Patrick Bumatay – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Patrick Bumatay was originally nominated last year, amidst much self-congratulatory fanfare, for the Ninth Circuit, with many noting that Bumatay, if confirmed, would be the first openly LGBT circuit judge on the territorial courts of appeals.  However, the opposition of California’s Democratic Senators downgraded Bumatay’s nomination to the district court level.  However, with his nomination still stalled, the White House has tapped Bumatay again for the Ninth Circuit.

Background

Patrick Joseph Bumatay was born on February 14, 1978.  As a college student, Bumatay interned for the consulting company run by Kellyanne Fitzpatrick (now Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the President).  Bumatay attended Yale University and then Harvard Law School.  He then clerked for Judge Sandra Townes on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and for Judge Timothy Tymkovich on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

After his clerkships, Bumatay joined Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason Anello & Bohrer P.C. in New York.  In 2012, Bumatay moved to San Diego to join the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California, where he still works.  However, since 2017, Bumatay has been on detail with the Department of Justice, working in the Attorney General’s office.

History of the Seat

Bumatay has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to fill a seat being vacated by Judge Carlos Bea.  Bumatay was previously nominated for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated by Judge Alex Kozinski on October 10, 2018.  However, due to the opposition of California Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, Bumatay was renominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to a seat vacated on September 30, 2016, by Judge Marilyn Huff’s move to senior status.  Instead, President Trump nominated Dan Bress, a D.C. based attorney, to the Kozinski seat (Bress was subsequently confirmed).  However, Bumatay’s nomination to the District Court didn’t move either, potentially because of blue slip issues.  Instead, he was once again tapped for the Ninth Circuit.

Legal Experience

Bumatay has spent his career in two primary positions, at the firm of Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason Anello & Bohrer P.C. and at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of California.  In the former position, Bumatay worked on both regulatory and litigation matters, including representing the asset management firm GAMCO in defending against a suit filed by account holders who lost money through GAMCO’s investment in Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.[1] 

As a federal prosecutor, Bumatay tried eight criminal cases to verdict, focusing largely on drug and immigration cases.  For example, Bumatay tried a number of defendants for the maritime drug trafficking of cocaine.[2]  Bumatay also prosecuted Nicholas Zakov for smuggling Mexican citizens into the United States in his trunk (both citizens unfortunately passed away during the journey).[3]

Since 2017, Bumatay has been on detail at the Department of Justice, where he has overseen criminal and civil policy in the Attorney General’s and Deputy Attorney General’s Offices.

Political Activity

While in college, Bumatay was a member of Yale’s Conservative Party.[4]  Notably, Bumatay, as a college student, was sharply critical of affirmative action, mocking proponents by stating:

“…all men are created equal — unless they are Asian or white.”[5]

Later, Bumatay became co-president of the Yale College Republicans, and supported Republican candidates in New Hampshire.[6]  He also defended President Bush’s grades in college, stating:

“Grades that he got from 25 years ago will not reflect how well he can lead the country.”[7]

Bumatay has also donated to the campaigns of Bush in 2003 and Romney in 2011 and 2012.[8]

Overall Assessment

The White House and California’s Democratic Senators have already had some public clashes over the three California Ninth Circuit nominees confirmed so far.  They are similarly clashing over Bumatay.  Nevertheless, at a time when partisanship on judicial nominees has reached an all-time high, it may be sufficient for Republican senators that Bumatay is a Republican nominated by Trump, which should lead to his confirmation.


[1] See Rioseco v. Gamco Asset Mgmt., Inc., No. 15862/10 (N.Y. Super. Ct., Westchester Cty., Comm. Div. Sept. 23, 2011).

[2] See United States v. Valdez-Medina, 15CR0336-JAH (S.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2016); United States v. Cedeno-Cedeno, 14CR3305-L (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23-30, 2016).

[3] United States v. Zakov, 14CR2363-AJB (S.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2015).

[4] Hyorim Suh, Yale Profs Debate Affirmative Action With Harvard Teachers, Yale Daily News, Oct. 12, 1999.

[5] See id.

[6] Perry Bacon, Yale Students Hit the Campaign Trail in New Hampshire, Yale Daily News, Oct. 25, 1999.

[7] Brigitte Greenberg, Magazine Publishes Bush’s Alleged Grades, Associated Press, Nov. 10, 1999.

Judicial Nominations 2019 – Year in Review

2019 was one hell of a year for judicial confirmations.  Freed from the time-consuming schedule of a Supreme Court nomination, the Senate plowed through over 100 judicial confirmations, dramatically reshaping both the courts of appeals and district courts.  

Nominations and Confirmations

This year, the Senate confirmed 20 appellate judges and 80 district court judges (as well as two judges to the Court of International trade).  As such, President Trump has had 187 confirmations as of the third year of his presidency.  In comparison, President Obama saw 124 confirmations by the end of the third year of his presidency, President Bush saw 168, and President Clinton saw 175.

Failed Nominations

The expanded Republican majority in the Senate from the 2018 elections and the frequent absences of Democratic senators running for President have allowed Republicans to push through many nominees on narrow party-line votes.  As such, the Administration has been relatively successful at pushing through its nominees, even controversial ones.

Nonetheless, a handful of Trump nominees have been blocked from confirmation in 2019.  Namely, judicial nominees John O’Connor and Maureen Ohlhausen were not renominated at the beginning of the 116th Congress.  Furthermore, the nomination of Michael Bogren to the Western District of Michigan was withdrawn in the face of Republican opposition (similar opposition has stalled the nomination of Judge Halil Ozerden to the Fifth Circuit).  Additionally, Judge Thomas Marcelle, nominated for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, withdrew due to failure to get blue slips from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.

Demographics of Confirmed Nominees

Let’s take a look at demographics of the 102 confirmed Trump appointees this year.

Age

In the past Congress, the average age of Trump’s appointees ranged between 50-51, in line with previous presidents.  This Congress, the average age of the Trump appointees is slightly younger at 49 years of age, which is still not too far from the presidential average.

The oldest Trump appointee tapped for the federal bench this year is Judge John Milton Younge, a Democrat who was first nominated to the federal bench by President Obama but blocked by Republicans.  Younge was 64 when confirmed.  The youngest was Judge Allison Rushing, who was just 36 when she was confirmed to the Fourth Circuit.

Race

Trump’s judicial confirmations continue to be overwhelmingly white, although the ratio has improved significantly since the previous congress.  Twenty of the 100 judges confirmed this Congress were non-white: seven Asian; six Hispanic; and seven African American judges respectively.

Gender

Of the 100 nominees confirmed this year, 26 are female: 5 appellate appointees and 21 district court appointees.  These numbers (26% female) are slightly better than the previous congress, where the appointees were around 22% female.  However, they still are lower than the 42% female figure President Obama managed to hit.

LGBTQ Identity

This year, the Senate confirmed two nominees who identify as members of the LGBTQ community: Judge Mary Rowland to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; and Patrick Bumatay to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Looking Ahead

Largely due to rules changes muscled through by the enlarged Republican majority, President Trump has succeeded in dramatically reshaping the federal bench in 2019.  However, his success has reduced the number of nominees who would be expected to be confirmed next year.  When the Senate recessed, it left just five pending judicial nominees on the Senate floor.  Nonetheless, while all of Washington will spend much time absorbed in an impeachment fight next year, the senate will likely continue its processing of judicial nominees.

Daniel Bress – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Like fellow nominee Dan Collins, Daniel Bress is also a former clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia and also faces the joint opposition of home state senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris.

Background

Daniel Aaron Bress was born in Hollister, CA in 1979.  Bress received an A.B. from Harvard in 2001 and a J.D. from the University of Virginia Law School in 2005.[1]  After graduating from law school, Bress clerked for Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and then for Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court, clerking alongside future Sen. Mike Lee, and future Sixth Circuit Judge Eric Murphy.[2] 

After his clerkships, Bress joined the San Francisco Office of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP.  He left a year later to join Kirkland & Ellis in Washington D.C. where he has been a Partner since 2011.[3] 

Additionally, Bress has taught courses on textualism as a method of constitutional and statutory interpretation at the University of Virginia and Catholic University Law Schools.[4]

History of the Seat

Bress has been nominated for a California seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  This seat opened on December 18, 2017 when Judge Alex Kozinski resigned from the bench in the midst of heavy controversy.  On October 10, 2018, Trump nominated Patrick Bumatay, a federal prosecutor who would have been the first openly gay judge on the Ninth Circuit.  Based on a disagreement with California’s Senators, however, Bumatay was withdrawn and nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

In May 2017, Bress was contacted by the White House to gauge his interest in an appointment to the Ninth Circuit.[5]  In late 2017 and early 2018, Bress interviewed with Advisory Committees set up by California’s Democratic Senators.[6]  Bress’ nomination was sent to the Senate on February 6, 2019.

Both of Bress’s home state senators, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Sen. Kamala Harris, have expressed opposition to Bress’s nomination, citing Bress’ residence and career in DC and lack of ties to the California legal community.[7]

Political Activity & Memberships

Bress is a Republican who has donated to the campaigns of Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Sen. Jeff Flake.[8]  He was also a member of the D.C. Chapter of Lawyers for Romney in the 2012 elections.[9]

Furthermore, Bress has been a member of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies (a conservative legal organization that is the source of many Trump nominees) since 2003.[10] 

Legal Experience

Bress has spent his legal career as a civil litigator, most of it at the D.C. Office of Kirkland & Ellis.  Over the course of his 12 year legal career, Bress has not tried any cases to verdict but has participated in appellate matters before the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal courts of appeals.

Among the most notable cases he handled, Bress sued under California’s Parent Empowerment Act to challenge the denial of a petition to convert Palm Lane Elementary School (a public school) into a charter school.[11]  Bress, who handled the case on a pro bono basis, argued successfully that the school’s decision to reject the petition was arbitrary.[12]

In other cases, Bress is defending Honeywell Int’l in a suit against a government alleging that anti-ballistic products they manufactured were defective.[13]  He also represented an Alabama death row inmate in challenging an Alabama procedural rule on successive habeas petitions.[14]

Writings

Of Bress’ writings on the law, two are particularly notable.  As an associate at Munger, Bress coauthored an article alongside other Supreme Court clerks at the firm (including future Ninth Circuit Judge Michelle Freidland) on the death penalty.[15]  The article focused on Justice Stevens’ dissent from a 7-2 decision upholding Kentucky’s death penalty protocol in Baze v. Rees, and the changed position from Justice Stevens’ affirmation of the death penalty in Gregg v. Georgia thirty years earlier.[16]  The article posits that “constant exposure to the horrors of capital crimes and the utter finality of executions” motivated Stevens’ change in position.[17]

In the other notable article, authored as a law student, Bress argues that the inherent power of administrative agencies to reconsider their final decisions (barring any statutory authority) must be limited and proscribed.[18]

Overall Assessment

Bress may be the youngest of Trump’s three California nominees to the Ninth Circuit, but that’s not what makes him the most controversial.  Rather, the issue is geography.  Traditionally, circuit nominees have been tied to individual states within a circuit (and statutorily, each state is required to have at least one judge on a circuit).  Bress has been nominated to a California seat but has spent almost his entire legal career in Washington D.C.  In a Judiciary Committee meeting earlier this year, Chairman Lindsay Graham acknowledged the legitimacy of concerns regarding Bress’ ties to California.  Furthermore, Bress’ legal ties are primarily to the D.C. legal community and he resides in Alexandria, Virginia.  On the flip side, Bress has litigated in California courts, was born in California, and is a member of the state bar.  Nevertheless, the Alliance for Justice has already noted that Bress’ firm biography has been edited to emphasize California ties, suggesting that his supporters are concerned about the attack.[19]

Overall, Bress’ substitution for Bumatay suggests that the White House considered the former less controversial for an appellate seat.  In the unlikely event that Bress’ nomination is derailed by questions of geography, the White House could, in theory, substitute Bumatay back for the Ninth Circuit, giving the court its first openly gay judge.


[1] Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Daniel Bress: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 1.

[2] Id. at 2.

[3] Id. at 3.

[4] Id. at 30.

[5] See id. at 33.

[6] Id.

[7] See Press Release, Office of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Feinstein: Don’t Confirm a D.C. Lawyer to California’s Seat on Ninth Circuit (May 16, 2019); Press Release, Office of Sen. Kamala Harris, Harris on Trump’s Ninth Circuit Nominee: Daniel Bress Is Not a California Lawyer (May 17, 2019).

[8] Center for Responsive Politics, https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=daniel+bress&order=desc&sort=D (last visited May 21, 2019).

[9] See Bress, supra n. 1 at 12.

[10] See id. at 5.

[11] See Ochoa v. Anaheim City Sch. Dist., 11 Cal. App. 5th 209 (2017).

[12] Joseph Pimental and Roxana Kopetman, Court to Rule on Parents’ Charter School Demand, Chico Enterprise-Record, Mar. 2, 2017.

[13] United States v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., Case No. 08-cv-961 (D.D.C.).

[14] Kuenzel v. Alabama, 137 S. Ct. 375 (No. 16-213).

[15] Jeffrey Bleich, Aimee Feinberg, Michelle Freidland, Daniel Bress, and David Han, Change of Heart – Justice Stevens Reassesses the Death Penalty, 34 San Francisco Att’y 32 (Fall 2008).

[16] Id. 

[17] Id. at 34.

[18] Daniel Bress, Administrative Reconsideration, 91 Va. L. Rev. 1737 (Nov. 2005).

[19] Press Release, Alliance for Justice, Bress is Wrong for the Ninth Circuit (May 17, 2019).

The Nominees Left Out

Updated on January 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM

When the 115th Congress adjourned, it sent 73 judicial nominees back to the President.  Yesterday, President Trump announced his intention to renominate 50 of them (as well as one nominee to the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review).  This leaves 23 nominees not on the initial list and still in limbo.  Zoe Tillman at Buzzfeed has a great rundown of the nominees sent back to the Senate.  Today, we look at the 23 who were not.

Out of the 23, 16 come from just three states: New York; California; and Illinois.  Each of these states has two Democratic Senators, and, more importantly, Senators with prominent positions in the Democratic Party.  As such, one could argue that the blocking of these renominations are intended to add pressure to Democrats during the government shutdown.  However, I would argue that the truth is more complicated.

Let’s start with California, which has two senators, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Sen. Kamala Harris, on the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Both were strong opponents of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.  There were six California nominees pending that were not renominated: Patrick Bumatay, Dan Collins, and Kenneth Lee to the Ninth Circuit; and Stanley Blumenfeld, Jeremy Rosen, and  Mark Scarsi for the Central District of California.  This batch was submitted relatively late in 2018, and did not have the support of California’s home-state senators.  Since that point, White House Counsel Don McGahn has departed and has been replaced with Pat Cippolone, and, by all accounts, negotiations between the White House and California senators are back on.  As such, not renominating the California nominees can be seen as an optimistic sign.  Of course, some, if not all, of the six will ultimately make it to the bench, either as part of a package, or, if negotiations fail, individually.

The situation in New York is more complicated.  New York Senator Chuck Schumer leads the Senate Democratic Caucus and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has presidential ambitions.  Nevertheless, they managed to work with the White House to put together a seven-judge package of nominees last year.  These nominees, including three Democrats and four Republicans, have not been renominated.  At the same time, the White House has renominated four other New York nominees: Judge Joseph Bianco and Michael Park for the Second Circuit; Thomas Marcelle for the Northern District of New York, and Philip Halpern for the Southern District of New York.  It is unclear why the White House has declined to put forward a group of nominees who were passed out of the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support, although one can speculate that it is intended as a slight to Schumer.

Finally, we come to perhaps the most surprising omission, Illinois.  Illinois Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth established a productive relationship with the White House on judicial nominations, resulting in the smooth confirmations of Michael Scudder and Judge Amy St. Eve to the Seventh Circuit (the only appellate nominations during the Trump Administration to receive unanimous support).  They also put together a package of three district court nominees: conservatives Martha Pacold and Steven Seeger; and liberal Mary Rowland.  None of the three have been renominated.  Of course, given the number of vacancies on the federal bench in Illinois, it is possible that the three will be wrapped into a larger package of nominees.

Stepping away from these three states, you have an additional seven who have not been renominated.  Two of these, Mary McElroy of Rhode Island and Judge Stephanie Gallagher of Maryland, were nominees originally chosen by President Obama and renominated by President Trump with Democratic support.  I think the Administration is hoping, supported by a new Judiciary Chair, to renegotiate these picks and try to find nominees with more conservative records.  (The Trump Administration did renominate Judge John Milton Younge so it’s not that all Democratic picks were left off the list)

The remaining five are nominees who would likely face a difficult journey to confirmation.  This includes Jon Katchen, who withdrew his nomination late last year in the face of strong opposition from the Alaska Bar, Gordon Giampietro, who has been blue-slipped by Sen. Tammy Baldwin, and Thomas Farr, whose expected confirmation fizzled last year after opposition from Sen. Tim Scott.  Farr is perhaps the most notable of the three, as Sen. Thom Tillis has still been advocating for his renomination.  Regardless, withdrawing Farr is a no-brainer for the White House.  The sixty-four year old nominee can easily be replaced with a judge just as conservative and two decades younger.

The last two are the most interesting and surprising.  FTC Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen was not renominated to the Court of Federal Claims.  While Ohlhausen did face strong Democratic opposition from the Senate Judiciary Committee, so did fellow nominee Ryan Holte (Holte was renominated).  As such, I’m inclined to think that Ohlhausen may have asked for her nomination to be withdrawn.  (UPDATE: An individual familiar with the judicial confirmation process has confirmed that Ohlhausen withdrew her nomination.)   Finally, there is John O’Connor, nominated to a district court seat in Oklahoma.  O’Connor was rated Unqualified by a unanimous panel of the American Bar Association, who cited his lackluster legal career, and noted ethical issues.  It is hard to believe that the ABA rating was the sole factor in blocking O’Connor given that other nominees have soldiered on past such a rating and been confirmed.  Given that the allegations against O’Connor were presumably examined during the White House vetting process, the lack of a renomination is surprising.

Overall, some, if not all, of these 23 picks, could still be renominated.  However, their exclusion from the initial list clearly makes a point: the Administration is continuing to move deliberately with regard to judicial nominations, and the area is still a priority for them.  As such, we’re in for an interesting Congress.