Keli Neary – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

At the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, Keli Neary has represented the Commonwealth in a number of notable suits. She has now been nominated for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.

Background

Neary received a B.A. cum laude from the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown in 2003 and a J.D. from Widener University Commonwealth Law School in 2006.

After graduating, Neary clerked on the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas and then joined the Pennsylvania State Police’s Office of Chief Counsel. In 2012, Neary joined the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, where she currently serves as Executive Deputy Attorney General in the Civil Division.

History of the Seat

The seat Neary has been nominated for will open on January 17, 2025, when Judge Christopher Conner takes senior status.

Legal Experience

Neary started her career at the Office of Chief Counsel for the Pennsylvania State Police. While in this role, Neary defended against Open Records requests filed seeking information from the police. See, e.g., State Police v. Office of Open Records, 995 A.2d 515 (Comm. Ct. Pa. 2010). Neary also represented the Police in grievances and pay disputes. See, e.g., State Police v. State Troopers Ass’n, 992 A.2d 969 (Comm. Ct. Pa. 2010). In one notable case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court denied an appeal argued by Neary seeking to block discovery of personnel records of a state trooper, ruling that the granting of a motion to compel could not be appealed on an interlocutory basis. See Com. v. Brister, 16 A.3d 530 (Pa. Sup. Ct. 2011).

In 2012, Neary shifted to the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, where she has worked since, where, among other cases, she defends the state against constitutional claims. See, e.g., Musila v. Lock Haven University, 970 F. Supp. 2d 384 (M.D. Pa. 2013). Among these matters, Neary represented the State in a bench trial over constitutional claims arising from the plaintiff’s ejection from a Pennsylvania horse racing stadium and the suspension of his horse trainer’s license. See Adamo v. Dillon, 900 F. Supp. 2d 499 (M.D. Pa. 2012). Notably, Neary represented the State of Pennsylvania in a 2016 suit filed by Presidential candidate Roque de la Fuente, who sought a ballot position. See De La Fuente v. Cortes, 261 F. Supp. 3d 543 (M.D. Pa. 2017). Neary also represented the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in defending against a suit arguing that the Takings Clause prohibits the state creation and funding of the Joint Underwriting Association as a medical malpractice insurer. See Pa. Prof. Liab. Joint Underwriting Ass’n v. Wolf, 324 F. Supp. 3d 519 (M.D. Pa. 2018).

Among other matters, Neary defended against suits seeking to change an individual’s Sexual Offender Registration status. See, e.g., Konyk v. Pennsylvania State Police of Com., 133 A.3d 96 (Comm. Ct. Pa. 2016); Dougherty v. Pennsylvania State Police of Com., 138 A.3d 152 (Comm. Ct. Pa. 2016).

Among other politically salient cases she has handled, Neary defended Pennsylvania’s Contact Tracing and Mask Mandate programs developed during the Covid-19 pandemic. See Parker v. Wolf, 506 F. Supp. 3d 271 (M.D. Pa. 2020). She was also part of the legal team defending the results of the 2020 Presidential election in Pennsylvania against suits brought by former President Trump seeking to throw out lawfully cast votes. See Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar, 502 F. Supp. 3d 899 (M.D. Pa. 2020). Neary also participated in suits against Pennsylvania’s indoor dining ban. See M. Rae, Inc. v. Wolf, 509 F. Supp. 3d 235 (M.D. Pa. 2020).

Overall Assessment

Neary’s time in the Attorney General’s office has given her both extensive experience litigating in the Harrisburg Division of Pennsylvania’s Middle District as well as participation in several particularly controversial cases, involving both Covid-19 related restrictions and Pennsylvania’s election regulations. It is likely that Neary will draw some opposition to her confirmation based on her positions in these suits, although, acting as an advocate, Neary can likely draw a distinction between her own positions and those of her client.

169 Comments

  1. Dequan's avatar

    I just found this write up on leanings of state Supreme Court justices from a few years ago. It’s from Ballotpedia so you can take it or leave it but I think it’s a pretty good read.

    If you scroll down to page 27, it gives a state-by-state review of how strong or not each justice leans R or D. Of course, there have been some changes to the courts since this write up came out a few years ago but some of them judges on the list have been nominated or considered by President Biden so I find it interesting to see their rankings;

    Leondra Kruger – Mid D

    Raheem Mullins – Mid D

    Maria Khan – Mid D

    Tamika Montgomery-Reeves – Mid D

    Cheri Beasley – Strong D

    Adrienne Nelson – Mid D

    https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia_Courts:_State_Partisanship/PDF_Version

    Like

  2. Rick's avatar

    What do you think of Michigan senate candiate Elissa Slotkin? Do you think she’ll be supportive of more progressive judicial nominees? She’s considered moderate, but she is in a swing district for her House seat so she can’t be too far left.

    Yes, we have long way to go. Harris still needs to win the general election and also need to have 50-50 or 51-49 Democratic led senate for the first paragraph questions to even be an issue. But it’s food for thought

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      If I had to guess, I would say Elissa Slotkin will end up somewhere along the lines of Senator Gillibrand. She had to be a moderate to win her House district but will probably slightly more progressive running statewide in a light blue state. I would imagine we will get nominees in the range of B- to A- with the occasional Natasha Merle (Recommended by Gillibrand) thrown in the mix.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I would be fine if Slotkin was like Sinema as long as we are only talking about judges. Sinema has only voted against two Biden nominees. We got an A+ judge for the circuit court & two good judges for the district court.

        I looked through Slotkin’s record just now because honestly, I hadn’t previously. Here’s a few things I noticed;

        While she worked for the CIA, apparently, they recruited her, so it doesn’t seem as if she was some gun tooting conservative that wanted to go into that field.

        While Slotkin opposes Medicare for All, she does supports a buy-in Medicare option.

        Slotkin was one of two House Democrats who voted for a Republican-backed amendment which prevented Department of Defense facilities from displaying non-official flags. Some people were upset with her because that includes pride flags, but she explained she intended to prevent the flying of “hateful flags such as the confederate flag.

        In 2020, Slotkin voted against one amendment, supported by 93% of the Democratic caucus, that would provide $10,000 debt relief for student loan borrowers. I know some Democrats & liberals that aren’t on board with student debt relief so I wouldn’t worry too much about that.

        She opposes ending the death penalty. So do I, & I am about as liberal as they come on judges.

        So I wouldn’t worry too much about the things she is conservative on. She is just as, if not more, liberal than me on all other issues.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jamie's avatar

        Slotkin opened her campaign calling for the end of the filibuster. I don’t see anything to suggest that she would prioritize working with the GOP over getting things done. Her record is more moderate than many in the House, but she also represented a district that leaned to the GOP.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Joe's avatar

      Thanks for Sharing Dequan. Good article.

      Personally, I have very little sympathy for Newman. She is perfectly within her rights to stay on the court but she also isn’t entitled to being celebrated for it. When you insist on working until you’re 97 and ignore your colleagues who are pleading with you in private and then in public to step aside you sort of deserve the criticism

      Liked by 1 person

    • Frank's avatar

      Some interesting quotes in there about the issue of ageism as it pertains to federal judges. What was not mentioned was how at least for the judiciary it takes much longer for vacancies to be filled than in the past, which accounts for at least some judges staying in their posts longer to try and prevent judicial emergencies.

      Liked by 2 people

      • JJ28's avatar

        But why couldn’t Judge Newman go senior pending the confirmation of her successor, like many judges do? That would obviate the vacancy issue. She could still hear a full caseload as a senior judge and have as much of an impact as she seems to crave as the “only person” on the court who cares “about the patent system and innovation policy.” (I mean what megalomania!)

        What is she protecting by staying active? All I can think of is that by remaining active she remains a member of the en banc court, though I know nothing about that process for the Federal Circuit. As a senior judge on the court, she could still have a clerk to abuse (and be called on the carpet for), take a year to finish opinions and dissents, and collect her full salary. I just do not get it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Thomas's avatar

        @JJ28

        The answer is she still won’t like to do that. There have been statements in interviews, that she thinks her opinion is unique and not represented by the other members of the court.

        They won’t have her on senior status, because they say, she’s unfit for service, working extremely slowly, showed rude behaviour against the court’s staff and made baseless claims that her computer has been bugged.

        So she has been suspended by the other members of the court and is sueing against for being reinstated.

        Liked by 1 person

      • JJ28's avatar

        @Thomas, right, but as a function of going senior, it is binary, right? She stays active or she goes senior. If she goes senior, she retains all functions of a judge on active service with the sole exception, as far as I understand it, that she cannot be included in the en banc court when considering such cases. I know nothing about how that process works on the Federal Circuit, so do not know if that is even a factor here.

        So if she were to go senior — now or even a decade ago — she could still hear a full caseload, be on panels in the exact same way as an active judge, rule just as she does now, which is mostly in dissent, and almost nothing changes for her. I am fully aware of her current situation and the yearlong suspension that is up next month, and I hope it is extended since it appears she has refused to meet the reasonable requirement to retake the bench and if she has not done so now, she is not going to. But my confusion is about her refusal to go senior in general.

        I kind of understand it in the case of a Judge Johnnie Rawlinson, though I do not think it is a good decision, and I think Kim Wardlaw, Ronald Gould, Karen Nelson Moore, Eric Clay, et. al., all should have gone senior at some point these last four years when the conditions were best. But when in one’s late nineties (!), I fail to see how Judge Newman’s logic means she *must* stay an active judge when it seems her exact desired situation can be met by being a senior judge. I must be missing something about the status change that she feels the need to cling on.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        @JJ28

        The issue for Newman is once you go senor status, you can decide how much of a caseload you want to work but the chief judge gets to decide what cases you hear. That is my understanding of the rule. Since the chief judge is one of the ones saying she thinks she should take senior status, theoretically she could just refuse to assign Newman any cases. Once Newman assumes senior status, there is nothing she can do if the chief judge decides not to assign her any cases.

        Liked by 2 people

      • JJ28's avatar

        @Dequan: that is what I was missing. I did not know the senior judge serves essentially at the pleasure of the chief judge, or that the chief judge has any power over a senior judge’s caseload, etc. That makes sense to me that Judge Newman sees that her autonomy as a judge goes away when she goes senior.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Oh yea, it’s understandable. I’ve been following the judiciary since 2000 & didn’t know that until I read it in an article talking about the Newman issue. In almost every other case the chief judge is probably begging senior status judges to take as many cases as they want… Haaaaa

        Liked by 3 people

      • Thomas's avatar

        The chief judge can also strip you of your complete docket and not assign any more cases to you in active status, that’s how the Southern District of Texas got rid of Judge Lynn Hughes – he went to inactive senior status immediately after that – otherwise than Newman.

        Liked by 2 people

  5. Joe's avatar

    JJ, in the case of Rawlinson, Wardlaw, and others they are only in their early 70s. They’re likely perfectly fine carrying a full caseload and figure continuing to serve for several more years. I have coworkers that age and they’re all fine. I couldn’t imagine having a 97 year old coworker though. Frankly I’ve never met someone at age who hadn’t significantly declined

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Zack's avatar

    I think the other issue with Newman and a couple of other judges mentioned in this article is the fact that the Federal Circuit is a specialized court that doesn’t deal with state law/criminal cases etc. and thus it’s less ideological then the other courts to a degree.
    Judges on it may not feel the need to step down like they do elsewhere.
    The NBC article also mentioned this nugget, that there are over 70 jurists who can take senior status.
    How many of them can hold on for two more years if Harris wins and she has a Democratic Senate?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. keystone's avatar

    Wait….

    I just noticed that the article isn’t including any Obama judges in their charts and stats.

    It says the senior status criteria is “Under judiciary rules, any judge can retire or take senior status at age 65, which means they still get paid as long as they have served for 15 years.”

    I thought the criteria was that the judge had to be at least 65, had to serve at least 10 years, and that the sum of the age and the years served had to be at least 80, i.e. a 70 year old who served 10 yrs would be eligible., bc 70+10=80. Have I been misunderstanding the requirements or did they miss a bunch of judges?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. star0garnet's avatar

    @Zack

    Of the 8 GOP circuit appointees that have left the bench under Biden, I’d class them as:
    moderate liberal: White, Rovner, Hall
    moderate conservative: Gibbons, Jordan
    conservative: Kanne, D. Smith, Howard
    There have also been a solid number of moderate Dem appointees to leave the bench under Biden (Cabranes, Floyd, Briscoe, Donald, Wallach, and Graber at least, plus Greenaway and Watford were mavericky)

    How I’d class the circuit judges eligible to go senior in the next presidential term, and their age at the beginning of next year:

    Dem appointees (28):
    liberal: King (85), Moore (77), Clay (77), Stewart (75), Graves (72), Wardlaw (71), Diaz (65), Pillard (64), Shwartz (64), Harris (63)
    moderate liberal: Dyk (88), Gould (79), Reyna (73), Rawlinson (73), Gregory (72), Matheson (72), Taranto (68), Restrepo (66), Moritz (65), Murguia (65), Jordan (64), Christen (64), Higginson (64), Wilkins (62), Millett (62)
    moderate conservative: McHugh (68), Bacharach (66), Phillips (65)

    GOP appointees (34):
    moderate liberal: Newman (98)
    moderate conservative: Lourie (90), M. Smith (83), Prost (74), Bennett (72), L. Smith (67), Livingston (66), Holmes (64), Chagares (63)
    conservative: Hartz (78), Benton (75), Southwick (75), Callahan (75), Shepherd (74), Tymkovich (69), Sykes (68), Sutton (65), Haynes (62), Colloton (62)
    very conservative: Loken (85), Niemeyer (84), Henderson (81), Wilkinson (81), J. Smith (79), Easterbrook (77), Jones (76), Agee (73), Griffin (73), Ikuta (71), Richman (71), Erickson (66), Engelhardt (65), Pryor (63), Gruender (62)

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to Frank Cancel reply