Author: Harsh Voruganti

Araceli Martinez-Olguin – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Civil rights attorney Araceli Martinez-Olguin is the first non-judge that Biden has tapped for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Background

Born in 1977 in Mexico City, Mexico, Martinez-Olguin attended Princeton University and the University of California, Berkeley Law School. After graduating, Martinez-Olguin spent two years clerking for Judge David Briones on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. She then joined the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (ACLU), working in the Women’s Rights Project based in New York City.

Martinez-Olguin then moved to San Francisco to become a staff attorney at Legal Aid at Work. After three years there, Martinez-Olguin returned to New York to work at the ACLU, this time with the Immigrants’ Rights Project.

Martinez-Olguin then spent a year apiece at the Office of Civil Rights with the U.S. Department of Education and as managing director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project of Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto before joining the National Immigration Law Center, where she works as Supervising Attorney.

History of the Seat

Martinez-Olguin has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to a seat vacated on February 1, 2021, by Judge Jeffrey White.

In March 2021, Martinez-Olguin applied and interviewed for a federal judgeship with selection committees set up by California’s Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein and Alex Padilla. In January 2022, Martinez-Olguin interviewed with the White House and was selected as a nominee in August 2022. Martinez-Olguin was nominated on August 1, 2022.

Legal Experience

While Martinez-Olguin has spent her career among many different organizations, her role in all of them has been fairly consistent, as a civil rights lawyer.

Martinez-Olguin started her career working on women’s rights. Notably, she represented Jessica Lenahan, who sued in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, noting that the failure of law enforcement to enforce a domestic violence protective order against her abusive husband (who ended up abducting and murdering her daughters) violated her human rights. See Joy Resmovits, Columbia U. Law School Defends Human Rights, University Wire, Mar. 26, 2008. Subsequently, at the Legal Aid Society, Martinez-Olguin worked on employment law, representing Hani Khan, who sued Abercrombie & Fitch, alleging that she was not hired because she wore a hijab. See Jason Dearen, Muslim Woman Sues Abercrombie & Fitch, Says Company Fired Her For Refusing to Remove Headscarf; Muslim Woman Sued Abercrombie & Fitch Over Hijab, Canadian Press, June 27, 2011.

As her career moved on, Martinez-Olguin primarily worked on immigrants’ rights. Notably, she represented a class of Latino workers at a meatpacking plant who alleged that federal agents targeted them during a 2018 raid of the plant. See Jennifer Doherty, Too Late to Add IRS Agents to ICE Raid Suit, Feds Say, Law360, Dec. 1, 2021. The suit is ongoing.

Writings and Statements

In her role as an attorney, Martinez-Olguin has frequently given media statements in relation to her legal activities. See, e.g., Joy Resmovits, Columbia U. Law School Defends Human Rights, University Wire, Mar. 26, 2008 (quoting Araceli Martinez-Olguin) (“Jessica Lenahan was forced to turn to an international body because the U.S. justice system failed to provide her with even a bare modicum of justice.”). On one occasion, Martinez-Olguin described school districts who required teachers with accents to undergo speech improvements as “discrimination.” See Marc Lacey, In Arizona, Complaints that an Accent Can Hinder a Teacher’s Career, N.Y. Times, sept. 25, 2011.

As a law student, Martinez-Olguin described the distinction between law and policy in judicial rulings, noting:

“…I was later also shocked by the way the judges distanced themselves from the ability to influence public policy. At the time, the line the judges drew between themselves and Congress made sense to me. After all, I’d spent the entire first semester learning about the formalistic way in which the law is created. Yet more time in law school and reflection about the trip has made me skeptical about questions of policy and politics not entering the mix when judges rule.” See Araceli Martinez-Olguin, Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence on the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation: Student Reflections on Grutter v. Bollinger: Redefining Moment, 13 La Raza L.J. 109 (Spring 2002).

Overall Assessment

Unlike the other sitting judges that California senators have recommended for the federal bench, Martinez-Olguin brings a different perspective as a nominee. That being said, her nomination is nonetheless likely to be extremely controversial. Martinez-Olguin will draw opposition not only due to her work as a civil rights attorney but because, as a law student, she herself advocated for blurring the distinction between law and policy, allowing opponents to argue that she sees herself as an advocate, even when she is on the bench.

That being said, if Democrats remain united, they should be able to discharge Martinez-Olguin and confirm her by the end of the year.

56 CommentsLeave a comment

Julia Kobick – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Julia Kobick, who currently works with the Massachusetts Solicitor General’s Office, brings a star-studded resume to her appointment to the federal bench.

Background

Kobick received a B.A. from Harvard University in 2005, and then obtained a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 2010.

After graduation, Kobick clerked for Judge Dennis Saylor on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, for Judge Michael Chagares on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and then for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kobick subsequently joined the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, serving as Deputy Attorney General until 2021, when she became Deputy State Solicitor for the state.

History of the Seat

Kobick has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts opened by Judge William Young’s move to senior status on July 1, 2021.

Legal Career

After her clerkships, Kobick has spent her entire legal career with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, serving both as deputy attorney general and the deputy state solicitor. Early in her time with the office, Kobick defended a statute authorizing involuntary commitment orders for those with serious alcoholism and substance abuse disorders. See, In the Matter of G.P., 40 N.E.3d 989 (Mass. 2015).

Among the notable matters she handled there, Kobick sued the Trump Administration for its rollback of the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage mandate. See AG Healey Sues the Trump Administration for Roll Back of Contraceptive Coverage Mandate, States News Service, Oct. 6, 2017. Kobick was also part of the legal team defending Massachusetts’ “Right to Repair” law, which mandates access to car diagnostic and repair systems. See Chris Vilani, ‘Irritated’ Judge Nearing Verdict on Mass. Car Data Law, Law360, Feb. 2, 2022. Kobick also defended Massachusetts’ mask mandate during the pandemic. See Brian Dowling, End of Mask Order Moots Legal Challenge, Mass. Justices Say, Law360, May 2, 2022.

Writings and Statements

Kobick has authored a number of articles discussing and analyzing the law. As a law student, Kobick discussed a finding of an “intent to discriminate” in challenging facially neutral laws under the Equal Protection Clause. See Julia Kobick, Discriminatory Intent Reconsidered: Folk Concepts of Intentionality and Equal Protection Jurisprudence, 45 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 517 (Summer 2010). In the paper, Kobick suggests broadening the analysis of intentionality to include considerations of the foreseeability that facially neutral laws might cause harm to particular groups. See id. at 562.

Kobick also addressed the intentionality of actions and the moral implications thereof in another article she co-authored. See Julia Kobick and Joshua Knobe, Symposium: Is Morality Universal, and Should the Law Care?: Interpreting Intent: How Research on Folk Judgments of Intentionality Can Inform Statutory Analysis, 75 Brooklyn L. Rev. 409 (Winter 2009). In this piece, Kobick discussed intentionality in the context of environmental liability when an actor does not intend the negative impacts of their actions but is aware that such impacts are likely to occur. See id. at 412. In the context of a recent Supreme Court decision, Kobick suggests incorporating folk understandings of morality in determining intentionality. Id. at 431.

Kobick also authored a paper as a law student recommending that the Food and Drug Administration use “negotiated rulemaking,” a form of rulemaking that involves early buy-in from stakeholders (as opposed to notice-and-comment rulemaking, which has stakeholders submit comments after a proposed rule has already been drafted) to formulate rules and regulations. See Julia Kobick, Negotiated Rulemaking: The Next Step in Regulatory Innovation at the Food and Drug Administration?, 65 Food Drug L.J. 425 (2010).

Political Activity

Kobick’s campaign donations include contributions to Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttegieg and to Healey.

Overall Assessment

Having clerked for Justice Ginsburg and with a long record of advocacy on behalf of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office, Kobick presents a mirror image to the youthful Clarence Thomas clerks that President Trump frequently nominated to the federal bench. If Kobick is able to squeeze through the Senate calendar, she will likely be strongly considered for elevation to the First Circuit or beyond.

52 CommentsLeave a comment

Judge Myong Joun – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Boston municipal judge Myong Joun has been tapped for elevation to the federal bench.

Background

Joun received a B.A. from the University of Massachusetts Boston in 1994, and then obtained a J.D. from Suffolk University School of Law in 1999.

After graduation, Joun joined Howard Friedman P.C. In 2007, he became a solo practitioner in Boston, Massachusetts.

In 2014, Joun was nominated by Governor Deval Patrick to be a Judge on the Boston Municipal Court, where he currently serves.

History of the Seat

Joun has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts opened by Judge George O’Toole’s move to senior status on January 1, 2018. Due to an inability to reach an agreement on candidates with Massachusetts Senators, the Trump Administration never extended a nominee to fill the vacancy.

Legal Career

After law school, Joun started his legal career at the firm of Howard Friedman. Among the matters he handled there, he was part of the legal team representing Danny Norris, who won a jury trial after being placed under arrest after yelling at an officer for illegally parking. See Norris v. Murphy, 287 F. Supp. 2d 111 (D. Mass. 2013). He also represented Neil Miller, who sued municipal officials after being wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for rape. See Miller v. City of Boston, 297 F. Supp. 2d 361 (D. Mass. 2003). Joun also handled appeals, arguing on behalf of an inmate seeking disability accommodations before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. See Shedlock v. Dep’t of Corr., 818 N.E.2d 1022 (Mass. 2004).

From 2007 to 2014, Joun worked as a solo practitioner. His work during this time consisted of civil rights litigation, including a class action suit alleging overtime and pay violations against a chinese restaurant. See Jon Chesto, Quincy Workers Sue Eatery, Cite Unpaid Hours; Chinese Restaurant in Brockton Denies Charges, The Patriot Ledger, Sept. 16, 2009. He also represented Shaun Joseph, who was protesting Donald Rumsfeld, when he was arrested and charged with assault and battery against an officer (the charges were dismissed after a video exonerated him). See Edward Mason and Tom Mashberg, The Complaint Jar Runneth Over, Boston Magazine, April 2014.

Jurisprudence

Since 2014, Joun has served on the Boston Municipal Court, a trial court that has jurisdiction over both criminal and civil cases.

Among the notable matters that he heard as a judge, Joun presided over the assault trial of Tajanetta Downing, who fatally injured a 72 year old woman by shoving her to the ground. See Charlene Adams, ‘Ghostbusters’ Cameraman Helps Cops Find Woman Who Fatally Pushed 72-Year-Old Grandmother to the Ground, Daily Mail, July 10, 2015.

Political Activity

Joun’s political history consists largely of donations to Patrick and to the Massachusetts Democratic Party.

Overall Assessment

A civil rights attorney turned state judge, Joun falls within the mainstream of Democratic appointees to the federal bench. While he is likely to have limited crossover support, Joun is favored to join the bench if he can get a hearing before the end of the year.

97 CommentsLeave a comment

Julie Rikelman – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

One of the foremost advocates for legal protections for a woman’s right to choose, Julie Rikelman, has been tapped for an appellate seat on the First Circuit.

Background

A native of the Ukraine, Rikelman was born in Kyiv in 1972 and immigrated to the United States in 1979. Rikelman attended Harvard College, getting her B.A. in 1993 and then her J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1997. Rikelman then clerked for Justice Dana Fabe on the Alaska Supreme Court and then for Judge Morton Ira Greenberg on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

After her clerkships, Rikelman joined the Center for Reproductive Rights as a Blackmun Fellow. After her fellowship, she joined Feldman & Orlansky in Anchorage. In 2006, Rikelman returned to New York to join Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett and after two years there, she joined the litigation team at NBC Universal.

In 2011, Rikelman became senior litigation director for the Center for Reproductive Rights, where she currently serves.

History of the Seat

Rikelman has been nominated for a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. This seat opened when Judge Sandra Lea Lynch announced her desire to take senior status upon the confirmation of a successor.

Legal Experience

Outside her clerkships, Rikelman started her legal career as a fellow at the Center for Reproductive Rights. During her fellowship, Rikelman represented Victoria, who sued Terrebonne Parish for failure to obtain a timely abortion while she was incarcerated. See Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 205 F. Supp. 2d 580 (E.D. La. 2002). Rikelman also notably assisted Priscilla J. Smith in successfully overturning a state hospital’s taking of mandatory drug tests from pregnant women as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001).

After her fellowship, Rikelman shifted to Anchorage where she represented Friends of Mark Begich, who was running for Mayor of Anchorage, in a suit challenging ballot placement in the election. See DeNardo v. Municipality of Anchorage, 105 P.3d 136 (Alas. 2005). Rikelman then shifted to New York where she represented NBC employees sued by Doug Copp for allegedly defamatory statements they made about him. See Copp v. Ramirez, 62 A.D.3d 23 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009).

Since 2011, Rikelman has worked on abortion rights litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights. Among her notable cases, she has handled the following:

  • A First Amendment challenge to informed consent provisions for abortion in Texas. See Tex. Med. Providers Performing Abortion Servs. v. Lakey, 667 F.3d 570 (5th Cir. 2012).
  • A First Amendment challenge to North Carolina laws requiring pregnant women to be informed about the state’s preference for childbirth over abortion. Stuart v. Loomis, 992 F. Supp. 2d 585 (M.D.N.C. 2014).
  • A Fourteenth Amendment challenge to restrictions on reproductive medications in Arizona. See Planned Parenthood Ariz., Inc. v. Humble, 753 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2014).
  • A challenge to a Mississippi requirement that abortion clinics have “admitting privileges” with local hospitals as an “undue burden” to the right to choose. Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Currier, 760 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2014).
  • A First Amendment challenge to a North Carolina law requiring that physicians perform an ultrasound, display the sonogram, and describe the fetus to women seeking abortions. Stuart v. Camnitz, 774 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2014).
  • A challenge to North Carolina’s 20-week abortion ban. Bryant v. Woodall, 306 F. Supp. 3d 611 (M.D.N.C. 2019).
  • A challenge to South Carolina’s exclusion of Planned Parenthood from Medicaid providers. Planned Parenthood S. Atl. v. Baker, 941 F.3d 687 (4th Cir. 2019).

Most notably, Rikelman argued two notable abortion cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2019, Rikelman argued that the Constitution prohibited a Louisiana law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges in local hospitals. See June Medical Servs. LLC v. Russo, 591 U.S. __ (2020). The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, agreed and reversed a judgment in favor of the state. See id. Two years later, Rikelman argued that the Court should not overturn Roe v. Wade. The Court, however, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned Roe v. Wade. See Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022).

Writings

In her role at the Center for Reproductive Rights, Rikelman has frequently spoken out on abortion rights. For example, in 2017, Rikelman was a panelist on a Woman’s Reproductive Rights panel at Rutgers University. See Panel Five: Women’s Reproductive Rights and Health: Beijing+20, 38 Women’s Rights L. Rep. 304 (Spring/Summer 2017). In her remarks, Rikelman criticized abortion restrictions being passed across the country for limiting “access to safe and legal abortion.” See id. at 305.

Rikelman has also frequently commenting in opposition to abortion restrictions in the media and in favor of decisions protecting abortion rights. For example, she praised a decision by Judge B. Lynn Winmill to strike down Idaho’s “fetal pain” bill, noting: “Today’s ruling has overturned a legislative assault by politicians who seek to interfere with [a woman’s] decision and deny women this fundamental right.” See Rebecca Boone, Idaho First State to Have Fetal Pain Law Rejected, A.P. Online, Mar. 8, 2013 (quoting Julie Rikelman). Similarly, Rikelman criticized Mississippi restrictions requiring abortion clinics to have “admission privileges,” stating: “There’s no medical justification; states should not be able to restrict a constitutional right based on pretext.” See Sophie Novack, Mississippi’s Only Abortion Clinic Will Remain Open, National Journal, July 29, 2014 (quoting Julie Rikelman).

Outside the abortion context, Rikelman authored a law review article discussing appellate decisions permitting mandatory blood collection for DNA testing under the Fourth Amendment, arguing that such mandatory collection was prohibited by the Constitution. See Julie Rikelman, Justifying Forcible DNA Testing Schemes Under the Special Needs Exception to the Fourth Amendment: A Dangerous Precedent, 59 Baylor L. Rev. 41 (Winter 2007).

Overall Assessment

Out of all of Biden’s appellate nominees, Rikelman is likely one of the most controversial. This is not necessarily based on concerns about her qualifications, intellect, or temperament. However, Rikelman has spent the last decade working in one of the most contentious legal issues in today’s environment: abortion rights. As such, Rikelman’s nomination will likely turn on whether she can retain support from all fifty Senate Democrats. While she is still (slightly) favored to get confirmed, it is possible that the senate calendar may claim Rikelman’s nomination as a casualty.

75 CommentsLeave a comment

Judge Todd Edelman – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

In 2016, D.C. Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman was nominated for a federal judgeship on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia but was not processed by the Republican-controlled Senate. Today, Edelman faces a short window for confirmation before the end of the Congress.

Background

Born January 16, 1968 in St. Louis Missouri, Todd Eric Edelman graduated cum laude from the Yale University in 1990 and then received his J.D. from the N.Y.U. School of Law in 1994.

After graduating, Edelman clerked for Judge William Bryant on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before joining the Georgetown University Law Center as a E. Barrett Prettyman Fellow. Edelman then joined the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia.

In 2005, he joined Bredhoff & Kaiser PLLC and in 2008, became a visiting associate professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. He was appointed by President Obama to the D.C. Superior Court in 2010.

On April 28, 2016, Edelman was nominated by President Barack Obama to become a U.S. District Judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, replacing Judge Richard Roberts. However, his nomination was not processed by the U.S. Senate, which was then under Republican control, and after President Donald Trump was elected, he filled the vacancy with Carl Nichols.

History of the Seat

The seat Edelman has been nominated for opens with the elevation of Judge Florence Pan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Legal Experience

Edelman started his legal career as a clerk to Judge William Bryant on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Edelman then spent two years at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he worked in their Criminal Justice Clinic.

Starting in 1997, Edelman spent eight years as a public defender in Washington D.C., representing indigent defendants in approximately 30 to 35 jury trials, among other proceedings. Notably, Edelman represented a defendant in his second murder trial in Washington D.C., which concluded with an acquittal on the primary charge of murder. See Benn v. United States, 978 A.2d 1257 (D.C. 2009) (reversing convictions on lesser offenses). He was also trial counsel for a defendant in an assault to commit murder case, in which he objected to the peremptory strikes of all black females from the venire under Batson v. Kentucky. See Robinson v. United States, 878 A.2d 1273 (D.C. 2005). A subsequent appeal led to a ruling of first impression reversing the conviction. See id.

Edelman entered private practice in 2005, working primarily on complex civil litigation. For example, Edelman represented a class of employees who had been forced to drop out of their company health plan due to a dramatic premium rise in a class action against their employer. See Fields v. Lyon Workspace Products et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-6894 (N.D. Ill.) (Lefkow, J.).

Judicial Experience

Since his confirmation in 2010, Edelman has served as a Judge on the D.C. Superior Court. He started his time in the court on the Civil docket, but has since served on the Domestic Violence and Criminal dockets as well.

Notably, while on the civil docket, Edelman presided over a contract dispute between the American Thoracic Society and the American Cancer Association, mediating the dispute to a settlement before trial. See American Thoracic Society v. American Cancer Association, 2009 CA 4543 (D.C. Super. Ct. Dec. 10, 2015). On the criminal side, he presided over the trial of a man alleged to be the “Petworth serial stabber”, which ended in the defendant’s acquittal of all charges. See United States v. Jones, 2013 CF3 10586 (D.C. Super. Ct. June 2, 2015).

Overall Assessment

In 2010, Todd Edelman was smoothly confirmed to the D.C. Superior Court. Subsequently, in 2016, his nomination to the federal bench stalled and remained unconfirmed. This time around, Edelman’s biggest enemy is the clock. With limited time on the Senate’s calendar before the end of the Congress, it remains unclear if Edelman’s nomination will receive a hearing in time. If he is not processed and control of the Senate flips in November, Edelman risks seeing a repeat of his 2016 nomination failure.

47 CommentsLeave a comment

Justice Maria Araujo Kahn – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Maria Araujo Kahn has served the last sixteen years as a state judge, building a long judicial record that may be parsed for her appellate nomination.

Background

Born to a Portuguese family in Angola in 1964, Maria Araujo Kahn immigrated to the United States at age 10. Kahn graduated from New York University in 1986 and the Fordham University Law School in 1989. After graduating, Kahn clerked for Judge Peter Dorsey on the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

In 1993, Kahn joined the Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Disabilities. She subsequently became an Assistant U.S. Attorney based in New Haven. In 2006, Republican Governor Jodi Rell appointed Kahn, a Democrat, to the New Haven County Superior Court.

In 2013, Kahn was recommended to President Obama for the federal district court in Connecticut, but another nominee, Jeffrey Mayer, was nominated and confirmed instead.

In 2017, Kahn was elevated to the Connecticut Appellate Court by Governor Dannel Malloy. Malloy subsequently appointed Kahn to the Connecticut Supreme Court, replacing Justice Carmen Espinosa. Kahn has served on the court since.

History of the Seat

Kahn has been nominated to replace Judge Jose Cabranes, who has announced his desire to take senior status upon the confirmation of a successor.

Legal Career

After her clerkship, between 1993 and 1997, Kahn worked for the Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Disabilities, where she litigated in support of plaintiffs seeking medical and legal rights in health care litigation. For example, Kahn filed an amicus brief in support of a plaintiff seeking to stop the forcible administration of medication for his mental illness in non-emergency situations. See Doe v. Hunter, 667 A.2d 90 (Conn. Super. 1995).

Kahn subsequently became a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut. In this role, Kahn worked alongside future federal judge Stephen Robinson and future federal judicial nominee Barbara Jongbloed to prosecute Dr. Oscar Perez Gomez for Medicare fraud. United States v. Gomez, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16068 (D. Conn. Aug. 29, 2003). She also prosecuted cases of mail and wire fraud. See, e.g., United States v. Clarke, 390 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D. Conn. 2005).

Jurisprudence

Kahn has served on all levels of the Connecticut judiciary: trial, appellate, and supreme. She has been appointed to these positions by Governors of both political parties.

Superior Court

Kahn joined the New Haven County Superior Court after her appointment by Rell in 2006. In that role, Kahn served as a trial judge hearing both civil and criminal cases. Early in her time on the bench, Kahn declined to overturn a Council decision to approve a Spring cell tower to be built in Litchfield. See Rosa v. Sitting State Council, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 590 (2007).

On the criminal side, Kahn declined to suppress evidence arising from a traffic stop, finding that the officer had reasonable suspicion for the stop and that he did not unreasonably prolong the traffic stop. State v. Cronin, 2008 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2899 (2008). She also declined to dismiss a DUI charge where the police officer had videotaped the defendant while he was consulting with his attorney on whether to take a breathalyzer. State v. Abbate, 2011 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2494 (2011).

Court of Appeals

In 2017, Gov. Malloy elevated Kahn to the Connecticut Appellate Court. Kahn’s tenure on the Appellate Court was fairly short before her elevation.

Supreme Court

A few months after she was appointed to the Connecticut Appellate Court, Kahn was elevated to the Connecticut Supreme Court by Malloy. Kahn has served on the seven-member court since.

Among her key opinions on the Connecticut Supreme Court, Kahn wrote for the majority declining to fashion a Miranda-like prophylactic rule that would require the police to warn juveniles that their crimes may have adult consequences before questioning them. See Pat Eaton-Robb, Court Won’t Create Special Miranda Warning for Juveniles, A.P. State & Local, June 28, 2018.

In another ruling, Kahn wrote for a unanimous court in overturning Sen. Ernest Newton’s convictions for campaign fraud, ruling that the trial court had improperly instructed the jury on the level of intent needed for conviction. See Court Overturns Former Senator’s Campaign Fraud Convictions, A.P. State & Local, Oct. 12, 2018. In contrast, Kahn upheld a murder conviction resting solely on “cross-racial” eyewitness testimony, finding that defense attorneys had failed to meet their burden to show that no reasonable factfinder would have convicted. See Pat Eaton-Robb, Court Upholds Conviction Based on ID by Single Eyewitness, A.P. State & Local, Oct. 11, 2019.

In one notable case, Kahn concurred in the Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling upholding a conviction for breach of the peace, finding that using the n-word in referring to an african american public servant constituted “fighting words” which were unprotected by the First Amendment. See State v. Liebenguth, 250 A.3d 1 (Conn. 2020). In her concurring opinion, Kahn described the fighting words doctrine, which allows the state to prohibit words likely to incite violence, as “dubious,” noting that it “leads to consideration of stereotypical propensities for violence when assessing an addressee’s likely response to the speaker’s words.” Id. (Kahn, J., concurring).

Writings and Statements

In 2019, Kahn joined fellow Supreme Court Justice Richard Robinson on a panel at Eastern Connecticut State University discussing implicit biases in the legal system. Connecticut Supreme Court Justices Discuss Implicit Biases, Targeted News Service, Apr. 9, 2019. In her remarks at the event, Kahn discusses “hidden biases” that people often don’t recognize. Kahn states:

“Example: When people see a Black person and say ‘I don’t see color,’ Oh yes you do! You take information about Black people already in your head, which rejects notions of you opening your mind more to being a more transparent human being.” See id. (quoting Hon. Maria Araujo Kahn).

Overall Assessment

Over her sixteen years on the Connecticut state bench, Kahn has built a relatively mainstream record, with few rulings that have drawn criticism or controversy. That, combined with her comparative lack of youth, should make Kahn a less controversial nominee. However, Kahn may, nonetheless, draw opposition based on her remarks on implicit bias. Additionally, Kahn also faces a limited senate calendar, making the prospects of an end-of-year confirmation more difficult than otherwise anticipated.

78 CommentsLeave a comment

Lindsay Jenkins – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

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

Cooley Partner Lindsay Jenkins has spent the past fifteen years practicing in Northern Illinois and brings extensive experience with criminal law to the federal bench.

Background

Lindsay Carole Jenkins graduated from Miami University in 1998 and got a J.D. summa cum laude from Cleveland-Marshall College of Law in 2002.

After graduation, Jenkins clerked for Judge Solomon Oliver on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. She then joined Jones Day as an associate. Jenkins then became a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois in 2006. In 2021, she became a Partner at Cooley LLP, where she currently serves.

History of the Seat

Jenkins has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This seat opened on September 7, 2022, upon the elevation of Judge John Lee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Legal Career

Jenkins started her legal career at the Cleveland office of Jones Day. While there, Jenkins represented Tobias Valencia in a postconviction challenge to his conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. United States v. Valencia, 188 Fed. Appx. 395 (6th Cir. July 17, 2006). The Sixth Circuit denied relief for her client. See id. at 403.

From 2006 to 2021, Jenkins worked as a federal prosecutor. In that role, Jenkins represented the United States before the Northern District of Illinois in criminal prosecutions. See, e.g., United States v. Yihao Pu, 15 F. Supp. 3d 846 (N.D. Ill. 2014). She also represented the government on appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Serfling, 504 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2007).

Among the matters she argued before the Seventh Circuit, Jenkins successfully defended a federal law criminalizing enticing a minor to perform a sexual act against a constitutional challenge. See United States v. Cote, 504 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2007). She also defended the denial of postconviction relief to a defendant sentenced by a jury in which a juror was absent for a day of deliberation. See Webster v. United States, 667 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 2011).

Overall Assessment

With extensive experience as a federal prosecutor and in private practice, Jenkins should have little trouble through the confirmation process.

70 CommentsLeave a comment

Judge James Simmons – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has brought in four new judges since President Biden came to office. Biden is hoping to make it six with the nominations U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Schopler and San Diego County Superior Court Judge James Simmons.

Background

A Los Angeles native, James Edward Simmons Jr. received a B.A. from the University of California Berkeley in 2001 and a J.D. from the Golden Gate University School of Law in 2004. After a year in the San Diego City Attorney’s Office, Simmons worked as a state prosecutor in San Diego for eleven years.

In 2017, Gov. Jerry Brown appointed Simmons to the San Diego County Superior Court. Simmons is currently a judge with the court.

History of the Seat

Simmons has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to a seat vacated on March 31, 2021, by Judge Anthony Battaglia’s move to senior status.

Legal Experience

Other than a year at the City Attorney’s Office, Simmons spent his entire pre-bench career at the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office as a state prosecutor. Among the matters he prosecuted there, Simmons handled the charges against Franklin Gatlin, who was charged with stabbing the victim three times at a sushi restaurant. See No Headline in Original, City News Service, Jan. 10, 2007. He also handled the case of Jerry McCluney, charged with shooting and beating his uncle. See Kelly Wheeler, Bail Stays at $1 Million For Man Accused of Shooting, Beating Uncle, City News Service, Apr. 29, 2008.

Notably, Simmons prosecuted Alexander “Piggy” Antunez for shooting and killing Valentin Madrigal. See Kelly Wheeler, Gang Member Who Fatally Shot Rival in 2005 Gets 17-Year Prison Sentence, City News Service, Sept. 1, 2010. Simmons also prosecuted Dontaye Craig, Frederick Robinson, and Rashad Scott for firing shots at rival gang members that struck and killed a bystander. See James R. Riffel, Two to Stand Trial for Killing of Bystander in Gaslamp, City News Service, Oct. 3, 2011. After a jury trial, all three defendants were convicted. See Kelly Wheeler, Gang Members Convicted in 2009 Death of Woman Celebrating 21st Birthday in Gaslamp, City News Service, Sept. 17, 2012.

Jurisprudence

Since 2017, Simmons has served as a judge on the San Diego Superior Court. In this role, he presides over trial court matters in criminal, civil, family, and other state law matters. Among his notable cases as a judge, Simmons sentenced John Dupree Johnson to six years in prison after driving while intoxicated in a manner that caused the death of a 70 year old pedestrian. See Man Sentenced to Six Years in Prison For Fallbrook DUI Freeway Fatality, City News Service, Nov. 5, 2020.

Overall Assessment

While still fairly young for a federal judicial appointment, Simmons has built up a record of legal service in the San Diego community and would likely attract little controversy in his confirmation.

48 CommentsLeave a comment

Judge Andrew Schopler – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has brought in four new judges since President Biden came to office. Biden is hoping to make it six with the nominations of state judge James Simmons and U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Schopler.

Background

Andrew George Schopler received his B.A. summa cum laude from Dartmouth College in 1994. Schopler then received a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1997 and spent a year as a solo practitioner and a public defender in Chapel Hill, North Carolina before joining Rudolf and Maher.

In 2004, Schopler became a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. Schopler stayed with the office until his appointment in 2016 to become a U.S. Magistrate Judge on the Southern District of California.

History of the Seat

Schopler has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to a seat vacated on January 22, 2021, by Judge Larry Burns’ move to senior status.

Legal Experience

Schopler started his legal career in North Carolina, practicing criminal defense both as a public defender and in private practice taking court appointed cases. Among the cases he handled in North Carolina, Schopler successfully persuaded the North Carolina Court of Appeals to reverse Jimmy Harris’ conviction for First Degree Murder, finding that the trial court had erroneously allowed the state to cross-examine the defendant regarding a fifteen year old aggravated battery conviction. See State v. Harris, 562 S.E.2d 547 (N.C. App. 2002).

As a federal prosecutor in San Diego, Schopler prosecuted drug crimes. See, e.g., Hells Angel Gets Two-Decade Prison Term for Dealing Meth, City News Service, Dec. 3, 2012. Notably, he worked on Operation Dog Pound, a wiretapping investigation targeting methamphetamine and crack cocaine trafficking in San Diego. See Operation Dog Pound Defendant Sentenced to 20 Years in Prison, States News Service, Sept. 12, 2011. He also prosecuted public corruption cases. See, e.g., Mexican Businessman, Two Others, Convicted in Scheme to Funnel Money Into 2012 Mayoral Campaigns, City News Service, Sept. 9, 2016.

Schopler also had the opportunity to brief and argue appeals as a federal prosecutor. For example, Schopler successfully defended against motions to suppress in a border patrol agent search case at both the trial and appellate levels. Compare United States v. Reyes-Bosque, 463 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (S.D. Cal. 2006) with United States v. Reyes-Bosque, 596 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2009). See also United States v. Navarro, 608 F.3d 529 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming conviction for importing heroin and possession with intent to distribute).

Jurisprudence

Since 2016, Schopler has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge on the Southern District of California. In this role, he presides over pretrial, trial, grand jury and discovery matters. Among the notable matters he has handled as a magistrate, Schopler recommended the denial of a habeas petition filed by California inmate Hussein Ibrahim, finding them to be untimely. See Ibrahim v. Fox, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16747 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2018). This report was adopted by Judge Roger Benitez, who stated that the report was “thoughtful and thorough.” See Ibrahim v. Fox, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27091, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2018).

In another case, Schopler declined to dismiss a prisoner’s civil rights claim for failure to exhaust, ruling that the allegation that a guard had threatened the plaintiff to get him to drop his administrative appeals was sufficient to excuse any failure to exhaust. See Mitchell v. Silva, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129369 (S.D. Cal. July 21, 2020).

Political Activity

Schopler has a handful of political donations to his name, all to Democrats, including Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

Overall Assessment

With twenty-five years of legal experience and six years on the bench, Schopler will likely be deemed as close to a consensus nominee as can be found this Congress. He will likely have a smooth confirmation, calendar permitting.

109 CommentsLeave a comment

Justice Adrienne Nelson – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon

A trailblazer on the state bench, Justice Adrienne Nelson is poised to become the first African American woman on the Oregon federal bench.

Background

Born in Kansas City, Missouri, and raised in Arkansas, Nelson found her way into legal advocacy early, when her mother sued her school to permit Nelson to be the school’s valedictorian, instead of a white student with a lower GPA who was initially selected. See Eden Dawn, Meet Adrienne Nelson, the Second Black Female Judge in Oregon History, Portland Monthly, Sept. 13, 2017, https://www.pdxmonthly.com/news-and-city-life/2017/09/meet-adrienne-nelson-the-second-black-female-judge-in-oregon-history. Nelson subsequently graduated summa cum laude from the University of Arkansas in 1990 and got a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 1993.

After graduation, Nelson moved to Portland, worked as a contract attorney and then as a public defender. After three years as a public defender, Nelson joined Bennett, Hardman, Morris & Kaplan LLP for five years and then joined Student Legal and Mediation Services.

In 2006, Governor Ted Kulongoski appointed Nelson to the Multnomah County Circuit Court. In 2018, Governor Kate Brown elevated Nelson to the Oregon Supreme Court, making her the first African American appellate judge in Oregon history. Nelson has served on the court since.

In 2011, while she was on the Multnomah County Circuit Court, Nelson was one of five candidates recommended by Oregon Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley to replace Judge Michael Hogan on the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Wyden and Merkley Send Names of Five Finalists for Federal Judgeship to the White House, States News Service, Mar. 6, 2012. The Obama Administration chose one of Nelson’s Multnomah County colleagues, Judge Michael McShane, for nomination, and McShane was confirmed in 2013.

History of the Seat

Nelson has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. This seat opened on December 27, 2021, when Judge Michael Mosman moved to senior status.

Jurisprudence

Nelson served as a Circuit Court Judge from 2006 to 2018. In this role, she served as a primary trial judge, supervising criminal and civil cases. For example, Nelson acquitted Mary Jo Pullen-Hughes for the charge of phone harassment, finding that there was not enough evidence of her intent to harass. OR Woman Acquitted of Phone Harassment of Feds, A.P. State & Local Wire, Mar. 1, 2010. Some of Nelson’s rulings have been appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court. For example, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed a ruling by Nelson precluding psychological testimony at trial after plaintiffs failed to deliver the reports prepared by their psychological expert during discovery. See A.G. v. Guitron, 268 P.3d 589 (Ore. 2011).

In contrast, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed Nelson’s denials of motions to suppress in a number of cases, finding, in one case, that Nelson erred in finding that the defendant had no constitutional privacy interest in actions in a public restroom. See State v. Holiday, 310 P.3d 1149 (Ore. App. 2013). See also State v. Adams, 185 P.3d 570 (Ore. App. 2008) (reversing conviction where officer unlawfully stopped defendant without reasonable suspicion); State v. Chambers, 203 P.3d 337 (Ore. App. 2008) (holding that an officer’s detention of defendant was not justified under the community caretaker exception to the Fourth Amendment).

Since 2018, Nelson has been a member of the Oregon Supreme Court, serving as the court’s first African American member. See Andrew Selsky, In a First, African-American Named to Oregon Supreme Court, A.P. State & Local, Jan. 3, 2018.

Writings and Statements

Nelson has frequently spoken on the law at various legal events and symposiums throughout the state, as well as discussing her own rise to the bench. See, e.g., Eden Dawn, Meet Adrienne Nelson, the Second Black Female Judge in Oregon History, Portland Monthly, Sept. 13, 2017, https://www.pdxmonthly.com/news-and-city-life/2017/09/meet-adrienne-nelson-the-second-black-female-judge-in-oregon-history. Nelson’s unique background has also drawn media attention, and Nelson has been speculated as a potential nominee for the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit. Compare Andrew Kragie, Meet the Possible Nominees for Justice Breyer’s Seat, Law360, Jan. 26, 2022 with Andrew Kragie, Biden Gets 1st Opening on 9th Circ. Thanks to Judge Graber, Law360, Feb. 16, 2021.

Overall Assessment

After being considered as a potential nominee for both the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court, Judge Adrienne Nelson has now been tapped for the district court in Oregon. Based on her time in the Oregon legal community, it will be difficult to deny Nelson’s credentials for the position.

84 CommentsLeave a comment