John Kness – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

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

John Kness has had a varied career, including as a musician and in law enforcement.  Now, Kness hopes to add “judge” to his resume.

Background

A native Illinoisan, John Fitzgerald Kness was born in Chicago in 1969.  Kness graduated from Northwestern in 1991 and then spent seven years as a musician and two years as a Patrol Officer in Oak Park, Illinois, before matriculating at Northwestern Law.[1]

After graduating, Kness rapidly switched jobs, spending a year with the Chicago office of Jenner & Block, a year clerking for Judge William Pryor on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, a year at Winston & Strawn, and then a year at Tabet DiVito & Rothstein in Chicago.[2] 

In 2007, Kness returned to Winston & Strawn, working as an Associate for two years before becoming a federal prosecutor in the Northern District of Illinois.[3]  In 2016, he left that role when he was hired (by a narrow 4-3 margin) to be the first in-house attorney at the College of DuPage.[4]  He currently holds that position.

History of the Seat

Kness has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  This seat opened on February 17, 2018, when Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan moved to senior status.  

In early 2018, Kness was contacted by the White House to gauge his interest in a federal judgeship.[5]  He subsequently interviewed with the White House and was tentatively selected as a nominee in June 2018.  In August 2018, he applied with a screening committee set up by Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, both Democrats.  Kness was nominated with the agreement of the senators in June 2019.

Legal Career

Kness has spent his legal career approximately evenly divided between private practice and criminal prosecution.  In the former, Kness primarily worked in general litigation, while in the latter, Kness worked exclusively on criminal prosecutions.  Over the course of his legal career, Kness handled seven jury and one bench trials, all criminal.[6]

Notably, Kness prosecuted Hasan and Jonas Edmonds, cousins who sought to join ISIL in Syria and commit acts of terrorism.[7]  He was able to secure long sentences against both defendants.[8]  In other matters, Kness also prosecuted eight defendants who had engaged in the trading, production, and/or distribution of child pornography.[9]

Political Activity

Kness has been a longtime member of both the Federalist Society and the National Rifle Association, suggesting a conservative ideology.[10]  His only contribution of record is a $1000 donation to Rudolph Giuliani’s campaign in 2008.[11]

Overall Assessment

Overall, Kness’ background reveals little that should trouble his confirmation.  Given the support offered by Durbin and Duckworth, Kness will likely be confirmed without too much hassle.


[1] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong., John F. Kness: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 1.

[2] Id. at 2.

[3] Id.

[4] Robert Sanchez, COD Votes to Hire In-House Attorney, Chicago Daily Herald, Sept. 16, 2016.

[5] See Kness, supra n. 1 at 23-24.

[6] See id. at 13.

[7] See U.S. Fed. News, 2 Illinois Cousins Sentenced to Decades-Long Prison Terms For Conspiring to Provide Material Support to a Foreign Terrorist Organization – ISIL, Sept. 20, 2016. 

[8] See id.

[9] See States News Service, Eight Self-Identified “Boy Lovers” Sentenced to Federal Prison For Sexual Exploitation Crimes After FBI Investigation, Oct. 15, 2012.

[10] See Kness, supra n.1 at 5.

Judge Clifton Corker – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee

Judge Cliff Corker (no relation to Sen. Bob Corker) is Trump’s first nominee to the federal court that covers much of Eastern Tennessee.  While Corker is an experienced judge and advocate, some intemperate writings from his college years may cause him some heartburn.

Background

Clifton Leland Corker was born in Richmond, VA in 1967.  He graduated from James Madison University in 1990 and then attended William & Mary Law School, graduating in 1993.[1]  Corker then clerked for Judge Cynthia Kinser, then a magistrate on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.[2]

After his clerkship, Corker worked as a volunteer for the Public Defender in Greenville, Tennessee for a year and then as an Associate at Terry, Terry & Stapleton briefly before opening his own law practice in Johnson City.[3]  Corker stayed at the practice until he became a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee in 2015, where he serves today.[4]

History of the Seat

Corker has been nominated to fill a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  This seat opened on June 30, 2018, when Judge J. Ronnie Greer moved to senior status.  In June 2018, Corker was interviewed for the vacancy by the White House and was nominated on October 10, 2018.[5]

Legal Career

Corker started his legal career by clerking on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.  He then worked as a Public Defender and at a small litigation practice.  Overall, Corker tried approximately 25 jury trials before joining the bench.[6]

From 1996 to 2005, Corker handled litigation matters in Johnson City, including the representation of indigent defendants on a court-appointed basis.[7]  During this time, he represented Gary Moore, an indigent defendant charged with conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine.[8]  Corker was able to successfully get the evidence of the crack cocaine suppressed by arguing that the officers lacked probable cause for a search incident to arrest.[9]  Similarly, Corker was able to get a search warrant issued by an associate municipal judge in Johnson City overturned, forcing a ruling that municipal judges had no authority to issue search warrants.[10]

However, Corker was less successful in arguing before the Tennessee Supreme Court that the Tennessee Constitution provides broader protections for defendants seeking access to counsel than the U.S. Constitution.[11]

Political Activity

Corker has a modest political history working for Republican candidates.  He volunteered for George H.W. Bush as a college student and has supported Tennessee Republicans more recently.[12]  Corker also contributed to the Presidential campaign of Mike Huckabee in 2008.[13]

Jurisprudence and Reversals

Corker has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge since his appointment in 2015.  In his three years on the bench, Corker has presided over 149 cases where parties have consented to his jurisdiction, a remarkably high number.[14]

Over his three years on the bench, Corker has only had his reports and recommendations rejected twice.  In the first, Judge Greer rejected Corker’s recommendation that an ALJ’s denial of social security benefits be affirmed.[15]  In the second, Judge Pamela Reeves rejected Corker’s ruling that the criminal statute defendant was charged upon was not unconstitutionally vague.[16]

Writings

As a college student, Corker frequently wrote articles and letters to the editor for The Breeze, the JMU college paper.  In these writings, Corker takes strongly conservative positions, frequently employing hyperbolic language to lampoon the perceived weaknesses of ideological opponents.  For example, in one piece, Corker writes that the “evil spirit of liberalism is beginning to ooze out of the hearts and minds of those it holds captive, seeking to add more to its chains of slavery.”[17]  In another piece, Corker defends Col. Oliver North as “the victim of a prosecutor with an unlimited budget” and describes the U.S. Congress as the “enemy” for investigating North and interfering with the Reagan Administration’s foreign policy.[18]  In another column announcing a debate over the Reagan Administration’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), Corker takes the first paragraph to dismiss the designation of Nov. 9-16 as Nuclear Awareness Week and Gay Rights Week, noting:

“This leads me to question as to whether it is the gays who want more nuclear awareness or the nuclear awareness persons who want more gay rights?”[19]

In other articles, Corker praises the Supreme Court candidacy of Robert Bork, arguing that “[w]omen’s rights will not suffer at all” by recognizing that, unlike with race, there are “reasonable differences between genders,”[20] and criticizes the push for divestment from South Africa due to apartheid, arguing that current sanctions “are neither helping blacks nor aiding in the abolishment of apartheid.”[21]

Overall Assessment

Is Corker a consensus nominee?  If we look at Corker’s record starting with his time in law school, the answer would unquestionably be “yes.”  His record as a judge is truly impressive with a very low rate of reversal.  Additionally, his background working to expand the rights of criminal defendants is fairly unique among federal judicial nominees, among whom prosecutors tend to be more common.

However, when you bring in Corker’s college writings, in which he calls liberals “evil”, suggests that opponents of Reagan are un-American, and mocks the designation of “Gay Rights Week” they paint a different picture.  To be fair, individuals change and grow throughout their lives, and it is likely that Corker is a different person today than when he wrote those statements.  As such, it remains to be seen how relevant senators find his college writings when contrasted with the rest of his record.  It is also important to see if Corker is willing to distance himself from these writings (at least in tone if not in substance).


[1] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 114th Cong., Clifton L. Corker: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 1.

[2] Kinser would later serve on the Virginia Supreme Court.

[3] Id. at 2.

[4] Id.

[5] See id. at 51.

[6] Id. at 42.

[7] Id. at 40-41.

[8] See United States v. Brown, 390 F. App’x 503 (6th Cir. 2010).

[9] See id.

[10] United States v. Hall, No. 2:01-cr-0027-1 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 6, 2001).

[11] See State v. Saylor, 117 S.W.3d 239 (Tenn. 2003).

[12] See Corker, supra n.1 at 39.

[14] See Corker, supra n.1 at 18.

[15] McMillan v. Colvin, Comm’r of Social Security, No. 2:15-cv-167 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 30, 2016).

[16] See United States v. Lopez, No. 2:17-cr-62 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 12, 2017).

[17] See Letter to the Editor, Evil Liberal Spirit Returns, The Breeze, Mar. 24, 1988, at 35, available at https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1481&context=i19801989.

[18] Letter to the Editor, Anti-North Groups Really Resent ‘Success of Reagan Revolution’, The Breeze, Jan. 30, 1989, at 12, available at https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1528&context=i19801989.

[19] Letter to the Editor, National Defense Debated: Two Sides to Arms Build-Up Discussed By High-Ranking Officers, The Breeze, Nov. 12, 1987, at 21, available at https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1457&context=i19801989.

[20] Letter to the Editor, Bork Views Based on Sound Judgment, The Breeze, Oct. 8, 1987, at 27, available at https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1448&context=i19801989.

[21] Clifton Corker, End Apartheid: Invest in South Africa, The Breeze, Feb. 23, 1989, at 10, available at https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1535&context=i19801989.

Judge Kavanaugh and the Failure of the Vetting Process

This blog started twenty months ago with a post titled “Why Vetting Matters.”  That post noted:

“The modern appointments process involves several layers of “vetting” of potential judicial nominees.  Candidates are generally first evaluated by their home state Senators and their staff.  Then, they are vetted again by the White House Counsel’s office and the Department of Justice.  They are then examined by the FBI and the American Bar Association (ABA).  Upon their nomination, their records are scrutinized by the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as interest groups on all sides of the political spectrum.  At each level of review, the vetters seek to ensure that the candidate meets their personal and ideological criteria for appointment.”

Today, what we are seeing with regard to Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a failure of that process.  A compelling and credible allegation of sexual assault has been raised against the judge, an allegation that did not surface during the vetting that he underwent for the Supreme Court, nor during his prior vetting for his current seat on the D.C. Circuit.  Some have used this point to suggest that the allegation, raised by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, should not be believed.  I would argue, rather, that it is an indictment of our current vetting process and its limitations.

As noted in our opening post, the current vetting system for judicial nominees involves several entities, including the White House, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and Senate staff.  In their investigation, the “vetters”, depending on their particular role, review all the written and background material submitted by the nominee, do criminal background checks, and conduct interviews with the nominee’s friends, colleagues, and associates.  Again, depending on their role, the vetters might be looking for ideological inconsistencies, intellectual ability, or issues with the nominee’s truthfulness or character.  The involvement of these different entities, along with outside groups such as the American Bar Association, is, in theory, supposed to ensure a thorough vetting of any nominee.

In practice, however, there are still holes in this process.  Take allegations of sexual assault, for example, comparable to those made by Dr. Ford.  Where the allegations have not been reported to the police, they will not show up in a criminal background check.  Unless there has been news coverage or some public record of the allegations, they will not show up in Google or record searches.  Furthermore, unless the nominee volunteers the information, it will not be revealed in the disclosures.  As such, investigators generally probe such allegations of misconduct in their private interviews with the nominee’s friends, family, and colleagues.

However, even these interviews are unlikely to reveal such misconduct.  Most DOJ, FBI, and ABA interviews are conducted either with friends and colleagues invested in the nominee’s success, or, with opposing counsel and judges who are too far removed to be aware of, let alone comfortable revealing, any allegations of impropriety.  As such, unless an individual alleging misconduct is directly interviewed, it is unlikely that their allegations would be revealed in the interview process.

In the case of Judge Kavanaugh, the flaws in the vetting process may have been magnified by its speed.  Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court on June 27, 2018.  Judge Kavanaugh was announced as the nominee on July 9, just 12 days later.  In comparison, President Obama nominated Justice Sotomayor 26 days after Justice Souter’s leaked retirement in 2009, and Justice Kagan 31 days after Justice Stevens’ retirement in 2010.  Similarly, his nomination of Judge Merrick Garland in 2016 came 31 days after Justice Scalia’s untimely passing.  While Justice Gorsuch’s nomination came 11 days after President Trump’s inauguration, it was to a vacancy that had been pending almost a year.  Even assuming that Judge Kavanaugh had been partially vetted before Justice Kennedy’s retirement, the pace of his nomination was still incredibly fast.

Similarly, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Judge Kavanaugh less than two months after his nomination despite the Committee not having a chance to look over significant portions of his record.  As such, at the time of the hearing, only one of the 21 Judiciary Committee senators was even aware of Dr. Ford’s allegations.

At any rate, any deficiencies in the process could have been corrected once Dr. Ford’s allegations went public.  At that point, the White House could have reopened Judge Kavanaugh’s background check, allowing the FBI to investigate the allegations (something they have done hundreds of times before).  The White House chose not to.  The Senate Judiciary Committee could have chosen to take sworn testimony from Dr. Ford’s corroborators, including those with whom she shared the allegations, and those who could corroborate the events in question.  The Committee chose not to.

Instead, the American people were subjected to the spectacle of a sexual assault survivor being cross-examined by a prosecutor, while a gallery of stone-faced senators watched.  No other witnesses were called, and no follow up questions were asked.  If it was not for a carefully-negotiated rebellion on the part of Sen. Jeff Flake, there would have been no follow-up from Dr. Ford’s testimony at all.

Regardless of what the reopened FBI investigation uncovers, this saga has already laid bare the weaknesses of the current vetting process.  Perhaps there is no foolproof way that unreported allegations of sexual assault can be uncovered through the vetting process.  However, it is important to recognize that.  Given the documented barriers to reporting sexual assault claims, there are likely other unreported claims against other federal judges and nominees.  As such, the next time that similar allegations are raised against a nominee, vetters may need to look in the mirror before asking why the allegations were not uncovered earlier.

This blog reflects solely the views of the author and does not reflect the positions of any of the other writers or researchers at the Vetting Room.

 

 

Michael B. Brennan – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

The last time the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had a full complement of judges was on January 16, 2010.  The next day, Judge Terence Evans moved to senior status.  Evans’ seat, informally assigned to Wisconsin, remains vacant to this day.  Due to infighting between his home-state senators, Michael Brennan, Trump’s nominee to fill the seat, is unlikely to see a smooth confirmation to the seat.

Background

Michael B. Brennan was born in 1963 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  Brennan received his B.A. cum laude from the University of Notre Dame in 1986.  He then proceeded to Northwestern University Law School, where he served as coordinating note and comment editor at the Northwestern University Law Review.  After graduating from law school, Brennan completed a two-year clerkship with Judge Robert Warren[1] on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.[2]

After his clerkship, Brennan joined the Milwaukee office of Foley & Lardner, where he served as an associate for four years.  In 1995, Brennan left Foley to clerk for Judge Daniel Mannion on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

In 1997, Brennan joined the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office as an Assistant District Attorney.  The next year, while maintaining his position, Brennan also joined the Wisconsin Criminal Penalties Committee, a Committee intended to study and recommend changes in sentencing, as a staff attorney.  In 2000, Brennan was appointed by Gov. Tommy Thompson to be a judge on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court.

In 2003, Brennan applied to the Wisconsin Federal Judicial Commission for a vacancy opening up on the Seventh Circuit.[3]  However, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Diane Sykes got the nomination (and was ultimately confirmed).  In 2007, Brennan applied simultaneously for vacancies on the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin.[4]  He was not selected for either vacancy, however, with the nominations going to fellow state judges Timothy Dugan and J. Mac Davis respectively.  However, neither candidate was ultimately confirmed.

In November 2008, Brennan unexpectedly announced his resignation from the bench to join Gass Weber Mullins LLC., a Milwaukee based complex litigation firm.[5]  He continues to practice there as a Partner.

History of the Seat

The seat Brennan has been nominated for is the longest pending appellate vacancy.  This seat opened on January 17, 2010 with the retirement of Judge Terence Evans.[6]  On January 22, 2010, Wisconsin Senators Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, both Democrats, recommended four candidates for the vacancy to President Obama: U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman; Prof. Victoria Nourse of the University of Wisconsin Law School; Judge Richard Sankovitz of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court; and defense attorney Dean Strang.[7]  On July 14, Obama nominated Nourse for the seat.[8]  No action was taken on Nourse’s nomination before the end of the 111th Congress.

In the 2010 elections, Feingold was defeated by Republican Ron Johnson.  Upon joining the Senate in 2011, Johnson indicated his opposition to Nourse’s nomination, claiming both procedural and substantive reasons for his opposition.[9]  Due to Johnson’s withholding of a blue slip, Nourse never got a hearing and her nomination was withdrawn at the end of 2011.

After Kohl was replaced by fellow Democrat Tammy Baldwin in 2012, Baldwin and Johnson struck a deal on a process to fill three federal judicial vacancies for Wisconsin, including the Seventh Circuit seat.[10]  The deal had both Johnson and Baldwin appoint three members to a Commission, which would then solicit applications and recommend no less than four candidates for each vacancy (for a candidate to be recommended, they needed support from five out of six commissioners).[11]

The deal allowed for the successful confirmations of Judges James Petersen and Pamela Pepper in 2014.  However, the Commission was unable to agree on four candidates to fill the Seventh Circuit vacancy, with only two out of eight finalists: Sankovitz and Madison attorney Donald Schott, receiving the requisite five votes.[12]  While Johnson offered to send only the names of Sankovitz and Schott to the White House, Baldwin instead sent all eight candidates, an action that Johnson characterized as breaking the original agreement.[13]

In January 2016, the White House nominated Schott to the vacancy.[14]  While Johnson initially demurred to support Schott,[15] he ultimately returned a blue slip to allow Schott’s nomination to proceed.  The Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Schott and advanced the nomination on a 13-7 vote on June 16, 2016.[16]  However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked all further action on the nomination, and it expired at the end of the 114th Congress.

After the election of Trump and the re-election of Johnson in 2016, Johnson and Baldwin renewed their 2013 deal for the recommendations for federal judicial vacancies.[17]  In March 2017, Brennan was contacted by the White House Counsel’s Office to gauge his interest in a federal judgeship.[18]  After interviewing with the White House Counsel’s Office and the Department of Justice in March 2017, Brennan applied to the Commission set up by Johnson and Baldwin.[19]  However, the Commission did not recommend Brennan (or any other applicant) due to the inability to secure five votes.[20]  Despite the lack of recommendation for Brennan (who secured votes from all three Republican Commissioners and one Democratic Commissioner), the White House submitted his nomination to the Senate on August 3, 2017.[21]

As Brennan had not been recommended by the Wisconsin Federal Judicial Commission, Baldwin has indicated that she is “troubled” by his nomination, and has not yet returned a blue slip enabling the Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing.[22]  Nevertheless, the Senate Judiciary Committee is moving to a hearing on January 24, 2018.

Political Activity

Brennan has a long history of contributions and volunteering for the Wisconsin Republican party.  Brennan has volunteered and held positions in the campaigns of several Republicans including Johnson, Gov. Scott Walker, Congressman James Sensenbrenner, and former Governor and Senate candidate Tommy Thompson.[23]  Brennan also served on the Finance Committee of the Wisconsin Republican Party for four years.[24]  Brennan has also contributed financially to Republican candidates, including $1500 to Johnson and $4000 to Thompson.[25]

Additionally, Brennan is connected closely with Walker, serving as the Chair of Walker’s Judicial Selection Advisory Committee.[26]  While he chaired the Committee, it drew criticism for relying heavily on partisan identification and contributions when selecting judges for the state court.[27]  Brennan is also the founding member of the Milwaukee chapter of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization advocating for an originalist and textualist interpretation of the Constitution.[28]

Legal Practice

Brennan’s first legal position after his clerkship was at Foley & Lardner as a litigation associate.  In this capacity, Brennan largely represented corporations in federal and state court.[29]  For example, Brennan represented Great-West Life Assurance Company in defending an action for ERISA benefits filed by a widowed plaintiff.[30]  However, Brennan also participated in some more political actions.  In a notable case, Brennan successfully challenged a Fond Du Lac ordinance regulating the sale of tobacco products, arguing that the ordinance was pre-empted by state regulations on tobacco distribution.[31]  In another case, Brennan represented the Wisconsin Republican party who sought to prevent the placement of white supremacist David Duke on the Republican primary ballot in Wisconsin.[32]

From 1997 to 1999, Brennan served as Assistant District Attorney at the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office.[33]  In that capacity, Brennan represented Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann in defending a Wisconsin statute requiring doctors to tell victims of rape and incest that services are available that allow women to listen to the heartbeat or view images of their unborn child.[34]  The Seventh Circuit upheld the statute in a 2-1 vote.[35]

After stepping off the bench in 2008, Brennan has served as a partner at Gass Weber Mullins LLC.  In this capacity, Brennan handles a combination of commercial litigation, catastrophic injury cases, and mediation.[36]  Among the more significant matters he has handled, Brennan has represented numerous correctional institutions in defending against §1983 suits.[37]

Jurisprudence & Reversals

Brennan served as a judge on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court from 2000 to 2008.  During that time, Brennan handled civil, criminal, landlord-tenant, traffic, juvenile, and probate matters.[38]  Brennan ran for re-election in 2001 and 2007, being unopposed both times.

During his tenure on the state bench, Brennan established a fairly conservative record, including as a strict sentencing judge.  In one notable case, Brennan sentenced a defendant to 66 years in jail after he drove drunk and caused an accident killing four people and injuring two others.[39]  In another case, Brennan sentenced a defendant charged with reckless homicide to 35 years in prison and an additional 20 years of extended supervision.[40]  In another notable case, Brennan presided over the sentencing of four Democrats, including the son of Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-WI), who had pleaded no contest to slashing the tires of Republican election vans.[41]  Despite prosecutors recommending no jail time, Brennan threw out the plea agreements and imposed sentences of four to six months.[42]

In one of his most widely reported cases, Brennan presided over the criminal trial of a school-bus driver, who was charged with physical and verbal abuse towards a student with disabilities.[43]  Part of the evidence against the driver was from a recorder placed by the student’s parents in his backpack.  Brennan declined to exclude the recorded evidence, holding that the statements were not barred by Wisconsin’s Electronic Surveillance Control Law.[44]  Brennan’s ruling was overturned by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals but ultimately affirmed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.[45]

Reversals

Over his eight years on the state bench, Brennan has been reversed in approximately fifteen cases.  The majority of these cases involved criminal convictions or rulings against defendants being reversed.[46]  For example, State v. Haas involved a defendant convicted solely on the basis of eyewitness testimony implicating him in a burglary.[47]  The defense sought to bring in the clothing the defendant was arrested in to impeach the eyewitness’ testimony.[48]  However, the clothing had been destroyed by the police and the defendant was convicted.[49]  Brennan denied a motion for a new trial.  However, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the destroyed exculpatory evidence clearly required reversal.[50]   Similarly, in State v. Alicea, a police officer failed to comply with a pretrial ruling barring all references to a robbery accusation against the defendant.[51]  Brennan, who presided over the trial, declined to declare a mistrial or allow the defense to explain that the robbery accusation was untrue, instead instructing the jury to disregard the reference.[52]  The Court of Appeals reversed for a new trial, finding that the police officer’s improper reference to the robbery accusation had violated the defendant’s rights.[53]

Surprisingly, some cases in which Brennan’s rulings were reversed by appellate courts appear to have been omitted from his Senate Judiciary Questionnaire.[54]  Among these cases is one where Brennan ruled that a tenant whose hair dryer caused a fire which damaged her rental unit was liable for the damage even without any showing of negligence.[55]  In reversing, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals found that the lease provision dictating liability was invalid under Wisconsin law.[56]  In another case, a landlord sought to evict a deaf tenant for breaching his lease by assaulting another resident.[57]  Brennan rejected the tenant’s argument that he had not been given an opportunity to remedy the breach, holding that quasi-criminal breaches were non-remediable as a matter of law.[58]  The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed, noting that Brennan’s ruling “cited no case law to support these conclusions…ignored the procedure set out in the statute and ignored the fact that Greenfield stated in its five’day notice that Tannehill could remedy the breach by having no future contact with Pell.”[59]

Speeches and Writings

Brennan has frequently written on legal issues, including Wisconsin court rulings, judicial politics, and trial tactics.  Brennan’s writings suggest strong conservative underpinnings in his judicial philosophy and will likely draw support from Republican senators and concern from Democrats.

Judicial Activism

Brennan has frequently written on the subject of judicial activism.  In 2005, as a sitting state judge, he authored an article criticizing the Wisconsin Supreme Court for “activist” decisions.[60]  Brennan’s article sparked a response from federal judge Lynn Adelman, who called the charge of activism “a rhetorically charged shorthand for decisions the speaker disagrees with.”[61]

In an earlier article, Brennan took the opposing perspective, disagreeing with calls for judicial restraint on the part of conservative judges, noting that “justices and judges faced with activist legislatures are not required to roll over in the name of judicial restraint.  That would leave in place a one-way ratchet of constantly expanding government.”[62]

Judicial Nominations

In 2011, as Johnson was blocking the Nourse nomination, Brennan, then the Chair of Walker’s Judicial Selection Advisory Committee, wrote in support of Johnson’s actions.[63]  In the op-ed, joined by other attorneys including two current Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices (selected by Brennan’s committee), Brennan notes that Johnson, as an elected Wisconsin senator deserves to “participate in the selection of a judge for a Wisconsin seat” and that the Nourse nomination was moved “in disregard of a senator’s duty of ‘advice and consent’ under Article II Section II.”[64]

Expert Testimony

In early 2012, Brennan and his partner J. Ric Gass gave a presentation on the Daubert standard for expert witnesses and the selection of experts in the context of scientific testimony.[65]  In his notes for the presentation, Brennan focuses on the inherent unpredictability of scientific testimony, noting that “[s]cience is inherently changeable” and “[p]roblems with scientific accuracy have always been with us.”  As such, Brennan encourages attorneys to prepare their scientific expert witnesses well and to recognize possible weaknesses in their scientific opinions.

Overall Assessment

There are two arguments that can made against Brennan’s nomination: one based on process, and one based on substance.  The procedural argument against Brennan’s argument is essentially parallel to the argument he and Johnson laid out against Nourse’s elevation.  Essentially, Brennan’s nomination is moving without the consent of the duly elected senator from his home state.  Democrats can reasonably argue that, given their past willingness to defer to Johnson’s objections to Obama’s nominees, Baldwin deserves the same deference with regard to Brennan.

The substantive argument against Brennan has little to do with his legal ability.  Given his experience as both a trial judge and a complex litigator, Brennan is well-prepared to handle the intellectual rigors of the Seventh Circuit.  As such, the argument against Brennan will likely focus on his conservative ideology.

Specifically, critics may look to Brennan’s strongly conservative rulings as a judge, alongside his ideologically charged writings, and his role in reshaping Wisconsin’s state judiciary in a conservative direction, and argue that Brennan lacks the requisite impartiality to be a federal judge.  In response, supporters will likely argue that the vast majority of Brennan’s rulings have been affirmed by higher courts, and that conservatives should not be denied seats on the federal bench purely based on their ideology.

With a narrow Republican majority in the senate, Brennan remains more likely than not to be confirmed.  However, given the opposition of his home state senator and the Republicans’ narrow margin of error, the outcome is not set in stone.


[1] An appointee of President Nixon, Warren was the Republican Attorney General of Wisconsin before his confirmation to the bench.  Wolfgang Saxon, Robert W. Warren, 72, Wisconsin Federal Judge, N.Y. Times, Aug. 22, 1998, http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/22/us/robert-w-warren-72-wisconsin-federal-judge.html.

[2] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Michael B. Brennan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 2-3.

[3] Tony Anderson, Twelve Apply for 7th Circuit Seat, Wisconsin Law Journal, July 23, 2003.

[4] See David Ziemer, 17 Apply for Vacancy on United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Law Journal, July 30, 2007.  See also Jack Zemlicka, U.S. District Court Judge Shabaz’s Seat Draws 16 Candidates, Wisconsin Law Journal, Dec. 10, 2007.

[5] Marie Rohde, Two Milwaukee Judges Resigning for Private Practice, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Nov. 14, 2008, http://archive.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/34502294.html/.  

[6] See Martha Neil, Longtime 7th Circuit Judge Terence Evans is Dead After Sudden Illness, ABA Journal, Aug. 11, 2011, http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/7th_circuit_judge_terence_evans_is_dead/ (noting Evans’ move to senior status).

[7] Adam Korbitz, Kohl, Feingold Forward Four Names to President Obama for Seventh Circuit, State Bar of Wisconsin, Jan. 25, 2010, https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/InsideTrack/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=2&Issue=26&ArticleID=5864.

[8] Adam Korbitz, President Nominates Victoria Nourse to Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, State Bar of wisconsin, July 15, 2010, https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/InsideTrack/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=2&Issue=14&ArticleID=8620.  

[9] Craig Gilbert, Ron Johnson ‘Filibuster’ of Nourse Nomination to Federal Bench Draws Fire, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 18, 2011, http://archive.jsonline.com/newswatch/125741928.html.

[10] Susan McDonald, Johnson, Baldwin Agree to Judicial Screening Panel, WISN, April 17, 2013, http://www.wisn.com/article/johnson-baldwin-agree-to-judicial-screening-panel/6314857.  

[11] Craig Gilbert, Baldwin, Johnson Bitterly Joust Over Appeals Court Vacancy, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Apr. 28, 2016, http://archive.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/baldwin-johnson-bitterly-joust-over-appeals-court-vacancy-b99715579z1-377503181.html/.  

[12] See id.

[13] See id.

[14] Id.

[15] Press Release, Office of Sen. Ron Johnson, Johnson Responds to Judicial Nomination of Donald K. Schott (Jan. 12, 2016) (on file at https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/1/johnson-responds-to-judicial-nomination-of-donald-k-schott).

[16] Shawn Johnson, U.S. Senate Panel Advances Wisconsin Judicial Nominee, Wisconsin Pub. Radio, June 16, 2016, https://www.wpr.org/u-s-senate-panel-advances-wisconsin-judicial-nominee.  

[17] Craig Gilbert, Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin Renew Deal on Picking Judges, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/13/ron-johnson-and-tammy-baldwin-renew-deal-picking-judges/97871500/.  

[18] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Michael B. Brennan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 51.

[19] See id.

[20] Margo Kirchner, Ron Johnson’s Hypocrisy on Federal Judgeship, Wisconsin Justice Initiative, Aug. 22, 2017, https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2017/08/22/op-ed-ron-johnsons-hypocrisy-on-federal-judgeship/.  

[21] Press Release, White House, President Donald J. Trump Announces Sixth Wave of Judicial Candidates and Fifth Wave of U.S. Attorney Candidates (August 3, 2017) (on file at www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office).

[22] Todd Richmond, Trump Court Appointee Never Cleared Commission, Sen. Tammy Baldwin Says, Wisconsin State Journal, Aug. 5, 2017, http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/trump-court-appointee-never-cleared-wisconsin-commission-sen-tammy-baldwin/article_82e4070d-4ec3-599d-a437-a9296980894b.html.

[23] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Michael B. Brennan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 34-35.

[24] See id.

[26] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Michael B. Brennan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 34.

[27] See Eric Litke, Party Politics Color Governors’ Judicial Picks, Green Bay Press-Gazette, Jan. 29, 2016, http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2016/01/29/wisconsin-judicial-appointments–partisanship-walker-doyle/79509122/.  

[28] Carrie Severino, Who is Mike Brennan, Nat’l Rev., Aug. 4, 2017, http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/450159/who-mike-brennan.  

[29] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Michael B. Brennan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 38.

[30] Edwards v. Great-West Life Assur. Co., 20 F.3d 748 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 512 U.S. 962 (1994).

[31] U.S. Oil Inc. et al. v. City of Fond du Lac, 544 N.W.2d 589 (Wisc. App. 1996).

[32] McCarthy et al. v. Elections Bd. et al., 480 N.W.2d 241 (Wisc. 1992).

[33] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Michael B. Brennan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 38.

[34] Karlin v. Foust, 188 F.3d 446, 490–91 (7th Cir. 1999)

[35] See id.

[36] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Michael B. Brennan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 38-39.

[37] See, e.g., Glisson v. Indiana Dep’t of Corrections, 849 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2012) (en banc), cert. denied sub nom. Correctional Med. Svcs., Inc. v. Glisson, – U.S. – (2017); James v. Eli, 846 F.3d 951 (7th Cir. 2017), reh’g granted, No. 15-3034, 2017 WL 1228561 (7th Cir. Mar. 31, 2017); Rowe v. Gibson, 798 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2015), reh’g en banc denied, No. 14-3316, 2015 WL 10767326 (7th Cir. Dec. 7, 2015); Estate of Rice v. Correctional Med. Svcs, Inc., 675 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2012).

[38] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Michael B. Brennan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 20-21.

[39] State v. Promotor, Case No. 2003-CF-2230 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Aug. 3, 2004).

[40] State v. Whitmore, No. 2003-CF-005697 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Oct. 13, 2004).

[41] Week in Review, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Apr. 30, 2006.

[42] See id.

[43] State v. Duchow, No. 2003-CF-002648 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Dec. 29, 2003).

[44] See id.

[45] See State v. Duchow, 749 N.W.2d 913 (Wis. 2008), rev’ing 303 Wis. 2d 744 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007).

[46] See, e.g. State v. Lord, 723 N.W.2d 425 (Wis. 2006); State v. Haas, 750 N.W.2d 518 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008); State v. Jackson, 735 N.W.2d 178 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007); State v. Basley, 726 N.W.2d 671 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006); State v. McGowan, 715 N.W.2d 631 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006); State v. Alicea, 650 N.W.2d 560 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).

[47] State v. Haas, 750 N.W.2d 518 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).

[48] See id.

[49] Id.

[50] See id.i

[51] State v. Alicea, 650 N.W.2d 560 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).

[52] See id.

[53] Id.

[54] See Shadley v. Lloyds of London, 776 N.W.2d 838 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009) (reversing Brennan’s award of attorney’s fees); Maryland Arms Ltd. Partnership v. Connell, 769 N.W.2d 145 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009) (reversing liability determination on fire in tenant unit); Greenfield Senior Housing V, LLC v. Tannehill, 736 N.W.2d 543 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007) (reversing finding that tenant’s breach of the lease was non-remediable); State v. McAdoo, 715 N.W.2d 240 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006) (reversing sentence because 27 months of extended supervision exceeded statutory max of nine months); State v. Simmons, 659 N.W.2d 507 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003) (reversing defendant’s convictions where defendant did not knowingly violate injunction).

[55] See Maryland Arms Ltd. Partnership v. Connell, 769 N.W.2d 145 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009).

[56] See id.

[57] See Greenfield Senior Housing V, LLC v. Tannehill, 736 N.W.2d 543 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007).

[58] See id.

[59] See id. at 552.

[60] Michael B. Brennan, Are Courts Becoming Too Activist, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Oct. 2, 2005.

[61] The Honorable Lynn Adelman and Shelley Fite, Exercising Judicial Power: A Response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Critics, 91 Marq. L. Rev. 425, 427 (Winter 2007) (quoting Kermit Roosevelt III, The Myth of Judicial Activism, Making Sense of Supreme Court Decisions 3 (2006).

[62] Michael B. Brennan, Conservative Judicial Activism: More than Whose Ox Is Being Gored, The Federalist Society, August 2001, https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/hot-topics-judicial-activism.  

[63] See Michael B. Brennan, James T. Barry, Steven M. Biskupic, Rebecca G. Bradley, Donald A. Daugherty Jr., Daniel Kelly, David W. Simon, Sen. Johnson Only Wants to Have His Say on Nourse Nomination, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, July 23, 2011, http://archive.jsonline.com/news/opinion/126042043.html/.  

[64] See id.

[65] See Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Michael B. Brennan: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 14.