Jeannette Vargas – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Former Sotomayor clerk Jeannette Vargas has spent virtually her entire legal career on the civil side of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, which would serve her well if confirmed to be a federal district court judge on that court.

Background

Vargas received her B.A. from Harvard College in 1995 and her J.D. from Yale Law School in 2000. After law school, Vargas clerked for Justice (then Judge) Sonia Sotomayor on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, before joining Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett. In 2002, Vargas joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, serving as Deputy Chief of the Civil Division since 2016.

History of the Seat

Vargas has been nominated to the vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York vacated on August 9, 2023 by Judge Paul Gardephe’s move to senior status.

Political Activity

Vargas has made occasional political donations throughout her career, including donations to Biden and Hillary Clinton.

Legal Career

Vargas has spent virtually her entire legal career with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, where she worked in the civil division (currently serving as Deputy Chief). Among the notable matters she handled, Vargas represented the United States in litigation of Chrysler following the auto bailout in 2008. See In re Chrysler LLC., 576 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009). Vargas also represented the Central Intelligence Agency in defending against Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) claims brought by Amnesty International in seeking information about interrogation techniques. See Amnesty Int’l USA v. CIA, 728 F. Supp. 2d 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

In another notable case, Vargas sued a registered sex offender who was employed as a superintendent in various apartment buildings for violating the Fair Housing Act by subjecting numerous tenants to sexual harassment and sexual extortion. See United States v. Barnason, 852 F. Supp. 2d 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).

Relating to criminal cases, Vargas also worked to defend against habeas actions challenging denials of release from the federal parole commission. See, e.g., Crutchfield v. United States Parole Comm’n, 438 F. Supp. 2d 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

Vargas’ work has also involved arguing a number of appeals. For example, Vargas defended against suits brought by plaintiffs arguing that they were entitled to student loan forgiveness under the Higher Education Act of 1965, arguing that Judge Loretta Preska correctly dismissed the suits. See De La Mota v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 413 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2005). However, the Second Circuit reversed, finding that the plaintiffs were presumptively entitled to the student loan forgiveness. See id. at 74.

Most notably, Vargas represented the United States in defending successfully against FOIA claims brought by the New York Times seeking disclosure of CIA training programs in Syria and CIA treatment of detainees post-2001. See New York Times v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 939 F.3d 479 (2d Cir. 2019); New York Times v. CIA, 965 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2020).

Overall Assessment

Coming from a fairly conventional background without a record of controversial statements, Vargas’ biggest enemy for confirmation is likely the Senate’s limited calendar. As long as Democrats continue to prioritize judicial confirmations, Vargas should be confirmed in due course.

179 Comments

  2. Mike S.'s avatar

    Are the folks who are donating to and voting for Senator Rosen’s opponent cool with a Judge James Ho nomination to SCOTUS once Thomas steps down during a hypothetical second Trump term?

    I’m not happy with the senators opposing Mangi either… its total nonesense, especially coming from the two Senators in NV. But come on guys, lets not live in fantasyland… please remember the number one rule when voting: JUDGES, JUDGES, JUDGES

    Liked by 3 people

    • Mike's avatar

      Like I said in my case, hope Rosen wins but she’ll need to do it without my support, as insignificant as it may be one way or another.

      I’d rather spend my time and money on the democrats I like than against the ones I’m annoyed by…though if someone primaries Fetterman, they might see a donation from me.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      @Mike S. I agree with you so much

      As a pragmatic liberal, sometimes I have to vote for candidates I don’t like that much in order to avoid alternatives that are far worse. I’m tired of lines such as “don’t vote for Biden because he supports genocide”, “don’t vote for Rosen because she’s Islamophobic”, “don’t vote for Hillary because Benghazi”. Democracy is at stake. Were we warned that democracy was at stake in 2016 and 2020? Yes. But it’s true. And unfortunately, democracy will be at stake every election cycle until Donald Trump no longer controls the GOP (which could very well be until he dies).

      While it’s too late for the 2024 cycle, primaries are where Democrats should pick candidates who reflect their values… although Rosen has an advantage due to being the incumbent, there are other electable Democrats in Nevada who would vote for progressive judges that Rosen won’t (and Rosen might be different on a new full term). GOP primary voters routinely pick whoever Trump tells them to. It’s up to Democrats to choose voters based on what we want to see from our leaders. And most importantly, once Democrats pick a candidate, we need to unify around that candidate and defeat the MAGA candidate.

      the other @Mike: No one (except for Rosen and her campaign team) is telling you to donate to Rosen, but please don’t donate to her opponent… if her opponent wins, you would probably regret donating to them. If you are a Nevada voter, think about the consequences of having Trump and another GOP senator before abandoning Biden/Rosen. I can’t tell you how to vote, but I hope you look at the big picture.

      If the GOP wins the White House, a House majority and 60 seat supermajority in the Senate, they will definitely be adding seats to the district courts (some that are much needed), possibly to the circuit courts and even the Supreme Court. Then they will quickly fill those seats with FedSoc hacks. If the GOP keeps the Senate for decades (which is not inconceivable due to Senate malapportionment), they can make the remaining Dem judges slowly die off. If the GOP can keep the Senate for 20+ years and hold the presidency frequently enough that there aren’t any courts that are judge-less or close to it, they could have almost complete control of the federal judiciary.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Mike's avatar

        @RyanJ …huh.

        How in the world do you read

        “hope Rosen wins but she’ll need to do it without my support” and “I’d rather spend my time and money on the democrats I like than against the ones I’m annoyed by”

        and turn that into ‘please don’t donate and vote for her republican opponent’???

        Oh and if Republicans keep the senate for 20+ years there would be much worse things happening in this country than conservative activist judges but if it helps stop you from hyperventilating, I’ll be voting for my dem nominees in Arizona.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hank's avatar

        You raise fair points (and it’s partially why I haven’t donated to Rosen’s opponent yet), and that’s partially why I held my tongue when news first came out that Rosen blocked Edelman. My problem with the “support me because the other side is worse” argument is that it gives politicians no reason to be better—Rosen didn’t face any backlash for tanking Edelman, so now she’s blocking Mangi. I don’t share your optimism that Rosen is persuadable or would do better after being reelected—I think she’d become even worse, as she’d feel vindicated. For that reason, I can’t root for her to win. Bigotry and cowardice should never be rewarded.

        I don’t think any politician is entitled to people’s votes, and I believe that there are certain red lines that should not be crossed. If we should support Rosen simply because her opponent is worse, what if she suddenly announced that she’d support a national abortion ban (or a ban on gay marriage, union organizing, or black people from voting) in order to appeal to rural conservatives? I see blocking a circuit nominee in a closely split court in an election year—and doing so because of his religion—as crossing one of those red lines. I’d be just as furious if a Dem senator blocked Berner not on the basis of anything she had done, but because somebody in her synagogue said a horrible thing about Palestinians or represented someone who killed a cop. I wouldn’t be able to support that Dem senator either.

        *I never said Rosen’s actions are a basis to not support Biden. Although the WH did essentially leave Mangi out to dry, Rosen is the problem here (and also Cortez Masto, of course).

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hank's avatar

        Last point—if Rosen had blocked de Alba over the whole undocumented-immigrant-with-some-role-in-a-police-killing, I’d be furious with Rosen but willing to let it slide. 

        Folks excusing Rosen are forgetting why she tanked Mangi—which crucially important, despite Rosen’s pathetic attempts to cover it. If Rosen were persuaded by NV police groups opposition to a New Jersey judge whose rulings literally can never affect NV cops, why wasn’t she persuaded by their opposition to de Alba, a 9th Circuit judge whose decisions will actually impact Nevadans? And why is Rosen listening to unspecified “law enforcement in Nevada” but ignoring national law enforcement groups—many of whom represent cops of color, who are realistically the only cops that would support Rosen against a Republican in the first place—that have endorsed Mangi? Rosen’s full of BS, and I look forward to the day when she is no longer in the Senate.

        Liked by 1 person

    • keystone's avatar

      Where exactly is “word getting out”?

      I watched the hearing in real time. My take wasn’t that she performed poorly, but rather that Kennedy asked a weird and vague question. She answered it in a way that wasn’t wrong but he disagreed with and she ultimately like, “OK, this is what I think but if you say that’s the answer, I guess that’s the only accessible answer here.” Kennedy exuded a lot of tiny D energy in that exchange imo.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Ads's avatar

      John Kennedy really annoys me with his BS academic 1st year law school level quizzes. That’s how he sank Judge Bjelkengren’s nomination.

      I liken it to anyone (including Kennedy) being quizzed with questions for a drivers license test. If any of us got that kind of quiz, we would get a number of the answers wrong…because it has been YEARS since we took a drivers license test. But we damn well know how to drive a car!!!

      In the same way, Bjelkengren and Martinez may not do well with academic questions that they have not addressed since way back in law school. But they damn well know how to do judicial work.

      Kennedy’s gotcha questions are solely for senators and talking heads who generally oppose Biden’s nominees (because they’re Biden’s nominees) and are just looking for a reason to hang their hats on.

      Somebody should really call Kennedy out on his BS!!!

      Liked by 3 people

  4. tsb1991's avatar

    I have mentioned this before, but if we were to have Menendez back by mid-June, and we have at least two appeals court nominees awaiting confirmation (if not Aframe, at least Ritz and Maldonado would be out of the SJC by then), the week of Juneteenth would be a good week to confirm both of them. Juneteenth is a Wednesday and the Senate has that day off. The votes could be set up to invoke cloture on a nominee as the last Tuesday vote and then coming back Thursday morning for a confirmation vote (allowing the offday on Wednesday to count towards the 30-hour postcloture time). You could then set up cloture for another nominee Thursday afternoon (although the Senate leaves town for two weeks for 4th of July afterwards), or from the other end of the week, confirm a nominee on Monday the 17th after previously voting on cloture the week before. Heck, if there’s three nominees awaiting a vote you could use that week to confirm two and cloture on another.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to Mitch Cancel reply