Judge Noel Wise – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Alongside Trina Thompson and Eumi Lee, Noel Wise marks the third Alameda County Superior Court judge named to the Northern District by President Biden.

Background

The 56 year old Wise got her B.S. from the University of Nevada in 1989 and her J.D. cum laude from Nova Southeastern University School of Law in 1993. Wise clerked for Justice Harry Lee Anstead on the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals and then joined the U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental and Natural Resources Division, as a trial attorney in Washington D.C.

In 2002, after obtaining a J.S.M. from Stanford Law School, Wise returned to San Francisco to become Of Counsel at Stoel Rives LLP. In 2004, she left to become an in-house counsel at Pacific Gas and Electric Company. In 2006, she became a partner at Wise Gleicher in Alameda.

In 2014, Governor Jerry Brown appointed Wise to the Alameda County Superior Court to replace Judge Carrie McIntyre Panetta. Wise has served on the court since.

History of the Seat

Wise has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to replace Judge Edward Davila, who will take senior status upon confirmation of a successor.

Legal Experience

Wise has held a number of different positions throughout her legal career, but has primarily worked in environmental law, starting at the Department of Justice as a trial attorney in the Environmental and Natural Resources Division.

Later in her career, Wise worked at the Pacific Gas and Electric Company as head environmental attorney.

Jurisprudence

Since 2014, Wise has served as a judge on the Alameda County Superior Court. In this role, she presides over trial court matters in criminal, civil, family, and other state law matters. Among her notable decisions as a judge, Wise dismissed a class action wage suit filed against the Alameda Health System, ruling that the System was a “statutorily created public agency” that was not subject to the California labor code. See Stone v. Alameda Health System, 88 Cal. App. 5th 84 (Cal. 1st Dist. Div. 5 2023). The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling. See id. In another notable ruling, Wise found that Governor Gavin Newsom retained the authority to certify the construction of a new baseball stadium in the City of Oakland for streamlined environmental review, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. See Pacific Merchant Shipping Ass’n v. Newsom, 67 Cal. App. 5th 711 (Cal. 1st Dist. Div. 1 2021).

Statements and Writings

During her time at the Department of Justice, Wise authored a law review article advocating for greater personal liability for corporate officers whose companies commit civil violations of the law, arguing that such liability properly deters such misconduct. See Noel Wise, Personal Liability Promotes Responsible Conduct: Extending the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine to Federal Civil Environmental Enforcement Cases, 21 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 283 (2002) (available at https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/yg384xb7078).

Later, while at Stoel Rives, Wise authored a book review discussing the effects and remedies for environmental racism, or the systemic effects of environmental damage on people of color and minorities. See Noel Wise, To Debate or to Rectify Environmental Injustice: A review of Faces of Environmental Racism, 30 Ecol. L. Quart. 2 (2003), 353-375.

Political Activity

Wise has a handful of political donations throughout her career, all to Democrats.

Overall Assessment

Wise’s background in environmental law is relatively unusual among federal judicial nominees. That being said, the calendar is likely to be the bigger obstacle to Wise’s confirmation. With Republicans opposing most Biden judicial nominees as the election draws closer, Wise’s confirmation will depend on support from Democrats. Within the confirmation process, her writings on environmental racism, in particular, are likely to draw such scrutiny.

59 Comments

  1. This was yet another lackluster NDCA pick. While she’s not a bad pick, there certainly were younger & more progressive picks in the San Francisco area. It continues in a list of underwhelming Biden picks to that court but the first with Butler & Padilla as senators which is surprising.

    Like

    • Like I told you a few weeks ago these are the types of nominees you’ll see for NDCA. To date, I have yet to see a nominee refer to his or herself as a “progressive.”

      The screening committees that Feinstein and Padilla have in place are going to prefer nominees who are established practitioners who have APPLIED for the position.

      It’s not going change anytime soon ,even when Schiff is elected next fall.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I didn’t know Feinstein still has input over judicial nominees in CA. That’s quite interesting…

        In all seriousness, I agree that the whole identify as a “progressive” thing people here talk about is not at all based in reality or is something that is a thing in the legal world, but it is what it is and people will always say it no matter how little sense it makes. Back to reality, the background of the nominees in any state is going to depend heavily on the ideology and backgrounds of the senators the state has elected to represent them combined with a clear ability for the nominees to be financially able to support both themselves and their families with the rather uncompetitive salaries federal judges make, particularly in CA where the cost of living is much higher than other places. That is why you will always see older nominees who have both years of expertise and have the financial ability to better survive on a lower salary than they would have earlier in their career. I guarantee you that the vast majority of the young attorneys on the lists people here make have absolutely no interest in being a federal judge for a multitude of reasons, but primarily the ones I just outlined. Even FedSoc would have a difficult time finding young candidates in CA, and there are plenty of young conservatives there.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. I think she’s actually far more progressive and controversial than this write up presents. She authored an article for TIME in 2017 about gender laws being at odds with science which will definitely set off some fireworks during her hearing .

    https://time.com/4679726/judge-biological-sex-laws-marriage-bathrooms/

    She also has quite a few articles about racial justice and equality that are sure to make a few Senator’s heads explode.

    It’s def gonna be a rough confirmation hearing and a party line vote.

    Liked by 2 people

      • That’s been the operating procedure for most of Biden’s nominees so far, in that there’s no point in tipping your hand before you absolutely have to in terms of allowing Republicans to conduct opposition research on them. I do think we will likely miss another hearing pretty soon based upon the dwindling number of blue state vacancies but we shall see.

        Liked by 1 person

    • While there was a chance for nominees today, it really doesn’t matter. July 3 is just as fine as June 26. Either way, no nominees will be voted out of committee until the September session (likely held over September 12 and voted out September 19).

      What I am hoping for is that the next batch is a sizable one. Preferably with the 4th Circuit nominee and at least 4-5 district judges. With uncertainty over Mangi, Kanter, and others plus any late vacancies that come up, we will want to clear the deck as much as possible.

      Liked by 3 people

  5. Wise is basically the same age as Melissa DeBose. Both women come from solidly blue states. Both women come from states that had younger candidates who were passed over. I went back to look at some of the reactions to the DeBose nomination and I’m kind of shocked at how much more supportive and excited people were for her than people seem to be for a judge who seems to have the same shortcomings but seems to have a much more progressive track record.What exactly is the difference? I just don’t get it.

    Also, the whole argument that EVERY nominee has to be a pipeline to the Circuit Court or the Supreme Court is kind of ridiculous. I’ve lost count at how many district nominees y’all have already earmarked for elevation. There is a finite number of seats on these higher level courts. Newsflash, a lot of your faves aren’t moving up. Yes, it’s good to have people who can rise and who have potential but not everybody is gonna get to be quarterback. We need strong players at all levels.

    Wise wasn’t my first pick for this seat either, but let’s try to actually learn something about her rather just bitching and moaning. SMDH

    Liked by 1 person

    • The population of Rhode Island is approximately 1,097,379 people. California has over 40 million people. Had Melissa DeBose been nominated in a blue state that had 38 million more options, I probably would be just as disappointed. But there simply not as many options from Rhode Island.

      Like

    • There were people less than pleased with DuBose, but she got a pass in part due to being a demographic first.

      As far as candidates for elevation, well I’d rather have too many than too few. That way, if one judge has a bad decision or something else, there are other alternatives. It’s the same for SCOTUS possibilities, which is why I’d want Ryan Park for CA4 over other options that may be more progressive.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. On the flip side, California has several other stellar candidates for future elevation already in place. I don’t think it’s a big deal to have an older nominee to fill a district seat to help bring it fully up to capacity. Just my two cents.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. According to Bloomberg, SCOTUS accidentally published the case involving that Idaho abortion law early. Sounds like SCOTUS on a 6-3 vote is just going to dismiss the case without ruling on the merits, and the district court’s decision of blocking the law stands for now. I’m sure you can guess at least two, if not all three dissenters:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-26/us-supreme-court-poised-to-allow-emergency-abortions-in-idaho?embedded-checkout=true

    I’d put some good money down that the non-psychotic conservatives on SCOTUS (Barrett, Roberts, Kavanaugh) did the GOP a favor by not tossing another SCOTUS abortion grenade into the campaign trails, and this was their way of chickening out. KBJ, Sotomayor, and Jackson concurred in which they wanted this thrown out on the merits but will settle for dismissing.

    Liked by 2 people

    • The trend with SCOTUS lately has been for them to have some centrist or popular decisions before pivotal to the right for the big cases. My guess is they’re releasing the abortion decision tomorrow and then passing down the EPA and Trump cases Friday.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yeah, I think it’s a mix of that and some conservatives on SCOTUS to not give Democrats a fresh pile of ammo to go after Republicans on abortion with during the middle of these campaigns. I mean, they’re on the hook for wiping out Roe, would they want Democrats to be able to tie the Idaho abortion law around the GOP’s neck and pull tight?

        I remember the 2014-2015 term (of course, SCOTUS was far less conservative then), that maybe SCOTUS would rule in favor of same sex marriage in Obergefell to soften the mood before dropping a hammer in King v Burwell (the Obamacare subsidy case). I was more concerned about Burwell than Obergefell that term since SCOTUS could have dropped a nuke on the health care system had they ruled the other way but decided not to (again, Roberts and Kennedy did congressional Republicans a favor upholding the federal subsidies IMO since congressional Republicans were not at all prepared or even behind a legislative fix as millions of ACA users could have seen their costs completely shoot up overnight).

        Liked by 2 people

    • @tsb1991

      I hear what you are saying about the Court’s political decision regarding Obamacare. But I remember Roberts writing the opinion to uphold Obamacare in’12.

      The case hinged on whether Obamacare’s insurance mandate was unconstitutional. But despite the oral arguments, Roberts called it a tax (which I believe NO LITIGANT was really advocating) and upheld Obamacare on that basis (voting with the 4 “Liberals”) writing that Congress had the right to install a tax in the law based on its tax and spend powers.

      What a lot of people failed to realize however was that in labeling the mandate a tax, it could easily be repealed by Congress with a simple majority vote in the Senate since tax and budget issues were not (and still aren’t) subject to the 60 vote threshold filibuster.

      Roberts was making a bet that Romney would win the presidential election and the Senate (Obama was not doing well in the polls at the time) and torpedo Obamacare in ’13. In other words he was making it easy for Congress to do his dirty work for him.

      A lot of liberals were celebrating Roberts back then for upholding Obamacare, and while I was glad that it was upheld, I wasn’t celebrating Roberts at all. I recognized him for being as much of a weasel back then as he has more obviously proven to be of late.

      Either way, your point is correct. Roberts has ALWAYS been a politician in a robe. He upheld Obamacare in order to not hand the Dems an issue…but he still did it in a way to make the law far more vulnerable to appeal.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Now that I think about it… you might be onto something.

        1992… Justices O’Connor and Kennedy refuse to overturn Roe v. Wade
        2012… Chief Justice Roberts upholds the ACA
        2020… Chief Justice Roberts refuses to overturn Roe v. Wade and also refuses to terminate DACA
        2024… The court unanimously throws out abortion pill lawsuit and votes 6-3 to allow Idaho to perform emergency abortions

        1992, 2012, 2020, and 2024 were all election years

        In 2020, the liberals won most of the big merits docket cases, though conservatives won a number of large shadow docket cases, including some that have to do with voting rights (Republicans use voter suppression to try to offset lost votes from their other unpopular policies). I expect more election-related shadow docket cases this year.

        Liked by 1 person

      • It’s not that simple. If Roberts had struck down the mandate, he would have likely also struck down several other provisions of Obamacare, if not the entire law.

        Yes the mandate can be repealed by a majority vote (as it was in 2018), but much of Obamacare required 60 votes to repeal. So Romney couldn’t have gotten rid of all of Obamacare. And when the right-wing hacks tried to argue that since the mandate is repealed, Obamacare should also be struck down, SCOTUS rejected their argument (with as expected, Alito in dissent).

        Also Solicitor General Don Verilli did argue that Obamacare’s mandate could be seen as a tax penalty.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. If Trump picks JD Vance for VP as I expect him to, I hope he will miss lots of votes between when the senate returns & the election. That could be another path to getting Mangi confirmed.

    Like

  10. In reading KBJ’s dissent in the Idaho abortion case, I am again reminded of how much of a shame it is that her brilliance and eloquence seems doomed to be wasted for many years in dissenting from a bunch of ham handed rulings made by a flock of corrupt elitist disingenuous hacks.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I would enjoy having Kagan or KBJ as Chief Justice. Unfortunately, Roberts is more likely than not to retire under a Republican and make the court more conservative than it already is.

      Sure, the impact of Sotomayor being replaced by a R would be much greater than the impact of Roberts being replaced by a R, but the likelihood of Roberts being replaced by a R is much higher than that of Sotomayor being replaced by a R.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Of course, I was just exploring a hypothetical. Roberts is probably the most likely of all the conservatives to retire under a Dem administration or a split WH/senate, but I don’t think it’s particularly likely at all.

    He is still a relatively young Justice all things considered, so I don’t think he’s going anywhere any time soon.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I don’t think so. I think Democrats are going to be focused on making sure President Biden is well suited for this race. If not, then they have to make sure they get a nominee that can defeat Donald Trump in November. If Trump wins in November, a Justice Myrna Perez or Brad Garcia on the court won’t matter anyway.

      Like

  14. New vacancy posted by the AO shows GWB appointee Andrew Hanen (S.D. Tex.) will be taking senior status on 01/02/25. Interesting move since he has twice declared the DACA program illegal.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. I just read the AJC article Keystone shared yesterday (thanks for sharing, Keystone). Carl Tobias is quite knowledgeable on judicial nominations, but I sometimes find him to be a bit naïve about just how much the politics around the confirmation process has changed since his heyday.

    “Biden refused to nominate any candidate whom the ABA ranked not qualified…”

    Here, he’s wrong on the timeline of Biden’s nomination and poor ABA rating (Biden *first* makes a nomination, then ABA does its rating). But his conclusion is correct just the same. It’s been clear that the WH doesn’t want the SJC to move forward with nominees who are going to get a poor rating. This approach splits the baby in the middle. Obama gave the ABA power to pre-vet and rate his nominees before nomination and Trump didn’t. Biden’s centrist/establishment instincts are to go back to the Obama practice, but he doesn’t want to totally abandon Trump’s approach, which would ostensibly help his nominees in theory. Looking at Holland and Kanter, I regret that Biden isn’t just ignoring the ABA altogether. (Before the Franks of the world reply about us not wanting unqualified judges: no, I do not think that the ABA is the be all end all of rating nominee’s qualification. Meaning, I don’t think Kanter/Holland would have been bad judges just because they had failing pending ABA ratings.)

    Liked by 3 people

    • I thought it was stupid for Obama to give the ABA veto power on judicial nominees. Particularly when you have 59 (soon to be 60) Democrat senators & you are trying to nominate attorneys that traditionally are underrepresented on the bench.

      But as much as I disagree with that strategy, at least Obama sent the names to the ABA so they can evaluate the nominees before he announced them. If Biden is not going to let Durbin & the SJC move forward with a nominee rated NQ (That gets me even more angry than Obama’s policy), at the very least send them the names before you announce them. If this is the reason why they are not moving forward with Katner, it’s that more stupider of a policy. Either replace her as soon as you find out the ABA’s rating or do what you said in the first place & disregard the rating altogether.

      Like

  16. there’s a great article in TheHill new about Bidens verbal vs transcript debate.. It shows the strength of his debate thru the transcipt…Anyone can get a sore throat or cold .. I can’t pull the link up tho

    Liked by 2 people

    • We gotta face reality. Optics matter. They matter waaay too much relative substance in American politics, but they matter. The optics last night? No bueno for Biden, even tho I think he’s infinitely better at governing than Trump could ever dream of being….without even mentioning governing philosophy. Always loved Joe, but if issues such as fundraising and field operations can be fairly seamlessly transitioned, Dems really do seriously need to consider a brokered convention…assuming Biden can be convinced to give up his earned delegates. We’ve been on a roll with judicial appointments and we need that to continue for another 4 years.

      Liked by 3 people

  17. That debate was a disaster for Biden as nobody is going to read the transcript. Tens of millions watched it live and many tens of millions more will see edited and unedited clips of Biden looking confused and out of place.

    Hell the Jon Stewart segment after it was awful for Biden, Trump at least looked like a competent liar.

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a comment