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 Comments

  1. Dequan's avatar

    Sunil Harjani was my third pick out of the new slate of recommendations that Durbin & Duckworth sent to the WH. I was happier with the last slate that had Gowen & Shelly left off from being nominated. Neither hear nor there, I look for Harjani to be confirmed over the next few months. There’s still one vacancy on the NDIL so hopefully we get a nominee in short order for that seat as well.

    Like

  3. raylodato's avatar

    Harsh’s statement that Harjani is “expected to be submitted” for the Durkin vacancy reminds me that we’re closing in on a month since this last list of nominees was named and have not yet been sent to the Senate.

    And here I thought Schumer’s scheduling was the most frustrating part of this process.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. tsb1991's avatar

    So it looks like a disaster was averted with nominees being sent to the Senate yesterday, the Tax Court nominees were also sent as well. That would confirm that hearing on 2/8. As I said last night there’s also a business meeting scheduled at the same time, most likely that gets canceled and the nominations hearing will be in its place (the only thing that would happen at that business meeting is that the red state nominees from last week’s hearing will be held over). I wonder if the two meetings could be combined, where Durbin just announces the holdover of the nominees before proceeding to the hearings lol. Is the border bill expected to take up the entirety of Wednesday that no committee meetings across the Senate would be going on?

    That would leave the biggest disappointment of the week the fact that we got no new nominations this week (second being that Michigan’s Senators had to be out Thursday which could have put the kibosh on moving on an appeals court nominee). It’s not a complete disappointment yet since if we get nominees next Wednesday, we could still have hearings on 3/6 and 3/20, as opposed to 2/28 and 3/13 during that 4-week Senate session.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. keystone's avatar

    @Frank
    I sure hope they wouldn’t make a new list. The application committee for the current NDIL list was announced on Aug 14, 2023 and the list of names came out on Nov 17, 2023. If they started a new search committee for Pallmeyer or a hypothetical Maldonado backfill, we’d prob add an extra ~3 months to the process.

    The old list came out on Dec 16, 2021 and they used it into 2023 (The Cummings nom announcement was on Jan 23, 2023). The old list had 7 names and they selected 5.

    The current list has 6 names (minus Harjani) and is still pretty recent (It came out just ahead of the holidays).

    Liked by 2 people

    • star0garnet's avatar

      So for blue state +DC/ME vacancies, we know of:
      10/31 deadline in AZ
      11/27 and 1/02 deadlines in PA
      12/01 deadline in VT
      12/11 deadline in MA
      12/15 deadline in ME
      2/29 deadline in MN
      rolling deadline in CA

      That leaves:
      DC (known 1/08)
      CD/ND IL (known 11/01, 11/30) +7th Cir. (known 1/12)
      MD (known 10/12)
      ED/SD/WD NY (known 12/13, 6/27, 1/08)
      ED WA (known 1/08)

      I’d guess we’ll get leftover nominees from ND IL and NY, and a new process in DC, but I’m not sure on the rest.

      Liked by 2 people

      • keystone's avatar

        The Maryland seat deadline was November 13, 2023.
        https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-cardin-join-colleagues-in-bipartisan-vote-to-confirm-judge-matthew-maddox-for-the-us-district-court-of-maryland

        For DC, there was a filing deadline of September 26, 2023. This is the lot that gave us Amir Ali. The evaluation process would have been occurring around the time that the Edelman decision was being made, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they will use a candidate from this bunch for that seat.

        https://norton.house.gov/media/press-releases/norton-commission-accepting-applications-upcoming-vacancy-us-district-court-dc

        Liked by 1 person

      • keystone's avatar

        The Maryland seat deadline was November 13, 2023.

        For DC, there was a filing deadline of September 26, 2023. This is the lot that gave us Amir Ali. The evaluation process would have been occurring around the time that the Edelman decision was being made, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they will use a candidate from this bunch for that seat.

        WordPress wouldn’t let me include the links but the source material is:

        Sen. Van Hollen Press Release (11-6-23)

        Rep Norton’s Press Release (9-11-23)

        Liked by 2 people

      • star0garnet's avatar

        With that in mind, my slightly optimistic guess at a timeline:

        Mid-Feb: AZ x3, SD CA, DC, ND IL, SD NY
        Early Mar: ED CA, ND CA, MD
        Mid-Mar: ED NY, WD NY, ED PA, MD PA, VT
        Early Apr: 1st, 7th, ME, MA
        Mid-Apr: CD CA x3, ED PA
        Mid-Jun: MN
        Aug (but really anytime from now till Sept): CD IL, ED WA

        For the GOP circuit seats, I’d guess mid-March for 6th x2, and July for the 4th and 11th.

        Liked by 1 person

      • keystone's avatar

        I might move a few things between early and mid month, but generally yes.

        A few notes.

        1) VT is definitely gonna be later. Even though their application due date was 12/1, they set expectations that committee interview wouldn’t even begin until February. This is Sanders’ first time leading the process and he’s made some changes to the structure. I get the sense things are going to move a tad slower.

        For comparison, the Maine search had applications due 12/15 and their committee interviews occurred between 1/4-1/6.

        2) I think we’ll get the MDPA nom before the 1st EDPA nom. The MDPA generally seems to be more efficient than the EDPA committee. The MDPA committee is really only looking at Harrisburg based lawyers vs evaluating the pool of Philadelphia lawyers. Also, this is prob the last MDPA spot for a bit (unless Connor surprises me). Whereas EDPA has potential to have more openings this year, so I suspect (or hope) they will try to amass a list of good candidates. And the EDPA committee is also doing that while also searching for a Lehigh Valley Candidate.

        3) There’s also the 2nd SDNY vacancy. I think that will come in the summer.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Zack's avatar

      I know it’s over and done with but the missed chances to flip the 7th and 11th Circuits will always bug me.
      At least on a circuit court level, even if Democrats sometimes do work to nominate someone who isn’t as progressive as we’d like Kolar, Democrats aren’t being dumb enough to play by one set of rules that the other will never follow.

      Liked by 2 people

      • dawsont825's avatar

        While it may give off the “crying over spilled milk vibe”, I think it is helpful to lick one’s wounds and use it as motivation in the future. In Dem administrations past, there wouldn’t be a snowball’s chance in hell that they would fill a circuit court vacancy in the lame duck period between either administrations, or senate terms. For the most part, Biden and his WHC team, along with Durbin seem to be committed to filling any CCA vacancy as long as there is the term “Pres.” before Biden’s name.

        Does it suck that Trump basically got to appoint almost half of the active circuit judges in the deep south (5th, 7th, and 11th)? Absolutely! But he couldn’t have gotten it without fuckery from McConnell during the last 2 years of Pres. Obama’s presidency (don’t even get me started on the average ages of Obama’s appointees). The key lesson to take away from getting our asses handed to us in the judicial fights… the other side will fight dirty to gain power, take no prisoners and do the same.

        Whenever there is a GOP president and a Dem majority in the senate, just confirm like 10 judges in 2 years and grind the judiciary to a halt to have the incoming Dem president have a BUNCH of vacancies to fill on day 1. As soon as that happens, scrap blue slips for district courts and fill judgeships with >35 year old liberal lawyers from the ACLU/ACS/SPLC and appoint them to conservative states and give 0 fucks as to how much they bitch and whine.

        Will any of that ^^ happen? lolol hell no. I have a better chance of breakdancing with a polar bear here in Florida before Dems get serious like that. But what they can do is borrow tactics from the Trump administration. Offer 3-1 deals in states with numerous vacancies. Tell the home-state senators that they can have their choice of 1 out of 4 vacancies, or they can have 0 choices when the SJC ignores blue slips. Give home-state senators a deadline of 3-4 months per vacancy and tell them that any backtracking or stall tactics will only result in them not being apart of the nomination process. I bet you after a few very liberal lawyers get confirmed in Mississippi and Utah, Sullivan, Johnson and the other gaggle of far-right hacks get serious about being included in the process.

        Nothing lasts forever, and the judges that Trump appointed will have to take senior status/resign/die at some point. Get serious about what was lost and work like hell to get them back.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. Zack's avatar

    I would think at this point with the selection of a young Federalist Society hack to the TN Supreme Court that
    Camille McMullen will get the nod for Gibbon’s seat.
    The 2nd seat is where we need to find a Mathis type judge.
    The head explosions from TN’s senators over that will be so much fun.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Mike S.'s avatar

    I agree that Blackburn’s head would probably explode if you had three black judges on the circuit courts in TN haha.

    I was reading on Judge Stranch’s wikipedia page, and apparently Lisa Schultz Bressman was under consideration for that seat at one point during the Obama years. She would be close to 60 at this point, but I wonder if a compromise pick, assuming one of the seats goes to McMullin. Hope we get a distrcit court nominee as part of a package too.

    We need six new nominees by this Wednesday. Assuming they are all on the district court level, who can we expect? I would like to see noms in South Dakota, ED Cali, and maybe some more noms in TX.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      If I had to guess I would say Eric Schulte is ready by now. Perhaps the second South Dakota pick. Whichever one of the two recommendations for the EDWI should be ready by now too.

      We may finally see our first mixed batch in a while so including some blue states isn’t completely off the table. I believe New York has 3 total vacancies so maybe one from there. California has multiple vacancies so that’s always a possibility.

      Like

  11. Zack's avatar

    Who’s to say Rob Portman would have returned his blue slip for Bloomekatz?
    Also, as cooperative as Indiana’s senators have been, I doubt they would have been if Durbin had continued Leahy’s policy of honoring blue slips under a Democratic senate so there would have been vacancies there too.
    Likewise in the 3rd Circuit with Toomey, upcoming vacancy in North Carolina etc.
    Glad we don’t have to find out.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Joe's avatar

    If I was running the WH Counsels office I’d definitely be aggressive in Tennessee. It’s going to be fascinating to follow. This is a different situation from Texas in that there’s only one district opening rather than eight. Blackburn and Hagerty don’t have very much leverage at all.

    Hoping we can get a Gibbons replacement announced here soon.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Joe

      I halfway agree with you. We still have to be careful for Gibbons seat because we are less than a year from the next inauguration. She could easily withdraw & just wait to see who wins in November. What I would do is fill her seat quickly.

      If they nominate one of the US attorneys, McMullin, the chief judge of the district court or even Edward Stanton, all should be able to get vetted quickly. I would have Durbin expedite their hearing, one week hold over & committee vote even if that means doing one of those on a recess week. Then Schumer should immediately send a cloture motion to the desk the following Monday after the committee vote & have final confirmation that Thursday.

      Biden would sign the commission due same day. That would officially take Gibbons out of the equation. Hopefully all of that could be done by the beginning of June. I would already have the FBI vetting started for a fee nominees for the other seat. I would let Blackburn & Haggerty know they have two weeks to agree on a nominee or we will go the Andre Mathis route.

      Like

  14. keystone's avatar

    Let’s say WH nominated McMullen and points to the fact that the TN Senators have previously praised her and said she’s qualified. And on top of it, points out that the conservative Republican TN governor short listed her for the state Supreme Court. (I get that it was an empty gesture on the Gov’s part but it still happened so it’s fair game to use in my book).

    I’m just trying to figure out what excuse Blackburn would say.

    “I wasn’t properly consulted”- well you publicly praised her and said you’d support her last year.

    “She’s not qualified” – you’re on the record saying she’s qualified.

    “She’s too liberal” – Then why does your party keep nominating her.

    Is it just gonna give the Press an insanely racist sound bite?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      @keystone

      You forgot two responses.

      1. Haggerty & me need more time to evaluate McMullin’s background since we had to spend so much time on that thug Andre Mathis’s rap sheet last time.

      2. (After about 4 months pass) It is entirely too close to the presidential election, therefore the people of Tennessee should have a say so in who will be making decisions for them for the next 3 to 4 decades.

      Be honest, you read both of those in your head with Blackburn’s voice didn’t you? Haaaaaa

      Liked by 1 person

      • keystone's avatar

        Oh, I can totally hear it. But I’ve also heard her recently fielding questions about Taylor Swift that make me think Miss Marsha is starting to think about her reelection and, even though it’s TN and she’s in very little danger of losing, still doesn’t want to do anything that’s gonna piss off of fire up younger voters.

        Liked by 1 person

  15. Mike's avatar

    I’m looking at open vacancies and understand how a 3-4 month vacancy in a blue state might not have a nominee yet but how in the world are there multiple blue state vacancies that are over a year old?

    McConnell would’ve started pistol whipping his senators if this happened under his watch. No nominee for Pans seat in DC, Mendoza in WA, Rufe in PA or Hayes in CA?!

    These should’ve been in the bag months ago.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. Zack's avatar

    As I’ve said before, yes McConnell is ruthless and one can’t deny the effect he’s had on the courts.
    But in the same breath, I feel at time his mastery etc. has been overrated.
    Orrin Hatch did the same thing to Bill Clinton (sans SCOTUS) when it came to judicial vacancies and hypocrisy around blue slips.
    If Democratic senators lead by Leahy hadn’t been idiots when it came to the blue slip rule under Obama and Democratic voters cared about showing up for elections the way Republicans one do, it would have also lessened his impact under Trump.
    Also there were many Democratic appointed judges (ones who were actual Democrats) who believed in their heart of hearts the courts weren’t political and thus didn’t retire when they should have or did under Trump not caring a far right hack would replace them.
    We saw several flips happen that way with Midge Randell, Chris Droney etc.
    Finally, when you don’t care about passing any legislation, makes it easier to focus on judges too.
    Bottom line, yes McConnell was ruthless on judges but he wasn’t the master people make him out to be either.
    He had a lot of help with it, Democratic voters not caring about voting for the courts most of all.
    End rant.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Other than convince Democratic voters that the judiciary is important, I’m not sure how effective any Senate strategy would be. After the Democrats lost a bunch of Senate seats in 2014, there wasn’t really much that they could do, and there wasn’t anything they could do to prevent Turtle McConnell from shoving 3 Supreme Court Justices down our throats. Leahy’s stupidity cost us 5-10 circuit court seats, which would have left Trump with 44-49 (which is still a lot).

      Liked by 1 person

  18. Lillie's avatar

    What’s wild to me is that Obama didn’t appoint any judges born after 1970 to circuit courts accept for Costa (who’s gone but weirdly from Tx) Friedland and Owens (appointed after nuclear option gone and to the 9th.)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hank's avatar

      Owens is probably the most conservative Dem appointee on the 9th though, and unlike with the older Obama appointees, there won’t be an opportunity to replace him with someone better for at least another decade (assuming he doesn’t go senior under a Republican, which is possible with these moderates). Prime example of how youth can actually be a downside if the person isn’t actually liberal/progressive.

      Liked by 1 person

  22. Zack's avatar

    Part of what happened with Obama is that Republicans made it their mission to filibuster judges early on so most of the time, Obama didn’t appoint younger, liberal progressive judges and the few times he tried pre-filibuster, they got blocked like Goodwin Liu did.
    Only when the ACA got threatened and the blockade on the DC Circuit became untenable was the nuclear option done.
    And for the idiots that bash Reid for that, keep in mind the only reason it wasn’t done under W is that Democrats caved and let some of his most extreme judges like Janice Brown and Bill Pryor get up or down votes.
    Anyone who thinks McConnell wouldn’t have done the nuclear option and filled vacancies on the D.C. Circuit or elsewhere is a fool.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thomas's avatar

      @Zack Jones:
      Everything happened under Obama has already happened and is history now. So it’s futile to remain furious about it.
      You posted earlier in this thread, that you know about that, and started to rant again.
      I think your problem in the moment is, that not all eligible judges, who have been appointed under Clinton or Obama announced senior status.
      But there were twenty-six Republican judges have also not done under Trump, although he had asked them to go senior.
      In this case the judiciary would look far worse than now.
      I disagree that judges must stay under a the President of the party they have been appointed by and go under the other one, it’s the decision of every indiviual, it this individual doesn’t care, who is president and about his successor, leave at the first possible opportunity when they get eligible, or when they get a well-paid job offer, that’s maybe not desirable, but legitimate.

      I have already said, that this practice would mean that the present majority at all federal courts is cemented for the future unless dead or health reasons. So a 6-3 majority at SCOTUS forever. How horrible is that?

      The BS matter is maybe also overestimated, because ditching it would just give the nominee the chance for a hearing at the SJC, but he’s still two steps away from the confirmation, and we saw not super-controversal nominees like Edelman or Gaston failing to take them, because the further seat has ostensibly caused less cohesion at the Democratic caucus.

      Liked by 1 person

  23. Zack's avatar

    On a different level, anyone have an idea who the front runners for the vacant seats in Maine will be?
    If nothing else, have to see if the recent falling out King and Collins had will come into play or not.

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Zack Jones

      Here’s some possibilities;

      Darcie McElwee – Collins has already signed off on her & this senate has already confirmed her.

      Carol Garvan
      Nolan Reichl
      Julia Lipez
      Travis Brennan
      Stacy Stitham
      Chad Higgins
      Tara Walker – With her not being 40 years old yet, she would be a major surprise. But similar to Julie Rikelman, she has ties to Alaska so it’s possible she could get Murkowski’s support.

      Liked by 1 person

      • keystone's avatar

        With regards to King and Collins having a fight, I’m not worried about it. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe did not hide the fact that they H-A-T-E-D each other but were still able to be respectful and have a very productive working relationship that put Maine first.

        Darcie McElwee is prob a contender. Biden’s already appointed her as US Attorney. She’s from Caribou, ME- which is also where Susan Collins is from and it’s in the upper part of the state, i.e. Rep Golden’s territory. Her parents were both elected officials from different parties – Her mother is a Republican who was in the Maine House of Reps; and her father is a Democrat who was a county commissioner and district attorney in Aroostook County before being appointed a state District Court judge. I’m not sure how progressive she is but I think she ticks off boxes for the ME Senators and Reps.

        A few of the other names mentioned made political donations to Sara Gideon’s bid against Collins (lookin’ at you Reichl, Brennan, etc)… so I’m not sure how that’s going to fly.

        Julia Lipez had been high on my list, but she’s had a few recent cases that could be political TNT for the judiciary committee. One of the cases involves a woman whose 1-yr old son died from fentanyl ingestion and Lipez went for a lesser sentence than the state was seeking. I can imagine Blackburn or Cruz having a field day with that.

        And there’s another one where the Maine Sec of State said that Chris Christie couldn’t be on the Maine ballot for some reason and Lipez upheld that ruling. I could see the committee using that as a reason to grandstand about the efforts to keep Trump off of the Maine (and other state) ballot.

        I can’t decide if Collins would go for Lipez.

        Liked by 1 person

  25. Dequan's avatar

    Just a reminder, tomorrow when Harsh publishes the next post, I will continue to comment on this post until the next post is published. If you have any comments or questions for me, I’ll continue commenting here on this post due to me being the guest writer for tomorrow’s post. Thanks in advance all

    Liked by 3 people

      • Zack's avatar

        Looking it up, she did take senior status after her son joined.
        Led to a Republican (Richard Talman) flipping her seat.
        Won’t be an issue here though.
        Still, I would think for the reasons Keystone mentioned, Julia Lipez is unlikely to get the nod for the upcoming seat, which likely leaves Nolan Reichl out as well.
        Darcie McElwee is the likely frontrunner here but who knows?

        Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      If the administration decided to go that route, they likely would already have her father confirm he will step down once she is confirmed. I’m sure it would be similar to when Candace Jackson-Akiwumi was nominated to the 7th. Her father took senior status shortly after she was confirmed.

      Like

    • Hank's avatar

      Yeah and even that was a BS excuse concocted by the Republicans – as William Fletcher points out, there were cousins and even brothers serving on the same court (in this lovely tribute to Betty Fletcher, who was one of the best circuit judges ever): https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/nanna/record/1124009/files/fulltext.pdf?withWatermark=0&withMetadata=0&version=1&registerDownload=1

      So nothing’s likely to change with Kermit Lipez if his daughter were nominated – he’s already senior anyways, so Collins gains little from pressuring him to fully retire.

      That being said, there’s no chance Collins agrees to someone in their early 40s for the seat. All of the Maine judges on CA1 have been in their mid-to-late 50s when appointed, and Kayatta was 60.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ethan's avatar

        @Hank,

        One name I’d keep an eye on for Maine is Michael Mahoney (born c. 1972), the Chief Legal & Compliance Officer for LL.Bean.

        He used to be Chief Counsel for former Maine Governor John Baldacci, a Democorat.

        But he might be more likely to get a district court seat.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hank's avatar

        Collins is a moderate, but I can’t see her signing off on someone so closely tied to Dem politics – I think Taub (as you mentioned) is a more realistic pick than any of the other names floated on this blog. He’s an older white guy without anything particularly progressive/liberal on his resume – that’s catnip for Collins.

        Anyone know how old Karen Frink Wolf (the new Maine magistrate judge) is? Unless she’s like already 60+, she’s probably in the running (and Collins might be less inclined to object to the first woman circuit judge from Maine).

        As for McElwee, I generally don’t see US Attorneys as the front runners others here think they are – Republican senators will pretty much always object on the (not unreasonable) grounds that being an appellate judge requires more experience than being a head prosecutor. I guarantee that if the WH picks Kevin Ritz for the Gibbons seat on CA6 for example, Blackburn will complain about that (and probs also he’s somehow soft on crime too). Besides, of the 40+ appellate nominees, only one (Cindy Chung on CA3) was formerly the head federal prosecutor.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Gavi's avatar

      @Zack Jones
      I don’t understand your reasoning. There’s zero expectation to retire/go senior if another family member joins the same court or another one above or below yours.
      If there’s ever an issue, it would be quickly resolved by a recusal. Charles Breyer was appointed and remained an active federal judge until 2011 while his brother, Stephen Breyer, was on SCOTUS. Justice Breyer, on his own initiative, regularly recused from cases heard by his brother.
      So whether or not Lipez’s father want to leave the bench is entirely up to him.

      Liked by 2 people

  27. keystone's avatar

    It sounds like the Republicans are gonna try to derail the border bill this week. If that happens, does that mean we get more judicial votes?

    is there a chance we might get some movement on Lee, Kasubhai, Kiel, and Russell?

    Do we think Schumer file cloture on a Circuit nom tomorrow and try to get him/her clotured and confirmed ahead on Thursday?

    Thoughts on the upcoming week?

    Liked by 2 people

  28. Hank's avatar

    This article makes many of the points folks on this blog have: https://ballsandstrikes.org/nominations/blue-slips-senate-democrats-federal-district-court-judges-what-are-we-doing/

    The problem is that this article overlooks the reality of the Dems’ narrow majority in the Senate. Manchin has essentially become a moderate Republican on judicial nominations since he announced his retirement – he’s been voting no on any nomination that Collins/Murkowski also reject, which means getting those nominees confirmed now requires both (1) Sinema’s continued cooperation, and (2) either GOP absences or full attendance by Dem Senators + the VP’s vote. In this world (and given Schumer’s inability to read a calendar), I’m not convinced that nominating a bunch of red-state district judges that require full Dem attendance for confirmation would lead to more judges actually getting confirmed within the next 10 months.

    And honestly, who gives a damn about red-state district judges (who will be overruled by CA5/CA8/CA11 at every turn) when the WH might not even fill all the circuit vacancies. There really needs to be more nominees soon, especially for the Gibbons CA6 seat.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Frank's avatar

      I have a few issues with this article. First, the author makes no note of the fact that Colom received the support of Wicker, which is a important detail to leave out, and is showing that with reasonable senators the positive aspects of the blue slip. The author also incoherently frames the issue as being something Biden and Durbin are on opposite sides on, yet there is no evidence to suggest Biden actually supports the removal of blue slips.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hank's avatar

      Why does it matter that Wicker returned a blue slip for Colom? District judges require both blue slips to move forward, not just one. And although I disagree with the article’s conclusion, its strongest point is that the current system allows trash like Hyde Smith to obstruct judicial nominees.

      I agree, however, that it’s unlikely that Biden is advocating for getting rid of blue slips (honestly, I’m not convinced Biden remembers what a blue slip is…). But Durbin’s comment sounds more like he was pressuring the WH to agree to red-state nominees it was inclined to reject/leave the seat open – which makes sense, given how many red-state district nominees have been Republicans lately.

      If he loves bipartisanship so much, Durbin should be using all this sudden Republican love of blue slips to make it so that Republicans can’t turn around and abolish blue slips for district judges if they win the Senate in November. Anyone know if it’s possible to pass a rule that takes away Durbin’s (and any future SJC chair’s) discretion on this issue and require 60 votes in the floor/a supermajority in the SJC to abolish district court blue slips?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Rick

      Riggs would be the perfect choice. Some people on the blog feels it could lead to a Republican winning the SCOT-NC seat she’s running for this November. I think it’s worth the risk. Riggs is THAT good. She was on the People’s Parity List of judicial nominees from 2020. That list makes Demand Justice list look like The Federalist Society.

      Like

    • Hank's avatar

      No point in dreaming about Riggs getting the nomination – the only way that happens is if the WH tells Tillis and Budd to pound sand, since there’s no chance they’d return a blue slip for her. I’d love to see that, but I doubt that’s happening when Tillis has voted for some Biden nominees and there are district court vacancies for a possible deal. I would say Riggs is great enough to be worth leaving the district seats open though – it’s CA4, so any Fed Soc nut of a district judge would likely be reversed on appeal/en banc for anything important.

      And I don’t think Riggs vs. whoever else is going to make a difference in the NC SSC election. With the decline of ticket-splitting (and I can’t imagine someone voting for Trump and Riggs), whichever party wins NC in the presidential race in 2024 will almost certainly win the SSC seat. Biden couldn’t win NC in 2020 and he seems to be in a worse place this year, so I would expect this SSC seat to flip regardless of whether it’s Riggs or someone else.

      Liked by 1 person

  30. Zack's avatar

    I think Riggs would be an excellent candidate for Wynn’s seat as well but I suspect the politics around her state Supreme Court seat is why she won’t be the nominee, which is a shame.
    As for the Maine seats, my last thoughts on them for now is that I imagine we’ll see nominees for them sooner rather then later given that the interview process for nominees wrapped up last month.
    Not expecting anyone super progressive out of those names but as always, moderate is still better then Federalist Society types.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hank's avatar

      Manchin definitely, but I haven’t seen any reason to believe that Sinema or Tester would oppose an election law/voting rights expert – Republicans can’t argue that she’s soft on crime, and a lawyer who’s argued twice before SCOTUS is the farthest thing from unqualified.

      A more ruthless WH would let the NC senators know that Riggs, Park, and Beasley (or someone similar) are the finalists and let the NC senators pick among the three – and then threaten to go with Riggs if they refuse a blue slip for any of them by like April 1. Could probably get Park or Beasley with blue slips in that case, as the NC senators can’t pull a Blackburn and claim they weren’t consulted if they literally get to pick between 3 options.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Frank's avatar

        I agree with you on this one. Riggs would make a fantastic addition to the federal judiciary and while the committee hearing would be contentious, there’s nothing in her background that suggests she’d suffer from the same issues as the previous failed nominees in the Biden administration. Nonetheless, I expect Biden to pick a ‘safe’ nominee that has the support of both Republican senators, particularly in an election year, especially since this is an election year.

        Liked by 1 person

  32. tsb1991's avatar

    With the text of the border/supplemental bill released, interesting to know what the Wednesday schedule will be. We know Schumer will file cloture on the motion to proceed on the bill, but if the vote on that won’t happen until later in the day, he COULD file cloture on one or two more nominations. I’d keep expectations low and assume it’ll be the first Wednesday vote (which if that happens, the Senate won’t be doing much for the rest of the day on the floor).

    Barring any time agreement to speed up passage (which I can’t imagine the Rand Pauls or the Mike Lees agreeing to any expedition of this bill), this could drag into the weekend (Schumer did hint at cutting into the two week break if needed). On the flip side, never underestimate the sheer will of a Senator ready to skip town on Thursday afternoon on the eve of an extended break. You could probably re-write the entire US Constitution and get unanimous consent from the Senate to do it if you threaten to do that work beyond a Thursday.

    And assuming no expedition, the vote series I think would be cloture on motion to proceed (60 votes), motion to proceed to bill (60 votes), cloture on bill (60 votes), and passage (majority vote needed).

    Liked by 2 people

  35. Dequan's avatar

    First off, thanks to all of the kind words & comments about the Ali article. I read each & every one of them & truly appreciate all of your comments.

    On to a few other items;

    Karoline Mehalchick received her commission today.

    @Keystone

    Great find on the article about Camela Theeler. It looks like the South Dakota vacancies finally having nominees could be imminent. She along with Schulte seems like a fine pair of red state nominees.

    @Rick

    Great article from Politico. No surprise senator Schmidt doesn’t sound like he is working in any good faith to fill the Missouri vacancies. I was a little surprised at senator’s Kennedy’s remarks regarding the administration is sending him recommendations that should be able to judge a pie eating contest. If anything, he is at least funny.

    Liked by 2 people

  38. Dequan's avatar

    @Ben

    Always with the scoop. Four new nominees today plus a U.S. Marshall. I wish it was more than four but I’ll take what we can get. The two South Dakota’s are good. I wonder if the other two are also red and/or purple state nominees. Hopefully the EDWI nominee.

    Like

  39. Dequan's avatar

    Kirk Sherriff just received his commission. Between this & the Dena Michaela Coggins nomination this morning, that’s great news for the EDCA. That court is one of (If not the) most understaffed district courts out of all 93 so it’s good news they won’t have a pending vacancy for quite some time with today’s news.

    Like

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Dale Drozd becomes eligible for senior status on November 2, 2025, so that might be an issue given judges on E.D. Cal. tend to go senior as soon as they can. Drozd was confirmed in 2015 with Obama and a GOP Senate, so maybe there is hope that a GOP Senate would let Biden fill the seat should that be the power split.

      Liked by 1 person

    • star0garnet's avatar

      Frustrating to me that that message didn’t also have the new nominations with it.

      Miss your input on the current thread. Nice writeup, but I don’t see much reason for your absence from the comments. And whatever justification there is for it disappears after ~5 hours, when the conversation shifts from a discussion of the post’s topic to a judiciary-themed open thread.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Yea it makes no sense when they wait to send the nominations to the senate.

        Oh & I don’t feel it’s good independent journalism to be commenting on an article you write if it’s not an opinion piece. So I just feel more comfortable commenting here until the next write up post is released. But don’t worry, I’m one post away buddy… Lol

        Like

      • star0garnet's avatar

        While I do respect the sentiment, I think one of the few aspects where journalism has improved over yesteryear is in journalists interacting with readers on Twitter and the like by answering questions, clearing up misconceptions, and correcting their own mistakes (other generally positive changes being more immediate spreading/factchecking/correcting/updating of news, greater variety of perspectives within the house of journalism, and better cameras; pretty much everything else is worse). But I’d say adding a “[post author]” tag at the start of each of your comments (should you author more in the future) would be more than enough. While I know they’re busy and may need to maintain an unbiased public persona, I’d be interested in more of what Harsh and the other contributors have to say beyond the posts themselves. I’ve been following the blog since 2018, but since the comment sections started gaining traction in ~August 2021, it’s been amazing to see the judiciary discussed in a way that I’ve never seen elsewhere.

        Liked by 2 people

  41. Dequan's avatar

    I don’t think we will have a repeat of the Nevada judge when the defendant jumped over the court room desk to attack the judge when it comes to Sunil Harjani. According to his SJC Q he seems to be well versed in Karate for decades… Lol

    Like

Leave a reply to Dequan Cancel reply