adeel Mangi. If confirmed, Mangi would fulfill several firsts on the bench, being the first Muslim American and Pakistani American on the appellate bench, as well as the only judge on the bench currently not to practice law under a J.D.

Background

Born Adeel Abdallah Mangi in Karachi, Pakistan in 1977, Mangi received a B.A. from the University of Oxford in 1998 and a Postgraduate Diploma from the City University London Inns of Courts in 1999 before getting an L.L.M. from Harvard Law School in 2000. Mangi then joined Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP where he has served as a partner since 2010.

History of the Seat

Mangi has been nominated for a New Jersey seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated by Judge Joseph Greenaway. Greenaway, named to the district court by President Clinton in 1996 and to the Third Circuit by President Obama in 2010 stepped away from the bench on June 15, 2023.

The Biden Administration considered a number of candidates for the vacancy before zeroing in on Mangi. See David Wildstein, Adeel Mangi is Top Candidate for Third Circuit Court of Appeals Seat, New Jersey Globe, Nov. 6, 2023, https://newjerseyglobe.com/fr/adeel-mangi-is-top-candidate-for-third-circuit-court-of-appeals-seat/. The initial frontrunner for the seat was New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Fabiana Pierre-Louis, who took herself out of the running during the process. See id. Mangi, who previously interviewed for a district court judgeship under President Trump was brought under consideration in September 2023 and was nominated on November 15, 2023.

Political Activity

Mangi has a handful of political contributions to his name, including contributions to Biden and to Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Legal Experience

While he is a resident of Jersey City, Mangi has practiced at the New York City Office of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP for his entire legal career, starting there in 2000, where he has focused on complex civil litigation. During his career, Mangi has tried eight bench and jury trials, including two jury trials in a trade secrets dispute in which Mangi secured a $2 billion jury verdict. See Appian Corp. v. Pegasystems, Inc., No. 2020-07216 (Circuit Court of Fairfax Cnty., Virginia). In other notable cases, Mangi represented the pet food company Blue Buffalo in defending a false advertising suit. See Blue Buffalo Co. Ltd. v. Wilbur-Ellis Co. LLC et al., No. 4:14-cv-00859.

Mangi has also briefed and/or argued approximately 30 appeals before federal and state courts of appeal, including appellate litigation before the Third Circuit on behalf of Johnson & Johnson in a suit against Walgreen. See Walgreen Co. v. Johnson & Johnson, 950 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 2020).

Setting aside the civil and commercial litigation he worked on, Mangi also handled a number of notable pro bono cases. Notably, Mangi was plaintiff’s counsel for the estate of Karl Taylor, an inmate who died in a New York correctional facility. See Ramsay-Nobles, et al. v. Keyser et al., No. 1:16-cv-05778 (S.D.N.Y.). After a two week trial, Mangi settled the case for approximately $5 million. Mangi also represented Muslim groups in the towns of Bayonne and Bernards in suits after permits for building mosques were denied in the towns, leading to settlements and construction of the mosques in both towns. See Bayonne Muslims et al. v. City of Bayonne et al., No. 2:17-cv-03731 (D.N.J.) and The Islamic Society of Basking Ridge et al. v. Townships of Bernards et al., No. 3:16-cv-1369 (D.N.J.).

Additionally, Mangi has submitted numerous amicus briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, Mangi filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Muslim Bar Association of New York in support of the gay and transgender plaintiffs seeking protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga. See 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). Mangi also represented various Muslim bar associations in opposition to the Trump travel bans. See Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018). Additionally, on the circuit level, Mangi represented a coalition of religious organizations as amici in a suit regarding whether the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) permits money damages. See Landor v. Louisiana Dep’t of Corr. & Pub. Safety, 82 F.4th 337 (5th Cir. 2023).

Overall Assessment

As a relatively young nominee with a number of liberal pro bono representations, it is perhaps unsurprising that Mangi has already drawn significant opposition from the right. However, it is surprising that much of the opposition at Mangi’s confirmation hearing centered around allegations of antisemitism based not on any statements or positions taken by Mangi himself but rather by others. Mangi’s pro bono representations took fairly little oxygen during an otherwise contentious confirmation hearing. This was perhaps a recognition that there is little in Mangi’s actual legal record that is likely to draw opposition. Barring anything surprising emerging about Mangi himself, Mangi is likely to be confirmed and will likely be a left-meaning but relatively mainstream judge on the Third Circuit.

321 Comments

  2. tsb1991's avatar

    The other piece of news here is that the Senate still plans on coming back on the 8th, so for the time being no Senate time was traded off as a result of them staying for a little longer this month (can we pretend this cancels out them leaving the Wednesday before Thanksgiving and calling off that Thursday? Or when they cancelled a day I think for Israel travel or Feinstein’s funeral?)

    Also, with the nominees today, they can fit into a hearing on 1/17. Had they been nominated last week they could have made a 1/10 hearing, but maybe with everyone having to be re-nominated after the New Year they thought it would make more sense to have the hearing the following week?

    The next possible hearing would be on 1/31, so we’d need nominees by 1/3 for that hearing, so that does give the White House two weeks.

    Liked by 1 person

    • tsb1991's avatar

      Normally there’s a two day lag in between when cloture is filed and then being able to hold a cloture vote, so it wouldn’t have been possible tomorrow unless there was an agreement to expedite any votes. But the good news here is that all nominees who had cloture file on this week will carry over to the New Year and will NOT need to be re-nominated by the President (and subsequently re-voted out of committee), so the Senate will be able to vote on these when they get back and not need to twiddle their thumbs for a week or two while everyone gets re-voted out of committee.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Mitch's avatar

    I now want to make an observation about Alabama. Since Tommy Tuberville backed down after a while on the military appointees, perhaps he might agree to a judicial package as well.

    Katie Britt is the other Senator and she’s made a good impression as someone who’s conservative, but can be worked with. Perhaps she could act as an intermediary between Tuberville and the White House.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Ethan's avatar

        She’s from Mississippi, not Alabama.

        I agree with @Mitch that Magistrate Judge Jerusha Adams is probably being looked at for the Middle District of Alabama.

        And for the Northern District of Alabama, I bet Magistrate Judges Gray Borden and Nicholas Danella. Borden has donated to both parties but mostly Democrats. I can’t find any donations in Danella’s name but he did clerk for two Obama appointed judges (Judge Michael Fitzgerald on the Central District of California and Judge Jacqueline Nguyen on the 9th circuit).

        I don’t have much faith that Tuberville would agree to any of those three.

        Liked by 2 people

  7. Lillie's avatar

    I don’t know why but I suspect South Dakota nominees are going to come soon.

    I know Stephanie Herseth-Sanlin said she didn’t want to be nominated but I feel like she’s acceptable enough to both sides and could be packaged with a more progressive nom. Those two senators have always seemed more reasonable than the surface could indicate.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. star0garnet's avatar

    Still expecting ~60 voice votes to wrap up tomorrow: 10 judges, 17 ambassadors, 3 counsels, 2 CFOs, 2 IGs, 2 USAs, 1 marshal, a handful of departmental underlings, a few assistant/deputy secretaries, the 4 military promotions left on the calendar, and members of whichever boards were deemed non-controversial. Disappointing that Rodriguez won’t get the labor gig.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Gavi's avatar

    @tsb1991
    “Had they been nominated last week they could have made a 1/10 hearing, but maybe with everyone having to be re-nominated after the New Year they thought it would make more sense to have the hearing the following week?”

    Please remember that nomination hearings (with the nominees as witnesses) are different from business meetings where nominations are voted on. A 1/10 nominations hearing would not affect a 1/11 business meeting to vote on the renominated folks.

    This year on 1/25, the SJC held a nomination hearing for 5 nominees. The next day (1/26) the committee held a business meeting to vote on over 20 nominees.

    At any rate, it was always going to be one (1/10) or the other (1/17), not both. I’m always a “first opportunity” guy, but that’s just me.

    @Joe,
    I always rely on you to game out the SJC hearings math in relations to the senate calendar. Hope you’ll give us a schedule for 2024.

    Like

  12. Joe's avatar

    Obviously this is subject to change, but if the first hearing is 1/17 and SJC chooses to maximize possible hearing slots (doubtful), this is what we’re looking at:

    January 17
    January 31
    February 28
    March 13
    April 10
    May 1
    May 15
    June 5
    June 18 or 20 (not sure how they’ll approach Juneteenth week but they’re in session that week)
    July 10
    July 24
    September 11
    September 25
    November 13
    December 11

    So 15 potential dates. If each hearing has 5 nominees (doubtful) then we’re probably looking at a max of 75 nominees.

    I have a feeling most of the September session will get canceled due to the elections. But, maybe they come in and hold at least one hearing like Durbin did in 2022.

    Of course, any December nominees won’t be able to clear SJC in time for floor votes anyway. The November ones might be able to if the calendar is clear, but they probably wouldn’t get voted out until December 12.

    Liked by 2 people

    • dequanhargrove's avatar

      After Durbin didn’t hold a SJC hearing during the Sunmer recess in 2022 when there was a large number of nominees that needed a hearing & a 50/50 chance Dems could have lost the senate, I don’t put any stock in the max number of hearings being held in an election year. Mitch McConnell would hold hearings on election night or in front of a mistletoe on Christmas Day if polls showed Republicans were at risk of losing their majority but not Durbin. So if the max possible hearings is 15, I think we will be lucky to get 13.

      Like

    • star0garnet's avatar

      If there’s a Circuit/SCOTUS nominee with a hearing in December, and the elections didn’t pan out, they could hold a discharge vote.

      But as of now, there are only 32 slots that are almost certainly filled of those max 75. I imagine there will be ~20 more blue state vacancies that can be slotted in, so filling any more will be down to GOP blue slips.

      Like

      • Gavi's avatar

        I guess I don’t understand what you folks mean by discharge vote here.
        Can you please name 10 Republicans who would join 50 Dems (minus Manchin, who has said he would not vote for any SCOTUS nominee in an election year, let alone in a lame duck period) to vote to bypass regular order to force a Dem president’s SCOTUS nominee out of SJC and onto the senate floor for confirmation?
        While we’re at it, let’s also subtract Murkowski and Collins from that number, based on previous positions.

        Like

      • Gavi's avatar

        You’re relatively new here, so I’ll be brief. A discharge motion requires 60 votes, my friend.
        Willing Democrats may always *nuke* the this rule with 50+1 votes, for sure. But a discharge motion is debatable, and any debatable matter can be filibustered, thus requiring 60 votes to overcome.

        Liked by 1 person

      • star0garnet's avatar

        I guess the resolution limiting debate on discharges to four hours applied just to the 117th congress, which saw 22 discharge votes pass, all with 53 votes or less. Regardless, there would be zero real hesitation (plenty of hem-hawing if the media decided to care) to nuke debate on discharge motions if it came to it.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. Joe's avatar

    I tend to agree with Frank. SCOTUS they would certainly prioritize. I’m not convinced an appellate opening would. They’d likely need to have a hearing by at least early November and go through the normal process

    Liked by 1 person

  15. dawsont825's avatar

    All this talk about what the Dems would do in the event of a SCOTUS or key appellate court vacancy (DC, 11th, 5th, 8th, etc..,) makes me sit back and laugh because I know from experience that the Senate Dems have the backbone of a jellyfish.

    If Clearence Thomas keels over or announces his retirement in October/November of that year, I can put my entire life’s saving (I know it’s not a lot, but still) on the line and bet that they would not confirm Biden’s nominee regardless of if he won or lost to Trump before the end of Biden’s term. I’m not as confident that they’d hold a hearing, because the entire GOP side of the committee would boycott and deny the committee a quorum, but still.

    I am also very confident in saying that the senate would not hold confirmation votes during the lame duck period after the election into the new congressional session. I think McConnell confirmed a few judges in that time period, and even though Durbin talks a big game about following the precedent the GOP set during the Trump years, he wouldn’t follow through and upset his “republican friends”.

    If there are new district court vacancies after August, there’s a chance Schumer can get them confirmed, but the Senate Dems don’t have the backbone to ram a judge down the GOP’s throat like what was done to them. Hopefully the total number will be 210 by the summer so everything after that will just be stat padding lol.

    Liked by 1 person

    • dequanhargrove's avatar

      I’m not as familiar with SJC rules as I am the overall senate. How did Republicans hold a hearing for ACB? Why didn’t the Dems just boycott & deny a quorum? What does it take to change a rule like that? If it’s just unanimous consent, if every Republican boycotted couldn’t Dems then just pass a rule change via UC?

      Like

      • Gavi's avatar

        The short answer is, the “constitutional” principle allows any bare majority to function and work its will even in the face of an unhelpful rule that the minority is using to block action. So, there would be a lot of nuking. It will just take will power, something Dems are very well known for.

        Liked by 1 person

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        Ah ok. So it could be done, it would just take Dems to have a backbone & change the rules. That’s what I was thinking but wasn’t sure. Well I guess we will have to dig Harry Reid up from the grave if we want that to happen. I think we could make it happen. Perhaps Durbin would be too drunk from celebrating at his latest blue slips parade to notice… sigh

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ryan J's avatar

        In October 2020, Democrats boycotted. At the time, the rule was 2 members of the minority party had to be there, but the GOP threw out that rule (good thing they did it so late in Trump’s term). So now, the only rule is that a majority of all members have to be there, provided the committee isn’t evenly split, no members of the minority party have to be there.

        Liked by 2 people

    • star0garnet's avatar

      You do seem to get off on this notion, which is pretty funny in light of having the most unified Dem caucus ever over the past seven years, to match the most unified GOP caucus ever over the past fifteen years. The Dem caucus was extremely frustrating throughout Obama’s years; by comparison the past three years have been a dream.

      Liked by 1 person

      • star0garnet's avatar

        Indeed. A conservative list of Dem senators under Obama that would have beat out Tester, Sinema, and Feinstein as the second-least cooperative Dem senator under Biden:
        Bayh, Begich, Byrd, Donnelly, Feingold, Lieberman, Lincoln, McCaskill, Ben Nelson (would have beat out Manchin), Pryor, Specter, Walsh, Webb. And there are a handful of borderline possibilities as well. And Carper, Casey, King, and Warner, among others, have gotten better than they were.

        Liked by 2 people

  16. Joe's avatar

    I think they’ll definitely hold lame duck votes on any remaining nominees. Particularly if Dems lose the WH/senate. The plan in 2022 was to do exactly that but Democrats gained an outright majority so a lot was pushed to 2023.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. shawnee68's avatar

    I have not seen any comments about the services held for Justice O’Connor the other day.

    They had several speakers that included President Biden, Chief Justice Roberts and her youngest son and grandson.

    I only saw Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh in attendance.

    I was not a fan of Justice O’Connor but it was nice to hear that when Justice Stevens assigned the VMI case she refused and said that it had to go to Justice Ginsburg.

    It was sad to see O’Connor’s work undone by Samuel Alito whom she did not care for.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. tsb1991's avatar

    The Senate is officially out, about a dozen or so nominations were voice voted. Cloture on Kazen will be the first thing voted on when they get back on the 8th. Was kind of disappointed that he couldn’t get a voice vote (or Manglona), it would have freed up another cloture vote for the week they get back instead.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ryan J's avatar

      I don’t really care when Manglona is confirmed as long as she is confirmed. The later she is confirmed, the longer she gets to stay, though I expect that she will probably serve past her term expiration as a holdover.

      I don’t expect Biden to make a nomination for Guam unless Tydingco-Gatewood indicates she wants to retire.

      Liked by 1 person

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        They really should make those territories judges lifetime appointments. She said it took her nearly 24 hours to make it to DC for her SJC hearing plus the time the senate has to spend on her nomination for a judge to stay in the same seat she’s been in for over a decade. I hope that change is made whenever they eventually agree to add more judges to the courts overall.

        Liked by 1 person

  19. dequanhargrove's avatar

    I’m reading the senate executive calendar. Does anybody know if this means all the judicial nominations will not have to be renominated in January or not?

    Page 2 states “Suspension of Rule XXXI
    Ordered, That all nominations received by the Senate during the 118th Congress, first session, remain
    in status quo, notwithstanding the provisions of Rule XXXI, paragraph 6, of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
    with the following exceptions:”

    Then it goes on to list all of the nominees pending.

    (https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf)

    Like

  20. Gavi's avatar

    @Ben has the correct understanding of the order. All nominees listed as “exceptions” will be returned to the WH and must be renominated.

    Every end of session, the leaders work out a nominations package. The two most important facets of this package are who will be voice voted before the end of the year and the nominations they will suspend Rule XXXI for, meaning, not having to be renominated.

    It’s a legitimate negotiation and not a dictation. After the leaders agree on a list, they have to take it to their caucus to make sure there’s no objections. If there’s inter-conference objections that they cannot resolve, the leader has to go back to the other and try to amend that list, to reflect the objection. This is how Hawley was able to block confirmation of the Republican nominees on FTC and the NTSB.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. Mitch's avatar

    There are three judicial nominees will have votes coming in the week of January 8.

    John A. Kazen
    S. Kato Crews
    Karoline Mehalchick

    Kazen won’t have any trouble being confirmed, he may get voice vote. But Crews and Mehalchick are different stories. Republicans say that Mehalchick has had a lot of reversals by higher courts and that Crews isn’t smart enough to be a good judge.

    Chuck Schumer must be confident he has the votes. He’d better hope no Democratic Senators get sick during the winter.

    Liked by 1 person

    • tsb1991's avatar

      At this point with cloture filed on them, it’ll depend more on Democratic attendance that week. There is risk on having cloture filed for two nominees who will likely require perfect attendance to confirm when those votes won’t happen for several weeks and you can’t really gauge attendance that far out.

      I’m not expecting Manchin’s vote on either Crews or Mehalchick so they may very well need 50 + the VP that week. But in the event they do have Manchin’s vote and that they’d be pure party-line votes, you could be down one Senator and still confirm outright or be down two and confirm with the VP, assuming full Republican attendance.

      Weirder things have happened, I still think the most surprising individual vote cast on any judicial nominee this year was Manchin voting to confirm Kato, given she waited almost two years from her nomination to get confirmed. With a wait that long I think we all assumed Kato would have needed 50 + the VP for confirmation.

      Also, someone Rick pointed it out before I could, but I was going to mention that the executive calendar has been updated to show all of the nominees who will be returned to the President on the 3rd and will have to be re-nominated. Unless the President is planning on simply resending every nomination back to the Senate on the 3rd, an interesting thing to watch for will be if some of the more dicey nominees get re-nominated like Bjelkengren, you saw that happen with Jabari Wamble not getting re-nominated at the start of this Congress.

      It sounds like the Senate will meet to convene with a pro-forma session on the 3rd, I wonder if they’ll stick around long enough for them to receive the President’s nominations?

      Liked by 1 person

      • keystone's avatar

        Let’s also not forget that they also filed cloture on Jose Javier Rodriguez to be Assistant Secretary of Labor and Joseph Goffman to be Assistant Administrator of the EPA. Those wil also be tight votes and, for the former, they very recently failed to confirm him due to Manchin and Menendez both voting no.

        @tsb1991
        I actually think there’s a good chance that Manchin will vote for Mehalchick. She was practically hand picked by Senator Casey for a spot on spot that represents Casey’s home town. Casey and Manchin joined the Senate within a few years of each other. They’re from neighboring states that share a lot of similarities. They both made names for themselves as being centrists who can work across the aisle (although Casey has def moved more left over the years). They have a very good working relationship and partner together quite a bit, if fact they just introduced a Black Lung bill a few weeks ago. I could see Manchin voting yes, if for no other reason as a deference to his relationship with the Senator from the Keystone State. I could be wrong, but I hope not.

        @Rick I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, they need to do a vote of the Democrat International Trade nominee and once she is confirmed, I gurarentee the Republicans will jump to voice vote the Republicna nominee like they did with the Oklahoma judges. I know it still sucks that we can’t voice vote them both, but it would still be one less vote and that’s a win in my book.

        Liked by 2 people

  23. Rick's avatar

    I don’t see why Schumer can’t get the 2 judges for the Court of International Trade voice voted before a break. And like Mitch said in above post, Kazen is non controversial and could’ve been a voice vote before closing out the year.. Also the judge for the Marianna Islands should have been a voice vote.

    McConnell would keep the senate in on Xmas Day and they’d serve the senators McDonalds food if it meant confirming judges.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I think Schumer made a deal to forgo most of the other nominees to get en banc voice votes for all 11 4-star military generals, the 2 Louisiana & 2 Oklahoma nominees plus a slew of other non-judicial & cabinet officials confirmed. Had they not done that, the senate likely would have been bringing in the new year on the Lincoln Memorial to get all of them confirmed before the new year… Lol

      Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      Ok on today’s adventures of Word Press, it FINALLY let me register under my personal email so I can stop using my work email. It had been blocking my personal email for about 8 months so I’m happy about that. The bad news is when I tried to post my comment, it says
      “Your comment is awaiting moderation” so I guess Harsh has to do whatever it is he does to release all of the comments when there is a glitch & I can finally use my personal email on here. Anyway, I logged back in under my work email for the time being & here is what I tried to reply…

      I think Schumer made a deal to forgo most of the other nominees to get en banc voice votes for all 11 4-star military generals, the 2 Louisiana & 2 Oklahoma nominees plus a slew of other non-judicial & cabinet officials confirmed. Had they not done that, the senate likely would have been bringing in the new year on the Lincoln Memorial to get all of them confirmed before the new year… Lol

      Like

  27. raylodato's avatar

    @keystone: Don’t say “voice votes” here unless you want to incur the Wrath of @Gavi.

    I have to say I’m disappointed with how Schumer has used the additional D vote he had this year with regard to judges. As others have mentioned, he seemed to leave some easy ones on the table as the session ended, those who even with a cloture and a confirmation vote could have easily passed.

    Schumer’s rhetoric on judges far surpasses his willingness to schedule votes. I’m at the point where I will look at the calendar in 2024 and be surprised when I see cloture & confirmation votes, rather than being disappointed at not seeing them.

    If you can’t get IT and D.C. Superior Court nominees passed at the end of session, you’re either not very good at your job or not serious about the parts you claim to care about. Either way, the chance to reach 234 or more has gotten more remote even with more D Sens than in ’21-’22. Make it make sense.

    Liked by 3 people

    • keystone's avatar

      Duly noted regarded VV’s.

      I see a lot of people unhappy at how Schumer has scheduled votes and with how Durbin manages Judiciary and with Dianne Feinstein (RIP) for missing votes due to health reasons. One thing that rarely gets mentioned is that Fetterman was also out for a good chunk of last year, so the Dems were also missing his vote for many months..

      I’m sympathetic to his health issues, but it still seems like he’s missing a lot of votes even now. Also, I think he’s a big reason why we didn’t get a nominee for that EDPA seat this year and why they had to restart that search last month.

      That’s my vent on the state of 2023 confirmations.

      Liked by 2 people

      • raylodato's avatar

        I won’t criticize either Feinstein or Fetterman for their absences. My point is that there were nominees who could have been confirmed even with both of them out. Get the easy ones out of the way at times there isn’t full attendance, to allow for the harder cases, which will take up more time and require D unanimity/@VP, to be confirmed before November 2024.

        But, no. Now they’ll take valuable floor time to confirm the IT nominees, and D.C. Superior Court, at a time when there will inevitably be absences for campaigning/illness/whatever. And Biden is almost 20 confirmations behind Trump at this point. It would have killed them to have a vote-a-rama this week, or add a couple of days?

        Liked by 2 people

  28. Rick's avatar

    So what I guess will happen is the first Thurs when they come back will be a SJC Business meeting with all the nominees who have to go thru committee again since they’ll have to be renominated. Then the FL, SC, District Court nomineesse and the 2 Circuit (Berner & Mangi) will be on calendar to. Then everyone will be held over and they’ll vote on all 20 nominees on January 18th..

    Liked by 2 people

    • keystone's avatar

      @rob good job finding this.

      Eric Schulte is listed on @Ethan’s list, so that’s a good sign since Ethan is usually so good at researching and predicting noms.

      I see that Schulte has made a number of political donations over the years to a lot of South Dakota Dems – Heidi Heitkamp, Tim Johnson, Stephanie Herseth, Paula Hawks, etc as well as to fellow Red State Dems like Doug Jones.

      He seems to be a Dem. Since there are two openings, I wonder if we might see a moderate Republican nom for the other slot.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ethan's avatar

        @keystone, thank you for the kind words. I found Schulte’s name when looking at past Presidents of the South Dakota Bar Association.

        He’d be nominated for the Sioux Falls seat but it’s the Rapid City seat that’s more urgent to be filled. From the article, two of the four who weren’t advanced (Sarah Collins, and Tracey Zephier) are Native American and from Rapid City; one (Troy Morley) is Native American and from Pierre; and one (Magistrate Judge Veronica Duffy) is NOT Native American and from Sioux Falls.

        The Rapid City based Magistrate Judge, Daneta Wollmann (NOT related to Reagan appointed former South Dakota 8th circuit judge Roger Leland Wollman; slightly different spelling) is not on my list. I have not found any political donations under her name but I did find that her husband Troy Ward donated $500 to Trump.

        Liked by 3 people

  32. star0garnet's avatar

    @raylodato The only thing (apart from blue slip elimination that Dems will never do) standing in the way of 234 is a lack of vacancies. Some stats on Article III appointees:

    Total confirmed: Trump 234, Biden projected at 221+ (confirmations+nominees minus Colom+circuit/blue state/DC/ME vacancies)

    Total confirmed through three calendar years: Trump 187, Biden 166

    Vacancies on day one: Trump 108 (filled 98), Biden 46 (has filled 42, projected at 44+)

    Nominees confirmed after first three calendar years: Trump 47, Biden projected at 55+

    Vacancies occurring before end of presidency known at start of fourth calendar year: Trump 83 (filled 40, 1 elevation failed), Biden 88 (may increase by end of year)

    Vacancies occurring before end of presidency not known at start of fourth calendar year: Trump 11 (filled 7), Biden tbd

    Vacancies occurring during presidency that were filled:

    Through three calendar years: Trump 96, Biden 124

    Total: Trump 136, Biden projected at 177+

    Liked by 2 people

    • star0garnet's avatar

      Regarding district courts, Biden has, so far, been only slightly less successful with GOP blue slips than Trump was with Dem blue slips, with a smaller sample size (and correspondingly smaller consequence). Going off of a state’s senate delegation at the time a seat was filled, or for seats left vacant, the composition at the end of the 116th congress for Trump and current composition for Biden:

      Trump filled:

      88/89 seats with GOP senators

      42/46 seats with a split delegation

      38/76 seats with Dem senators

      Biden has filled:

      101/134 seats with Dem senators (projected at 134/134)

      8/13 seats with a split delegation (projected at 9/13)

      8/48 seats with GOP senators (projected at 21/48)

      Trump’s successful nominees received 61% (118/194) of possible Dem blue slips; Biden’s likely successful nominees (including tbd ME nominee) seem to have secured 47% (51/109) of possible GOP blue slips. With 8 additional successful red state nominees (an no new red state vacancies), Biden would surpass Trump’s success rate even while having far fewer seats with split delegations. While that’s asking a lot (I’m expecting maybe 5, with a few additional vacancies), Zients and Delery/Siskel have made this a much more tenable situation than it was under Klain and Remus.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Joe's avatar

        Thanks for the write up Star.

        I think right now, it’s probably still 75/25 that Biden does not get to 235 confirmed nominees. New vacancies probably won’t get us there.

        However, if the WH can get 1 or 2 more big red state packages then I think those odds flip and Biden becomes likely to exceed Trump. We will have to wait and see. I have some level of hope in SD, Texas, LA, Maine, Wisconsin, and maybe even Missouri on some additional nominees.

        Liked by 1 person

      • raylodato's avatar

        @star0garnet: I don’t understand all your categories, but my take is that while I wish I could share your optimism, I think it’s based on the idea that every current and announced vacancy will be filled by the end of 2024. I don’t see that happening and that’s why it will be hard to get to 235. (I disagree with @Dequan that we shouldn’t count people who’ve been confirmed twice each time; if it’s a separate hearing + votes, it should count each time).

        So, we’re at 166 confirmations now, and 14 were ready for floor votes at the end of the first session. Let’s say for the sake of argument that, having passed through SJC once, each of these is likely to be confirmed. That gets us to 180. Let’s be even more generous and say that the 11 who’ve had hearings will also eventually be confirmed. That’s 191. And since it’s the holidays, let’s add the other 5 who just got nominated (and skip Colom and Holland). That’s 196.

        We also have district court vacancies in blue states, and there are a lot—another 20. That gets us to 216. Let’s add in the CCA-6 and CCA-1 vacancies, to get us to 218. And then…what? I doubt we’ll get any more nominees from TX or FL, and I don’t think we get any from TN, AR, AL, or MO. We might get them from NC, LA, and IN, but we’re still shy of 235.

        And all that assumes the White House nominates on a regular basis, that there are hearings on an every two week basis, with a limited number of missed hearing dates, and there are no glitches with absences on SJC leading to nominees being delayed in getting voted out.

        Also, as I’ve said before, Schumer doesn’t schedule votes as often as he could, which is why we had these nominees who could have had votes in the past month and didn’t and will have to be renominated.

        And Schumer is going to allow maximum time for Brown and Tester to campaign and will schedule accordingly.

        We also don’t know if any Dems will need medical time off. I’m not being critical here, simply pointing out that being out of work for medical reasons happens in every line of work and we should expect it to happen in the Senate as well.

        My issue isn’t that I don’t think what you’re proposing could happen, it’s just very unlikely. Just the fact that there are so many blue state vacancies (current and announced) without nominees doesn’t bode well. I’ve often wondered, as others on here have, about the lists Senators send to the White House. If there are 5 names on a list, and 3 people get nominated, and a fourth vacancy opens us, why isn’t the 4th name on the list nominated quickly? How much of a drop-off in quality is there from 3 to 4? I worry we’ll struggle to get to 200. To get to 196 as I outlined above will take at least until Easter/Passover, if not longer.

        Like

  34. Aiden's avatar

    Wiscosin Supreme Court ruled 4-3 for a redraw of the state legislative maps.

    This is what happens when democrats get the messaging right in state supreme court races.

    I think getting progressives in the New York legislature elected, also helped allow for the rejection of Hochuls right wing original nominee.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. aangren's avatar

    Its such bs to count republican judges biden are nominating to the red states as part of the total number of judges. I dont know about you guys but i dont like the idea of a democratic president nominating republican judges no matter how ”sane” they are, republicans would never allow ACLU liberal nominees to join their state district courts, where as in NY and california several federalist society members and conservative judges were confirmed, its not an even slate at all. If ACLU or being a board member of rutgers law school like adeel mangi or any other liberal organization with liberal leanings is a red flag then any conservative leaning group should be seen the same by liberal senators. I wont pretend, i am never okay with biden nominating any republicans, rather the seat be vacant, dont waste valuable floor time with this bs

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Sounds like you’re advocating getting rid of blue slips. Same thing I’ve advocated for years. But unfortunately as long as there’s blue slips, deals will have to be made to get seats filled.

      To be fair, Trump put some liberal nominees on the bench in blue states as well. Not any ACLU lawyers like you mentioned, but judges who were part of the American Constitution Society such as Stephanie Davis (Biden later elevated her to the 6th) & public defenders. But I would rather blue slips be a thing of the past altogether personally.

      Like

      • Thomas's avatar

        Priority has for me to keep the judiciary working.
        I know most people here think different and are focused on political reasons, tactical and stratigic games.
        I have no problem with abolishing the blue slip, but that isn’t realistic at the moment.
        Those folks, who are counting the numbers of Trump and Biden should be also in favor to fill these seats, where you get no blue slip for a ACLU lawyer or a public defender from the red home state senator.
        And filling especially those seats in red states with at least moderate judges should at least slightly re-balancing the judiciary.
        Finally, as you see from the well-documented coverage of the Viken-vacancy in South Dakota, that it is difficult to find a Democratic lawyer in a heavily red rural state, it must be even worse in Wyoming, where with an active eighty-four years old Reagan appointee the situation might become more unstable at any moment, it’s in the interest of both sides to fill it.
        Additionally Biden has much impact in some circuits, like the First, Second and Ninth – but very few in other ones like the Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh – and appointed judges in just a little more than half of the states, so there is space for more.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Joe's avatar

      Aangren, I would be in favor of abolishing blue slips as well. It’s also worth pointing out that several Judges (KBJ, Pan, de Alba, etc) are being counted twice.

      That being said, since this is the only real objective measurement we have to go by, it’s what I’m sticking to. Besides, the opposite can be said for Trump, who appointed several Dems.

      Liked by 1 person

    • star0garnet's avatar

      All or nothing is rarely a winning approach to anything, let alone politics. The world is a much better place because 80 of Trump’s 174 district judges had to get Democratic sign off. Sure, there are some horrid ones among them, but that’s a split of about 20 horrid, 20 bad, 20 fine, 20 good. Without blue slips, there would halve been an even split between horrid and bad with a handful of fine, and there are only 80 of them, rather than 122.

      Biden’s 22 red state nominees are pretty much an even split of fine and good. There may be one or a few bad or worse ones among them that will emerge over their tenures, but they’re probably all to the left of who Trump would have appointed, save Leibowitz, whose ideology is a question mark and I’d imagine would get a patronage seat anyway. Every president with more than a few appointments has appointed judges they fervently disagree with, and for Biden, that’s a historically low rate.

      Blue slips favor Dems, because they represent more people, who have more judges, and that will be even more true if they manage to win over TX and NC in the coming years. Even without that, the gulf is so wide that it holds true if Dem senators give in slightly more often to GOP presidents than vice versa. If 30 fewer fine or better judges in GOP states is the payoff for 80 fewer bad or worse judges in Dem states, sign me up.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        “Blue slips favor Dems” is a statement I completely disagree with. And for several reason;

        First, Democrat senators play much nicer with Republican presidents than Republican senators do with Democrat presidents. So with blue slips still in play, that favors Republicans since they would get judges either way. But Democrats don’t get judges in numerous red states with blue slips in play.

        Second, Democrats have won the presidential popular vote in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections. O the likelihood is we are going to have a Democrat president in the White House. With the senate disproportionately tilted towards rural states (AKA Republicans), that gives the GOP an overwhelming advantage.

        Like

      • star0garnet's avatar

        I just see it as so overwhelmingly true, and will be for any foreseeable political future that I guess we will just have to disagree.

        The number of senators willing to play ball is irrelevant. Only a few GOP states have enough judges to register on the scales. That Biden’s playing ball with them is also the only reason there’s a chance of some judicial confirmations in the likeliest political future (second Biden term with a GOP senate).

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I honestly have no problem with Biden nominating a small number of red state Republicans that are just right of center. My bigger problem with blue slips is Republicans get intra conservatives in blue states as part of their package deal. If Democrats got liberal judges in red states I wouldn’t be so against them. But we can’t even get a left of center Black man in Mississippi. No chance of a reproductive rights or ACLU nominee in those states. That’s what upsets me the most.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Ethan's avatar

        @ star0garnet,

        When I met Senator Ossoff (this past Spring), he had a similar mindset. He said that while there were currently more vacancies in red states, that there are more total seats in blue states and asked me “do you really want Republicans picking who they want on the Southern District of New York?”

        I didn’t get a chance to reply directly since there were lots of other people around but my mentality regarding that is that vacancies on the Southern District of New York won’t arise during Republican administrations unless it’s another Republican appointee or if there’s a death.

        I may be more in favor of gradual changes (requiring only one Senator to turn in their blue slip or giving Senators a strict deadline of when they can submit names and if they don’t, the White House just picks whoever they want) than getting rid of them completely for district court nominees overnight. But I wouldn’t complain if they completely went the way of the dinosaur. Even the New York Times Editorial Board called for their elimination.

        Liked by 1 person

  36. Mitch's avatar

    One possibility that I can see for the vacancies in Missouri: the Biden Administration and the U.S. Senators agree to fill three of the vacancies, with the Senators choosing one nominee, and the fourth one is left vacant until after the election.

    As for Josh Hawley’s statement about not voting for pro-Roe judges, he could give them the blue slip but not vote for them on the floor.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ethan's avatar

      @Mitch,

      I just looked up the political donation histories of all the St. Louis based Eastern District of Missouri Magistrate Judges under the age of 60:

      -John Bodenhausen (born c. 1972)- No donations that I could find under his name but he did clerk for a George H.W. Bush appointed judge (David Hansen on the 8th circuit) and is a former AUSA.

      -Noelle Collins (born c. 1971)- I found only one donation (a $100 donation to former Democrat Missouri Governor Jay Nixon in 2012) under her name. She is a Black woman and was an AUSA prior to joining the bench in 2013. Interestingly, she worked as a magazine editor prior to attending law school.

      -Joseph Dueker (born c. 1967)- He was a career local prosecutor prior to being appointed to the state bench in Missouri. His one donation ever is to the current Democrat St. Louis County Executive Sam Page.

      -Rodney Holmes (born c. 1972)- He is Black and worked as an AUSA AND as an Assistant Federal Public Defender (but as an AUSA for longer) prior to joining the bench. No donations under his name that I could find.

      -Shirley Padmore Mensah (born c. 1969)- She is the Chief Magistrate Judge for the district. She came to the US at the age of 10 as a refugee from Liberia following a military coup. This article (https://molawyersmedia.com/2022/05/09/wja-2022-shirley-padmore-mensah/) mentions how growing up in Liberia surrounded by lawlessness gave her an appreciation for the rule of law. She was a firm Partner prior to joining the bench and all of her donations (none more than $300) have been to Democrats.

      -Stephen Welby (born c. 1966)- He was previously the Federal Public Defender for the Southern District of Illinois. He has made one donation (a $100 donation to a Democrat member of the Missouri House in 2007).
      If Schmitt and Hawley can’t even support John Bodenhausen and Dueker, I have no hope.

      With one of the pending vacancies (Rodney Sippel) having chambers in both the Eastern AND Western Districts of Missouri, I wonder if it’s possible they want one of the nominees to be from that part of the state.
      In that case, one name I’d keep an eye on is Jefferson City attorney Heidi Vollet (born c. 1974). She clerked for Justice Rehnquist but has donated almost exclusively to Democrats aside from a $150 donation Senator Schmitt way back in 2007 when he was just an Alderman for the city of Glendale, Missouri.

      Speaking of Schmitt, while a lot of attention regarding negotiations is paid to Hawley, Schmitt is no moderate, as he is currently holding up the promotion of a SINGLE Air Force Colonel (Col. Benjamin Jonsson) to Brigadier General because of an op-ed he wrote in Air Force times about “racial blind spots” in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Jamie's avatar

      Other than Neomi Rao and perhaps Justin Walker, is there any other judge of either party that could side with Trump on this? I doubt it. Trump’s main purpose is to delay, not to actually win this case. The real question here is speed. Rejecting it quickly and letting SCOTUS deal with it (probably by denying cert) is of paramount importance.

      Liked by 1 person

  42. dequanhargrove's avatar

    @raylodato

    I often wonder the same thing in response to your question ” If there are 5 names on a list, and 3 people get nominated, and a fourth vacancy opens us, why isn’t the 4th name on the list nominated quickly?”

    I assume there could be a number of reasons why but none of them great reasons. In the case of the NDI, I know there were two recommendations from the original list & now we have two pending vacancies. One of the two recommended got a job in the governor’s office. Perhaps she didn’t want to leave the job of a blue state governor who likely will be running for president in 2028.

    Like

    • Frank's avatar

      There are very good reasons why that is done. It gives other candidates a chance to apply or reapply with their updated qualifications, and it also allows for a backup nominee to be chosen more quickly in the event the background check for the initial choice turns up something unexpected. As you alluded to, the remaining candidates on the list might simply not be interested in being a judge anymore.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Gavi's avatar

      We’ve discussed this so you know the answer, you probably just reject it or don’t think it’s a great reason as you said above.
      As we discussed, it seems that some senators like to freshen up their lists to give other potential candidates the opportunity to apply. You must know by now that I’m no advocate for slouchiness when it comes to filling vacancies, but I don’t think that strategy is unreasonable.
      This is especially the case when a new vacancy arises in a different duty station from the unselected candidates on the list.
      Obviously, there’s a time and place for everything, so the more pressed for time we are (elections, judicial emergencies, etc.) the less I think they should restart a recommendation list.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        I guess for me the NDIL is the hardest for me to see a new list because I though Shelley & Gowen should have been 2 of the first 3 chosen from the list, along with Maldonado, I’m the first place. So of they decided they didn’t want the job anymore than that’s fine. I hope that is the reason & not any of the other reasons mentioned, which are all good reasons given, I would just hate for that to be the reason. This new list sucks. There’s maybe one or two that I would say is possibly as good as Shelley & Gowen.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Gavi's avatar

        I agree with you on the quality of the new list, so my post above wasn’t in defense of that. The opposite could have easily been true: a new list could have produced a much better line up of candidates. Working on a new list isn’t the problem, it’s the senators (most likely Durbin, in this case). But in fairness to the IL senators, the WH (the old WHCO?) is to blame for not going with Shelley & Gowen in the first place. The IL sens did their part by including them on their recommendation list.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Frank's avatar

        It isn’t that unusual or crazy to see someone nominated around that age. Just remembering some Obama nominees off the top of my head, James A. Soto and John W. deGravelles were each 64 when they were confirmed to the district court. I agree with Ethan though that it would appear unlikely that someone would be interested in a new judicial post after just retiring from a different one, and I’d be shocked if Hawley or Schmitt turned in a blue slip for anyone who isn’t a Republican/FedSoc hack.

        Liked by 1 person

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        @Frank

        I would have to amend one thing about your sentence “It isn’t that unusual or crazy to see someone nominated around that age.”. I would say it may not have been that unusual BEFORE, but not anymore.

        Obama nominated numerous judges in their 60’s because of factors that don’t exist in anymore. One of those reasons is the filibuster. As much as I hate blue slips still existing today, giving two Republican home state senators the ability to block a nominee, the filibuster was an additional layer. Even with the senate majority & both blue slips turned in, a nominee can still be blocked if they couldn’t get 60 votes for confirmation. So that was another layer that was added to make a president pick an older nominee to make them more attractive to get 60 votes. We don’t have that problem now so once you get somebody who the two home state senators sign off on, you’re more likely to get that nominee confirmed now with ethe senate majority compared to the times you gave examples of above.

        Like

    • Gavi's avatar

      As you all should know, I don’t care about an excess of YAY votes on confirmations. I will never blush at bare majority confirmations. That said, it would be an outrage if Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski vote against Mangi over this issue. Forgive the hyperbole, but this is one of the biggest fake outrages in confirmation history. They literally could not pin anything HE said or did on him. So they attacked him collaterally. In the moment I loved that they were losing their minds because it was very entertaining.
      But looking back, it’s no laughing matter. It’s an absolute disgrace. But with this Republican Party, what else is new?

      Liked by 3 people

  46. Joe's avatar

    I am with you Gavi. The final vote doesn’t really matter as long as there are more yays than nays. Andre Mathis is just as much of a judge as Irma Ramirez.

    That being said, I agree, it would be encouraging for civility and norms if Collins and Murkowski (and Manchin) all voted for Mangi.

    Liked by 1 person

  47. Lillie's avatar

    The hearing for him was disgusting. Normally I like all of the fake republican outrage tears but something about this felt different and it was like he was trapped in a cage and couldn’t do anything.

    It was blatant dog whistling. All of them should be ashamed of themselves and the dems should be ashamed that this happened in the first place and they didn’t do anything to stop or combat it.

    Liked by 1 person

  48. Aiden's avatar

    The petitiom for deletion of Joshua Kolars page has being closed. So the page gets to stay! Finally let’s run has being stopped, even if its only once.

    Hopefully this can mean the beginning of a change for wikipedia on the judiciary

    Liked by 4 people

    • dequanhargrove's avatar

      Haaaaaaa… Uh oh. Somebody better put the Letsrun idiot on suicide watch. The nut case has devoted his entire life to taking down Wikipedia pages. He even went so far as to finding this blog, spying on us then going back to Wikipedia to post our comments on there without ever revealing himself on here.

      I wish I had as much optimism as some of you all, but this guy truly has no life other than Wikipedia. He truly ruined Wikipedia which I use to go on & enjoy. But now that I hear this news, maybe I’ll log on this weekend for the hell of it. I am sure I’ll get a kick out of whatever bull shit logic he tried to use to get the page of a circuit court nominee deleted. What an idiot & pathetic waste of human life he is.

      Shame on Wikipedia for allowing somebody so stupid to ruin their site. I would write them myself but he’s probably spying on this page right now so I’m sure he will just copy/paste my comments & send it to them anyway… Lol

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Jaime

        Nope. The Letsrun piece of crap was never man enough to post on here. He just found this site somehow, copy/paste the comments on Wikipedia & proceeded to get some users blocked from commenting or being able to vote on future deletion request pages. In my case, he & another user continued to tag me/send me messages for NINE straight days. This was even after I asked them to stop after the third day.

        He’s truly a piece of shit to be honest. I wouldn’t have as much of a problem with him if he actually identified himself on this blog so we could reply to him. But to simply come on here to spy, copy & paste our words onto another site & release our information on that site, all without our permission, truly shows me how worthless he is. Which is probably the reason his whole life is dedicated to a cause most people with comment sense thinks is beyond dumb.

        I use to be a prolific Wikipedia user including posting the pics of the nominees pages. But after that I stopped being interested in Wikipedia, which is a shame but it is what it is.

        Liked by 2 people

  49. Mitch's avatar

    I’m wondering about Ernesto Garcia, a nominee for the Western District of Texas? I haven’t found any pictures of him or any information about him outside of the White House Announcement.

    Does anyone else around here have any pics or info?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to tsb1991 Cancel reply