Byron Conway – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

After their previous nomination of Judge William Pocan to fill a vacancy on the Eastern District of Wisconsin failed due to the opposition of Sen. Johnson, the Biden Administration is trying again with Green Bay attorney Byron Conway.

Background

Byron B. Conway received his B.A. from Santa Clara University in 1998 and his J.D. from the Marquette University in 2002. Conway then joined the Milwaukee firm Gimbel Reilly Guerin & Brown LLP.

In 2006, Conway shifted to the Green Bay office of Habush, Habush, & Rottier S.C., where he currently serves as a shareholder.

History of the Seat

Conway has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, to a seat vacated on December 31, 2019, by Judge William Griesbach. In June 2021, Wisconsin senators Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin, a Republican and a Democrat, respectively, recommended four candidates to the White House to fill the vecancy. See Craig Gilbert, Baldwin and Johnson Bring Forward Four Candidates to Fill Federal Judgeship in Green Bay, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, June 22, 2021, https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/22/four-candidates-named-fill-federal-judgeship-green-bay/5312798001/. On December 15, 2021, the White House nominated Judge William Pocan to fill the seat. However, Senator Ron Johnson declined to return a blue slip for Pocan, blocking his nomination.

Subsequently, Baldwin and Johnson recommended Conway alongside Marc Hammer to fill the vacancy. Conway was announced for the vacancy on July 3, 2024. Both Baldwin and Johnson have indicated their support for Conway and have returned blue slips for him, and supported him through his judiciary committee hearing. See Sarah Lehr, A Long-Vacant Federal Judgeship in Wisconsin Could Finally Be Filled, Wisconsin Pub. Radio, July 23, 2024, https://www.wpr.org/news/vacant-federal-judgeship-wisconsin-could-fill.

Political Activity

Conway has been a frequent donor throughout his legal career, giving primarily to Democrats and judicial candidates endorsed by the Democratic party. He does have a handful of donations to Republicans, including Rep. Scott Fitzgerald.

Legal Experience

Conway has primarily worked in personal injury litigation through his career. For example, Conway was part of the legal team for plaintiffs suing for damages after a propane related explosion at the Cedar Grove Resort in Ellison Bay, Wisconsin. See Brooks v. General Cas. Co. of Wis., 619 F. Supp. 2d 599 (E.D. Wis. 2008).

Among other notable cases, Byron Conway represented James Starks, a former running back with the Green Bay Packers, whose career ended due to his car being struck by another vehicle. See Yash Roy, Johnson, Baldwin Make Recommendations for Long-Vacant Federal Judgeship in Green Bay, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, June 8, 2023, https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2023/06/08/johnson-baldwin-make-recommendations-for-eastern-district-vacancy/70289980007/.

Overall Assessment

Conway has already crossed one hurdle that held up the previous nominee to this vacancy: his home state senators have returned positive blue slips for him. As such, Conway’s nomination has reached a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, and is favored for confirmation.

56 Comments

  1. Dequan's avatar

    I truly am surprised Senator Johnson turned in his blue slip here. Particularly in an election year. This is the oldest vacancy on the federal courts so I’m happy I’m wrong. I didn’t believe it until I saw Conway at the SJC hearing with my own two eyes.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Frank's avatar

    Conway seems to be well qualified for the seat he is being nominated to, and as a personal injury lawyer will bring a somewhat different perspective to the judiciary. A great example for why blue slips aren’t a bad thing.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Hank's avatar

    Frank with his uninformed BS yet again – the reason there aren’t many personal injury lawyers as federal judges is that almost all personal injury cases are in state court, not federal court, so personal injury lawyers generally don’t have much federal court experience (and thus are less likely to make good federal judges).

    In fact, Conway’s SJQ lists that only 5% of his legal practice has been in federal court, whereas 94% of his work was in state court and <1% was in front of agencies. And of the cases that he listed as his most important, only one was in federal court. Of course people can learn on the job (and there’s a lot of overlap between state and federal court), but there’s no basis to say that Conway is somehow more qualified than the assistant federal defender that was also on the list for this vacancy (who I’m sure Johnson rejected simply for being a defense attorney).

    So spare me your insincere drivel about how much you care about “qualifications” and how blue slips preserve that. All you mean by “qualifications” is “not liberal,” which is utter, utter nonsense when compared to the Fed Soc nut jobs that Trump nominated.

    That being said, blue slips help keep those Fed Soc nuts out of blue-state seats, so they still have their uses. If Durbin were competent, he would’ve proposed a bill back in 2021 to either abolish blue slips altogether or codify blue slips/make them something the Republicans can’t abolish next year if they win the Senate in November.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Frank's avatar

      Wow, I didn’t realize you were against bipartisan nominees who have spent time in the state courts, considering from what I remember, you supported the woefully unqualified Charnelle Bjeljengren when she had even less “relevant experience”. Is that because both of the senators who turned in blue slips are Democrats? From what I have seen, that is all I can think but please correct me if I am mistaken. Unlike you, I don’t want FedSoc hacks any more than I want liberal hacks because I actually want a judiciary that is fair, representative, and provides equal justice to all no matter where they come from. Scream ‘BS’ all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that you’d be happy with less than qualified judges so long as they were sufficiently ‘progressive’ and young for your taste, even if they weren’t upholding the law faithfully and fully.

      While the assistant federal defender would probably have more federal court experience, and I do think it is valuable to have some of them become judges (there are certainly an overrepresentation of prosecutors currently), it wouldn’t in this case be bipartisan, and that is what needs to matter to have a judiciary which isn’t overrun with hacks, as is happening in recent years (particularly with Trump but also with Biden to a lesser extant). Once blue slips go away, as it appears will be happening soon, the judiciary will become even worse than it already is. The irony is that as we see with conservative ‘stars’ like Cannon and Mizelle is that their equals on the left are just as unqualified but most people only criticize those who aren’t on their ‘team’. Both conservatives and liberals need to be criticized for their hypocrisy.

      I do agree that Durbin or someone else on the SJC should have proposed a bill to codify blue slips (certainly not to abolish them and I don’t think the independents from Arizona and West Virginia would go for that anyways).

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Frank

        That’s the key. Either both sides should have a guarantee of blue slips or neither side. I’m fine either way but in the current state, we only have one side playing by the rules. That’s why I am in such favor of getting rid of blue slips altogether. But if both sides could get together & decide to codify them into law I would be fine with that but only for the district courts. I don’t believe blue slips should be in play for circuit courts since those judges don’t oversee any one state.

        Like

      • Hank's avatar

        @Frank Bjelkengren was actually a judge and had to do things, like make evidentiary rulings and write opinions, that Conway hasn’t done yet. You clearly don’t know a damn thing about how judges and the legal profession works, yet you continue to spew your nonsense on here—though to be fair, I wouldn’t expect anything less from an uneducated conservative.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hank's avatar

        And your “bipartisan” fetish is equally BS – if a neo-Nazi becomes a senator (let’s be honest, that’s where the GOP is headed) and will only sign off on candidates who have expressed an admiration of Hitler, should Dems fold and agree to that for the sake of “bipartisanship”? Or if Cindy Hyde-Smith will only sign off on someone who was a member of the KKK, should Dems agree to that to get a “bipartisan” candidate?

        You’re a conservative, so why don’t you go tell your fellow Republican nutjobs to go demonstrate some bipartisanship first.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Humanfault's avatar

        I don’t think the constant insulting of other commentors by labeling them “conservative” or “liberal” over mild policy disagreements like blue-slips is very helpful overall to the discussion. There are valid reasons for support and opposition to them as there are towards various other policies. The presence of both conservative and liberal views is an important thing so that everyone can have a nuanced understanding of the judiciary as a whole. So long as they’re not being racist or transphobic or whatever I don’t see a reason to be so antagonistic. Saying something like “I wouldn’t expect anything less from an uneducated conservative” is just kind of mean.

        Liked by 4 people

  4. Dequan's avatar

    Now that we have a nominee for the EDWI, here are the top dozen longest vacancies without a nominee;

    11 – AL-M: 02/11/2020

    ***09 – CA-S: 08/01/2021… Rebecca Kanter is the pending nominee, but whenever she is finally withdrawn, this will become the second longest.***

    05 – MS-N: 11/01/2021… Scott Colom was blue slipped

    08 – AR-W: 11/10/2021

    09 – AK: 12/31/2021… Murkowski recommended 4 women but Sullivan started his own seperate commisson.

    10 – KS: 01/14/2022… Jabari Wamble was nominated & withdrawn for both this seat & the 10th.

    05 – LA-W: 01/21/2022

    11 – AL-N: 08/31/2022

    06 – TN-W: 09/01/2022

    08 – MO-E: 01/28/2023

    05 – TX-S: 02/12/2023

    08 – MO-E: 04/14/2023

    05 – TX-W: 05/01/2023

    Out of the top dozen longest vacancies without a nominee, three states have two vacancies each. Those three states, Alabama, Missouri & Texas all have two Republican senators. And two of those three states, Alabama & Missouri, have not had even one judicial nominee the enter Biden presidency. So I think that is evidence enough as to why blue slips need to either go or be codified into law.

    Like

  5. tsb1991's avatar

    Next Wednesday is the deadline for any further new nominees to make the 9/11 hearing, hopefully we get even two or three nominees so it’s not a light panel of three.

    For my commissions post yesterday, I also forgot that Meriweather is pending a commission too.

    And as of today, 3 pro forma sessions down, 8 more to go. Looks like they’ve been doing them in one of the committee rooms since I guess the chamber itself is under renovation.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I am a big advocate for nominees to be ready to work & get commissioned immediately or as close to it as possible. I assume everybody knows I mean that for Article III nominees. When it comes to nominees such as Meriweather I don’t care when they get commissioned as long as it’s under Biden (Or Harris) because they are on a 15-year term. But I am sure with Biden knowing he is going to have only one term, he will want as many commissions under his name as possible. Hopefully if the Judges Bill gets past, a potential President Harris can still match Biden for term.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I do wonder as Harris rises in the polls, will we get some more Johnson-esse cooperation. If Republicans fear Trump is increasingly blowing it & might lead to a 50/50 Democrat majority in the senate without a Feinstein, Manchin, Sinema or Menendez in the bunch, they might feel they can get better deals now then next year.

        I really wish Durbin would start hinting at blue slips might become a thing of the past (Even if he doesn’t mean it). Tough talk alongside the polls might get some compromises done. Texas & Missouri alone could fill two hearing slots before the end of the year.

        Liked by 1 person

      • dawsont825's avatar

        @Dequan

        As amazing as your idea is at face value, I’m pretty sure Sens. Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt are more than happy to have 0 active district court judges in their states than to return a blue slip on any federal judicial nominee from a Dem president lolol.

        Any nominees to Missouri are going to need to be 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 type deals in which Harris or Biden need to accept a FedSoc hack or openly Republican state judge in order to get 2 liberal or left-leaning nominees to have their blue slips returned on them.

        Texas can be had, you just need to either defeat Cruz in 88 days, or to catch him in the first governing year of the new President or directly after a midterm. Just pray for a 5th circuit vacancy in Texas to ratchet up the pressure to find a suitable nominee.

        Liked by 2 people

  7. Dequan's avatar

    We are down to five Ronald Reagan active circuit court judges left. I have to believe a President Harris will see at least three of those seats vacated by the end of 2028.

    Pauline Newman

    J. Harvie Wilkinson III

    Frank Easterbrook

    Edith Jones

    Jerry Edwin Smith

    Like

    • Thomas's avatar

      I don’t think so, because he appeared in the SJC hearing and supported him. Maybe he had just exhaused his acceptable degree of obstructionism with Pocan and Shah. I already said, I don’t believe that they wouldn’t go over his blue slip, but on the other hand, two judges on the Eastern District of Wisconsin are pretty old, 84 and 82 years, so who knows, when a new judge could be confirmed with a new president and cabinet are coming in for sure next year. And we shouldn’t assume, that the Republican constituency is generally happy when they have to wait long for their day in court due to the blockade of their homestate senator.

      Generally some people here are already take if for granted, that Harris will win and have a senate majority, too, I would like that, but isn’t it to early?

      Liked by 3 people

  9. lilee2122's avatar

    I think we forget Tammy Baldwin signed off on Byron Conway…I trust her choices….Conway has given to democrats mainly and some gop …He seems like a decent pick for a 5 year old vacancy that needs filling…Way up in Green Bay probably the best we can hope for…

    Liked by 3 people

  10. lilee2122's avatar

    I think we forget Tammy Baldwin signed off on Byron Conway…I trust her choices….Conway has given to democrats mainly and some gop …He seems like a decent pick for a 5 year old vacancy that needs filling…Way up in Green Bay probably the best we can hope for…

    Like

  11. lilee2122's avatar

    Lets go on the here and now..We don’t know who will be president next.. the Democrat senate NEEDS to get as many as humanly possible judi ial nominees confirmed before end of year.. We have excellent judicial nominees just waiting..And make no mistake if Trump loses we need those judges and court seats all filled.. He will turn to the courts with his BS whiny complaints and try to undermine our laws

    Liked by 3 people

  12. Zack's avatar

    The polls look good for team blue right now but they did in 2020 and 2016 as well.
    In the former, we barely won and we all know what happened in 2016.
    Take nothing for granted.
    As for the few remanining Reagan and George Sr judges in active service, I don’t see any of them voluntarily retiring under Harris.
    If they leave the bench, it will be due to an ailment like dementia or passing away from natural cases.
    Finally, as for Conway, I’ll wait until he’s confirmed to celebrate, as I won’t take Johnson for his word on anything.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Out of the current governors, Murphy of New Jersey is the Crème de la crème. He picks phenomenal Democrats & even when he is forced to pick a Republican, he makes sure they are older & moderate. Governor Whitmer of Michigan is a close second. I give them an A+ & high A respectively when it comes to picking judges.

      Governor Walz is good as well. I would probably give him an A-. I will just focus on his SCOT-MN picks & grade each;

      Natalie Hudson – She’s a Black woman that worked as a staff attorney with Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services for 4 years. She also worked in employment law & was a college assistant deal. She was 58 years old when appointed so that’s a bit old, but I won’t complain too much since I know Minnesota probably didn’t have as large of a share of Black woman to be considered for the highest court at the time… A

      Gordon Moore – There is nothing particularly progressive in his background. He did work in labor and employment law, so I’ll give him some points for that. He was 57 when he was nominated… C+

      Karl Procaccini – He had a SOLID pro bono resume providing free legal services. He is the first Muslim on the high court & has numerous written publications talking about subjects ranging from human rights to pardons. He was the former leader of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Chapter of the American Constitution Society. Oh, & did I mention he was 40 years old when he joined the bench last year… I have long said on this blog that the next couple of picks any Democrat president gets to the 8th circuit should be a woman since Jane Kelly is the only woman on the court. Procaccini may be so good, he could be one of the few exceptions to hat tule for me… A+

      Sarah Hennesy – She had 2 years as an assistant appellate defender & 6 years as a staff attorney with the St. Cloud Area Legal Services. She was 54 when Walz nominated her… A

      Theodora Gaïtas – She was an assistant public defender. She co-chairs the Hennepin County District Court’s Domestic Violence Steering Committee & specialized in medical negligence and medical device litigation. She was 54 when Walz nominated her… A

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jamie's avatar

        It seems that Walz has also appointed several good people to the Court of Appeals too.

        Procaccini is outstanding, but I hesitate to give As for Hennesy and Gaitas when there were better selections among the finalists. Hennesy makes sense from a geographic diversity POV, but Bentley (or Kramer) would have been better for the other seat. Bentley, a Sotomayor law clerk who is now on the Court of Appeals, would be a good option for the 8th Circuit (Kramer’s husband is on the federal bench so she’s out)

        https://knsiradio.com/2024/04/01/570579/

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Yea I definitely agree Bentley would have gotten either a very high A or A+. And as you mentioned, I didn’t hold Kramer against him due to her husband being Jeffrey Bryan who is already on the district court.

        Unfortunately I don’t follow the state court of appeals judges as much as I wish I could. But it is an obvious breeding ground for elevation on the state supreme courts or the federal bench so I would hope he was just as good if not better on picks there.  

        Like

  14. Dequan's avatar

    Staying on the topic of state supreme courts for a moment, Connecticut has another vacancy. Chief judge Richard Robinson is retiring next month. There already is another Black man on the court, Raheem Mullins. At this point, I just hope governor Led Lamont can nominate somebody under the age of 60. He has been horrible on judges.

    Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Uuuggghhh… Sadly you are probably right @Frank. I never thought Lamont would be so bad on judges. When he ran against Lieberman for the senate back when GW Bush was president, he seemed to be more liberal than he has turned out to be. I’m having a hard time thinking of a blue state governor without a Republican state senate to water down their picks, that is worse on judges. Hell he’s so bad, one of his picks even had to withdraw.

        Like

      • Jamie's avatar

        Lamont was against the Iraq war. He wasn’t much of a liberal otherwise. He lost his first run for Governor in 2010 when he ran to the right of his primary opponent and lost.
        Lamont’s two CT-SC nominees were quite bad. His appellate nominees seem no better. The withdrawn nominee, Sandra Glover, is not his fault, and was unfairly treated in part because the CT Legislature was parochial and because she signed a letter of support for Barrett to the 7th Circuit. Glover would have been a fine justice.
        Although with Lieberman, even Sinema would have been to the left of him. Murphy was a huge improvement.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        I agree with you that Sandra Glover would have probably been a fine Justice in the same mold as Lamont’s other picks. I wouldn’t necessarily agree the attacks on her were unfair. When you sign you name to a letter of support (Or against such as in the case of Jennifer Sung) for a judicial nominee, you have to be held accountable for it. For instance, if a future nominee had signed a letter of support for somebody they know was in the Ku Klux Klan when they signed the letter, would that not be an acceptable thing to bring up when they are nominated in the future themselves?

        I am in no way saying ACB was in the KKK, just using that as an extreme example to prove my point. But that goes back to my original point. If Lamont was picking young progressives in the mold of Sarah Russell, Omar Williams or even Sarah A. L. Merriam, I am sure the nominee wouldn’t have signed a letter like that. But I can’t say it is not fair game. If you sign your name to something, be prepared to defend it years later.

        Like

      • Jamie's avatar

        “If Lamont was picking young progressives in the mold of Sarah Russell, Omar Williams or even Sarah A. L. Merriam, I am sure the nominee wouldn’t have signed a letter like that. ”

        I just cannot agree with this. The link to the letter is provided below. Every SCOTUS law clerk in that cohort signed the letter supporting Barrett, including several solid liberals.

        Click to access Amy-Coney-Barrett-OT-1998-law-clerks-letter.pdf

        Liked by 1 person

  15. keystone's avatar

    What exactly is your beef with Lamont’s judges?

    • Is it there age?
    • Is it that they have a a traditional background?
    • Is there a specific ruling you disagree with?

    I understand why age is of importance for federal judges since these are lifetime appointments, but a CT Supreme court judges serve 8 yr terms and also have a mandatory retirement age. You could appoint a 30 something judge but if in 8 yrs, if the governor is of the opposite party, or if you have a more conservative General Assembly, that young judge could just as easily be gone as an older judge.

    As far the judges having more traditional backgrounds, I’d wager that these judges, who both happen to women in their 60’s, prob did not have an easy path in trying to establish themselves in the legal profession. I’m not going to put them down for taking a more established route.

    If there is a specific incident or ruling that was particularly offensive, I’d love to hear it.

    I understand having a preference for certain types of judges and I understand having favorite horses in the race, that’s great, but at the end of the day, someone is going to be appointed and the thing that ultimately matters is whether or not they are a competent and skilled judge.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      I only judge nominees for what they did at the time they were nominated, so no not a specific case I have an issue with. Here is the thing, regardless of if a state supreme court justice serves for life or for 8 years, Democrat governors should still be using these nominations to build a bench. Look at the 11th circuit for a minute since I’m here in Florida. Two of Trump’s 6 picks to the 11th circuit were Justices on the Florida Supreme Court that Governor DeSantis had put on the court. It’s much harder to say somebody is not qualified for elevation when they are on their state’s highest court. That is how you build a bench.

      We have no bench in Connecticut’s Supreme Court from any of Lamont’s. The only Justice you can consider for elevation is Raheem Mullins & he was put on the court by the previous governor.

      Democrats need to be building a bench when they can put nominees on the bench without Republican’s blocking them. It’s hard enough to get progressives confirmed through the US senate (As we can see with Connecticut’s own Sarah Russell). When they are sitting state supreme court justices such as Maria Khan & Adrienne Nelson, they tend to have an easier path to confirmation. So yes, I think all of Lamont’s picks are bad because none of them are particularly progressive or young which means they don’t build any bench for Democrats. Republicans have figured this out from sea to shining sea. Some Democrat governors have figures this out. Lamont hasn’t whatsoever. Unless this pick is better than the last, I will be happy to see him go at the end of his term.

      Like

    • JJ28's avatar

      Yes — as far as I know from sources I follow, included commenters above, we might expect some nominations this Wednesday to be in time for the next scheduled nominations hearing. Per @keystone, above, here are the remaining openings that can be expected to be filled by Biden:

      • 3rd Circuit (DE)
      • NDNY
      • CDCA (Santa Ana)
      • SDCA
      • Arizona
      • New Mexico

      Plus the one outstanding DC Superior Court future vacancy.

      My fingers are crossed for the CA3 and the DNM vacancies, the former to flip a GWB circuit seat from Biden’s home state, and the latter because the current holder (CJ Johnson), another GWB judge, is trying to hedge his bets by making the vacancy effective after the next president’s inauguration, playing with the commission signing process and effectively daring Biden to replace him with a Biden nominee (at least that is how it comes across on paper).

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I definitely expect a new batch this week unlike the surprise batch last month. I also expect a nominee for the 3rd. I just see no way Biden leaves office without filing that seat regardless of who wins in November.

        I think the key will be if we get any surprise red state nominees in the next batch. As I have said previously Republicans might be looking at the polls & all of a sudden willing to work in good faith on red state seats. I don’t expect a large amount until after the election but perhaps some from Texas, Louisiana or Indiana perhaps. But more than likely all blue state nominees.

        Liked by 1 person

      • JJ28's avatar

        @Dequan, I’d definitely be surprised (but thrilled) if there are any red state nominees during the remainder of Biden’s term. I understand your calculus, and some GOP senators may end up lamenting they rolled the dice and lost their bets that there would be a GOP White House, a GOP Senate, or both, come January 2025, but I just can’t see any of *these* Republican senators deciding *at this point* to agree to Biden nominees and to turn in blue slips. I think RonJohn is the exception rather than the rule here. But time will tell; stranger things have happened.

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a reply to Zack Cancel reply