Detra Shaw-Wilder – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Recommended both by Sen. Marco Rubio and Florida House Democrats, Coral Gables attorney Detra Shaw-Wilder has now been nominated to fill the last vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Background

Detra Shaw-Wilder received a B.S. from the University of Florida in 1990 and a J.D. from the University of Miami School of Law in 1994. After graduation, Shaw-Wilder joined Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, where she became Managing Partner in 2015 and General Counsel since 2017.

History of the Seat

Shaw-Wilder has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to replace Judge Robert Scola, who took senior status on October 31, 2023. Shaw-Wilder was the only candidate that was simultaneously recommended for the federal bench in 2021 by Senator Marco Rubio and Florida House Democrats, but was not nominated in the 3 judge batch put forward in late 2023.

Legal Career

Shaw-Wilder has spent her entire legal career at the Coral Gables firm Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton where she currently serves as General Counsel. While at the firm, Shaw-Wilder has represented limousine drivers in a suit for overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. See Vidinliev v. Carey Intern. Inc. 581 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (N.D. Ga. 2008). Shaw-Wilder also represented three law firms in obtaining a large judgment against two attorneys for impropriety in settling various lawsuits. See Kane v. Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi, 197 So. 3d 137 (Fla. App. 4th Dist. 2016).

Shaw-Wilder has also handled a number of federal appeals, including persuading the Eleventh Circuit to reverse a default judgment against Costa Rican corporation Parrot Bay Village, for lack of jurisdiction over the defendant. See Oldfield v. Pueblo de Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2009).

Political Activity

Shaw-Wilder has a number of political donations to her name, all to Florida Democrats, including former federal judicial nominee Mary Barzee Flores during her run for Congress.

Overall Assessment

The last three nominations put forward to the Southern District with the support of Florida senators have sailed to confirmation. As of now, there is little reason to believe that Shaw-Wilder’s experience will be any different.

570 Comments

  1. Zack's avatar

    @Dawsont825,
    Part of the problem is that until Democratic voters, especially ones who demand more liberal nominees, show up to vote on a regular basis and thus show Senators that they’ll have their backs over attacks they’ll get for nominating more liberal jurists among other things, you won’t see Democratic senators stick their necks out.
    And yes, that means sometimes voting for someone who may not meet your requirements 100% or if you’re angry about (insert political issue here.)
    Republicans got the courts they wanted after 50 plus years of putting in the work by voting and voting.
    Our side needs to learn to do the same.

    Liked by 2 people

    • dawsont825's avatar

      That’s a good point. Maybe us (as judiciary-focused individuals) have a warped view of the judiciary, compared to the average Dem voter nationwide. SCOTUS (rightfully so) gets all the attention and press, but the lower courts only get headlines for groundbreaking decisions (mifepristone ban, ACA unconstitutional, travel ban unconstitutional, Dobbs decision (5th circuit), etc.,) The average voter either doesn’t care or is uninterested in how Dem presidents or Dem senators’ vet, nominate, and confirm judges. Biden is the best Dem president on judges since Carter only because he was SJC chairman for many years and because he had a front seat view in the selection and vetting of judges nationwide.

      IIRC, didn’t Obama’s first COS or WHC basically say “no one gives a damn about judges”?? When asked why it took so many months for Obama to send his first judicial nominee to the senate. That quote basically sums up the normie Dem sentiments regarding the judiciary and the overall process.

      How can we fix it? Maybe start asking judiciary-focused questions during the Dem primaries for U.S. Senate? Write hundreds of letters paired with endless phone calls about the need to nominate very liberal judges to vacancies in states? I honestly don’t know. But I can say that I sometimes get discouraged that the GOP gets to appoint absolute kooks to judgeships, and we have to fight tooth and nail to get a judge like de Alba confirmed to the 9th circuit.

      For every far-right hack the GOP confirms to a circuit court across the country, it needs to be a priority to appoint a young liberal lawyer to counteract them. No excuse to have very blue states like Maryland and New Jersey not having their bench filled with young liberal district court judges.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. raylodato's avatar

    I know everyone here is anxiously awaiting the next confirmation vote, but I for one am looking forward to the next Schumer letter saying how hard the Senate is going to work to confirm judges, which will likely occur much sooner than an actual confirmation.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Haaaaaaa… I’m starting to think he just uses the same letter template & changes the date at the top each time. I am hoping that after the FISA bill, BS impeachment & the Ukraine/Israel funding are complete, we can get a healthy dose of judges confirmed. I am not sure how long the Menedez trial will last. I am hoping not too long.

      Like

      • raylodato's avatar

        I mean, I’m not a total pessimist about this. When Menendez is out, Cramer might be out as well. On many of the nominees, there might be one Republican in support, which means Manchin goes along. If the campaign can figure out it’s in their interest, they might spare the VP for a week. 

        There are a lot of scenarios where we could get a bunch of judges in a week, but we can’t get them if Schumer doesn’t schedule them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Ritz was worth losing a US Attorney seat over because (I hate to admit it but) Blackburn was probably right & there likely was some back room deal or at least a wink & a nod to get Republican appointee Gibbons to step down in order for him to be her replacement. I’ve said before I have no problem with those kind of deals as long as they stay in the back room & don’t become public unlike King on the 4th & Rawlinson on the 9th.

        I’m not so sure Biden will do the same with Laventis. There’s almost no chance of backfilling his position so you would have all three US Attorney positions vacant in Tennessee. I think it’s more likely to be another attorney unless Blackburn & Haggerty were to agree to turn in blue slips for him (Which let’s be honest, they won’t). I also see a woman for the nominee of the remaining vacancy as it’s unlikely Biden would replace three woman for three men.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        That’s what I would expect too. But of course it all comes down to if Blackburn really wants to work in good faith. If so, I would look for a possible compromise pick such as…

        Kathryn Barnett (born c. 1967)

        Lisa Schulz Bressman (born c. 1966)

        Ana L. Escobar (born c. 1970)

        Robin Kimbrough Hayes (born c. 1970)

        Alex Little (born c. 1979)

        James Mackler (born c. 1972)

        Jerry E. Martin (born c. 1974)

        Ruby Shellaway (born c. 1978)

        Like

  6. Hank's avatar

    Joshua Kolar, the most recent Biden appointee to CA7, sides with the Republicans (other than the wonderful Rovner) in this en banc vote about transgender health care: https://x.com/chrisgeidner/status/1781382140782948545?s=46

    It’s only one data point, but this does suggest that Kolar’s notably more conservative than the other Dem appointees on CA7 (even Pryor, who herself is pretty moderate). Kanne was a far-right nutjob so Kolar’s still probably an upgrade (and him voting the other way wouldn’t have changed the results in this case), but it’s not great that he sided with the Republicans in what appears to be his first politically contentious vote.

    We’ll have to wait and see how Kolar shakes out – I’m especially interested to see if he ends up always siding with the government on criminal cases, as many of these ex-prosecutors tend to do once they get on the bench.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Kolar was one of the more disappointing Biden circuit court nominees to me. Not on the level of Ramirez, Childs or Pan but up there on the list.

      For one, we didn’t get all of the district court seats filled. Two, his SJCQ says the WH reached out to him so it wasn’t like the Indiana senators went to them & pushed for him. Third, they could have probably pushed for Kolar to be one of the district court nominees & gotten blue slips returned for him with him being moderate & a veteran.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I’m ok with the favor to Cluburn, just on the 4th not DC circuit. Clyburn pushed for Childs for two reasons. One, he thought that would give her a better chance at the SCOTUS & two, because he wanted two circuit court picks. He probably figured Benjamin wasn’t qualified enough to get confirmed to the DC circuit so he had to push hard for Childs so the 4th was left open.

        I mean I get it, political favors are a part of judicial nominations. I would have just went about it another way. Even if Biden told Clyburn that Child’s would have a better chance at the SCOTUS because he didn’t want to make two straight DC circuit picks if he got a second vacancy, I think he could have swayed him.

        Liked by 1 person

    • star0garnet's avatar

      More accurately, he didn’t openly side with liberals on whether to re-hear en banc. It’s debatable from a pro-affirmative care perspective whether or not an en banc hearing before the 7th is desirable. And a vote to go en banc necessitates being okay with wasting the court’s time, as the outcome would at best be an affirmation. Jackson-Akiwumi already dissented, so it’s not as if an alternative view has not been presented.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hank's avatar

        At least one prior CA7 en banc call after Kolar was confirmed noted that he did not take part in the decision, so there would be something similar if he hadn’t participated in this case. He’s also been a part of panel opinions (though not authored something himself), so he’s definitely fully working as an active judge.

        @star the CA7 order noted all the judges who voted for en banc, so anyone who isn’t listed necessarily voted against it – CA7 differs from CA9, for example, where the judges’ votes are not public unless they join a dissental. I hope you’re right and Kolar’s not voting with the Republicans because he agrees on the merits (the state’s case is incredibly weak, as a Trump appointee was the one who issued the injunction that the CA7 panel majority stayed). But even if he is siding with the Republicans for the reasons you suggest, it means he’s less liberal than the others. Not a surprise given his background, but still disappointing for a Biden appointee.

        Liked by 2 people

  7. tsb1991's avatar

    FISA looks like it will be passed tonight. Question is if they stick around tomorrow when the House is expected to pass the supplemental. Schumer could file cloture on that the second they get it from the House which would setup a Monday vote at earliest.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. star0garnet's avatar

    Schumer voice voted a measure authored by Cruz that would make temporary judgeships established in 1990 in D HI, D KS, and ED MO, and in 2002 in ND AL, D AZ, CD CA, SD FL, D NM, WD NC, and ED TX permanent. I assume they were reauthorized at some point, as those courts haven’t lost judgeships as prescribed in the original measures (first vacancy occurring a decade after the initial judges were confirmed). The measure heads to the house. An identical measure was introduced in the house by Lance Gooden the same day Cruz introduced it in the senate.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. aangren's avatar

    This is the type of moderate center right judge biden has pandered and begged the GOP to allow him nominate, kolar is an absolute joke for going against transgender folks. If you are gay and transgender why support biden? when even his so called judges that are to be the best thing since slice bread, cant even support them in the court. trust frank and other biden boot lickers to come to his defense as well. This will be the case for whatever moderate milquetoast nominee rubio and scott and marsha blackburn allows biden to nominate. This year has been an absolute joke judical nominations wise.

    Like

    • Aiden's avatar

      This is the kind of logic republicans use to go after LGBT rights and other minorities. Using one example to paint an entire group.
      Desantis has done this, and it looks like this logic is being used for Bidens judges.
      Now of course these are different situations but this logic should be avoided.

      No one here claims that Kolar is the best possible choice, we acknowledge that there certainly were missed opportunities by Biden.

      However, Kolar still is likely going to be better than any Fed soc hack, Trump would have appointed.

      The truth is that anyone on the left not voting for Biden, will do nothing but insure a Trump administration again.

      Trump would not have nominated so many of the absolutely amazing nominees we have seen. Including but not limited to:

      Beth Robinson

      Myrna Perez

      Lara Montecalvo

      Julie Rikelman

      Veronica Rossman

      H.A Thomas

      Roopali Desai

      Jennifer Sung

      Natasha Merle

      Nancy Abudu

      Sarah Geraghty

      Casey Pitts

      Nursrat Jahan Choudhury

      Tiffany Cartwright

      Liked by 5 people

      • Jamie's avatar

        I would suggest just ignoring this person’s posts. This one had consistently used a few disappointments to bash Biden and advocate not voting for him.

        If every single judge was equivalent to Kolar or worse, I would still vote for Biden. Trump is that bad, literally the end of democracy in this country. There is no redo on this, Trump has no intention of obeying the courts this time if they rule against him.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Aiden's avatar

      I think it’s important to understand the real world impact of these Judges on the average person.

      Now I think we can acknowledge that most of Biden nominees are more likely to side with Minorities, the accused in criminal cases and against corporations.

      For example an average person bringing a claim for negligence or 1983 claims. They would have a far better chance at getting leave to amend or making it past summary Judgement under a Biden judge.

      This logic of course also extends to the major issues such as voting rights and unions too.

      Biden judges are so important and voting in this election insures more people can get a fair shake in federal court.

      I think sometimes these real impacts are lost sight of. Not voting for Biden has real consequences.

      Liked by 4 people

  13. lilee2122's avatar

    I’m looking to see cloture motions filed on 2 CCA nominees and all district court nominees who appeared before February 27 , 2024…Senate has to get them done… Cruz amendment is a smokescreen making districts permanent right before a presidential election is fishy giving trump more judicial slots if he wins… ( cough)

    Liked by 2 people

    • Gavi's avatar

      @lilee

      I posted about these a couple months ago. These don’t necessarily benefit Trump. These temporary judgeships have been, so far, reauthorized annually. If this becomes law, which I hope will happen, it won’t have any immediate impact vacancy-wise. It’ll just mean that congress won’t have to keep reauthorizing those judgeships. Down the line, they’ll be fillable vacancies.

      @Dequan

      I don’t get the logic behind weekly expectations of Schumer setting up confirmation votes. Do you really think that’s what Schumer has been waiting for, an extra week with Menendez around to finally start voting on nominations that have been sitting there week after week? It’s as if the senate has had no time whatsoever to do anything other than work on the impeachment, FISA, foreign funding, recess, etc. But thank goodness we’ll have an extra week with the potential of full Dem attendance for him to finally focus on party line nominations.

      No, these are just the ridiculous things we tell ourselves. Schumer could have the senate confirm party line nominees at any time between those other things mentioned above. The one week delay in Menendez’s trial is just another week for him to not bring up those votes and for you to be disappointed, only for you to bounce back and restart the weekly watch.

      Liked by 2 people

  14. Rick's avatar

    No votes til Tues it looks like https://twitter.com/SenateCloakroom/status/1781768932535287952?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

    Like

  17. Zack's avatar

    Don’t know if Judge Kolar participated in the en banc ruling that came down yesterday but even if he did, I still don’t regret voting for Biden because one judge turning out to be more conservative then others, doesn’t change the fact many other have pro-LGBT/voting rights etc.
    If nothing else, look at Judge Rovner, who was George Sr’s final Circuit court judge and is easily one of the most liberal jurists on the bench today.
    You think the George Sr voters complain about her when they got Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito among many other conservative judges?
    The 2nd Circuit which I live under has seen the death of three moderate/liberal judges the past three years and instead of far right hacks replacing them, we got three liberals instead, including two LGBT judges.
    And the 4th Circuit en banc just ruled for trans students, which included Biden judges.
    No president is going to have a jurist that hasn’t strayed on some issue but by and large, if you want moderate/liberal judges, you vote Democratic.
    As to the comments one person made, rather be a bootlicker then someone who keeps coming up with excuses to why they won’t vote for Biden or is rooting for him to lose while claiming they care about progressive issues/judges.

    Liked by 3 people

  20. Zack's avatar

    Theodora Gaïtas and Sarah Hennesy have just been named by Tim Walz to be the next judges on the MN Supreme Court and they are both nominees progressives/moderates should be happen with, given that Gaitas was a former legal aid and Hennesy a public defender.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Aiden's avatar

      I think these nominees are better than fine, not only are they miles better than other Justices sitting on the Minnesota Supreme Court. They are also better than a lot of the other state court nominees we have been seeing. Such as in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York.

      I know the Minnesota Chief Justice very heavily requested appointees from the appeals courts. Which is why Theodora Gaïtas was nominated. The new gender makeup of the court was likely why Keala Ede wasn’t choosen. The new nominees make the court a female majority.

      I think I would have preferred Elizabeth Bentley over Sarah Hennessy. Though her having prior judicial experience might have been what got her over the line. There are already a few on the court without prior judicial experience.
      Perhaps that was something mentioned by their Chief Justice.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I agree both new Justices are good. Honestly the only issue I have with them is they are not young enough to be considered to elevation to the 8th in a second Biden term but there are plenty of other options for that anyway. I hope the remaining four are being considered for the vacant district court seat. Perhaps that is the hold up in announcing that nominee so we may get that pick in the next batch, which hopefully will be this week.

        Lisa Beane looks to be an absolute rock star of a pick for ANY future seat, may it be on the SCOT-MN, district court or the 8th. She was a clerk to Judge Wilhelmina Wright so she certainly could be considered to backfill her seat. If not, I hope she is nominated to a lower court, perhaps a backfill to Theodora Gaïtas or Sarah Hennesy, so she can get some judicial experience under her belt.

        Liz Kramer would probably have been the nominee if not for her husband being nominated by Biden last year. I know the judge Nicole Berner replaced was married to a federal judge so there is precedent to having a married couple both be judges. I hope Kramer is added to that list one day.

        Lisa Beane was previously special counsel to Sen. Amy Klobuchar & also clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She will likely be a strong contender for the district court vacancy. We need more law professors on the bench so I wouldn’t object to that.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Aiden's avatar

        @Dequan

        I think this is something that needs to be of greater focus in state courts. Instead of nominating mid 50s or even 60s to the courts, there needs to be a trend downwards.

        It needs to start with appointing younger judges to the state court of appeals and state district courts, so they can be appointed to the Federal Circuits or SCOTUS even after being appointed to the state Supreme Courts.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Exactly. Republicans get this. That’s why it’s credible for them to get hacks on the highest courts. Justice Thomas was put on the second highest court in the land at the age of 42. Justice Alito was put on the 3rd at the age of 40. Democrats need to respond in kind. Biden has done a great job compared to most of his predecessors at this. We have some governors such as Murphy & Whitmer that has gotten the message as well but there is a long way to go to reach many others.

        Like

      • Ryan J's avatar

        Yes, I agree. I learned about this ruling from an email, and I assumed that the panel majority consisted of Trump or GW Bush appointees. I was surprised to learn that it was an all Dem panel (Ambro and Chung in the majority, Shwartz dissenting). Needless to say, it would be a very bad idea to appeal this case to SCOTUS.

        Liked by 1 person

      • shawnee68's avatar

        It was the Biden Administration that offered to job to Mangi. He was only seeking a district court judgeship.

        It looks like they are going to stick up for Mangi and I agree with the position.

        The nomination itself is not a lost cause and merits more debate than it has been given.

        It may take awhile but I believe it is worthwhile. Mangi is someone I can wait for.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I agree with the administration in nominating Mangi for a circuit court instead of a district court like he applied for. They did the same thing with Arianna Freeman & a couple others. Certain nominees are generational nominees & you don’t want to make them go through two hearings to put them one step below the SCOTUS so I’m happy they made that decide on.

        I just truly hope they have a strategy to get him confirmed. I’m ok with back room deals as long as it gets the result I want & stays private. I’d be willing to negotiate the 1st seat with Collins in exchange for her vote for Mangi. The 1st is all Democrat appointed judges so even a Kolar rule would be fine for that seat in exchange to get Mangi confirmed. I’m not saying that is what’s happening behind the scenes. Just giving an example.

        Like

    • Aiden's avatar

      When I read this opinion, I didn’t check the panel members first and was shocked to see Chung.

      However, I think as others have mentioned it may have been a hesitancy to publish an opinion that would likely get overturned by SCOTUS and allow the conservative majority another chance to make a expansive opinion further destroying voting rights.
      Since there were two liberals on the panel, it’s likely that if it wasn’t SCOTUS overturning them it would have been the 3rd circuit en banc.

      I know there was an en banc poll that had Chung siding with the liberals. I don’t think this opinion should be the basis for us to doubt her judicial ideology.

      And thats coming coming from someone who tends to make big deals of even unpublished memoranda’s, as many of you will know.

      Liked by 2 people

  23. Rick's avatar

    So if the WH sends no nominees this week, then I guess the entire month of May is a waste as there won’t even be able to be one hearing.

    That’s about as careless as winning Megamillions and losing the ticket..

    Liked by 2 people

  24. Joe's avatar

    It’s always possible the WH thinks that the senate can get Mangi confirmed during the lame duck period. Rosen, Tester, Brown, and others will either be elected to fresh six year terms or they’ll be on their way out and willing to flip the proverbial middle finger to Republicans.

    It’s a gamble though. Ill feel a whole lot better if Aframe, Maldonado, and Ritz can be confirmed in the meantime.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. tsb1991's avatar

    There’s been talks of amendment votes to help speed up passage, so that Senators don’t have to be around Wednesday night for passage (there’s two votes at 1PM Tuesday, the second vote is to concur on the House amendments to the Senate-passed supplemental, so far less procedural votes/hurdles). Without a time agreement, the cloture vote would be the second vote, probably around 2PM Tuesday, and the 30 postcloture hours would expire at around 9PM Wednesday.

    If they’re able to get this all taken care of Tuesday night, that’d be when to look out for cloture motions to get the Senate setup for when they’re back next week, and I wonder if they only stay in on the Tuesday that next week’s schedule remains unchanged….

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Dequan's avatar

    Going back to my conversation the other day about being strategic, I wish Biden had flipped the seats for the two nominees for the NDIL. He did it for the two WDTX nominees so there is recent precedent.

    Georgia N. Alexakis is nominated for the Rebecca R. Pallmeyer seat which does not becom evacant until August 1. April Perry is nominated for the Nancy Maldanado seat which becomes vacacny upon her confirmation. Since Maldanado will almost surely be fast tracked just like all other Illinois nominees, had Biden flipped the seats for the nominees, Alexakis could be commission ed well before August 1st. That way Perry should be confirmed shortly before August 1st & there would be no vacacnies for either seat for more than a few days.

    Since Biden still hasn’t sent last week’s nominees officially to the senate yet there is still time. I doubt they are being that strategic of course, but one can dream.

    Like

  31. Dequan's avatar

    *****Hello all…

    I just wanted to let you all know that I spoke with Harsh today & I will be writing the article on Embry Kidd. In order to remain consistent with the Amir Ali precedent, I will refrain from commenting on his nomination here. But as always, I will have plenty to say about all of the non-Ali & Kidd nominees… Lol

    I just wanted to give you all the heads up so you didn’t think I was ignoring anybody in the event you mention judge Kidd & I did not respond… Just an fyi*****

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to Ryan J Cancel reply