April Perry – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

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

After her previous nomination be U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois stalled, April Perry has been nominated to be a U.S. District Judge on the court instead.

Background

April Perry graduated from Northwestern University in 2000 and got a J.D. magna cum laude from Northwestern University School of Law in 2003.

After graduation, Perry clerked for Judge Joel Flaum on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Perry then became a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois in 2004. In 2017, Perry left to become Chief Deputy State’s Attorney and Chief Ethics Officer for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office. In 2019, Perry left to join Ubiety Technologies as General Counsel. Since 2022, Perry serves as Senior Counsel at GE HealthCare.

History of the Seat

Perry has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This seat will open upon the elevation of Judge Nancy Maldonado to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Legal Career

Perry started her legal career as a law clerk for Judge Joel Flaum on the Seventh Circuit. Subsequently, Perry spent twelve years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois. During this time, Perry prosecuted Gregory Patzer for bank robbery. See United States v. Patzer, 548 F. Supp. 2d 612 (N.D. Ill. 2008).

From 2017 to 2019, Perry served as the Chief Ethics Officer for Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx. Perry’s time with the office overlapped with the prosecution of Jussie Smolett for making false reports of being targeted for a hate crime. See Andy Grimm, 2 Top Deputies of State’s Attorney Foxx, One Tied to Smollett Case, To Resign, Chicago Sun Times, Apr. 18, 2019, https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/4/18/18619800/2-top-deputies-of-state-s-attorney-foxx-one-tied-to-smollett-case-to-resign. Notably, Perry was critical of Foxx’s decision to assign the case to her First Assistant after her recusal, noting that a special prosecutor should likely have been appointed upon the recusal. See Ben Bradley, Top Foxx Official Said Recusal Wasn’t Right, WGN9, Apr. 17, 2019, https://wgntv.com/news/wgn-investigates/top-foxx-official-said-recusal-wasnt-right/. Perry subsequently resigned from the office. See Ben Bradley, Mysterious ‘Special Prosecutor Order’ Email in Smollett Case, Records Show, WGN9, Apr. 19, 2019, https://wgntv.com/news/wgn-investigates/mysterious-special-prosecutor-order-email-in-smollett-case-records-show/.

Perry has spent the last few years of her career in-house, starting with the Artificial Intelligence tech start up Ubiety Technologies, and more recently in GE HealthCare.

In 2023, Perry was nominated to be U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. Perry’s nomination was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in a bipartisan 12-9 vote but was blocked by Senator J.D. Vance from a final confirmation vote, remaining pending until it was withdrawn for her nomination to the federal bench.

Overall Assessment

While Perry’s nomination to be U.S. Attorney was stalled by Vance, it is likely that Democrats will prioritize Perry’s judicial nomination more during their limited floor time. As such, ironically, Vance’s blocking of Perry’s nomination may result in a lifetime appointment for her.

187 Comments

  1. Dequan's avatar

    While there were two other picks from the list of recommendations I would have rather seen picked for this seat, April Perry is a good choice. I hope they prioritize confirming Maldonado so Perry’s nomination can get sent to the senate & she can have her hearing quickly.

    Like

  4. Gavi's avatar

    Excellent news. The sweetest vacancies to fill are seats vacated by appointees of the other party! I have a feeling that Kent Jordan is only reluctantly stepping down under Biden. His timeline is not very helpful.

    I’m not so big on Judge Jennifer Hall because of the backfill issue. Nothing against her, personally, but it’s not like she’s a stellar progressive who’s worth the hassle or the likely unfilled vacancy/bad (blue slip) nominee under a second Trump term.

    Hall also comes with the baggage of special counsel Weiss. That didn’t stop her first confirmation, but the stakes will be higher for a seat that fully flips the balance of a circuit court.

    Let’s see how long it’ll take to name Hall, 5 months into her current job.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. tsb1991's avatar

    Tuned into the SJC meeting, sounds like a lot of fireworks on Ritz with blue slips.

    -Ritz was a party-line vote (Coons mentioned after he won’t vote for Ritz on the floor until he’d talked with Blackburn and the WH counsel)
    -Not sure of Murphy and Pennell’s vote, the audio completely died during their votes
    -Vargas was a party-line vote

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Gavi's avatar

    Thom Tillis dropped some juicy tidbits about the negotiations on filling the vacancy on CA4. He said he went to Dem senators to preemptively ask for their support to vote against the nominee the WH wanted to name to that seat and that they agreed. What?! Who are those Dems? Manchin and Sinema?

    And what is Senator Coons doing? Is he just saying that for show? I highly doubt he’d vote against a Biden circuit court nominee.

    The biggest disappointment of today’s hearing is Durbin’s invitation to negotiate going back to blue slips for circuit courts seats. I hope that’s just him calling their bluff. I do not support this, even if applied prospectively at a future date. I would only support that if Dems get to confirm at least 17 circuit judges over a Republican objection, matching Trumps number (not merely 4 years of a president’s term).

    Ritz is NOT an example of the WH not consulting with TN senators. They wouldn’t have returned their blue slips for anyone left of Chad Meredith, no matter what they are now saying.

    Dems need to stand strong, especially against unilateral disarmament.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Rick's avatar

      Perhaps Sen Coon fell on his head, why on earth would he sound like Sen Manchin. 

      See, that’s the problem with Democrats. They are so damn concerned with Republicans liking them.. Sen McConnell didn’t care what Senate Democrats felt when he said he won’t bring up Merrick Garland for a vote, nor when he jammed the Barrett nomination after tens of millions already early voted in the 2020 election.. Then throw in the numerous 2nd, 3rd, and 9th Circuit nominees confirmed without the support from one or both Democratic senators in the last admin.

      Now, Democrats are all upset with that rat Sen Blackburn and how she feels. 

      Do you think for one second if there’s a Republican president and GOP led senate in 2025 that they would seek Democratic senators approval for circuit nominees?. 

      Democrats need to take advantage of the majority while they have it and not be one bit concerned about what senate Republicans think. 

      Liked by 3 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      Reading all of the other non Kent Jordan post. I missed today’s SJC meeting but wow, I’m going back to watch it now. I love hearing when senators give some insight to the back room talks on vacancies.

      Tillis makes it sound like the WH is pushing somebody I would give an A or even A+ too. I might have considered a small donation to his next campaign if he had name dropped them today…. Lol

      Interesting strategy he did to preemptively go to Democrat senators & get them to vote against whoever the nominee is. I truly wonder if he got a commitment from anybody other than Manchin.

      As for Durbin’s comments, this is inexcusable. To go back to blue slips while the Democrats are in the majority is stupid. For one, you are unilaterally disarming. Second, if he thinks Republicans would honor this for four years in the majority under Trump, he is (As the old saying goes) dumber than he looks.

      As for Senator Coons, I hope he was hungover or something like that. I don’t think he would follow through with a no vote though so I’m not too worried.

      Good article by The Kansas City Star. It confirmed just what I thought. Hawkey & Schmidt are demanding a one for one ratio & for their ones, they are trying to nominate Federal Society but cases.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. IrvineOnlooker's avatar

    Tillis sounds scared to death to see who the White House is gonna nominate for the 4th Circuit. If he was really confident he had multiple Democrats to tank the nomination, he wouldn’t have been so open and vocal about it. The only Democratic senator he may have gotten an assurance is on Senator Manchin. The White House should call his bluff and nominate whoever they had in mind

    Liked by 3 people

  8. aangren's avatar

    Gavi you can complain until the cows come home and nothing will be done, it would be cowardice after cowardice, ive stopped complaining, no need wasting ones time. when biden doesnt win re election and GOP take over all this would be a distant thought.

    The most disappointing democratic president tenure ive ever experienced at all. The GOP jammed a charlatan like lawrence vandyke down our throats , pushed hacks like kenneth lee blatantly despite the blue state senators obejctions and now have the audacity to act outraged they werent allowed to virtually pick the president nominee, this is an insult! it is such a spit in the face to even have the temerity to demand such outrage but they know dems are cowards and nothing will happen..

    Prediction: Ritz, mangi, aframe and one or two other circuit court nominees wont be confirmed at all be it now or after then election, their cowards thats all.

    Once trump gets back in back to shoving down federalist society hack after hack

    Like

  9. star0garnet's avatar

    Yay! Happy to see my prediction from January come true on Jordan. He’s clearly chosen to step down while Biden holds the pen for commissions. Perhaps it’s a mark of thanks for supporting his nominations under Bush, or he’s a Never-Trumper, or he wanted to ensure that Delaware keeps two seats on the court. If Dems can figure out the NJ vacancy, we can actually get a moderate-liberal majority on the 3rd. I don’t know much of their ideologies, but on the Supreme Court of Delaware, Abigail LeGrow was born in 1979 and Christopher Griffiths in 1980.

    Liked by 2 people

      • star0garnet's avatar

        It would be just as easy for him to have shifted his retirement forward six days, which would have made it far less likely that this congress would confirm a successor. LeGrow and Griffiths are Dems, but it’s not as if that’s the entire story. I now see that Griffiths has a recent DUI, although that came before he took office.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Absolutely spectacular news to wake up to. I can always count on @Ben to start my day off good. Kent Jordan was absolutely somebody I had in my list to go senior earlier in the term or in a second Biden term but had no idea he would do so now. I fully expect a timeline similar to Maldonado for this announcement. I even predict the nominee for this seat will get confirmed before at least one of the pending circuit court vacancies without a nominee in the 1st, 4th or 6th.

        On to the posssible contenders. I would have said Justice Christopher Griffiths would be the front runner with the lack of Black men on the circuit courts but his recent DUI came up in his confirmation hearing. That’s a no go this close to the election for Biden. If Andre Mathis had a “rap sheet” for three unpaid speeding tickets, Blackburn may call for Griffiths to be stoned to death at high noon in front of town square.

        Jennifer Hall & Gregory Williams would be the next obvious choices. I hope it’s neither of them because we would have to waste time backfilling their seats & neither are particularly progressive. Williams is good & would solve the Griffiths problem in terms of a Black man but he’s 55 so no thanks.

        Abigail LeGrow a would be the next likely option. Perhaps Christopher Howland will get some consideration if they want a LGBT option.

        I think the pick would have been Biden’s former Deputy Counsel when he was Vice President & Press Secretary when he was in the Senate Alexander Mackler. He’s 41 so that would be a great pick. His name has shown up on the Hunter Biden laptop however. There’s nothing bad on his part written but I doubt Biden would want to risk that SJC hearing turning into a spectacle this close to the election.

        There’s a chance we may get a law partner that is an expert in patent law. But I do believe the nominee will come relatively quickly. Judging by the Hall, Williams & Reeves nominations, this nominee will surely be fast tracked once announced.

         

        Liked by 3 people

      • Jamie's avatar

        Who hears patent law appeals, the 3rd Circuit or Federal Circuit? If it is the latter, then there’s no benefit in putting a patent law expert on the 3rd Circ.

        Mackler graduated from law school in 2015. There’s a decent chance that the ABA would NQ him for not having enough legal experience. Had Biden nominated anyone else who had less than 10 years of legal experience?

        Liked by 1 person

  10. rcpekp's avatar

    The Kansas City Star posted an article on the status of Missouri’s multiple district court vacancies. Unsurprisingly, it does not seem likely that we should expect nominations there anytime soon based on the following paragraphs:

    “This is ultimately the President’s decision to make and to announce,” Hawley told The Star. “But we’ve had really productive conversations and I think it’s in a good place. I think the trendline is good.”

    He may be the only one upbeat about the negotiations. Instead, the White House and senators appear at an impasse, unable to agree on deals that would allow both sides to place “consensus” nominees.

    The large ideological gulf between the senators and the White House makes the agreement a challenge. While there has been talk of one-for-one and two-for-one deals, where the White House would put forward some names and the senators would put forward some names, the talks have gone nowhere.

    The senators, who both served as Missouri Attorney General before taking office, have suggested some candidates who are leaders in the Federalist Society, a conservative legal society, or have been staffers in Republican attorneys general offices – non-starters for the White House, according to a senior administration official.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I absolutely agree. Two things that are good news I leaned today.

        First, from Tillis comments it seems the WH is working quickly to fill these circuit court vacancies. Even if it comes as the expense of the open district court seats, they are willing to get stellar circuit court nominees. That’s outstanding news. It’s concerning Tillis was able to get more than Manchin to commit voting against whoever the WH wanted however.

        Second, it seems the WH is trying telly hard to fill open seats even in the states I have written off as having a chance this year. But they also are playing hardball. Outright refusing to nominate a Federal Society hack is great to hear, particularly after the Chad Meredith scare.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Ryan Park or Christopher Brook were my guesses as well. I would have said Alison Riggs if she wasn’t running for SCOT-NC this year. I don’t know if Coons would be the senator that makes such an outlandish commitment. I would guess either of the Nevada senators way before him.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I went back & watched the SJC executive meeting this morning after I woke up. I wouldn’t make too much out of Coons comments from what I heard. He went last after each Nestor complained about Ritz. He apologized to Blackburn for not giving her the time to listen to her concerns.

        He only said he wouldn’t vote on the floor for Ritz until after he speaks to Blackburn & speaks to the WH about the process. We know Blackburn is full of sh*t when she says she wasn’t consulted. The WH offered her time to interview Ritz & I believe his SJCQ said he interviewed with her and/or her staff. Coons isn’t stupid. And a reminder he made the comment right after voting to send Ritz nomination to the floor.

        Liked by 2 people

  13. Bur Gundy's avatar

    Yay! More reverse racist federal judges, thanks Biden regime! Thank you for creating a judiciary that is unconstitutional and systemically-racist against the descendants of the people who founded and built America. Hey Harsh, why do you think you deserve preferential treatment in America? What does America owe India? My ancestors fought in the Civil War to end slavery, did yours?

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Bur Gundy

      How exactly are Biden judges unconstitutional and systemically racist? When did Harsh say he deserve preferential treatment in America? And I’m not sure why you are referencing India when I believe Harsh is an American (Not that it would matter if he wasn’t).

      Thanks to your ancestors for fighting to end slavery. I’m not sure if Harsh’s ancestors did because perhaps they immigrated to this country after the Civil war but so what? This is a country that opens its arms & invites immigrants. That’s an ideal I would be willing to bet your ancestors would have fought for alongside ending slavery.

      Liked by 1 person

      • lilee2122's avatar

        Bur Gundy you are stupidly informed…Your ancestors didn’t find America but rather decimated the Native American people who were already here…Small box blankets , massacres, rapes of their women then give them land to call their reservations in the Dakotas on huge rocks of the Badlands that they can “farm” or the desert in Arizona and New Mexico to exist on..

        Liked by 2 people

  15. Zack's avatar

    Was great to hear the news about Kent Jordan.
    My top pick to replace him would be Chris Rowland but I suspect one of the sitting district judges will get the nod, which is annoying because we’ll have to backtrack their seat.
    The only person I don’t want as the nominee is N. Christopher Griffiths.
    A dui isn’t a mistake, it’s a choice to put the lives of other people at risk and someone like that has no business being a nominee.
    Whomever the nominee is, he or she will be a party line vote given that it will be a circuit court seat and a flip.
    As for the 4th Circuit, sounds like Biden/company have given up on filling NC’s district court seat and is just going for the 4th Circuit seat which is good because that is much more valuable IMO.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. keystone's avatar

    I saw that the Atlanta Constitution Journal covered Embry Kidd’s nomination, since the 11th Circuit is based out of Atlanta. The article talked about how the 11th doesn’t have many black judges on it and also talked about how many black judges and POC the WH has placed.

    If they were to nominate Park to the NC seat, I could a press opportunity about how the GOP is blocking the first Asian judge to the 4th Circuit, the first first Latin judge to the 7th, the first Muslim judge, and a black judge to the 11th. I feel like you could craft a larger “look at how racist the GOP is” narrative. That might go a bit farther than the sum of the individual parts.

    Liked by 3 people

  17. Rick's avatar

    Notice how Republicans are complaining non stop about Circuit court nominations. Think about it, all 4 circuit nominees awaiting final vote might not get one Republican vote. This is nothing but a sense of entitlement. Republicans are hoping Dump wins and they take over senate, then they can install Fed Soc kooks in all circuit seats. It’s alot of phony outrage, especially with the Ritz nomination, and shame on Sen Coons for playing along with the GOP crap. I thought he was way better than that. Guess he found his inner Manchin

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Joe's avatar

    I agree Rick. Lots of phony outrage.

    Which is why I wish the Dems would get together and just all agree to fall in line for every nominee, even troubled nominees, just to prove a point that GOP whining and delaying won’t get them anywhere. This was very much the case in 2021-22 and it worked fine. Senators didn’t really get much blowback at all even on some very liberal nominees (Thomas, Freeman, etc). Dems were even rewarded in 2022 with a bigger majority.

    Playing chickenshit and demurring over Aframe, Mangi, Ritz, etc doesn’t help anything and only encourages more GOP attacks.

    I think eventually they will have kumbaya moment and do just that, even if it’s after November. But why drag it out?

    Liked by 2 people

  19. keystone's avatar

    I’m a bit surprised that Jeanette Vargas was a party line vote in committee. I don’t think they really asked her much during her hearing, so I took a look at her QFR responses.

    One question that struck me as being kind of… surprising had to do with her involvement with the NYC Bar association’s LGBTQ committee.

    Lindsey Graham asked, “Is a bench less diverse because it has LGBT judges that choose not to openly state their sexual orientation?”

    It just seems like a weird question to ask and also, oh, Lindsey. SMH.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Hank's avatar

    Folks are premature in celebrating the Jordan vacancy – Matt Stiegler made the good point on Twitter/X that because Jordan isn’t retiring until after this session of Congress ends, it is very unlikely that seat is getting filled this Congress. Has one session of Congress ever confirmed a judge to a vacancy that doesn’t occur until the next session? And even if it has, I’m sure the Republicans will fight tooth and nail to claim that this vacancy can only be filled by the next Congress. Does anyone honestly think Dick Durbin of all people, who was just talking today about bringing blue slips back for circuit nominees, has the backbone to push back?

    I can also definitely see the more institutionalist Dem senators being concerned about a session of Congress filling a vacancy that doesn’t occur until after that session ends. If that’s ok, then I bet that the next time that there’s a Republican WH/Senate, a lot of these Trump appointees announcing that they will take senior status/retire whenever they become eligible (even if its 5, 10, or 15 years down the line) just so the Republicans can nominate & confirm another Fed Soc nutjob to be waiting in the wings. But nothing’s stopping the Trump nuts from pulling that kind of nonsense regardless of whether this vacancy gets filled, to be honest…

    Lastly, the appointment/retirement of federal judges is governed by Article III and federal statutes, which means that if the parties get into a fight over this, the final decision on this question rests with…SCOTUS. If you think this far-right supermajority is going to let Biden fill a circuit vacancy that they can hold open for Trump, then I have a bridge I’d like to sell you. 

    I wonder if Coons’ sudden interest in extending Blackburn an olive branch has anything to do with demonstrating to Collins/Murk that he’s reasonable and getting their OK to fill the new DE vacancy this Congress. I doubt it will work, but maybe worth a shot (and I doubt Coons would actually dare vote down circuit judge on the floor when he’s literally voted for every Dem appointee this Congress).

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      I’m trying to understand the significance behind his Jan 15 date, which is after Jan 3 but before Jan 20.

      It used to be more common for judges to announce senior status in a new presidential term without knowing the results of the election, perhaps as a way to say they are unbiased. But it is much less common now given that most judges have a preference for which party picks their successor.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Hank

      I think that’s a basic misunderstanding of the vacancy across Congress. This Congress can confirm anybody they want for the next Congress as long as the president the day the vacancy occurs is willing to sign the commission. If the vacancy for Jordan is going to occur January 15th of next year, Joe Biden will still be president regardless of the election results. So as long as he is willing to sign the commission on that date, that’s all that matters other than Jordan change in this mind.

      As for the if Democrats do it now, Republicans will do it later argument, I only have one word for that argument… That word is “Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa”

      Does anybody really think if the Democrats play nice & don’t confirm Jordan’s successor because there’s going to be a senate change over, Republicans would follow that precedent later? Republicans literally just did this with the RBG seat 4 years ago… Lol

      Liked by 2 people

    • Hank's avatar

      @Dequan – interesting point. Marbury v. Madison of course held that the judicial confirmation process is not complete until the commission is signed, but what prevents a president from signing a commission before the vacancy occurs?

      Looking at Biden’s judicial nominees, it appears that Tamika Montgomery Reeves was confirmed by the Senate in December 2022, but received her commission in February 2023. That means she was approved by the Senate in one Congress but the vacancy (because Ambro did not take senior status until confirmation of his successor) occurred in the next Congress. By a strange twist of fate, it’s to the other DE seat on CA3 – seems like strong precedent for the idea that the Senate can confirm a nominee before the vacancy actually occurs.

      That being said, I’m sure that the Republicans will argue that taking senior status upon confirmation of a successor is different than retiring on a set date, or that this doesn’t apply when there might be a new president, or whatever other nonsense they want to spew. 

      The question is whether Schumer/Durbin will go along with the Republican nonsense – the TMR example makes me a little more optimistic, but we should all prepare to be disappointed. Even McConnell left 2 circuit vacancies (if not more?) unfilled by the end of the first Trump term, so it would be a real surprise if Schumer actually gets everyone through. 

      Liked by 2 people

      • star0garnet's avatar

        The Torruella and Flaum vacancies weren’t known until 10/26 and 11/05. McConnell would have gotten Arias-Marxuach confirmed if not for 1/6. By the time they had one week to vet a replacement for Flaum, the counsel’s office was being ripped apart over whether or not to subvert democracy.

        While I’m not completely confident in this senate’s ability to get a Jordan replacement confirmed, I feel about 10x better about it than I would about a vacancy announced within a week of the election. I was also getting used to the idea that Aframe would have to wait till after the election, but if they really can take care of him now, that would open a large chunk of valuable time.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Remember a federal judge is appointed for life. So using your scenario, let’s say (Insert whichever Delaware attorney you want) is nominated tomorrow & confirmed before the summer recess. Let’s say Biden does what you suggested & signs the commission on September 1st.

        Now let’s say on January 14th, Jordan decides to rescind his retirement. Biden signing the commission doesn’t matter because Jordan has not retired, died or been impeached by the Congress, therefore there is no vacancy. That trump’s Biden signing the commission because you have to have a vacancy in order for the commission to go into effect.

        That is not what is being proposed now however. If all remains the same, Biden will nominate somebody who will then in turn be confirmed by THIS senate. Once confirmed (Let’s say in September), the senate will use the language @Gavi said which basically means there is no further debate on the nominee & the president will be immediately notified. Once January 15th comes, if Jordan retires, whoever the president is at that time, they can sign the commission. No matter if its Biden, Harris or Mike Johnson (God help us), as long as they sign the commission & there is a vacancy, the senate composition doesn’t matter.

        It would be no different even if the senate composition changes without the election. Right now we have FIVE nominees waiting for their commissions because the judge hasn’t left the bench yet. Let’s say (God forbid) two Democrat senators in a state with a Republican governor passes away tonight. Would anybody argue those five judicial nominees should now have to start over & Biden not sign their commissions when the judges do leave?

        Liked by 1 person

  21. IrvineOnlooker's avatar

    Agree w the overreaction on Senator Coon’s comments. While I wished he didn’t say anything, it was innocuous. Hey maybe his fake bipartisanship will lead to the Republican senators not going as hard on whoever the nominee is to replace Judge Kent Jordan (they won’t)

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jamie's avatar

      Coons will come around eventually I think. But he will listen to both the senator and the WH counsel on what happened regarding consultation. The only way I see Coons voting down the nominee at the end is if there was no effort to consult with the senators.

      But I think Coons promised Tillis that he would not vote for any nominee for CA4 in NC without hearing Tillis’ side and seeing if he can mediate. Perhaps offering Tillis to pick a district court judge in exchange for accepting Biden’s CA4 nominee.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hank's avatar

        Durbin’s account during Ritz’s SJC hearing made it clear that there was plenty of consultation – the WH gave the TN senators 3 names they would’ve been fine with but the senators tried to stonewall/drag it out, so the WH picked one and then gave the senators opportunities to meet with Ritz that they didn’t take until the very end. That’s more consultation than Tammy Baldwin got with Brennan to CA7, for one thing.

        Given how close Coons is with Biden, I doubt he’s going to undercut one of the WH’s few areas of success.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jamie's avatar

      Well he was a finalist from the Democrats’s nominating committee for the CD-FL district judge opening.

      Not much about his jurisprudence, but he seems to be an intelligent and highly qualified nominee. He was on Yale’s law review, which suggests strong academic credentials. If he is center-left (which I think he is), he could be SCOTUS material. 

      Liked by 1 person

  23. tsb1991's avatar

    Senate is voting to pass the FAA bill right now, so no Friday session it appears. We’ll see if any cloture motions get sent out next week. They could vote on the SD nominees instead, but I’m hoping they get voted on where there’s gaps in the Senate schedule (like having two 11:30AM Thursday votes or something).

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Excellent news on Aframe. I’m happy to see Bulsara teed up as well. Do we actually know if Menendez will have to be at the trial every day like Trump? Either way I assume Durbin did his Whip count & feels confident that either Collins and/or Murkowski will support Aframe. Either way I am just happy to finally see him get a vote. After the long wait & then the Delaney disaster, he should be well worth the wait to get an excellent nominee like himself.

      Like

  26. Mike's avatar

    “Prediction: Ritz, mangi, aframe and one or two other circuit court nominees wont be confirmed at all be it now or after then election, their cowards thats all.

    aangren”

    Looks like Chuck heard you and told his staff to hold his beer.

    Liked by 3 people

  29. Joe's avatar

    Mike, this weeks nominees should get a hearing on June 5. After that there are six more potential slots where nominees would have rnough time for confirmation.

    1. June 19 (likely 18 or 20th)
    2. July 10
    3. July 24 or 31
    4. September 11
    5. September 25
    6. November 13

    I would guess that one of the September hearings may be canceled but maybe not.

    Liked by 2 people

  30. Joe's avatar

    I believe we’re down to only 10 or 11 (can’t remember, my notes are at home) blue state vacancies plus the 4 potential circuit nominees if you count Kent Jordan. There’s also the possibility that Mangi and/or Kanter need to be pulled too.

    Liked by 2 people

  31. Jamie's avatar

    Here’s the thing about the lame duck session. If the Dems lose the Senate but Biden is reelected, Biden will have to confirm all his Cabinet replacements in the lame duck. And Cabinet nominees are like circuit court judges (30 hours of debate).

    Schumer needs to get as many judges confirmed before the election.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Zack's avatar

    If I had to hazard a guess, Collins likely got some kind of deal for the 1st Circuit nominee for Maine so she’ll be playing ball with some of Biden’s tougher to confirm nominees (to a point.)
    Have to wait and see.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jamie's avatar

      TBH, if she’s willing to vote for all of the red state circuit nominees that don’t get blue slips, it’s a deal worth making. Because her vote most likely brings Manchin as well, which basically means you can confirm Ritz, Kidd, likely Park, and other TN nominee before the election.

      Liked by 1 person

  34. Hank's avatar

    Great to see movement on Aframe – other commenters are probably right that Collins agreed to support him given that he’s a white male career prosecutor. The Republican attacks on him were so embarrassing – Blackburn didn’t understand what a “statutory maximum” was (hardly a shocker given that Blackburn’s probably the biggest joke in the senate when it comes to intellect), and the other attack was that he…listened to the victim who didn’t want to testify and didn’t force her to? Guess that was too silly for even a spineless idiot like Jacky Rosen to believe (and at least with Rosen, I’m sure it that Aframe is Jewish and not Muslim).

    Given Manchin’s little stunt, I honestly think giving Collins to pick whoever she wants would be worth it if she commits to supporting all the other circuit nominees (or more realistically, all but Mangi). Whoever she picks would be the only Republican on CA1, so even a center-right nominee wouldn’t make much of a difference on the court.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I would definitely commit to nominating an Independent or centrist to the 1st in exchange for a backroom deal with Collins to vote yes on all the remining circuit court nominees. That deal would have to include Mangi though. I wouldn’t let her pick a Republican but definitely a centrist. As @Hank mentioned, the 1st is all Democrat appointees so it would be worth getting the other circuit court nominees confirmed.

      On a side note I was curious who did Kent Jordan replace on the 3rd. He replaced Jane Richard Roth. Looks like her husband William Roth was one of Delaware’s US senators when she was nominated by Reagan to the district court & by GHW Bush to the 3rd. I looked into some of her law clerks & one of them was now senator Coons. So this seat will come full circle now.

      Liked by 2 people

    • keystone's avatar

      Yeah, agreed. I think we might want to temper expectations as to what a Collins deal would be. If one exists, I doubt it would extend beyond Aframe. Also, this is all pure speculation.

      Something that occurred to me about Aframe is that, just because cloture has been filed, doesn’t mean we’ll see a vote on him next week. Schumer may have filed it so that they can slot in a vote for any days when Menendez can get away.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hank's avatar

        Yep, agreed – I threw out the possibility as something Dems should offer Collins, but after thinking about it, I’m not sure why she would agree to it (and she certainly wouldn’t go for a deal that some others are proposing, where she couldn’t pick a Republican). She knows she has a lot of leverage already just because the WH likely doesn’t want to add to the growing list of party-line nominees when Dems won’t even have a 50-vote majority for at least a month.

        Dems would have to offer something bigger – my guess is that Collin probably be more willing to deal if the Dems offered to not run/endorse a strong candidate against her in 2026 (just like they didn’t in 2014). I can’t see Schumer/Senate Dems being willing to forfeit perhaps their best shot at flipping a senate seat though, so I doubt we’ll see Collins supporting Mangi (but Maldonado is a possibility, and maybe even Ritz and Kidd given that she was ok with Johnstone).

        Liked by 1 person

      • star0garnet's avatar

        Collins backed every member of Biden’s cabinet. Almost anytime she’s a no on a nominee, it’s for leverage in a situation exactly like this one. Unless McConnell’s offering her something bigger, I doubt we’ll see many more no’s from her. Also, @Hank, most people she aligns and associates with in Maine (and most people she’d recommend) aren’t Republicans.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Hank

        I haven’t heard any statement from Rubio or Scott on Kidd. The weekly newsletter from Alliance for Justice however did break some news on Detra Shaw Wilder I hadn’t heard anywhere else however…

        ”Detra Shaw Wilder, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, a long-awaited nominee, awaits action by Senator Rick Scott, who has so far refused to submit his blue slip. Wilder serves as general counsel to a Florida firm where she was previously managing partner. She is the CFO and Co-Founder of the Kozyak Minority Mentoring Fund.”

        Like

      • Hank's avatar

        @keystone Collins’s votes on cabinet secretaries aren’t helpful when it comes to judges, especially circuit judges. She’s voted against plenty of Biden’s circuit nominees (Perez, Koh, Sung, Thomas, Freeman off the top of my head – notice how it’s mostly women of color) when she had no “leverage” to gain.

        I’m also not sure what basis there is to conclude that Collins mostly aligns/associates with Dems – she recruited a GOP challenger for King’s seat, and she’s even made her piece with LePage. At the end of the day, Collins is a Republican (even if a more reasonable one than most) and is going to act like it – anyone hoping otherwise is setting themselves up for disappointment.

        Liked by 1 person

      • tsb1991's avatar

        I’d honestly be surprised if a vote on Aframe wasn’t held next week. What did surprise me a little was that his cloture was filed yesterday. Typically we’ve seen cloture on appeals court nominees filed either the Monday or Tuesday at the beginning of a Senate week to set them up for a vote on Thursday. This would allow Aframe to be voted on Wednesday if they wanted. I think the last appeals court nominee whose cloture was not voted on a Thursday would have been Abudu, when we were all waiting around that Wednesday night for Coons or Menendez to get back and cast a tiebreaking vote (if there is a Wednesday night vote on cloture, maybe history repeats itself with Menendez?). After cloture was invoked on Abudu she was confirmed the following day, which was also surprising in the sense that Republicans would have agreed to expedite her confirmation vote by even 5 seconds.

        I believe with the Trump trial the court is not in session on Wednesdays, maybe something will similarly happen in the Menendez case? The other thing would be that I’m sure an Amtrak trip to DC is just a few hours from New Jersey and probably an hour for a private jet to DC.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Keystone

        That was my thoughts as well. They must know Menendez either didn’t have to be present at trial Tuesday, Wednesday & Thursday or the trial isn’t in session all three days. I’m happy Aframe is getting his vote next week. They need to tee up Maldonado soon after so Biden can finally send April Perry’s nomination to the senate. Perhaps she will miss the next SJC hearing but be ready for the one after.

        Like

      • star0garnet's avatar

        @Hank Collins is extremely methodical and is always thinking years ahead. That’s how she’s survived so long. If the circuit nominee does hold value to her, she’s had her eye on it for years before Kayatta qualified. Every move is extremely calculated; she opposes the 15% most liberal nominees that come up for votes; that translated to identical 12% opposition in 2021 and 2022, and identical 20% opposition in 2023 and 2024, with Schumer bringing up more liberal nominees this congress. It’s translated to opposing a quarter of circuit nominees, who’ve been more consistent ideologically over time; 7 of 28 last congress, 4 of 13 this congress. But the cabinet votes are a demonstration that she can be had on any particular vote, with perhaps an exception for the most liberal nominees and when she has a grudge against a nominee.

        And lol at that idea that “not Republicans” = Democrats, particularly in Maine. The state’s about 45% centrists, most of them legit Indies, along with 30% liberals and 25% conservatives. The conservatives, from the hicks to the racist subset of the seasonals, loathe her. Her primary loyalty is to her hometown, but a nominee’s highly unlikely to be based there; the legal community is miniscule and travel would be a nightmare. They’re much more likely to be from the heavily moderate-to-liberal social class that she regularly rubs elbows with out of necessity.

        Liked by 1 person

      • rob's avatar

        A bit late in posting this but the only thing I think McConnell could offer Collins is chairmanship of the appropriations committee next session if the GOP win.

        She is currently the ranking member and would be in line for that position but McConnell is the only GOP Senator that has more seniority on that committee then she does and when he’s out of leadership next year he could decide to take up the chairmanship/ranking member position.

        I could see a deal being made to keep her in that position in regards for her vote on certain nominations/bills.

        Having said that she will be up in 2026 and she will no doubt pivot to the bipartisanship she is known for and will probably vote for some of Biden’s nominees if it doesn’t make a difference in the final vote so she can get her bipartisan score up.

        Like

  39. Zack's avatar

    I think Collins will be a yes on Aframe and maybe a couple of other nominees in exchange for getting a Circuit court nominee that is moderate/slightly right leaning but that will be as far as it goes.
    Nominees like Mangi and others are still going to be party line votes.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Aiden's avatar

        Isn’t the position taken by the 9th circuit panel majority similiar to that of the 3rd circuit.
        Ranges its En banc opinion stands for a similiar proposition. I would not say it’s an extreme position considering SCOTUS’s evolving 2nd amendment jurisprudence.
        There is obviously a circuit split as the 10th has rejected the approach of the 9th and 3rd. It’s likely the 9th will go en banc as they have aggressive en banc use when it’s comes to the 2nd amendment.

        I understand the 9th went further than the 3rd but not hugely. The dissent in Range said that the majority was reaching further than they claimed. Rahimi will likely change the game, I think SCOTUS will side with the government.

        Liked by 1 person

  41. Dequan's avatar

    I tried to post this yesterday & just noticed it says “Your comment is awaiting moderation”. I guess Word Press is Word Pressing again. I’ll try to copy/paste & see if it post this time…

    @Hank

    I haven’t heard any statement from Rubio or Scott on Kidd. The weekly newsletter from Alliance for Justice however did break some news on Detra Shaw Wilder I hadn’t heard anywhere else however…

    ”Detra Shaw Wilder, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, a long-awaited nominee, awaits action by Senator Rick Scott, who has so far refused to submit his blue slip. Wilder serves as general counsel to a Florida firm where she was previously managing partner. She is the CFO and Co-Founder of the Kozyak Minority Mentoring Fund.”

    Like

  42. Dequan's avatar

    I tried to post this yesterday twice & just noticed it says “Your comment is awaiting moderation”. I guess Word Press is Word Pressing again. I’ll try to copy/paste & see if it post this time…

    @Hank

    I haven’t heard any statement from Rubio or Scott on Kidd. The weekly newsletter from Alliance for Justice however did break some news on Detra Shaw Wilder I hadn’t heard anywhere else however…

    ”Detra Shaw Wilder, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, a long-awaited nominee, awaits action by Senator Rick Scott, who has so far refused to submit his blue slip. Wilder serves as general counsel to a Florida firm where she was previously managing partner. She is the CFO and Co-Founder of the Kozyak Minority Mentoring Fund.”

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      Exactly. Remember he got put on both the district & circuit court when both the filibuster & blue slips were in play for both confirmations. He was probably a right of center Republican then acceptable in a blue state. 18 years later with the Party moving so far to the right he likely has no issue with Biden replacing him.

      Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      Yea I agree. While I think he won’t rescind, I still like it better when they make it effective upon confirmation of their successor. I don’t think January 15th is either his birthday nor the day he received his commission so not sure what the significance is of that exact date in regards to it being the day he retires. Maybe an anniversary or something else.

      Like

  46. Jamie's avatar

    A couple hypothetical questions about the Jordan nomination (really about situations like this in general) based on some of the comments above.

    a) The replacement is confirmed in 2024, but Biden doesn’t sign the commission before he leaves office (whether that is Trump or Harris). Can the new President void the confirmation?

    b) The replacement is confirmed in 2024, but Jordan recinds or changes the date of his resignation after the confirmation. It’s not happening, but can he do this; particularly if (a) were to happen.

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Jaime

      A. Any subsequent president after Biden can sign the commission. For instance, let’s say Trump wins & Democrats some how hold on to the senate majority for the next 4 years. Now let’s say Democrats refuse to confirm any Trump nominee to the seat.

      Now let’s say in 2028 a Democrat President wins & a Republican wins the senate majority. The Democrat president can sign the commission if the Biden confirmed nominee from this year on January 20, 2029 if they want.

      B. This one is easy. Until Jordan retires, takes senior status, dies or is impeached by the Congress, he is a judge for life. No signing if any commission can change that. Only the scenarios I just mentioned can vacate the seat.

      Hope that helped

      Like

      • Jamie's avatar

        For A, I guess my question is this. If Trump doesn’t want the confirmed replacement, can he vacate the confirmation and put up his own replacement? There would already be a confirmed person for a vacant seat, can he do anything more than just refuse to sign the commission? I guess the other question is the Senate can vote to recind the confirmation, making the seat vacant again.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Oh, I gor your question. Remember in order to be a federal judge, you need a vacancy, to be confirmed by the senate & have the president sign your commission. So let’s use a real life example;

        Let’s say next week Wednesday Biden nominates Christopher Howland for the 3rd. Now let’s say the senate confirms him. Let’s say Jordan changes the date of his retirement from January 15th to January 21st & Trump wins this November. Now let’s say Trump nominates somebody else, the state confirms them & Trump signs their commission.

        Noe let’s fast forward to 2029. Let’s say Wes Moore becomes president & wants Christopher Howland on the 3rd. Remember the three requirements I mentioned above. You need a vacancy, to be confirmed by the senate & have the president sign your commission. Only two of those three requirements would be met but there is no longer a vacancy so all three aren’t met. Therefore Christopher Howland remains a private citizen.

        Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      EXACTLY. As soon as ANYBODY takes Jordan’s seat, nobody else can take THAT seat until THAT judge retires, takes senior status, is impeached or dies. The senate confirming somebody is worthless if a president doesn’t sign the commission.

      If THIS senate confirmed Christopher Howland & Biden doesn’t sign the commission for whatever reason before he leaves office, you would need the next or future president to sign the commission for Jordan’s vacancy. That’s the only vacancy the senate confirmed him for. Once that vacancy is filled, there is no longer a vacancy & Christopher Howland would have to be nominated to another seat (AKA the process starts all over again).

      Liked by 1 person

  48. Dequan's avatar

    I know mostly everybody on here (myself included) has Scott Colom as the front runner for either of the two seats on the 5th should one either of the judges eligible for retirement deciders to do so while Biden is still president. Trey Baker might be another solid choice if the pick isn’t Colom in that hypothetical. He’s a Black man that advises the president from Mississippi. He was born around 1984 so he would be a solid choice too. According to the article below, he’s rejoining the administration for the election.

    (https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-harris-campaign-hires-former-175520157.html)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mitch's avatar

      @Dequan

      I agree with the article. Mangi doesn’t have the votes. But opposing him openly could cause problems for Democratic Senators, too. Also, if the White House were to withdraw support, it would alienate progressives like the Lani Guinier did for Bill Clinton in 1993.

      IMHO, most Democrats are hoping that Mangi will quietly withdraw. He hasn’t done so, yet

      Liked by 1 person

    • Rick's avatar

      If Mangi has no chance for confirmation then he should withdraw – real soon so a new nominee can be put forth. It would be political malpractice to not fill a circuit court seat.

      I just don’t understand the current road we are one where the Nevada senators aren’t nudging, the WH does not want to pull the nomination, Mangi won’t withdraw – doing nothing and hoping he somehow magically gets confirmed is not a path forward.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to IrvineOnlooker Cancel reply