Month: February 2024

Krissa Lanham – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Krissa Lanham, who currently serves as the appellate chief in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona, has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

Background

Krissa M. Lanham received a B.A. summa cum laude from Yale University in 2002 and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 2007. Lanham subsequently clerked for Judge Robert Chatigny on the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and then for Judge Barry Silverman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Lanham subsequently joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona, where she has served since, including as Appellate Chief since 2020.

History of the Seat

Lanham is being nominated to replace Judge Douglas Rayes, who has announced that he will take senior status on June 1, 2024.

Legal Career

Other than her clerkships, Lanham has spent her entire career at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona. Lanham currently serves as Appellate Chief for the office and has handled many appeals before the Ninth Circuit. Among the cases she has handled, Lanham has:

  • Argued to affirm the district court’s sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice. The Ninth Circuit disagreed due to a lack of factual finding by the district judge and remanded for re-sentencing. See United States v. Castro-Ponce, 770 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 2014);
  • Persuaded the Ninth Circuit not to quash a grand jury subpoena to Glassdoor (represented by now Ninth Circuit Judge Eric Miller). See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 875 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2017);
  • Defended the United States in a Federal Tort Claims Act suit alleging that the Federal Highway Administration caused the plaintiff’s father’s death. See Booth v. United States, 914 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2019);
  • Argued before the en banc Ninth Circuit in favor of a mandatory life sentence imposed upon the juvenile defendant for his role in a robbery that ended in murder. See United States v. Briones, 929 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc);
  • Argued to overturn a grant of habeas relief for a defendant sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause (later struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutionally vague). See United States v. Orona, 923 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2019);
  • Argued that a one-on-one communication can qualify as a “notice offering” child pornography under federal law. The Ninth Circuit agreed. See United States v. Cox, 963 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2020);
  • Argued successfully before the en banc Ninth Circuit to affirm that Second Degree Murder can qualify as a “crime of violence” under the Armed Career Criminal Act. See United States v. Begay, 33 F.4th 1081 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc);
  • Argued successfully to reverse Judge James Soto’s disqualification of the entire U.S. Attorney’s Office from a series of prosecutions based on allegations of potential misconduct against one prosecutor. See United States v. Williams, 68 F.4th 564 (9th Cir. 2023).

Writings

Starting with her time as a law student, Lanham has written multiple articles on the law, particularly in international law. For example, as a law student, Lanham wrote a paper discussing the standards of appellate review in the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals. See Krissa Lanham, “Elusive Abominations”: Standards of Appellate Review in the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals, Int’l Law Research & Writing (Apr. 20, 2007) (available at https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/17759/Krissa_Lanham___Standards_of_Appellate_Review.pdf?sequence=2). Lanham also co-authored a report on the failure of the judiciary in Indian-Administered Kashmir to handle human rights claims. See Manav Bhatnagar, Krissa Lanham, and Bidar Sharma, The Myth of Normalcy: Impunity and the Judiciary in Kashmir, Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic (April 2009) (available at https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Kashmir_MythofNormalcy.pdf).

More recently, Lanham has written to offer advice to advocates giving remote oral arguments during the Covid-19 pandemic. See Eric M. Fraser and Krissa Lanham, Remote Appellate Oral Arguments, Arizona Attorney (March 2021).

Political Activity

Lanham’s sole political donation of record is to Democratic Congressional candidate Lauren Baer in 2017, who was a classmate of Lanham’s at Yale Law School.

Overall Assessment

While Lanham’s entire legal career has been spent at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, she has racked up experience there on both the criminal and civil sides. Given this background, she will likely be comfortably confirmed to join the busy Arizona District Court.

87 CommentsLeave a comment

Judge Angela Martinez – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Last year, Judge Angela Martinez became a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. This year, she appears poised to get a lifetime appointment to the court.

Background

Angela Martinez graduated from the University of Arizona in 1995 and subsequently received a J.D. from the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law in 2000. Martinez then clerked for Judge John Roll on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona and then joined Lewis and Roca LLP as an Associate.

In 2005, Martinez became an Assistant U.S. Attorney with the District of Arizona, serving until she took a break, spent a year at Farhang & Medcoff PLLC and then clerked for Judge Jennifer Guerin Zipps on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Martinez subsequently rejoined the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 2013, after her clerkship.

In 2023, Martinez became a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of Arizona in their Tucson courthouse, where she serves today.

History of the Seat

As a Tucson-based candidate, Martinez is expected to replace Judge James Soto, who has announced that he will take senior status on July 1, 2024.

Legal Career

Setting aside short stints in private practice and clerking, Martinez has spent virtually her entire career at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona. Her role in this office included criminal prosecution, including the prosecution of John Milton Lee, a Las Vegas man who engaged in an armed standoff with border patrol agents at the Lukeville Port-of-Entry. Martinez also prosecuted cases involving the trafficking of narcotics into the United States. See, e.g., United States v. Mize, No. CR-16-00219-TUC-JGZ (DTF) (D. Ariz. 2016).

On the civil side, Martinez has worked on civil asset forfeiture cases for the government, petitioning, for example, to seize a truck used to transport illegal aliens across the border, notwithstanding claims on the truck by the father of the defendant using it for illegal activities, after the defendant continued to use it for alien smuggling. See United States v. Camarillo, No. CR-16-00717-TUC-RCC (BGM) (D. Ariz. 2016).

Jurisprudence

Martinez has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the District of Arizona since her appointment in 2023. In this role, she presides over cases by agreement, handles settlement and discovery disputes, and writes reports and recommendations for district judges. Over the past year, Martinez’s reports and recommendations have generally been accepted by district court judges. See, e.g., Dobbs v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-22-00384-TUC-RCC (D. Ariz. Aug. 28, 2023) (Accepting Magistrate’s “well-reasoned” recommendation that an ALJ’s decision to deny Social Security benefits was supported by substantial evidence).

In one notable case, Martinez recommended that the district court grant in part a motion to suppress a statement with regard to a statement made after being questioned as to whether the defendant has been arrested before but denied as to all other statements. See United States v. Salazar-Apodaca, No. CR-22-01087-TUC-RM (AMM) (D. Ariz. July 26, 2023). Martinez’s recommendation was accepted by Judge Rosemary Marquez. See United States v. Salazar-Apodaca, No. CR-22-01087-TUC-RM (AMM) (D. Ariz. Aug. 14, 2023).

In another notable opinion, Martinez found that an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s symptom testimony due to prior inconsistent statements, finding that making inconsistent statements about one’s symptoms is not akin to having a medical record that contradicts your symptom testimony. See Whitehead v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-22-00486-TUC-JCH (AMM) (D. Ariz. Jan. 26, 2024). Martinez’s recommendation was accepted by Judge John Hinderaker. See Whitehead v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-22-00486-TUC-JCH (AMM) (D. Ariz. Feb. 16, 2024).

Overall Assessment

Martinez’s brief record on the bench shows her rulings to generally be supported by the district judges she is hopeful to join. Given that fact on top of her extensive experience litigating the border disputes that make up a significant proportion of the Tucson Division’s docket, Martinez appears well-prepared to take on a lifetime appointment to the U.S. District Court and appears likely to get it.

96 CommentsLeave a comment

Judge Dena Coggins – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Dena Coggins, who previously spent many years as an administrative law judge in California, has been nominated to fill a future vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Background

Dena Michaela Coggins received a B.S. from California State University, Sacramento in 2003 and a J.D. from the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law in 2006. Coggins then joined Morrison & Foerster LLP and subsequently moved to Downey Brand LLP.

In 2013, Coggins became Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary to California Governor Jerry Brown. In 2015, Coggins became an Administrative Law Judge with the State of California, which she continued until 2021, except for a year spent at the California Victim Compensation Board. Since 2021, Coggins has served as a Superior Court Judge for the County of Sacramento, serving as presiding judge of the Juvenile Court.

History of the Seat

Coggins has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to a seat vacated by the move to senior status of Judge Kimberly Mueller on September 17, 2024.

Legal Experience

Coggins started her legal career as an associate at Morrison and Foerster, where, among other others, she represented two Salvadorian men seeking asylum in the United States after being threatened by gangs in their home country. See Superior Court Judge Dena Coggins: Leveraging Diversity, Pro Bono Work to Serve Sacramento, MoForever Alumni News, Fall 2021.

Subsequently, Coggins worked for Governor Jerry Brown as Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary before becoming an Administrative Law Judge.

Jurisprudence

From 2015 to 2021, Coggins served as an Administrative Law Judge with the State of California. During her time as an ALJ, Coggins declined to dismiss an administrative due process hearing sought by the Elk Grove Unified School District in a dispute regarding educational services to a student deemed eligible for special educational services. See E.G. v. Elk Grove Unified School Dist., No. 2:16-cv-02412-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. July 31, 2019).

Since 2021, Coggins has served as a Superior Court Judge for the County of Sacramento, having been appointed to the position by Governor Gavin Newsom to replace Judge David Abbott. In this role, Coggins serves as a primary trial court judge for both criminal and civil cases. Currently, Coggins serves as presiding judge of the Juvenile Court.

Overall Assessment

While Coggins, in her early 40s, is still fairly young as a federal judicial nominee, she nonetheless brings experience with both civil and criminal litigation, as well as judicial experience to the bench.

101 CommentsLeave a comment

Judge Sanket Bulsara – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

A longtime litigator and federal magistrate judge, Judge Sanket Bulsara is poised to join the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Background

Born in 1977 in the Bronx, Sanket Bulsara graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College in 1998 and then attended Harvard Law School, graduating in 2002. Bulsara then clerked for Judge John Koeltl on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

After his clerkship, Bulsara spent a year at the Los Angeles office of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP before joining Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP. He stayed there, becoming a Partner in 2012, until 2015 (however, Bulsara also spent six months as a Special Assistant District Attorney at the Kings County District Attorney’s Office.

In 2015, Bulsara became Deputy General Counsel at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and subsequently became Acting General Counsel in January 2017.

In 2017, Bulsara became a federal magistrate judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. He serves on that court today.

History of the Seat

Bulsara has been nominated to fill a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This seat will open on December 19, 2024 when Judge Joan Azrack moves to senior status.

Legal Career

Bulsara started his legal career by clerking on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. After a year at Munger Tolles, Bulsara then worked at Wilmer Hale for a decade. Among the cases he worked on there, Bulsara represented Viviana Vittori, who was defending against the forced return of her children to Italy, where her ex-husband had moved. See Ermini v. Vittori, 758 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2014).

Between 2015 and 2017, Bulsara worked at the Securities and Exchange Commission, where he was part of the legal team working on the enforcement actions brought against Charles Kokesh for misappropriation of funds. See SEC v. Kokesh, 834 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2016), rev’d by Kokesh v. SEC, 137 S. Ct. 1635 (U.S. 2017). Bulsara also worked on enforcement actions against John Saad on misappropriation allegations. See Saad v. SEC, 873 F.3d 297 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

Notably, Bulsara was part of the legal team representing the SEC before the Supreme Court defending proceedings against Bassam Salman, who was indicted for insider trading for trading based on information received from his brother-in-law. See Salman v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 420 (U.S. 2016). The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed Salman’s conviction. See id.

Jurisprudence

Bulsara has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge since his appointment in 2017. As a magistrate judge, Bulsara handles matters related to pretrial release, warrants, and discovery, handles cases by consent, and presides over settlement conferences. During his time as a magistrate judge, Bulsara has also issued over 300 opinions.

Among the opinions he has written, Bulsara has:

  • Dismissed a defamation claim brought by a solo practitioner alleging that a blog post written by opposing counsel was defamatory. See Wexler v. Dorsey & Whitney, 18-CV-3066-SJB (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (available at https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3064&context=historical);
  • Granted a motion to compel medical records of the plaintiff, finding that the plaintiff had put her medical condition at issue in the case. See Vargas v. United States, 401 F. Supp. 3d 346 (E.D.N.Y. 2018);
  • Granted a motion to compel arbitration of a Fair Labor Standards Act claim. See Vargas v. Bay Terrace Plaza LLC., 378 F. Supp. 3d 190 (E.D.N.Y. 2019);
  • Granted a motion to exclude a defendant’s expert witness for failure to make inadequate disclosures under the federal rules. See Piepes v. Nai Entertainment Holdings LLC., 394 F. Supp. 3d 315 (E.D.N.Y. 2019).

Political Activity

While at Wilmer Hale, Bulsara made a number of political donations, including to President Barack Obama and then Senator Hillary Clinton.

Overall Assessment

Despite his youth, Bulsara has built up a legal career with extensive experience in the law, including as a practitioner and as a judge. His confirmation should be relatively straightforward.

159 CommentsLeave a comment

Judge Camela Theeler – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota

As part of a package of nominees with Sioux Falls attorney Eric Schulte, the White House has nominated state judge Camela (“Cammy”) Theeler to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota.

Background

A native of Pierre, South Dakota, the 48-year-old Camela C. Theeler received a B.A. from the University of South Dakota in 1998 and a J.D. from the University of South Dakota School of Law in 2000. She subsequently clerked on South Dakota’s First Judicial Circuit before joining the Morgan Theeler law firm.

In 2003, Theeler shifted to Lynn, Jackson, Shultz & Lebrun, where she stayed until 2012, when she became an Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Dakota. In 2018, Governor Dennis Daugaard named Theeler to the Second Judicial Circuit in South Dakota, where she currently serves.

History of the Seat

Theeler has been nominated to replace Judge Jeffrey Viken, who took senior status back in October 1, 2021. The nominations of Theeler and her co-nominee Eric Schulte happened after extensive negotiations with South Dakota’s Republican senators, which lasted years and resulted in several candidates rejected, including U.S. Magistrate Judge Veronica Duffy and former Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (who took herself out of consideration).

Legal Experience

Theeler started her legal career with a brief stint at Morgan Theeler and then at Lynn, Jackson, Schultz & Lebrun, where she defended Ethicon Endo-Surgery against a suit brought based on alleged discrimination against a pregnant employee. See Reynolds v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, 454 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2006).

Between 2012 and 2018, Theeler worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Dakota. At the office, Theeler primarily worked on civil cases, defending the Postmaster General against an employment discrimination suit. See Robinson v. Donahoe, 957 F. Supp. 2d 1119 (D.S.D. 2013). Theeler also defended the U.S. government in tort suits, see, e.g., Gates v. Black Hills Health Care Systems, 997 F. Supp. 2d 1024 (D.S.D. 2014), as well as suits under the Administrative Procedure Act. See, e.g., Middlebrooks v. United States, 8 F. Supp. 3d 1169 (D.S.D. 2014).

Political Activity

While Theeler has been identified as a Republican and her father-in-law, Jack Theeler, is a frequent Republican donor, Theeler’s own political history is fairly limited, and includes donations to both Democrat Jim Abbott and Republican Dusty Johnson.

Jurisprudence

In 2018, Governor Dennis Daugaard named Theeler to the Second Judicial Circuit of South Dakota to replace Judge Joseph Neiles. In that role, Theeler serves as a primary trial judge. Among her notable decisions as judge, Theeler sentenced 21-year-old Dantrez Isaac to three years in prison for his role in a burglary that occurred during May 2020 riots in Sioux Falls.

On the civil side, Theeler dismissed a suit brought against the City of Sioux Falls brought after the plaintiff was injured by an apartment wall collapsing during demolition under a city permit. See Fodness v. City of Sioux Falls, 947 N.W.2d 619 (S.D. 2020). Theeler dismissed the suit under the “public duty” rule, which prevented any duty of care attaching to municipalities merely through the issuance of permits. See id. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.

Among her decisions appealed, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed Theeler’s grant of a motion to compel allowing plaintiffs in a medical lack of informed consent case to review non-party patient records from the defendant. See Ferguson v. Thaemert, 952 N.W.2d 277 (S.D. 2020). The Supreme Court found that the request to look through the records of other patients of the defendant violated South Dakota statutes, and were not reasonably calculated to produce relevant evidence. See id.

Overall Assessment

With the strong support of both the White House and her home state senators, Theeler should be a relatively uncontroversial choice for the federal bench and should be confirmed comfortably.

120 CommentsLeave a comment

Eric Schulte – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota

After a long negotiation process, former South Dakota Bar President Eric Schulte has been named as one of two nominees to the U.S. District Court in South Dakota.

Background

Schulte has a long history in South Dakota, getting a B.A. from the University of South Dakota in 1994 and a J.D. from the University of South Dakota School of Law in 1999 before clerking on the South Dakota Second Judicial Circuit in Sioux Falls. Schulte then joined Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, where he still practices as a Partner.

History of the Seat

Schulte has been nominated to replace Judge Karen Schreier, who will take senior status upon confirmation of a successor.

Legal Experience

Schulte has spent his entire legal career at Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, where he works on commercial, insurance, and construction litigation. In addition, Schulte has served as a board member for East River Legal Services, working on providing legal assistance to low income individuals.

Among his notable cases, Schulte represented Blue Cloud Abbey, a defendant in a suit brought by seventy-two former students of St. Paul’s School, who alleged mental, physical, and sexual abuse while they were students there. See Zephier v. Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls, 752 N.W.2d 658 (S.D. 2008). After the district court dismissed all claims under the statute of limitations, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, finding that most of the defendants had alleged timely claims against the defendants. See id. at 23.

Political Activity

Schulte has an extensive donation history, with the vast majority of his donations going to Democrats in North and South Dakota. Schulte has also donated to a few Republicans, most notably, South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley.

Overall Assessment

With the District of South Dakota desperately in need of additional judges, Schulte’s nomination cannot come fast enough for the judges on the court. As with similar packages negotiated in Indiana and Oklahoma, it is likely that Schulte will be confirmed comfortably.

82 CommentsLeave a comment

Judge Rebecca Kanter – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

In a second attempt to fill a long time vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the White House has nominated state judge Rebecca Kanter.

Background

Rebecca S. Kanter received a Bachelor of Arts from the University of California, Irvine in 2000 and then a Juris Doctor from UC Los Angeles School of Law in 2003. Kanter subsequently clerked for Judge Harry Hupp on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Kanter subsequently joined O’Melveny & Myers LLP as an associate and then in 2006 became a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. She held that position until she joined the San Diego County Superior Court in 2023, where she currently serves.

History of the Seat

Kanter has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to a seat vacated on August 1, 2021, by Judge William Hayes’ move to senior status. Kanter’s colleague, Marian Gaston, had previously been nominated to fill this seat by President Biden, but withdrew her nomination after sitting on the Senate floor without a vote for over six months.

Legal Experience

Kanter started her legal career as an associate at O’Melveny & Myers, where she worked on civil and criminal defense. Subsequently, Kanter spent sixteen years as a federal prosecutor, where she rose to be deputy chief in the Major Crimes section, civil rights chief, and an ethics adviser in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Throughout her career, Kanter has tried around twenty-five cases and has argued six appeals before the Ninth Circuit.

Kanter has focused most of her career on financial crimes and public corruption cases. For example, Kanter prosecuted Joseph Bentley and Eugene Cloe, who, it was alleged, conspired to defraud the U.S. Navy. See United States v. Bentley, Case No. 15cr0195 JM (S.D. Cal.) (Miller, J.).

Among other notable cases that Kanter has been involved with, she was part of the legal team in an en banc Ninth Circuit case where the court ruled that the termination of a defendant’s state probation “nunc pro tunc” by a state judge retroactively to the date before a federal crime was committed doesn’t alter the defendant’s status as a probationer when the federal crime was committed. See United States v. Yepez, Case No. 09-50271 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (per curiam).

Jurisprudence

Since 2023, Kanter has served as a judge on the San Diego Superior Court. In this role, she presides over trial court matters in criminal, civil, family, and other state law matters. Previously, Kanter served as a volunteer judge presiding over small claims court.

Statements

In a 2022 interview when she was running for the Superior Court, Kanter elaborated on her judicial philosophy, noting that she wanted to be mindful of the humanity of all individuals who appeared before her and the ability of a judge to affect real-world outcomes. She also discussed how her views of criminal prosecution had been shaped by the death of George Floyd, noting that it emphasized that prosecutions are ultimately about ensuring accountability for individual’s actions. See 2022 Election: Q&A With Rebecca Kanter, Candidate for Superior Court Judge, Office 35, San Diego Union Tribune, Apr. 12, 2022, https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/story/2022-04-12/opinion-q-a-with-judge-candidate-rebecca-kanter.

Political Activity

Kanter has had a number of political donations over her career, all to Democrats.

Overall Assessment

In comparison to Gaston, who drew strong opposition for her work as a public defender, Kanter has a far more traditional background for a federal judge. While her jurisprudence is unlikely to be much different than that of Gaston, Kanter is nonetheless significantly more favored to join the federal bench.

107 CommentsLeave a comment

Amir Ali – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

The Biden administration has tapped 39-year-old civil rights litigator Amir H. Ali for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Ali is the fifth Muslim American nominated as an Article III judge by President Biden. Prior to the start of the Biden administration, there had never been a Muslim Article III judge in the history of the country.

Background    

Amir Ali immigrated to the United States of America, eventually becoming a naturalized citizen. He received a B.S.E. in Software Engineering from the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada in 2008 and his J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School in 2011. 

After graduating, Ali served as a law clerk for Judge Raymond C. Fisher on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 2011 to 2012 and Justice Marshall Rothstein on the Supreme Court of Canada from 2012 to 2013. Ali then joined Jenner & Block LLP in Washington, D.C. as an associate from 2013 to 2017. In 2018, he became Director of the Criminal Justice Appellate Clinic at Harvard Law School. Since 2021, he has been the President and Executive Director of the MacArthur Justice Center, overseeing the organization’s trial and appellate litigation. He replaced Locke Bowman, who served as Executive Director for almost 30 years.

Ali teaches at Harvard Law School, co-directing the law school’s Criminal Justice Appellate Clinic. He is a founding Board Member and Co-Chair of the nonprofit organization The Appellate Project.

History of the Seat

Ali has been nominated to replace Beryl Howell, who assumed senior status on February 1, 2024.​ Howell recently stepped down as chief judge of the court on March 16, 2023.

Legal Experience

Ali is a veteran litigator who has argued civil rights, racial justice and criminal defense cases at all levels in federal court. Ali has argued several major civil rights cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. In Welch v. United States (2016), Ali argued on behalf of Gregory Welch, who pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in 2010 and had previously been convicted of three other felonies. The Armed Career Criminal Act enhanced the maximum sentence for a convicted felon from 10 years to a minimum of 15 years and a maximum of life imprisonment if the felon had three or more prior convictions for drug or violent felonies. Welch was subsequently sentenced to 15 years in prison. In the 2015 case Johnson v. United States, the United States Supreme Court ruled the Residual Clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague and a violation of due process. Ali represented Welch who filed a petition for certiorari resulting in a 7–1 decision the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Johnson v. United States announced a substantive rule change and was thus retroactive with Justice Thomas being the lone dissenter.

In 2017, Ali filed a brief in Hawaii v. Trump challenging President Trump’s “Muslim ban” executive order. The brief asked for declaratory judgment and an injunction halting the order. Justice Sotomayor cited Ali’s brief in her dissenting opinion.

In 2018, Ali represented Gilberto Garza, Jr. in Garza v. Idaho before the United States Supreme Court. The case centered on two plea agreements Garza signed in 2015 which required him to waive his right to appeal. Garza then informed his trial counsel he wanted to appeal post sentencing, however his counsel declined to file a notice of appeal due to the waivers Garza signed. In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, reversing and remanding the case on the grounds that Garza’s trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

In 2018, the MacArthur Justice Center, in partnership with the Promise of Justice Initiative filed a petition for certiorari on behalf of Corey Williams in the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1998, Williams, who was an intellectually disabled 16-year-old child that had an IQ of 68, was accused and convicted of first-degree murder. Prosecutors sought the death penalty and Williams spent 20 years in Louisiana prison. In response to the petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Caddo Parish District Attorney’s Office agreed to the immediate release of Mr. Williams.

 In 2022, Ali represented Navy veteran Larry Thompson before the U.S. Supreme Court in Thompson v. Clark. Thompson’s sister-in-law called 911 to his Brooklyn, New York apartment, alleging he was sexually abusing his one-week-old child. Thompson refused to let police inside of his apartment without a search warrant. The four police officers dispatched to the apartment forced their way in, restrain Thompson who resisted and took him into custody for two days charging him with resisting arrest. After an investigation by law enforcement revealed no signs of child abuse, all charges were dismissed. Thompson filed suit against the four officers alleging they violated his Fourth Amendment rights.  The case was dismissed at the trial level and on appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals due to existing precedent, requiring Thompson to show that he had been affirmatively found innocent of committing the crimes in question. Thompson filed a petition for a writ of certiorari and in a 6–3 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled Thompson was not required to show that he had been affirmatively exonerated of committing the alleged crime and, instead, “need only show that his prosecution ended without a conviction.”  

Ali worked with now U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit judge Bradley Garcia in a case raising important issues involving access to courts for indigent incarcerated people. Garcia took the lead on the case pro bono and Ali said of him he “litigated the hell out of it,”.

Ali is currently representing the mother of Ahmaud Arbery in a civil suit against the people responsible for the murder of her son. Arbery was a 25-year-old black man murdered while jogging in a neighborhood near Brunswick, Georgia on February 23, 2020.

Political Activity

Ali has numerous political contributions to his name. His donation recipients include President Joe Biden and Democrat candidates for both the Georgia and Texas House of Representatives.

Overall Assessment

Despite Ali not reaching his 40th birthday yet, he has a vast legal career with an extensive progressive pro bono portfolio. If confirmed, he could serve on the court for decades and likely will be on any Democrat president’s short list for elevation for the foreseeable future. Significant opposition from senate Republicans should be expected through the confirmation process. Senate Democrats (And possibly Vice President Harris) have the votes to confirm Ali if they can keep their caucus together with nearly a year left in President Biden’s term.

References

109 CommentsLeave a comment

Judge Sunil Harjani – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

The Dirksen Courthouse - where the Northern District of Illinois sits.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Sunil Harjani has two decades of experience litigating before the Northern District of Illinois and the Seventh Circuit that he can bring to the bench.

Background

Harjani received a Bachelor of Arts from Northwestern University in 1997 and a J.D. cum laude from Northwestern Pritzker School of Law in 2000. Harjani then clerked for Judge Suzanne Conlon on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and joined the Chicago office of Jenner & Block LLP.

In 2004, Harjani became senior counsel with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and shifted to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois in 2008. Since 2019, Harjani has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

History of the Seat

Harjani has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. He is expected to be submitted for the seat that opened on December 26, 2023, when Judge Thomas Durkin moved to senior status.

Legal Career

Harjani started his legal career at the Chicago office of Jenner & Block, where he argued before the Seventh Circuit that a prisoner’s claim based on a beating at the jail is not required to be exhausted under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act before a suit is filed. See Smith v. Zachary, 255 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2001). The Seventh Circuit disagreed in a 2-1 decision, finding that the PLRA applied to the prisoner’s claim. See id. While at Jenner, Harjani also served as a legal adviser working with the North-Western University Legal Clinic. See, e.g., Johnson v. Bett, 349 F.3d 1030 (7th Cir. 2003).

In 2004, Harjani shifted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, where he worked on enforcement actions for insider trading against Roger Blackwell. See U.S. Sec. & Exchange Comm’n, 477 F. Supp. 2d 891 (S.D. Ohio 2007). Subsequently, Harjani became a prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois. While with the office, Harjani argued a number of appeals before the Seventh Circuit. See, e.g., United States v. Turner, 569 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Bright, 578 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Pilon, 734 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2013).

Jurisprudence

Harjani has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge since his appointment in 2019. In this role, he presides over arraignments, bail hearings, and non-dispositive motions. He also handles civil cases by consent of the parties.

Among his notable opinions as U.S. Magistrate Judge are two relating to government applications for warrants. In one case, Harjani approved a geofence warrant in relation to an arson investigation. See In the Matter of the Search Warrant Application for Geofence Location Data Stored at Google Concerning an Arson Investigation, 497 F. Supp. 3d 345 (N.D. Ill. 2020). In his opinion, Harjani noted that geofence warrants, which allow the government to note the presence of various cellular and mobile devices within certain coordinates, can be unconstitutional if laid out too broadly, but that, in this case, the specific areas sought were covered by probable cause. See id. at 353.

In comparison, Harjani approved government use of a cell site simulator to identify the cell phone number of a suspected narcotics trafficker. See In the Matter of the Use of a Cell-Site Simulator to Identify a Cellular Device in a Narcotics Trafficking Case, 623 F. Supp. 3d 888 (N.D. Ill. 2022). Harjani specifically identified geographic limitations on the warrant that he noted would render it permissible under the Fourth Amendment. See id. at 894-95.

Writings

Harjani has frequently written on the law, going back to his time as a law student. See Sunil R. Harjani, The Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods in United States Courts, 23 Hous. J. Int’l 49 (2000-2001). See also Sunil R. Harjani, Litigating Claims Over Foreign Government-Owned Corporations Under the Commercial Activities Exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 20 Nw. J. Int’l L. & Bus. 181 (1999-2000). Later, as a federal prosecutor, Harjani authored a discussion of the intersection of the work-product privilege and attorney notes taken during cross-border investigation interviews. See Sunil R. Harjani, Privilege and Interview Notes in Cross-Border Investigations, 45 Litigation 13 (2018-2019).

As a magistrate judge, Harjani was equally prolific. See, e.g., Sunil R. Harjani, Top Ten Mistakes in Internal Investigations Reports, 36 GPSolo 70 (2019). In one article, Harjani outlined different strategies that attorneys should embrace when approaching settlement conferences, based on where in the life of the case they land. See Hon. Sunil R. Harjani, Timing is Everything: When to Ask for a Settlement Conference, 49 Litigation 51 (2022-2023), https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_judges/Harjani/Timing%20is%20Everything.pdf.

Overall Assessment

As a sitting magistrate judge with a long history of litigation, Harjani should be a safe choice for the Northern District of Illinois. Barring anything unusual, he should be confirmed in the next 3-4 months.

130 CommentsLeave a comment