Judge Embry Kidd – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

U.S. Middle District of Florida Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd has been nominated for a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Atlanta-based Circuit is a federal appellate court that oversees the states of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. He is also the fifth Magistrate Judge to be nominated directly to a circuit court by President Biden. There had been six all time before Biden took office. 

Background

Embry Kidd earned a Bachelor of Arts from Emory University in 2005 with high honors in political science as a Robert W. Woodruff Scholar.  He then earned a Juris Doctor from Yale Law School in 2008. While at Emory University, Kidd was the Editor of the Emory Political Review, Treasurer of the Student Government Association, Treasurer of the Media Council and served as a tour guide. After graduating from law school, Kidd served as a law clerk for Judge Roger Gregory of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from 2008 to 2009. In 2009, he worked as an Associate at Williams & Connolly in Washington, D.C. He remained there until 2014, when he left to serve as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida. On July 25, 2019, Kidd assumed office as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Middle District of Florida.

History of the vacancy

On May 8, 2024, President Biden announced his intent to nominate Kidd to the seat vacated by Judge Charles R. Wilson, who will assume senior status on December 31, 2024. Like Kidd, Wilson served as a Magistrate Judge for the Middle District of Florida (from 1990-1994) and in the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Middle District of Florida (serving as U.S. Attorney from 1994 to 1999), when President Clinton nominated him. Wilson was the second African-American on the Eleventh Circuit. If Kidd, who is also African-American, is confirmed to replace him, he would serve alongside President Biden nominated judge Nancy Abudu as the only two African-Americans on the 12 judge court. 

Jurisprudence

During his nearly five years on the bench as a magistrate judge, Kidd presided over numerous cases. 

On March 15, 2021, Kidd ruled Kenneth Harrelson to be held without bond pending his trial in Washington D.C. Harrelson was a members of the Oath Keepers group charged in connection with the January 6 Capitol riot. Kidd ruled that while Harrelson likely wasn’t a flight risk, he should be held based on the nature of the charges, which prosecutors argued amount to a “federal crime of terrorism.”

On September 15, 2022, Kidd ordered Jose Ramon Tejeda-Guerrero remain detained pending trial. Tejeda-Guerrero was extradited from the Dominican Republic to the United States and charged in a 2012 indictment with fraudulent possession of counterfeit or unauthorized access devices and four counts of aggravated identity theft. 

On September 23, 2022, Kidd ordered ​Brett Avery Tipton remain detained pending trial. Tipton was charged with enticing a minor to produce child sexual abuse material. According to the criminal complaint, Tipton began communicating with the child victim through various social media platforms requesting and urging the then approximately 12 years old send him numerous pictures of the victim engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

On September 14, 2023, Miami-based businessman Sergey Karpushkin, a Belarussian citizen, pleaded guilty before Judge Kidd in Orlando, Florida to engaging in a scheme to violate U.S. sanctions and commit money laundering by conducting transactions for the purchase and acquisition of metal products valued at over $139 million from companies owned by Sergey Kurchenko, a sanctioned oligarch.

Overall Assessment

While on paper, Embry Kidd’s career may seem non-controversial and a consensus candidate for a seat on a circuit court in a state with two Republican U.S. Senators, it is almost guaranteed he will not receive the unanimous support Judge Charles R. Wilson did when he was confirmed to the same seat. With less than six months until the 2024 presidential election, the senate calendar is filled with numerous recess weeks along with an increasing urgency from the minority party to keep as many judicial seats vacant as they can in case there is a change in administration or the Senate composition as a result of the election. With the previous 14 U.S. Supreme Court Justices all having been previously nominated to one of the nation’s 13 circuit courts (Justice Kagan was nominated for but not confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1999), a nominee such as Kidd could have decades on the bench on a crucial court, particularly with him being in his early 40s. 

In addition to the calendar, demographics could come into play during the confirmation process of Kidd. Two African-American men have been Justices on the nation’s highest court. While both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas had rough confirmations, you could make an argument that African American men have had an even rougher path to the second highest level of the nation’s judiciary, particularly in the previous dozen years. Since 2013, there has been a net deficit of African American men on the nation’s appellate courts, which have 179 authorized judgeships between them. A quick look at the past dozen years may show why that trend has occurred.

In 2013, President Obama nominated a trio of nominees to the widely recognized second-highest court in the nation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, including Robert L. Wilkins, who is African-American. Senate Republicans refused to confirm Wilkins or the other two nominees despite being in the minority. This was made possible by the filibuster which required 60 votes to confirm a judicial nominee in the 100 seat U.S. senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and senate Democrats voted to change senate rules to end the fillister which only required a simple majority to confirm circuit and district court nominees, leading to Wilkins’ eventual confirmation. 

None of President Trump’s 54 appellate judges were African-American (male or female) so the next example to look to would be Andre Mathis. Mathis was nominated by President Biden in 2021 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. His Tennessee home state senator Marsha Blackburn bashed the nomination claiming both home state Republican senators were not adequately consulted about the nomination. Blackburn accused Mathis of having a “rap sheet” due in part to three previous speeding tickets that he didn’t pay on time. Mathis was eventually confirmed, becoming the first Democrat appointed circuit court judge to be confirmed despite not having blue slips, a piece of paper used by the Senate Judiciary Committee to solicit views of home state senators on judicial nominees.

In 2022, President Biden nominated Jabari Wamble to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. No action was taken on his nomination and it was returned to the President under Rule XXXI, Paragraph 6 of the United States Senate at the start of the new year. In February 2023, Wamble was nominated again but this time to a lower court, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. His nomination to that court was ultimately withdrawn in May 2023 with no public explanation.

With Embry Kidd being the fourth African-American man to be nominated to a United States circuit court in the past 12 years, he has the opportunity to reverse the near historically difficult paths the previous three mentioned nominees all faced on the road to confirmation. If he can, he could possibly be on any Democrat President’s list of potential candidates for future U.S. Supreme Court vacancies for decades. 

References

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article275716501.html

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2024/05/08/president-biden-names-forty-ninth-round-of-judicial-nominees/

https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/biden-taps-florida-judge-for-atlanta-based-federal-appeals-court/WMR5WINX6FCW3JT7NVXZ3M3PF4/

https://woodruffscholars.emory.edu/about/advisory-bios/kidd-embry.html

https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/documents/mdfl-8-19-mc-1-t-23-appointment-of-embry-kidd.pdf

https://cbc.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2511

https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2021/02/15/this-black-history-month-remember-not-just-the-giants-of-our-courts-but-also-our-courts-history-column/

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/11th-circuits-wilson-take-senior-status-creating-vacancy-2024-01-23/

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/fugitive-extradited-dominican-republic-face-fraud-and-aggravated-identity-theft-charges

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/security-guard-arrested-enticing-13-year-old-repeatedly-produce-sexually-explicit

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/miami-based-businessman-pleads-guilty-conspiracy-violate-russia-ukraine-sanctions-and

https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2021/03/15/federal-judge-denies-bond-titusville-man-charged-over-capitol-riot-oath-keepers/4700778001/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WKb7M5EJ8E

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-senate-confirms-biden-appellate-judge-pick-opposed-by-home-state-senators-2022-09-08/

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/us-district-court-nominee-wamble-withdraws-from-consideration

172 Comments

  2. Joe's avatar

    Well done, Dequan.

    I’m eager to see what the Florida senators think of Kidd. On paper, he seems very traditional, but I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they come up with some rationale (maybe the January 6th angle) to stir up controversy.

    I think there is likely still some bargaining going on over district nominees too, so hard to say how the calculus would play out there. If I was the White House, I think it’d be smart to agree to nominating a center right judge for MDFL in exchange for support for Kidd, DSW, and maybe another MDFL nominee.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. derickjohnson's avatar

    Great Write up Dequan

    I agree that on paper Kidd does not look controversial. However, republicans will probably find some point and fico is on it to make Kidd either look as an activist or in some way not qualified. Again thanks for the profile and I hope you continue.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Hank's avatar

    Kidd’s a very traditional nominee – not particularly exciting/progressive, but perhaps Collins’ or Murkowski’s votes might be in play for that reason. Has Rubio said anything about him? I can’t imagine that Rubio would return a blue slip if Scott refuses to (and I suspect that Scott will not in the end), but maybe he’ll surprise us. Unless my scheduling is off, it looks like Kidd’s SJC hearing should be next week, so we’ll know by then what Rubio/Scott are planning to do.

    And good write-up, Dequan. My only bone to pick (and I’ve mentioned this before) is that only looking at the number of Black male appellate judges ignores the bigger context, especially the fact that Biden has more than doubled the number of Black women appellate judges. Between balancing the demands of the rest of the Dem coalition and the candidates that Dem senators want (often their campaign counsel), I don’t think it’s realistic to expect the WH to replace every minority/woman judge with someone of that same background. The confirmation process is difficult enough as it is, and I’m skeptical that a Black male career prosecutor is necessarily going to be any better for the community than a non-Black public defender or civil rights lawyer, for example.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Zack's avatar

    While I’m sure they’ll try to come up with something, there is nothing that I can see from Kidd’s background that will be an issue.
    They will still try and drag it out so Trump or another Republican can fill the seat.
    Let’s hope that won’t happen.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. rob's avatar

    JP Collins posted yesterday that according to his OSCAR profile Leslie Soutwick is moving his chambers to Austin in Summer 2025 which he believes would imply he’s going senior.

    If that is true and it’s announced this year Scott Colom this is your moment!

    I wish I could see Sen Hyde smith’s face when she finds this out

    Liked by 3 people

  9. Hank's avatar

    I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that a move to Austin means Southwick is taking senior status anytime soon – judges can move their chambers without going senior. Clinton appointee M. Margaret Mckeown was originally based in Seattle before she moved her chambers to San Diego, and she did that long before she went senior.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. tsb1991's avatar

    I saw that article last night about the possibility of expanding the number of district court judges. I’ll believe it when I see it, but one thing of interest was that the Judicial Commission did recommend two seats on the 9th Circuit. The article mentioned that the Senate bill doesn’t include those seats, and kind of seems to imply the House bill has those two seats?

    The article did mention some of the district courts who would get seats, I know typically any EDCA or DDE vacancy is considered an emergency, and that those two courts would gain addition seats. They also mentioned Texas, but I would also imagine New Jersey would probably gain seats on their district court? If I remember that’s a court where one vacancy is enough to consider a judicial emergency. I’m sure if I just read the proposed bills it would mention the seats, since I’d have to imagine this would be a pretty simple bill for anybody to read or understand.

    Liked by 1 person

    • tsb1991's avatar

      I did find the Senate bill:

      https://www.coons.senate.gov/download/judge-act-bill-text

      The seats added under this bill:

      Effective 1/21/25:
      -1 seat to AZ
      -5 seats to CDCA
      -2 seats to EDCA
      -3 seats to NDCA
      -1 seat to SDCA
      -1 seat to CO
      -1 seat to DE
      -2 seats to MDFL
      -1 seat to SDFL
      -1 seat to NDGA
      -1 seat to ID
      -1 seat to SDIN
      -1 seat to NDIA
      -1 seat to NE
      -1 seat to NJ
      -1 seat to EDNY
      -1 seat to SDNY
      -1 seat to EDTX
      -1 seat to NDTX
      -2 seats to SDTX
      -3 seats to WDTX

      I do wonder where that NDTX seat would go, probably not to one of the conservative lawyer safe spaces of Fort Worth of Amarillo lol

      Effective 1/21/29:
      -1 seat to AZ
      -4 seats to CDCA
      -2 seats to EDCA
      -3 seats to NDCA
      -1 seat to SDCA
      -1 seat to CO
      -1 seat to DE
      -3 seats to MDFL
      -1 seat to NDFL
      -2 seats to SDFL
      -1 seat to NDGA
      -2 seats to NJ
      -1 seat to EDNY
      -1 seat to SDNY
      -1 seat to WDNY
      -1 seat to EDTX
      -2 seats to SDTX
      -3 seats to SDTX

      The CDCA really makes bank here, getting 9 additional seats staggered out.

      The bill also mentions temporary judgeships, creating 2 in the EDOK and one in NDOK, and I guess converting the temporary judgeships in EDMO, AZ, CDCA, SDFL, NM, WDNC, and EDTX to permanent ones? That and extending the temporary seats in NDAL and KS.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. dawsont825's avatar

    Excellent write-up Dequan! Harsh does an amazing job with writing majority of the posts, but I love the extra details you provided in your post!

    With that said, I love how young Kidd is, and how uncontroversial he is, which only forces the hand of Scott and Rubio into supporting him (or at worst, not openly bashing him on Twitter/X, and on TV). I can’t really say that Kidd’s nomination will definitely lead to Scott returning his blue slip for DSW, but if Biden plays his cards right, he can get blue slips returned for her and agree to another package deal for both vacant MDFL seats. Even if one of them has to be a moderate republican. Anything beats leaving vacancies open for FedSoc hacks to wreak havoc in.

    Overall, I think I’m most excited about potentially having another black male circuit court judge gaining experience in the likelihood of Justice Thomas either voluntarily stepping down (under a Dem president? lol) or doing so feet-first. When Biden and his team think highly of a judge, they don’t wait long to be promoted (de Alba, KBJ, Maldonado ((to an extent)), etc.,) so I have no doubt in my mind that in the likely event of a SCOTUS vacancy (specifically to Thomas’s seat) Biden would basically only consider Kidd or Mathis. It’s a shame that Judge Wilkins is on the older side now, ditto for Judge Watford and Kallon in Alabama. I think Biden is saving Judge Alison Nathan for Alito’s seat in the event he gets to replace him. Something about an intelligent lesbian trailblazing appellate judge replacing probably the most partisan hack Justice in SCOTUS history…. would restore balance to the world, while serving as true karmic justice.

    Hope Kidd gets confirmed fast. Don’t eff this up Durbin and Schumer! Trump’s record is within reach, and with additional judgeships soon to be passed into law, there are a lot of opportunities for confirmations if Biden wins a second term. Keep the ball rolling.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. tsb1991's avatar

    I saw that article posted in the previous thread about Biden re-pledging to nominate progressive SCOTUS nominees and the speculation about a vacancy. If by some chance Sotomayor does retire this summer, I’d hope she’d have assurance from Manchin or Sinema that they’d vote to confirm a replacement by the end of the year, as that’d be the biggest roadblock IMO. As I mentioned, if she does retire at the end of the term, best case from a scheduling scenario is that hearings are held during the August or October breaks and a September hearing isn’t lost, so you’d get a SCOTUS hearing and squeeze out every last possible hearing window for the remaining nominees. Although if she does announce a retirement at the end of June, Biden would probably need a nomination by mid-July if they wanted to have a hearing in August.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Gavi's avatar

    DEQUAN!

    After years of begging, I am very glad to see that my pedantic bug bear was finally corrected in this latest fabulous write up! You know what it is, thank you!

    Substantively, I don’t get the emphasis on black male circuit court judges, especially in the overall assessment section of one such nominee (Kidd). We’ll never agree on the racialize angle, but given the types of appointees we’ve seen during the Biden years, I don’t understand the even stranger finer point you put on specifically male nominees. The Democratic coalition is much broader than black men. If all the seats go to African Americans of whatever sex, what happens to the other important elements of that coalition, like Asians, Latinos, etc.? Since some live and die by the quota, here’s a stark one for you: Biden’s black appellate court appointees far exceed our make up in the general population and those of us practicing in the legal profession, percentagewise.  For the “representation matters” folks, maybe it’s good politics to spread the representation, no?

    Finally, Biden’s recent remark on a potential SCOTUS vacancy isn’t groundbreaking. I am glad that he’s talking about this to his voters, but every single presidential campaign in the modern era has had a candidate musing on filling future seats on the court. It doesn’t mean that they have foreknowledge of any in particular. It’s a nice way of laying out the stakes of the election, beyond the hear and now.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Hank's avatar

    I agree with Gavi that the obsession with male nominees (of any race) is strange. Compared to other minorities/groups, Black men are the least underrepresented on the federal courts. And I don’t see Latino groups advocating that Sotomayor is insufficient because she’s a woman and there needs to be a male Latino judge on SCOTUS.

    I’m also skeptical that Kidd would be a major contender for SCOTUS in the future – given how closely SCOTUS is associated with Roe/Dobbs on the left, I’d bet on any Dem president seizing the opportunity to put a female majority on the court (which I don’t think would do anything to actually help women if the court is still 5-4 Republican, but the Dems love symbolic gestures). Even if Biden’s replacing Thomas, I think it’s more likely that he’d nominate a Black woman, and such a move would be especially poetic given Thomas’s abuse of Anita Hill.

    Liked by 2 people

      • Joe's avatar

        There’s really no way to know who the candidates are until we know who is retiring and what are the politics of the given moment.

        If Thomas leaves the court, I do expect there to be some push to nominate another black jurist. It is considered by many to be “Thurgood Marshall’s Seat” and many voters have resented that Thomas (unfairly) had that seat for decades. However, this may not be the end all be all. If the politics of the moment lead Biden/Harris to think an LGBT or a woman or some other jurist would be a better pick then they may decide that nominating KBJ was enough and go another direction.

        Liked by 1 person

    • lilee2122's avatar

      I believe black men are unrepresented on our federal appeals courts comparatively to the ratio of them in the US…Im glad Kidd was nominated..There are several Latino Senators and in the house … I think Brad Garcia could be a future scotus nominee…Biden has nominated many women of color to try to balance the sex and racial inquities …. Sadly to say even now the color of one’s skin does lead to even subconscious prejudice in society…..

      Liked by 1 person

      • Gavi's avatar

        There’s no need to guess. What’s the percentage of African American male and what’s the percentage of black men on appeals courts? And what quota should you use? General population? Or black attorneys. The latter would definitely be more sensible, as that’s the group from which appeals court judges are picked.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hank's avatar

        @Gavi that’s exactly right. I checked, and there are currently 12 active Black male judges (11 on the appellate courts + Thomas). There are 179 appellate seats and 9 SCOTUS seats for a total of 188 seats, so those 12 judges represent 6.4% of all active judges (and this isn’t counting the Black male judges who have taken senior status but are still hearing cases). The US is 12.1% Black according to HHS, so Black men are about 6% of the US population.

        This indicates that even though there haven’t been as many Black male appointees recently, the percent of Black male federal appellate judges is about in line with (if not slightly above) the percent of Black men in this country. (@Gavi I see your point about comparing to Black male lawyers, but given that these judges’ rulings affect everybody, I’ve used the general population number). In this context, it’s hard to argue that the WH erred in focusing on nominating Black women to appellate judgeships—lest we forget, there were only 3 active Black female appellate judges at the start of Biden’s term.

        Again, I point this out not to suggest that the WH shouldn’t nominate more Black men or anything like that—I just take issue with the implication that all of the talented Black women judges the WH has confirmed are somehow not enough. I’d love to see a progressive Black lawyer like Ben Crump get nominated, but Black male judges are sufficiently represented that we shouldn’t be celebrating Big Law lawyers or career prosecutors simply because they happen to be Black.

        Lastly, if we’re talking about missed opportunities in terms of representation, there has still never been a Native American federal appellate judge. The WH had 2 opportunities to fix that (nominate Lauren King to fill the McKeown vacancy or Sunshine Sykes to fill the Watford vacancy) but declined to do so—and more importantly, I don’t believe that any of Biden’s appellate nominees have had experience in American Indian law either. In my opinion, that’s a bigger issue for an administration that likes to trumpet its commitment to diversity.

        Liked by 2 people

      • lilee2122's avatar

        Native American law is tricky…Tribes have their own judges and are sovereign.. Yet Tribes differ widely and can arbitrarily use Native laws like ICWA or enrollment criteria or transfer justice to off reservation courts as some situations call for….Any judge that knows Native American law is a plus IMO….

        Liked by 1 person

  18. Jamie's avatar

    Elie Mystal apologized to Harriet Miers for opposing her nomination. And he also argues that Justice Aileen Cannon or a Trump puppet would be better than some of the handpicked Fed Society highly qualified nominees.

    “It comes down to motivation. Miers was motivated by love—of George W. Bush and his “compassionate conservative” born-again agenda. Alito is motivated by hatred—of women, equality, and democracy in a pluralistic society.”

    https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/apology-to-harriet-miers-alito/

    To me both options suck, and I’m not sure which sucks more. We don’t want Fed Society hacks, but we also shouldn’t want totally unqualified justices on SCOTUS.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Gavi's avatar

      Yikes. It’s hard for me to believe that a Justice Aileen Cannon could be better than any other type of judges. She’s been a particularly bad judge.

      Hmmm, as I write this, I’m probably being unfair to her. She’s awful, no doubt. But the one thing I could say in her favor is she’s always destined to be a bad trial court judge. Ironically, her pre-bench experience showed that she’d probably make a more *competent* appellate judge (but still a bad one). And SCOTUS, having sat only once as a court of fact (if memory serves), is the ultimate appeals court (of law).

      But still, let us pray that Cannon never gets to sit on any other court.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ads's avatar

      I get what Elie Mystal is saying. He’s saying that he failed to discern the circumstantial nuance back in 2006 that would otherwise have made him more receptive to Miers (her subservience to a person; in her case W) as opposed to Alito (his hatred of women, equality, and democracy in a pluralistic society). But the nuance that Mystal fails to grasp in equating Aileen Cannon to Harriet Miers is that the person to whom Cannon is subservient (Trump) himself hates women, equality, and democracy in a pluralistic society; if not primarily, at least by default in that he’s a hateful narcissistic autocrat. If she’s subservient to Trump, we’ll get the same Alito style results 100% of the time. It would simply be a 2 step process for Cannon as opposed to the 1 step process it is for Alito. Say what you will about Bush, but he was not a hateful narcissistic autocrat. The president that a potential Justice is subservient to makes all the difference. BTW I did a spit take at Mystal’s assertion that in Alito’s likely opinion, “all (poor) people have to do to (have equal) access (to) justice is (to) accept Christ and stop being poor.” LOLOL

      Liked by 2 people

  20. Mitch's avatar

    Back to a possible Clarence Thomas retirement. Regardless of who is elected President this year, I expect that the nominee to replace him will be an APPI person.

    They are a growing and established presence in the population and there are many qualified possibilities. Either President would get some good PR from such a nomination.

    Liked by 1 person

    • shawnee68's avatar

      If Trump is president then I can see someone like James Ho. But, the republicans don’t use judgeships to reward minority voters.

      If Biden were re-elected I think it would be someone geographically diverse who may or may not be a racial minority.

      I hope Biden chooses a man from California at the very least.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hank's avatar

      @Mitch I’m skeptical – the Dems would face notable pressure from Clyburn/Black Dems to maintain two Black justices, and AAPI senators / representatives don’t have nearly as much sway with Dem leadership (and certainly not with Biden). If it’s not someone Black, then Schumer is likely to push for Alison Nathan (who also would be historic as the first LGBT judge).

      It might actually be more likely coming from a Republican administration, as Amul Thapar & Jim Ho’s desperation to get on SCOTUS is hard to miss. But Trump hates McConnell and is unlikely to nominate Thapar (who is close with McConnell) as a result, and there’s also been reports that he’s still angry at his Federalist Society lawyers for not overturning the election for him in 2020. I also can’t see Trump (who referred to McConnell’s Taiwanese-American wife Elaine Chao with an insulting nickname) picking the Taiwanese (which Trump likely thinks means Chinese) Jim Ho over a white guy or an established sycophant like Aileen Canon.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jamie's avatar

      Neither Biden nor Trump is legally allowed to run again (if they win this year). I don’t see AAPI justice as a guarantee.
      If Biden wins and leaves office, Harris can run again. But Harris herself is both Black and AAPI so the pressure to put one on the court would be less. My guess is that Harris might go with Alison Nathan or another LGBT person.

      Liked by 1 person

  21. shawnee68's avatar

    @Hank

    Are you saying that California and it’s nearly 50 million people don’t matter?

    I am not trying brag but in California we don’t have resort to courts to get the policies we want.

    We don’t need a Supreme Court with 5 members from New York or New Jersey. It’s not 1830.

    Yes, we need some balance on the court. For black guy like me a white LGBT woman is just woke tokenism.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Hank's avatar

    @Shawnee your whole “woke tokenism” schpiel makes it clear that you’re trolling, so I’ll keep this short: Yes, California (which has less than 40 million people) does not matter when it comes to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS’s far-right BS hurt California residents just like the rest of us. CA has 2 senators just like everyone else, neither of those senators are senior or in leadership roles, Biden is an East Coaster, and Harris gets nothing to do except doomed assignments like voting rights and the border. The reality is that the Dems haven’t nominated a SCOTUS justice from out west in ages and have shown little interest in doing so (Michelle Childs got further in the process than Leondra Kruger even though Kruger had more traditional qualifications), and what you (or I) think we “need” doesn’t matter to Biden/Schumer/etc.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Mitch's avatar

      I don’t see Aileen Cannon going to SCUTOS, but if Trump wins, I could see her on the 11th. Circuit Court of Appeals.

      If Biden decides to nominate someone from California, Goodwin Liu is a possibility. But Liu may not have the appetite for another rough confirmation hearing. He got banged up badly when Obama tried to put him on the Ninth Circuit.

      Jacqueline Nguyen and Lucy Koh are names to watch from California. Thing is, I don’t see another vacancy opening up this year.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jamie's avatar

        If Kidd is confirmed as I expect, it’s highly unlikely that there will be an opening on the 11th for Cannon. Jordan isn’t going to retire under Trump. Unless Trump nominated Lagoa or Luck to SCOTUS, or additional seats are added to the 11th.

        Cannon is not qualified for SCOTUS obviously, but neither was Harriet Miers and Bush nominated her anyway. Trump cares more about loyalty than Bush did, and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Trump wants to go in that direction this time around.

        Liked by 1 person

  23. star0garnet's avatar

    More important than where somebody’s from is that they’re happy to spend 8+ months/year in the DC area. I personally think DC’s one of the country’s more underrated cities, with the notable exception of the weather, but with that said… While you might think being on SCOTUS would be worth it to anybody, I’d guess there are a substantial number of prospects who decline consideration. There are certainly some justices who would have declined it in retrospect, most recently Souter, who of course turned out to be a remarkably good justice but spent much of his tenure pining for NH and bemoaning/avoiding the DC social scene. For most parents, it will mean relocating their children, which not all are willing to do. Family commitments, social ties, regional loyalties/fondness, hate of travel/attention, etc. I’d be curious whether or not Westerners are likelier to decline consideration; I’d guess the answer is yes.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Gavi's avatar

      Looks like Scott’s leading the effort to get Biden to nominate another certified Republican for another seat and is using Wilder as leverage.

      The article doesn’t identify Kidd as the reason the senators’ blue slip holdout on Wilder, which is something. Though it could be. I’m sure these 2 Republicans don’t care about the optics of attempting to block even more black nominees, adding to Rubio’s total.

      Also, what’s this about Fed Soc members supporting Wilder? Shold this be of concern? I’m of the general view that what’s good for Fed Suckers are not good for me. (I know Fed Soc as an organization doesn’t take a position on judicial nominees.)

      Liked by 1 person

      • Frank's avatar

        I think it depends on the context Gavi and you have to read into why they are supporting her. Some FedSoc members supported Bloomekatz despite having differing views on the law and I can remember some other ‘progressive’ nominees receiving support from Republicans in letters submitted to the committee based on the perceived temperament of the nominee and not because of a complete agreement on the issues. I don’t think Shaw-Wilder would be ‘progressive’ (heck Rubio was the one to originally recommend her) but I hardly think she would be super conservative either. In addition, while many of them are extremist, not all FedSoc members are created equal.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Mitch's avatar

      As I said before, I think that the White House is refusing to nominate a potential District Judge that Rick Scott is pushing for, and Scott and Rubio are withholding their support for Detra Wilder-Shaw in retaliation. It’s probably someone Scott appointed to something while he was governor.

      IMHO, if the White House agrees to their recommendation, than Wilder-Shaw will be a shoo-in.

      Liked by 1 person

  25. Judicial Junkie's avatar

    I saw a tweet where someone speculated that Trump’s conviction could spur some moderate Republican-appointed judges to seek senior status so that their replacement wouldn’t be appointed by a convicted felon. I feel like this is wishful thinking but how likely do you think this’ll happen?

    Like

  26. Joe's avatar

    Thanks for sharing that article.

    I do think there is an opening here. It sounds like Rubio is on board already, just not willing to go without Scott. If the WH can get support for Kidd, DSW, and a center left MDFL nominee in exchange for a center right MDFL of Scott’s choosing that would be a pretty good deal.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Mike's avatar

    Trump guilty verdict has resulted in 8 Senators, including both Marco and Scott vowing to oppose all Biden nominees, that’s why they’re blocking the Florida nominee and none of the other seats are going to get filled.

    Susan, Mitt and Lisa aren’t on the list so it’s still possible to get confirmations.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Ryan J's avatar

    Replying to @Hank from earlier:

    There isn’t much liberals can do in terms of expanding diversity with only 3 seats. All 3 liberal justices are women, and 2 are women of color. Assuming the conservatives maintain their 6-3 majority and keep their ratio at 4 white men, 1 white woman, & 1 man of color, the liberals’ hands are basically tied.

    Latinx groups will expect Sotomayor’s seat to be retained by a Latinx (I think a Latino man would be acceptable to them as no Latino men have served on SCOTUS), African-American groups will want to ensure there’s a Black woman (or at least one African-American on the liberal side), and Jewish groups will want Kagan replaced by a Jewish justice (the # of Jewish justices has decreased from 3 to 1 in the past 4 years). As much as I would like to see an AAPI liberal justice (as an Asian-American myself), I just don’t see it happening anytime soon unless the liberals get a 4th seat. I would go as far as to say with the prominence of Jim Ho/Patrick Bumatay and conservatives holding 6 seats on SCOTUS, it’s more likely than not that the first AAPI justice will be a conservative.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Joe's avatar

        I’ve long thought Gabriel Sanchez or Salvador Mendoza would be good potential replacements for Sotomayor. Might help at the margins with Hispanic men, specifically in Nevada and Arizona. Normally I would say judicial nominations don’t get much attention but a SCOTUS vacancy in the summer of an election year certainly would.

        Liked by 2 people

      • dawsont825's avatar

        @Joe

        I agree that Gabriel Sanchez or Salvador Mendoza would be on a shortlist to replace Sotomayor in the event of a vacancy. But I think the frontrunner would be Brad Garcia.

        As easy as it is to discuss how helpful it would be for appellate judges from different circuits across the country to be elevated to SCOTUS, recent history shows that Dems choose SCOTUS nominees from the DC (NE area). The last 5 nominees on the Dem side (Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, Ginsburg, Breyer) were all from the Northeast, and there is little evidence to suggest that things will change under Biden. Maybe under a President Kamala Harris administration, but since Biden has spent his entire political career in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and then DC, he’s likely to choose judges who reside in the same area.

        Then-Judge Jackson had been a trial court judge for a decade until she was the elevated to the COA, then of course elevated to SCOTUS. Biden and the Dem establishment thought highly of her, so much so that they were willing to overlook her short record as an appellate judge and nominated her for the highest appellate judgeship in the country. I think Brad Garcia is on the right track to be the next Hispanic Dem SCOTUS appointee. It helps that he currently serves on the DC Circuit which is where 4/9 of the current Justices came from, and where the recent history shows both parties choose nominees from overall.

        I think that the Dem party writ large believes in symbolic gestures, which is why they probably wouldn’t nominate an AAPI nominee for anyone besides a republican appointee besides Thomas. (Roberts or Alito). They won’t give back Kagan’s seat to anyone besides a Jew, and they don’t want to further alienate Hispanics by not having at least one Hispanic Justice. *My* thought pattern is that they’d replace Thomas with a either a Black man to keep the consistency (Andre Mathis or soon-to-be Judge Kidd) They could also nominate a Black woman as a way to subtly tell Thomas to eff off, to make amends to Anita Hill decades ago, and to create the first woman majority on SCOTUS.

        Overall, I’d really like to have more young circuit court judges in different parts of the country, so that any future Dem president can be overwhelmed with options for elevation. Makes me kinda jealous that the GOP basically has SCOTUS-ready circuit court judges in every circuit except the 1st circuit. I want that for Dems.

        Liked by 2 people

  32. Zack's avatar

    IMO, after KBJ I don’t see Democrats being locked into gender/ethnic/religious backgrounds for a SCOTUS nominee if a vacancy occurs but we’ll just have to wait and see.
    As for what’s going on in Florida, feel bad for Detra Shaw-Wilder but at the end of the day, circuit court vacancies matter more then district ones and if the latter has to go unfilled for the former, so be it sad to say.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jamie's avatar

      It’s pretty much a certainty that Sotomayor’s replacement will be Hispanic, unless another Hispanic has already been appointed to a different seat. Shudder the thought, but if say Aileen Cannon (born in Colombia) replaces Alito, then Sotomayor’s replacement could be non-Hispanic. Or a happier example, if Brad Garcia replaced Thomas.

      Liked by 1 person

  33. Mitch's avatar

    When the eight Senators said they would oppose all Biden judicial nominees, do they mean only vote against them on the Senate floor or will they withhold blue slips for all home state judicial nominees? It could mean either right now.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Joe's avatar

      My guess is it’s just posturing anyway. Remember a few weeks ago when they got mad about one of the bills (can’t remember if it was immigration or Ukraine aid) and they starting a fuss about every piece of senate minutiae? That lasted about a week and then they gave up.

      Liked by 2 people

      • tsb1991's avatar

        I know during the Mayorkas trial Mike Lee wasn’t giving consent to anything basic that the Senate did (forcing votes to proceed to legislative or executive session and to recess).

        If this goes as far as Rubio not returning a blue slip on Kidd, SJC Democrats can simply say that Rubio’s refusal has nothing to do with the nomination itself and we’re proceeding to it, if Republicans want to start another nuclear war on an appeals court nominee getting a hearing without a blue slip. Next week’s SJC hearing has some chance of Republicans showing up and going crimson red in the face over the Trump convictions, they’ll take their fury out on the nominees.

        Liked by 2 people

  35. keystone's avatar

    I wonder if there’s a chance that some of the Republican politicians might find an excuse to be away on Wednesday so as to avoid having to vote on the contraception bill.

    Also, later on this week NYC, Chicago, Philly, and Boston will be holding Puerto Rican Day Parades and festivities honoring Puerto Rican populations in those cities.

    I probably put too much emphasis on narratives and press ops, but there is an opportunity to confirm two judges of Puerto Rican descent this week Nancy Maldonado and Jeanette Vargas. Of the current Appeals and district noms ready to be voted, they seem like the two most confirmable imo.

    Liked by 2 people

  36. rob's avatar

    We will not see any judges confirmed this week other then the two local DC ones as the senate is having a short week (finishing Wednesday)due to Senators going to France for the D Day anniversary.

    Next week is also the G7 summit in Italy and in the past 1 or 2 senators have attended that along with POTUS so we may not see any judges confirmed for a few weeks and that’s of course before we mention the absence of Menendez.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. tsb1991's avatar

    If they’re going to be out Thursday for D-Day, it’d be nice for them to make it up by coming in on Monday the following week, since that means there’d be no full weeks in all of June (Thursday this week, no Monday next week, Juneteenth the week after, and after that starts their 4th of July break).

    As of the first, Lanham is eligible to take the bench. Surprised neither South Dakota judge has gotten a commission yet.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Joe's avatar

    Correct Rick.

    Honestly, I would not worry too much about it. That sounds like a great way to push Manchin, Sinema (and possibly Collins and Murkowski too) into supporting more Dem nominees.

    My guess is the GOP will drop this charade in a week or two or perhaps never even follow through at all.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. IrvineOnlooker's avatar

    In my opinion, Republicans will be very unlikely to oppose unanimous consent agreements on moving forward with judicial nominees (executive session, motion to file cloture etc). Schumer and the Dems can keep the senate in session all week long (including on recess weeks) if it comes to that. Every week they adjourn the Senate, that also takes unanimous consent

    Liked by 2 people

  41. CJ's avatar

    Today, a ruling was put out by the 9th Circuit where Christen was the author and Johnstone was in dissent. I wasn’t able to read the ruling as dissent, but if you guys are able to, can you guys say whether it was a liberal or conservative dissent?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ryan J's avatar

      The majority denied an immigration petition, and Johnstone wrote that Department
      of Homeland Security failed to prove Smith’s removability by clear and convincing evidence, so Johnstone’s dissent was a liberal dissent.

      Liberal judge Christen was joined by conservative judge Carlos Bea in denying the petition.

      Liked by 1 person

  43. tsb1991's avatar

    On Schumer’s wrapup, Bosier will be confirmed to the DC local court tomorrow with cloture invoked on Pipe. I’d assume Wednesday will be a full day since Pipe will be confirmed along with that State Dept. nominee and the contraception bill vote, and not just doing a Thursday schedule on a Wednesday?

    Liked by 1 person

  47. tsb1991's avatar

    As I figured, the SJC business meeting this week was cancelled, so while the Senate shouldn’t be in on Thursday that should count as a holdover meeting for the nominees. Again, I highly doubt it happens but I think the Senate should trade the Thursday off to come in on Monday.

    Liked by 1 person

  48. tsb1991's avatar

    Blumenthal wrapped up. Pipe will be confirmed tomorrow, followed by a cloture vote on the State Dept. nominee and then the expected failed vote on the contraception bill. Should get cloture motions sent out tomorrow but any judiciary-related cloture motions would probably be Meriweather and other local DC judges.

    Liked by 1 person

    • keystone's avatar

      Looking at Saporito’s selection process, there’s no mention of Fetterman at all. I assumed that Casey was leading the charge but I thought there would have at least been a meeting with the junior senator or someone on his staff.

      For Kidd, it’s amazing how quickly the WH was able to jumpstart that process once Wilson announced. Also interesting that there’s no mention of either senator in that process. Again, I thought there would have at least been a a meeting at some point, even if it was only for a MDFL seat.

      The other thing about Kidd is how vanilla his background is. No pro bono work. His only real writings are a couple articles for the Emory newspaper. His only panel and speaking events seem to be “how to become a judge” career events. I’m curious to see what the GOP is gonna get worked up over.

      Liked by 2 people

      • tsb1991's avatar

        I believe PA’s 3:1 system was for when you had a split Senate delegation in PA. In that case the President and the Senator of the same party of the President would get three picks in a batch, and the Senator of the opposite party would get the other pick (this happened in 2022 with 4 EDPA nominees, one of them was Toomey’s pick while the other three would have been Biden and Casey’s). Not sure how it was with Trump since it would have been flipped (where Trump and Toomey could pick 3 nominees and Casey would get the 4th). Not sure how it’s handled now since the President and PA Senators are all of the same party.

        The last time PA had the President and Senators of all the same party was a brief period in 2009-2010, after the Arlen Specter party switch, before that there was a six-year period where Republicans had the presidency and both PA Senate seats (Bush and Santorum/Specter pre-party switch), the last time both PA Senators were the opposite party of the President would have been during the Clinton presidency after the 1994 midterms.

        Liked by 1 person

  50. Gavi's avatar

    Kidd’s another Biden nominee being advanced over the blue slip objections of both home state senators, good to see it. I want that number to go to at least 17 before we even think about going back, which I’m against anyway. Kidd didn’t list any interview or interaction with the FL senators or their staff. I know the question doesn’t technically ask them about home state senators, but some nominees usually list this if it happened. I’m sure the WH offered to make Kidd available to the senators. They were probably against Biden filling this vacancy from the start and didn’t even bother with the formality of meeting with Kidd

    Saporito SJQ’s further shows that Fetterman is rarely directly involved in the process. I guess he’s ok with the advisory committee’s and Casey’s decision.

    Interesting that Vacca pursued the vacancy last year that originally went to Holland. It’s good being the runner up.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment