Judge Kelly Rankin – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming

A Wyoming native with extensive ties to the legal community, Judge Kelly Rankin has been nominated to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench.

Background

Born in 1968, Kelly H. Rankin received a B.S. from the University of Wyoming in 1990 and a J.D. from the University of Wyoming College of Law in 1994. Rankin then spent a year at the Lincoln County Attorney’s Office before shifting to the Park County Attorney’s Office. In 1999, Rankin became the Park County Attorney.

In 2003, Rankin became a federal prosecutor under U.S. Attorney Matt Mead. In 2008, Rankin was appointed to replace Mead by President George W. Bush as U.S. Attorney, which he held until 2010, when President Obama replaced him with Christopher Crofts. Rankin then briefly served as Counsel to Democratic Governor Dave Freudenthal (himself a former Wyoming U.S. Attorney) before returning to the U.S. Attorney’s Office as Criminal Chief.

In 2012, Rankin was appointed as a U.S. Magistrate Judge in Wyoming, where he currently serves.

History of the Seat

Rankin has been nominated for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming to replace Judge Nancy Freudenthal, who took senior status on June 1, 2022.

Legal Experience

While Rankin started his legal career as a prosecutor in a number of County Attorney’s offices, his name first appears in notable cases as a law student, when Rankin assisted the Wyoming Attorney General’s Office in opposing an appeal from a defendant charged with forgery and check fraud. See Black v. State, 869 P.2d 1137 (Wyo. 1994).

In 2003, Rankin became an Assistant U.S. Attorney with the District of Wyoming, in which role he prosecuted a variety of offenses, and argued before the Tenth Circuit as well. See United States v. Magallanez, 408 F.3d 672 (10th Cir. 2005). In 2008, at the age of forty, Rankin was nominated by President George W. Bush to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Wyoming and was confirmed by the Senate. As U.S. Attorney, Rankin supervised and directed all federal prosecutions for the District, including working with future Tenth Circuit Judge Gregory Phillips, when the latter was a federal prosecutor. See, e.g., United States v. Dennis, 551 F.3d 986 (10th Cir. 2008). Rankin also served as counsel of record on certain appeals before the Tenth Circuit. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 556 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2009).

Subsequently, Rankin spent a short stint as a legal advisor to Gov. Dave Freudenthal before returning to the U.S. Attorney’s Office as Chief of the Criminal Section.

Jurisprudence

Since 2012, Rankin has been a U.S. Magistrate Judge with the District of Wyoming. In this role, Rankin presides over cases where parties consent to his jurisdiction, presides over pretrial release and discovery issues, and writes reports and recommendations for district judges to approve. Among the cases where the parties consented to Rankin presiding, while sitting by designation in Colorado, he presided over litigation brought by a Sheriff in Park County who claims that he was demoted for criticizing the conduct of other Deputies who had engaged in a civil eviction that ended in the deaths of two individuals. See Tonjes v. Park Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 300 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (D. Colo. 2018). Rankin denied motions to dismiss most of the claims brought by the plaintiff, finding that they had been plausibly alleged. See id. at 1332-33.

Among other notable opinions Rankin has authored, he denied a motion from Casper City Councilman Craig Hedquist’s to compel production of documents between the City Council and attorneys and other individuals related to an effort to remove Hedquist, finding that the documents were protected under the attorney-client privilege. See Hedquist v. Patterson, 215 F. Supp. 3d 1237 (Wyo. 2016).

Political Activity

While Rankin has worked for both Republicans and Democrats in his career, his donation history is entirely Republican, including donations to Mead, Sen. Mike Enzi, and the Wyoming Republican Party.

Overall Assessment

With the support of the White House, his home state senators, and extensive experience with the Wyoming legal community, Rankin represents a fairly consensus nominee and should be confirmed comfortably.

210 Comments

  1. Dequan's avatar

    I’m sure him being Counsel to Democratic Governor made him acceptable enough for the White House despite him being a right of center Republican. We all know magistrate judges seem to be the flavor of the month for red state nominees so this likely was the magistrate most acceptable to both sides. I’m happy to see this seat get filled later this year.

    Like

  2. Ethan's avatar

    Not at all surprised he was picked as the nominee. One of the other judges on the district court in Wyoming, Reagan appointee Alan Bond Johnson (born 1938), seems like he wants to die on the bench considering he didn’t retire under Trump. He might be the only district judge in the country where one of his former clerks (10th circuit Judge Gregory Phillips) serves on a court directly above them.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Gavi's avatar

    So disappointed about the latest nomination withdrawal news. These ones are worse than the Colom and Pocan non-renomination because at least with those, the senate didn’t waste as much of its resources as it does on the nominees who go through the committee process.

    People don’t know how to fight anymore. They’d rather give up at the first struggle. I always shrug when I read on here about folks liking a nominee because they think the person will be easier to confirm. I don’t care about ease of confirmation. I just care about confirmation at all cost.
    I agree with this guy from the article shared yesterday about the Bjelkengren withdrawal:
    –
    “Tobias said the five former nominees who were not resubmitted likely would have been confirmed, had they continued in the process.
    “If this group had persisted, they would get through, almost all of them,” he said.”
    –
    And while we’re at it, we really need to let go of that narrative about easy to confirm nominees, because look at Julia K. Munley, if she wasn’t an easy-to-confirm nominee, no one was. Yet she got barely more votes than rock star Dale Ho. Again, Republicans are not looking for reasons to oppose Biden nominees, they just do it. This means Dems should stop abandoning their colleagues’ judicial recommendations on the basis of Republican’s manufactured outrage.

    I’m just waiting to see how everyone votes on Mangi, a litmus test vote for me.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hank's avatar

      Yeah I’m not sure what the basis is for Carl Tobias’s belief that these nominees would’ve gotten through if they had just committed more to the process – do we really think people who filled out the (extensive) application, went through rounds of interviews and FBI background checks, and submitted themselves to the confirmation hearings would just…give up because the wait was too stressful? It’s clearly a way for the nominees to save face when the numbers for confirmation aren’t there.

      The question is just which Dem senators (other than Manchin because that’s obvious) are the reasons these nominees can’t get through. I’m just honestly surprised that whoever is tanking these nominees isn’t doing it in public to get more fawning coverage from the media for being a “moderate”/maverick/etc – maybe it’s not Sinema after all, since the only thing she loves more than cash from her private equity sugar daddies is attention.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Ryan J's avatar

    Around the time Rankin’s nomination was announced, I was scrolling on the District of Wyoming’s page and learned about the “Zone of Death”. Quite interesting but scary if you happen to be in that 50 mile range.

    Like

  6. Zack's avatar

    IMO, for the five failed nominees, I don’t think it was that folks weren’t willing to fight for them.
    I think it became clear the votes weren’t going to be there for them.
    If they were, they would have been renominated like Dale Ho and others were.
    If nothing else, Bjelkengren’s confirmation hearing was a horror show and when you have some liberal folks here saying she shouldn’t be confirmed, it’s a safe bet some Democratic senators thought the same thing.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Exactly. If I, somebody who what’s young, diverse liberal judges (She’s 2 of the 3) on the courts would have voted against Bjelkengren, why would anybody think at least 2 Democrat senators wouldn’t have told the Whip they are voting no as well. And before @Gavi or anybody else says I would have voted no on other nominees & they got confirmed, let’s end that argument below. Here are the Biden nominees I would have voted again;

      Christine O’Hearn – She had Republican support… Confirmed

      Michelle Childs – She had Republican support… Confirmed

      Florence Pan (DC circuit only) – She had Republican support… Confirmed

      Irma Ramirez – She had Republican support… Confirmed

      William Delaney – No Republican support… Withdrew

      Bjelkengren – No Republican support… Withdrew

      So the moral of the story is you can be a bad, controversial or be the worst possible nominee a Democrat president can nominate for the seat & still get confirmed. You can’t be one of those things without Republican support & get confirmed without Schumer scheduling the vote when he knows some Republicans will be out.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I forgot to mention I intentionally left Republican Robert Kirsh out. I believe pushing back on Christine O’Hearn early in the administration would have gone a long way against him being nominated last year. Rubber stamping all nominees gives a crappy crooked corrupt senator like Menendez a blank check to nominate a Republican in a blue state like New Jersey.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jamie's avatar

        While they are far from the best choices, Childs, Pan, and Ramirez were certainly qualified. The other ones were not. Childs was obviously nominated to reward a supporter in Clyburn, but that has been pretty common in the past. It is what it is, Biden needs Clyburn’s support.
        Pan and Ramirez were picked to avoid serious confirmation battles. I sort of get it with Pan (scared of losing control in 2022), but this and the CA5 seat should have been someone who was SCOTUS caliber.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Oh yes absolutely. Child’s, Pan & Ramirez would have been political no votes by me despite them all being well qualified. I think as a senator, you have to put your foot down & buck your Party at times if you have strong beliefs which I do when it forms to the judiciary.

        O’Hearn & Bjelkengren would have gotten my no vote due to me feeling they were not qualified combined with me feeling there were much better picks. Delaney would have been my toughest no vote. When he was initially nominated I made the quote on this blog “He didn’t blow me away”. I was trying to be nice but the truth is I wasn’t a fan of his pick from the beginning. All the things that came out would have just given me cover to vote no in the end. Getting Seth Aftame was the best reward for Dems putting their foot down. Had Robert Kirsh still been nominated I would have happily voted against him despite him being qualified, I simply am not voting for an out right Republican this side of Liz Cheney or Adam Kingsinger in a blue state.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I have been giving deference to any past nominees that were never given a vote even if I wasn’t very fond of their Biden nomination. That’s why for instance I would have voted for Florence Pan for the DC district court since she was nominated for that court by Obama but voted no for the DC circuit. So I would have likely held my nose & not objected to Jennifer Rearden’s voice vote similar to Senator Warren.

        Like

      • tsb1991's avatar

        The thing with Edelman’s nomination is that there is going to be a second vacancy on the DC District Court come February. We’ll see what seat Ali is nominated to when Biden sends his nomination to the Senate, but as I mentioned the other day, you’d have to think with that upcoming vacancy, that several additional candidates beyond Ali have been vetted so hopefully the President could quickly pick another nominee in place of Edelman.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Joe's avatar

    Did anyone ever figure out what’s going on with Jacqueline Austin? She wasn’t listed on the batch the other day but the courts website still has her listed as the nominee (and not Edelman).

    Like

      • tsb1991's avatar

        What exactly was the benefit of not returning her nomination? She hasn’t had a committee vote so her nomination status is effectively the same as every nominee that wasn’t returned to the President.

        Also, when the re-nominations are voted back out of committee, do they retain their original executive calendar numbers or do they get fresh ones? I think we’re in the 400s now, most of the re-nominations are in the 300s or earlier.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Theoretically the benefit would have been if they had the SJC executive meeting today like they were supposed to, Autin could have been voted straight to the floor today. That would have put her ahead of many other nominees that could have (Once again theoretically) been held over today. I would assume that was a gift to Graham since he is the SJC ranking member.

        Like

      • star0garnet's avatar

        @tsb

        I believe that tradition of returning some nominations at ends of sessions began in an effort to get the president to reconsider the returned nominations and to discourage certain recess appointments before they became essentially impossible. So no GOPers’ desire to see Austin not confirmed outweighed Graham’s desire to see her confirmed.

        And they’ll have new numbers; they only reset with a new congress.

        Like

  9. Mike's avatar

    Not a great start to the new year and uncertain why they cancelled the executive meeting this week but hopefully next week all the nominees get approved for floor votes again.

    Biden only needs 66 more confirmations this year to match Trump and he’s got 31 nominees in the pipeline.

    I want to the administration and Dem senate should be able to nominate and confirm 35 more people in 12 months but their pace last year really makes me doubt it.

    Like

    • tsb1991's avatar

      My best guess as to why the meeting was cancelled is most likely that every nominee listed was going to be held over anyway and that no deal was struck to allow some nominees to be voted back out. I know none of them are colored red on the SJC website (which indicates them being listed for the first time on the agenda) but I’d have to think they were all going to be held over.

      A few weeks back I tried looking back at some SJC meetings from January 2022 (so the start of the 2nd session of the previous Congress) to see if there was any kind of precedent for holding nominees over and voting others back out. On the first SJC meeting several nominees were voted out and several others held over, but I couldn’t notice anything consistent in who got to be voted out.

      There is an SJC meeting posted for next Thursday. I’m sure it’ll be a lengthy meeting as Republicans will try to stretch out the meeting and do an old-fashioned filibuster for Kasubhai and Russell again, in addition to Berner and Mangi, who will both get their first SJC votes next week.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Zack's avatar

    I think Edelman’s nomination is toast, only question is when his withdrawal is announced.
    One final thing on the failed nominees that should be mentioned.
    Kato Crews fell flat on his face with not knowing what the Brady Rule was (requires prosecutors to disclose material to the defense) yet he was renominated and confirmed yesterday so it’s not as if the administration is afraid of sticking by folks who have a bad committee hearing.
    I think it’s clear the votes weren’t there and the saying they chose to withdraw is a way to save face on that.
    As to Biden being able to match Trump’s total of judges, not likely to happen, especially on the Circuit Court level where IMO, the only vacancies that will be happening this after Judge Wynn will be of the passing away kind.

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      People keep comparing Bjelkengren & Crews but to somebody like me who would have voted against the former but voted for the latter, there are some differences. The hearing alone was different. Bjelkengren looked like a deer in head lights on THREE separate questions. She had no clue. If my TV during the SJC hearing was on mute, I could still be able to tell she had no clue what senator Kennedy was talking about. At least Crews answered the Brady Motion question, albeit wrong. And he answered the other questions Kennedy threw at him just fine.

      But let’s say I am willing to concede both of their hearings were exactly the same (I’m not, but for argument’s sake), there is still one glaring difference between the two. On Bjelkengren’s SJC questionnaire, she was asked to list ten cases. She only listed six. Six, as in the number before seven. The SJC Q is take home. You can take as long as you want & use whatever resources you want, yet she still flunked even that.

      I am sure judge Bjelkengren is a fine person who can be a good judge, but she simply flunked this job interview at every level. She is the perfect example of somebody that Democrats can stand up & say we are not going to rubber stamp just because the people that recommended her & the person that nominated her are all Democrats. I actually think it makes senate Democrats argument even better when they reject somebody that is clearly unqualified, then argue for a liberal nominee such as Dale Ho.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Zack's avatar

        I agree.
        I’m all for acting like Republicans in ditching the blue slip rule and pushing nominees they hate like Dale Ho but there are still lines you shouldn’t cross and putting someone on the bench who utterly flunked their hearing is one of them.
        I wish Judge Bjelkengren the best going forward on the state courts but she failed her hearing and shouldn’t get rewarded for that.
        I do think the other nominees failed for more Ideological and political reasons which sucks but it is what it is.
        Have to see who their replacements are and go from there.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Joe's avatar

      I actually think it’s better than 50/50 that Biden surpasses Trump. If you take the current announced nominees plus the known blue state/circuit vacancies I think it gets you to like 220 or 225. It wouldn’t take too many vaccines to put Biden ahead. The WH and SJC will need to be disciplined, though.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Rick's avatar

    Democrats need to act with more urgency on confirmations, if they lose the senate in Nov, who knows how long it takes to get it back. There is only 1-2 competitive seats in 2026 (and it’s only 2 if Susan Collins doesn’t run again, otherwise NC is only opportunity to win back a seat). For 2028, whether Johnson in WI runs or not, that seat is surely going to be competitive…But what’s after that, OH, FL, NC, where the current GOP senators won rather easily in those respective states in 2022… The time is now, they need to fill every Circuit seat (regardless of whether it’s red or blue state) and every District Court seat from a blue state – yesterday..

    Liked by 2 people

    • tsb1991's avatar

      I think the Senate map in 2026 depends on the President in all honesty. Obviously if 2026 is a second Biden midterm, the only seat they could probably play offense in is Maine, if Collins retires. Otherwise they’ll largely try to defend their toughest seats that year, which would be Ossoff in Georgia, Peters in Michigan, and maybe New Hampshire if Shaheen retires.

      If 2026 is a Trump midterm, North Carolina as you mentioned comes more into play, but beyond that you get into much redder territory. Only seats I could see them making a bid for beyond those two could be Cornyn in Texas (although he’ll still probably be favored given that I’m sure he’s far more popular in the state compared to Cruz) and maybe Sullivan in Alaska (if I recall Alaska isn’t as red as what it used to be, I’d love to hope Peltola someday trades her House seat for a Senate seat whenever Sullivan or Murkowski retires, that Senate seat would be FAR more precious than a House seat).

      Liked by 2 people

  12. Mitch's avatar

    I expect Kelly Rankin to get a voice vote. A Republican nominated by a Democratic President, endorsed by the last two Democrats to hold statewide office in Wyoming and nothing controversial in his background, he’s a sure thing.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. aangren's avatar

    The president is a coward that is what the man has always been from the start i warned people on here now we see it with this names not being sent back, no single one of my friends and i are who supported the man in 2020 over bernie will vote this time around, even if that means trump. We are tired of playing the beaten wife role.
    I spend less time on here than 2021 because the judges have gotten that worse, more white, more male more prosecutors, while trump was jamming though every anti black bigot federalist society hack he could in record time and gop senate was confirming them.
    To the biden sycophants keep defending this bullshit and nonsense, sane ones are fed up. i am genuinely looking forward to the election. i will watch with glee as CNN calls wisconin for trump. His predecessor rammed every right wing hack down our throats and this coward cant even fight for good nominees who will give minorities and fellow blacks like me a fair shot in the courts.
    Its nothing another white male prosecutor cant solve right? shameful stuff. carrie severino is having a bottle of champagne and wine ..

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      Biden just nominated Amir H. Ali. He’s a clear A+. He also nominated Jasmine H. Yoon & Melissa R. DuBose who seem to be good as well. Obviously the previous two batches were not as good because they were all red state nominees & we still have blue slips in play for those seats. How would you ram any liberal nominee down the throats of a Republican senator with blue slips still in play? If you have the answer to that, please let us know so we can pass it along to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

      Liked by 1 person

    • shawnee68's avatar

      That’s the same old nonsense that had people voting for Nader instead of Gore in 2000.

      We are paying for this now and if you are a woman has to be scary.

      I don’t vote the person it’s the issues that matter to me the most. What does a person’s skin color have to do with how fair they will be.

      If you were ever had to go court (you almost certainly will not) it’s the jury and not judge (if you choose) who will decide your case.

      Our country cannot survive another 4 years of Trump. Liberal judges mean nothing with a dictator in the Oval Office. Look at Venezuela and you’ll get your answers there.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. aangren's avatar

    Spare me the nonsense. gaston was a great nominee who i would have been sure wouldnt be too quick to sentence black people to decades in prison and other minorities unfairly as is common in courts, she wasnt renominated, edelman was a perfect nominee. When will this sychophancy and biden excuses end? is it until we only get white men that are prosecutors 100 percentage that it is enough. What happened to nominating myrna perez? nusrat choudhary type judges? casey pitts type judges. please dont insult peoples intelligence. i will jump in glee when trump gets to 270 and come here to gloat on this blog

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      I don’t see how Amir H. Ali is nonsense. And Gaston’s replacement Rebecca S. Kanter doesn’t seem like she will be too quick to sentence black people to decades in prison, & she’s about a decade younger than Gaston.

      I don’t think it makes me a sycophant to not agree with 100% of Biden’s nominees while still saying he’s the best president we have had when it comes to judges. Sure Carter put many liberal judges on the circuit courts, but he also had to put many bigots & borderline racists on the bench as a compromise as well. Even Biden’s worst circuit court judges, Childs, Pan & Ramirez aren’t in that vein.

      Liked by 2 people

  16. Zack's avatar

    Yea aangren.. you were bashing Biden from day one and whenever he did something you said he wouldn’t do, you simply moved the goal posts.
    If nothing else, you complain about some nominees now yet openly root for the election of a man who will ensure more of the judges you hate get put onto the courts and hurt more people?
    You’re no progressive/Democrat and you never were IMO.

    Liked by 4 people

  17. Dequan's avatar

    Back to making our own Wikipedia style page just for the judiciary, there are some other things we could improve on that Wikipedia doesn’t allow.

    1. On the List of federal judges appointed by President Biden page, they do not allow the inclusion of the local DC courts judges. I & others fought to have them included even if at the bottom but was always rejected. We can include that on the page & just not include it in the total count.

    2. When I tried to include things from a nominees SJC Q such as if they were a member of a progressive group, some of the Wikipedia users said we can’t include that because it isn’t a primary source. Yet they include every nominee’s year of birth from the SJC Q so it seems stupid that they use the info from the SJC Q for some things but then say we can’t use it for others.

    3. When I try to include “Notable cases” on pages, some users simply erase all the info & say they don’t consider it “Notable”. So we can include more specific cases the nominees have been involved with.

    Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Definitely. The bad thing about Wikipedia is you can spend hours researching & then adding pertinent information only to come back months later & see it was deleted in one swoop. And there’s no consistency.

        For instance if a nominee had a page on their law firm, you can use that as a reference that they work there. But then if you try to actually put other information from that same page such as awards they won or pro bono cases, a Wikipedia user can delete it & say it’s not a primary source. So if we can do this, the nominees will have MUCH more info on our pages & with a limited amount of people that can edit versus any person off the street that can make an account, it will be more controlled & consistent with the content.

        Oh & another thing I thought of is I hate the Let’s Run idiot deleted pages for nominees that weren’t confirmed. I still enjoy going back & reading about nominees that didn’t make it through. Of course we will leave all pages up confirmed or not… Damn, the more I think about that asshole the more angrier I get. He truly ruined Wikipedia

        Liked by 1 person

  18. Mitch's avatar

    One thing I noticed about the latest batch of nominees, most of them have backgrounds investigating white collar crime. I think that’s a positive, regardless of party or ideology.

    White collar criminals are considered to be “respectable” criminals in some quarters. They commit their crimes in suits and ties or skirts and blazers in sterile offices, using computer clicks and accounting gimmicks. But they do real damage. The 2008 financial crisis proves that.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Aiden's avatar

      I talked about this in my prior post too. @aangren is refusing to understand that not every prosecutor or DOJ department is the same. Fighting financial crimes and abuses of power by the 1% and corporate monopolies is a very solid career in the my opinion. Something Harjani and Kanter have done incredibly well and is of benefit to us all. They seem to be solidly liberal judges, working in the SEC and being a Hate Crime coordinator for example.

      Also as Former Chief Justice of the New York Court of Appeals Jonathan Lippman, said. Being a prosecutor doesn’t necessarily mean you will be a conservative on criminal issues, nor does having a career as a public defender make you guaranteed to have a progressive bend on criminal issues

      Many prosecutors have being leading progressive. Just one I can think of is Justice Sotomayor.

      The article he discussed this on mentioned many more.

      There also justices such as Koh that have being far more progressive than what many said they would be. The opposite with H.A Thomas so far.

      Liked by 3 people

  19. keystone's avatar

    Apparently, the MacArthur Justice Center, which Amir Ali leads, has branches in DC, Louisiana, Missouri, and Mississippi, in an association with the law school at University of Mississippi.

    It def looks like Josh Hawley, while he was AG for Missouri, came up against the Center’s Missouri branch a few times. Not sure if Kennedy has had any encounters with the Louisiana branch. It’s def gonna be an interesting hearing.

    Liked by 2 people

  21. Zack's avatar

    I have to think the fact some of these nominees are white collar prosecutors is a way to deflect from the complaints some folks will have about a shift from the Myrna Perez/Dale Ho type of nominees.
    A lot of folks that might have issues with prosecutors in other areas won’t complain about white collar ones given the segment of society they often prosecute aren’t the middle class/poor.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Aiden's avatar

      I also think they have to keep the lack of Anti Trust nominees in mind. Harjani seems to address that.

      I mean you can’t have an ambitious Anti Trust agenda and not reflect that in your judicial nominees.
      There’s being articles suggesting that some of Bidens judges will be an obstacle to his agenda

      Liked by 2 people

  27. Dequan's avatar

    Before @Ben’s breaking news about judge Rovner, I had actually logged on the blog for a different reason. Somebody on the blog incorrectly said both Oklahoma nominees received their commissions the same day. That was incorrect. Sara Hill received her commission January 2nd & John Russell January 4th.

    Normally I am a big advocate for commissions being given out in order of age, oldest to youngest. This would maximize the chances of the president having more chief judges down the line. But there are exceptions to that rule & Oklahoma is one of them. Sara Hill is the younger of the two nominees however she is the Democrat pick. Russell was the Republican pick, more than likely a right of center Republican. So in cases like this, Biden should sign the commission for the Democrat pick first then the Republican pick another day later regardless of age. That is what was done in Oklahoma. Great move by Biden

    Like

  28. Zack's avatar

    What Jose Cabranes was to Democrats in being a very conservative judge despite being a Democrat and put on ta district court under Carter before being elevated by Bill Clinton, Judge Ilana Rovner was to Republicans in being very liberal despite being put on the courts first under Reagan before being elevated by George Sr.
    In fact in many cases, she was more liberal then some Democratic judges were.
    So while this will be a flip on paper, if we get one of the nominees Dequan mentioned, it will merely replacing an older liberal jurist with a younger one, which is still a good thing, as it means one less Circuit Court seat for the Federalist Society to fill.
    Now if only a couple of more judges would take the hint and retire while they still can, that would be great.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. tsb1991's avatar

    I honestly feel a bit surprised that Rovner is going senior, I know some here (and I kind of agreed with them) speculated that while a liberal, she was still appointed by a Republican President and may have the tiniest bit of loyalty to them for the appointment. My biggest fear was that she’d stay on and either pass or retire under a Republican President, undoing the progress made towards flipping the 7th Circuit (it’ll be 6-5 conservative once Kolar’s and Rovner’s replacements are seated, no)?

    This will be Biden’s second appointment to the 7th Circuit where he is replacing a Republican appointee, but like Rovner, wasn’t Flaum also pretty moderate, if not left-leaning? Reading his Wiki he seemed to cast a lot of liberal decisions on the court.

    I feel Biden’s biggest appeals court successes at least in his first term will be the 2nd Circuit (ideologically flipping it to 7-6 liberal and locking down essentially the entire liberal wing of the court), the DC Circuit (replacing all three Clinton appointees on the court, two of which were over 80 years old, and further locking in the 7-4 Democratic majority), and you can lump in the 7th Circuit in that list IMO (narrowing the conservative majority from 8-3 or 7-4 to 6-5, depending on your perspective of Flaum, and locking down the liberal wing of the court replacing Rovner and the Clinton/Obama appointees).

    Liked by 3 people

    • tsb1991's avatar

      Christ I just realized there were some errors in this post. I should have said Kanne, not Kolar in the first paragraph, and this would be Biden’s third appointment to the court replacing a Republican appointee, not second (Flaum, Kanne, Rovner). Definitely been bit here not having an edit button haha

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Uuuggghhh, don’t remind me about Word Press not having an edit button or about Word Press overall. I was having a good day after yesterday us talking about the possibility of a Wikipedia type site just for judges (Are we going to call it judgepedia…Lol) & today’s news out of the 7th… Lol

        For those of you unfamiliar with Nico Martinez, I will put his bio below. Who do some of you think could be a possibility besides him, Nancy Maldanado & Johanes Maliza? While I fully expect the nominee to be Hispanic, the only other acceptable demographic I could see would be a Black man since we have never had one of those on the 7th either & only had one confirmed since January 2014.

        (https://www.bartlit-beck.com/lawyers-NicolasMartinez)

        Like

    • Ryan J's avatar

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA

      I WAS THE ONE WHO ADDED MOST OF THOSE CASES TO FLAUM’S WIKIPEDIA PAGE (I have a preference for adding rulings I agree with or dissents from rulings I disagree with to Wikipedia pages) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH

      Liked by 1 person

  30. keystone's avatar

    Durbin and the WH are in the process of choosing a judge to replace Rebecca Pallmeyer. I suspect they are either in or are about to be in the background check phase. I wonder if they might start background checks on more than one name from their list to expedite things in case they decide to elevate Nancy Maldanado.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I actually thought that Nusrat Choudhury was going to be the pick for the last 7th vacancy that went to John Lee. She had already been recommended by Schumer along with two other recommendations for NY district court vacancies when the 7h vacancy was still open. Biden nominated the other two but not Choudhury which I thought meant he was considering her for another seat. And at that time there had never been a Muslim nominee for the circuit courts.

      But if she didn’t yet that seat then; I see virtually no chance at her getting this one now. Especially since we have a Muslim circuit court nominee for the 3rd now.

      Like

  32. Gavi's avatar

    @tsb1991: Yes, it is extremely annoying, not being able to edit here.

    Wow @ Rovner’s senior status. Two in a week… and none of who we thought it would be.
    Let me restate my definition of a flip. I usually count that at the level of the appointing president, because that is black and white and plain and simple. Trying to figure out where people stand on the ideological spectrum, especially for a replacement who has not even taken the bench yet, is very tricky. For all we know, Rovner’s could be less liberal than she is. Look at Biden’s replacement on the 5th Circuit.

    I am so glad that Rovner didn’t do what Jose Cabranes did.

    @Dequan, it looks like these few retiring judges are on your schedule for when they could announce their senior status and reasonably expect a successor to be confirmed and appointed by the end of the year.

    So far on here, I’ve read that Nancy Maldonado might be the “sure” nominee and Nico Martinez a little less so. I’ll just remind everyone that IL’s senior senator and chair of SJC is still Dick Durbin, and that this isn’t 2021 with the nomination of Jackson-Akiwumi. Don’t set your hopes beyond the reach of Durbin’s safe, election-year centrism.

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Gavi

      Yup, I’m still giving the end of this month as the date I say any red or purple state district court or red state circuit court judge can announce & still have their replacement confirmed by the end of the year. And I actually said that before the 2024 senate calendar came out which has separate five & six week recesses in August & October/November respectively.

      As for Durbin picking a lackluster nominee to recommend, that is possible. But I think between Duckworth, this new WHC office & then knowing this will probably be their last crack at putting a judge on the 7th for quite some time, I think Nancy Maldonado is the floor. I would be shocked to wake up one morning & see Jeremy Daniel or somebody else disappointing as the nominee.

      Like

    • Frank's avatar

      I agree with you that the nominee will be a pretty traditional and uncontroversial choice, likely one of the current district court judges. Jorge Alonso, Jeremy Daniel and LaShonda Hunt would be the candidates I’d be watching out for here the closest, but it really could be a number of candidates. Perhaps another magistrate judge could get the promotion to circuit court judge as well.

      Liked by 1 person

  33. Zack's avatar

    I honestly though Rovner was going to do what Cabranes did and take senior status under the party that appointed her to the courts even though she is well out of the mainstream of them now.
    Glad to see I was wrong.
    Nico Martinez would be my top chance to replace Rovner but if it’s not him, Nancy Maldanado would be the second.
    As for Joel Flaum, he was moderate on a couple of issues but was still very conservative overall and I’m surprised he waited to take senior status at the last minute under Trump, to the point not even Mitch McConnell could replace him.
    Just irks me that the 7th Circuit would be a majority liberal/democratic court soon if not for Ann Williams retiring and Leahy clinging to the blue slip which cost Victoria Norse her seat.
    Ah well, what’s done is done with that.

    Liked by 2 people

  34. Lillie's avatar

    I can imagine Rovner with a lot of things in the political climate towards immigrants (given she is one) going on right now perhaps being motivated to see her replacement not be to her right.

    It is also possible since her going senior is TBD she could either have someone in mind or the whitehouse may be more careful who they nominate given she could revoke.

    Either way, best of luck to her on her retirement. This is lovely news for the end of the week.

    Liked by 2 people

  35. Zack's avatar

    Would be nice if Roger Gregory, Kim Wardlaw, Charles Wilson, Ronald Gould and Scott Matheson Jr.
    follow the leads of Rovner and Wynn and take senior status.
    Johnnie Rawlinson and Robert King could do so but they’ve made clear they’re okay with their seats flipping since they didn’t get the one person they wanted to replace them.
    Selfish as it gets.

    Liked by 2 people

    • keystone's avatar

      Regarding Gould… I assume Sens Murray and Cantwell are reconvening their judicial selection committee to find a new candidate for WDWA… so now might be a great time to announce. Jus’ sayin’

      Add Eric Clay to that list as well.

      I wonder if the reason why we’re seeing some of these senior status announcements has to do with Judges seeing polls and having an “oh, crap, it’s either now or I might have to hang on for another 4-8 years realization”. (Yes, I know they should have had that moment a while ago).

      Liked by 2 people

  37. Hank's avatar

    Wow Rovner is finally going senior – about time, and thank god it’s not under a Republican. I agree Maldonado and Nico Martinez are likely in the running, as Maldonado wasn’t too controversial upon her district court nomination and Martinez is at conservative firm Bartlit Beck (though he’s definitely not a conservative from his pro bono work).

    I wouldn’t underestimate the chance of Durbin wimping out and going with some white male former prosecutor because to be safe though, and I think Jeremy Daniels has a strong chance for similar reasons.

    Robber’s letter is really lovely – and that’s an interesting last sentence about candidates she hopes Biden will consider in picking a successor. Certainly doesn’t sound like she’ll retract if the person is too liberal (if anything, it seems like a gentle warning to not pick anyone too conservative)

    Liked by 3 people

  38. Ethan's avatar

    Someone here (I forget who) said that they could see Kent Jordan going senior under Biden. Now that Rovner and Gibbons have gone senior, I wonder if any other circuit judges appointed by Republicans could go senior between now and November.

    Not saying any of these are likely but I’d keep an eye on the following as having a non-zero chance:

    -Richard Griffin (6th circuit).

    -Lavenski Smith (8th circuit): Wouldn’t shock me if he goes senior when his term as Chief ends later this year.

    -James Loken (8th circuit): He’ll probably die on the bench.

    -Harris Hartz (10th circuit).

    Liked by 3 people

  39. dawsont825's avatar

    Happy New Circuit Court Vacancy Day to all 🎉

    Sorry that I haven’t been as active. After I graduated, I just wanted to unplug and go out to celebrate with family and friends. Happy to see new nominations and confirmations thus far in the new year.

    To think that Biden will have singlehandedly transformed a very conservative court into a balanced court (without the court packing fuckery McConnell and co. did) his presidency has been a massive success if you focus solely on his judicial appointments. His appointees to the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 7th, 9th, 10th, and the DC circuits are all young and should serve for many decades while doubling as a waiting area for the next Dem president’s SCOTUS list. Would not surprise me if Alison Nathan was the desired pick for any Dem president.

    With that said, Biden’s 40+ circuit judge total is impressive and will continue to improve the country for many years to come. I still want to know who the 6th circuit nominee will be before I get too happy, but any left-leaning judge Biden nominates will easily clear a FedSoc hack Trump or any GOP prez would nominate.

    If Biden is lucky to get reelected with a 50-50 senate, I expect the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 11th circuits to look very different.

    Liked by 4 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        For the record, here are my #1 picks that Biden has nominated for circuit courts so far;

        1. KBJ
        2. Holy Thomas
        3. Alison Nathan
        4. Tamika Montgomery-Reeves
        5. Anthony Johnstone
        6. Rachel Bloomekatz

        Here are my #1 picks for the current circuit court vacancies;

        1st – Julia Lipez

        4th – Allison Riggs (With Ryan Park & Christopher Brook not far behind)

        6th – Stephen Ross Johnson, Dumaka Shabazz or Maha Ayesh.
        But since this is a Republican appointee that is going senior upon confirmation of her successor, I would negotiate more on this pick… Edward Stanton, Camille McMullin or either of the US attorneys would be acceptable.

        7th – Nico Martinez

        Liked by 1 person

      • dawsont825's avatar

        @Dequan

        I agree with your list of the best Biden CCA appointees, but how can Desai and Abudu not be in the top 5? A 9th circuit court appointee from Arizona who was confirmed by a wide margin. She is very liberal, and on the right side of cases 95% of the time. Along with Abudu.

        My list would go:

        1. KBJ
        2. Nathan
        3. Abudu
        4. Sung
        5. Desai
        6. Thomas

        Abudu is undeniably a rockstar. A very liberal, black female judge located in the south (where the vast majority of black Americans reside). Also, an appointee that got Cruz, McConnell, and Graham’s panties in a wad.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Aiden's avatar

        Mine would be:

        1: KBJ
        2. Beth Robinson
        3. Myrna Perez
        4. Roopali Desai
        5. Jennifer Sung
        6. Rachel Bloomekatz

        Also I did love Anthony Johnstone’s nomination just was so extraordinarily well qualified.
        The opposition by republicans was baseless.

        On a side note Tamika Montgomery-Reeves, is more liberal than I expected. One of her progressive opinions had a dissent from a liberal judge.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Haaaaa… No no no. You earned that bachelor’s degree my friend. The only way it’s getting revoked is if you are on my future #1 picks for a Democrat president, you’re nominated but then to senior under a Republican president. Then we are certainly revoking that degree… Haaaaa

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jamie's avatar

      Riggs is running for election to the NC SC. If Riggs were selected, it would be a real big problem as it is not clear that she can be easily replaced on the ballot if confirmed. And if she is not confirmed (it would be a real fight as the GOP would hate her) or delayed past the election, it would hurt her reelection chances.
      Regardless, I feel Ryan Park is the best choice in NC as he would be a future SCOTUS candidate if seated on the 4th.

      Liked by 1 person

  42. tsb1991's avatar

    So while it’s highly unlikely Biden will surpass Trump’s number of appeals court nominees by the end of his term, he would need four more appeals court judges to go senior/retire to hit that nice 50 number, right (that 50 includes the Garland/KBJ/Pan seat on the DC circuit as one seat, as I know some people on here do that)? What’s the most likely source for this outcome, the 9th circuit?

    Like

    • Gavi's avatar

      Yeah, I dislike the double counting *without* putting exactly what you’re counting in context.

      But to your question, folks should answer with the opposite of what they think, to increase the likelihood that it’ll be correct, since most of our guesses have been so wrong about circuit vacancies.
      So I’ll say the 9th in hopes that I’ll be so wrong that it’ll be on the 5th.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      If I had to guess where Biden could get 4 more circuit court vacancies from, just going by circuit I would say the Federal Circuit likely would be one if not two of them. After that I would look to the 9th for another one or two. If any of those didn’t pan out, I could see the 4th & 6th being the other most likely circuits.

      Like

    • Aiden's avatar

      I really hope Wardlaw goes senior and I hope they work something out with Rawlinson.

      They have to be aware of how close republicans are to taking over the 9th circuit.

      Also perhaps in terms of deaths.

      Possible some Fed Circuit judges. Newman for example but there are others.

      Also Henderson on DC and quite a few on the 4th.

      I really hope we get some more appellate resignations

      Liked by 1 person

  44. Zack's avatar

    Even though she joined Childs and Pan in trashing Trump’s lawyer at the D.C. Circuit this past week, Henderson is a very conservative George Sr Judge and it’s highly unlikely she will retire under a Democratic President and allow her seat to flip.
    As for Rawlinson, she might be moderate/liberal on some issues but I remember when she joined an anti-same sex marriage dissent that basically stated same sex couples facing discrimination under the law had no business coming to the courts for help.
    I don’t think she cares in the end if her seat flips, nor do some of the other holdouts or they would have taken senior status by now.
    Have to wait and see I guess.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Aiden's avatar

      Rawlinson is still a liberal judge. She joined the en banc progressive dissent in a case in which California tried to get rid of for proift ICE prisons in their state.

      I think she has shown interest in senior status so hopefully they can come to a compromise in which she doesn’t directly choose her replacement .

      Liked by 2 people

    • Aiden's avatar

      I agree that’s why I Put Henderson under a vacancy that would occur by her death.
      She is the oldest on the DC bench

      Henderson is a very conservative Judge.
      I don’t think the trump case has any kind of ideological indicator. Many conservatives want to reduce executive overreach and power that would likely include reducing immunity

      Liked by 1 person

  45. Ryan J's avatar

    Does anyone know what’s going on with David Tatel? He intended to leave the court to re-join a law firm in September 2023, but now it just says he is an inactive senior judge. I couldn’t find anything on whether he joined the law firm or not.

    Like

  46. keystone's avatar

    Ilana Rovner in an interview with Reuters,

    “It’s just time to allow someone else to have the unbelievable opportunity that I have had.”

    She added that she would keep working as a senior judge even after her seat is filled. “They’re going to cart me off someday,” she said. “I’m in this for the long haul.”

    Rovner clearly still loves the job but chose the occasion of her 40th year as a federal judge to step down. I was curious so to see if anyone else had a milestone coming up.

    Term Related Milestones:

    Ronald Gould and Charles Wilson will both mark 25 years later on this year.

    Kim Wardlaw and Robert Bruce King are both currently in their 25th year as a Federal judge (soon to be 26).

    Carl Stewart is going to hit his 30 year mark later on this year.

    Age Related Milestones:
    Wardlaw and Wilson will also both turn 70 later on this year within a few days of each other.

    Roger Gregory, Jame Graves, Jane Branstetter Stranch, and Scott Mattheson all turned 70 recently-ish.

    Personal Milestones.

    Karen Nelson Moore will have her 50th wedding anniversary in March – not judicial related but well done..

    Liked by 1 person

  47. Jamie's avatar

    My preference for the 7th Circuit seats (and circuit court seats in general) are the candidates who are SCOTUS caliber. CJA certainly fits, John Lee did not. Biden apparently considered Chicago Law professor Jennifer Nou, who would have as well. And while younger judges would be preferred (to develop a SCOTUS bench), I actually wouldn’t mind a few older liberal judges who are SCOTUS caliber if we are sure they would retire under a Democratic President.
    IMO, Nico Martinez and Andrea Wood could fit here. I wouldn’t actually have a huge problem with Gary Feinerman if Biden had nominated Jennifer Nou instead of John Lee.
    But Nancy Maldonado is perhaps favorite, with Jeremy Daniel, Lindsay Jenkins, and LaShonda Hunt close behind. Jenkins would be higher up, except that she ruled in a couple high profile cases and would probably get a big fight from the GOP.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Jennifer Nou would have been the better pick, not to mention 12 years younger but John Lee is close to Durbin. As @Gavi mentioned, never put it past Durbin to make a lackluster pick unfortunately. Lee was an ok pick but not a future SCOTUS possibility for the first AAPI justice like Nou would have been. As I’ve mentioned no circuit court nominee should be nominated unless they can be considered for SCOTUS in a future term or administration with very very VERY race exceptions. Out of Biden’s circuit court picks, Beth Robinson & Nicole Berner are the only two exceptions I see as both are that good.

      Gary Feinerman would be a disastrous pick based on age & him showing a willingness to leave the bench. Even if he had stayed, he would be a bad pick just based on age alone. Yes he’s liberal but unlike Beth Robinson, there are plenty of other liberal picks much younger.

      I doubt Andrea Wood will be picked. She should have easily been the pick for the seat Jackson got. If she wasn’t picked now, I doubt she will be picked now in her 50’s.

      Jeremy Daniel, Lindsay Jenkins & LaShonda Hunt would all be horrible picks. I say that as a Black man that loves to see Biden put African Americans on the circuit courts but not here & not them. If we are going to forgive the chance to put the first Hispanic judge on the 7th, it should be a liberal giant who could go on to replace Justice Thomas.

      I agree Nancy Maldonado is the favorite. I of course would much rather see Nico Martinez who is a decade younger & wouldn’t need to backfill a district court seat, but I admit if I had to bet, I could see them going with her for the pick. She’s fine, I would give her an A, but not an A+ like I would Nico.

      Like

      • keystone's avatar

        Something interesting is that everyone’s reactions to the elevating one of the current NDIL seems to be generally, sure, they’d be fine. Not a lot of enthusiasm.

        The new Circuit spot aside, the Illinois senators are under the time crunch to fill 3 district spots (2 NDIL and 1 CDIL). They now have to fill the Circuit seat and, if they elevate a judge, it’s going to create another opening that will need to be backfilled. If there was an amazing NDIL candidate or if we were towards the end of the year and needed a candidate that had already been vetted, then I’d say, sure, elevate, but we have a year,

        I think there’s an above average chance that they’ll go with an outsider. Especially, when there’s a candidate like Martinez who is progress but has normie vibes. I’ve started looking at his cases and I’m struggling to even fathom what sort of objection the Republicans would be able to come up with.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Joe's avatar

      Agree Jaime. If Biden gets another SCOTUS opening there will likely be some (not much, but some) political pressure to have some geographic diversity and appoint someone from outside the DC/NY/Boston area. It would be great to see a potential legal star to that seat (I don’t think Rovner will object to a liberal replacement either).

      Like

  48. tsb1991's avatar

    Crews and Kazen both got their commissions yesterday. The only nominees without commissions are the two Hawaii nominees. So that’s probably the last judiciary news until the SJC meeting on Thursday, barring another retirement/senior status announcement before then.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a reply to Rick Cancel reply