Author: Harsh Voruganti

Judge John Kazen – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas

The son of a long-serving federal judge, Judge John Kazen is President Biden’s first nominee to the Texas district courts.

Background

John Andrew Kazen was born in Lincoln, Nebraska in 1964, the son of George Kazen, who would later be appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Kazen graduated from the University of Texas at Austin in 1987 and received a J.D. from the University of Houston Law Center in 1990. After graduating, Kazen spent a year as a law clerk to Judge Robert Manley Parker on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before joining Kemp, Smith, Duncan & Hammond P.C. in El Paso. In 1998, Kazen shifted to became a name Partner at Kazen, Meurer & Perez, L.L.P. in Laredo.

In 2018, Kazen was appointed as a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, where he currently serves.

History of the Seat

Kazen has been nominated to fill a vacancy opened by Judge Vanessa Gilmore’s retirement on January 2, 2022.

Legal Experience

Before he joined the federal bench, Kazen spent approximately twenty-six years in private practice, starting in El Paso and then shifting to Laredo. Kazen’s practice was primarily focused on representing defendants in personal injury cases. During the course of his career, he tried 18 jury trials. For example, Kazen represented the tile manufacturer Interceramic in a suit brought by a plaintiff truck driver based on injuries sustained dring the transport of the tiles. See Garcia-Gutierrez v. Interceramic, Inc., No. B-98-128 (S.D. Tex. 1998). The suit concluded in a jury verdict in favor of the defendant.

Outside the personal injury context, Kazen represented the security company ADT in a civil RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) lawsuit against another security company relating to the sales of security systems in Mexico. See ADT Security Services, S.A. De C.V. v. Alert 24 Security, L.L.C., No. 2006CVQ001051-D2 (111th Dist. Ct., Webb Cnty. Tx.). He represented the company to a jury trial, where the jury found in his favor on the RICO claim but against him on the other claims.

Kazen has also handled a number of employment discrimination cases. For example, he represented the Texas Migrant Council in defending against a national origin discrimination suit, which ended in a jury verdict for Kazen’s client. See Alvarez v. Tex. Migrant Council, Inc., No. 5:2000-cv-00153 (S.D. Tex. 2000). In another case, Kazen successfully moved for summary judgment in a national origin discrimination case brought by a teacher against the Laredo Independent School District. See Garza v. Laredo Indep. Sch. Dist., 2009 WL 221258 (5th Cir. 2009).

Jurisprudence

Since 2018, Kazen has been a federal magistrate judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In this role, Kazen presides over bond hearings, discovery disputes, and cases where the parties consent to his jurisdiction. During his tenure on the bench, Kazen has presided over eight trials: seven of them civil. For example, Kazen presided over a bench trial involving a Federal Tort Claims Act suit after a Border Patrol agent shot the plaintiff, after which, Kazen granted a motion to dismiss, finding that sovereign immunity was not waived for the specific actions of the border patrol agent. See Cantu Silva v. United States, No. 5:19-CV-151 (S.D. Tex. Oct 31, 2022).

In another notable case, Kazen granted a motion to dismiss Section 1983 claims brought relating to the arrest of a citizen journalist by the Laredo police, finding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. See Villarreal v. City of Laredo, 44 F.4th 363 (5th Cir. 2022). The Fifth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion, reversed, finding the violation of the plaintiff’s rights to be “obvious.” See id. at 367. In dissent, Chief Judge Priscilla Richman stated that Kazen “faithfully applied the law” in his decision. Id. at 382. Shortly after, the Fifth Circuit granted en banc rehearing to the decision, vacating the reversal.

Political Activity

Kazen has been a frequent donor to Democratic candidates for office, including multiple donations to President Obama and to Rep. Henry Cuellar.

Overall Assessment

With Texas’ federal judges among the most overworked in the country, the nomination of Kazen couldn’t come fast enough. As Kazen has the strong support of Texas’ Republican Senators, he is likely to be comfortably confirmed before the end of the year.

32 CommentsLeave a comment

Mustafa Kasubhai – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon

Judge Mustafa Kasubhai made history in 2018 as the first Muslim-American on the federal bench (albeit not in a lifetime appointment). He has now been nominated to such a position by President Biden.

Background

Born in Reseda, California in 1970 to an Indian immigrant family, Mustafa Taher Kasubhai received a B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley in 1992 and a J.D. from the University of Oregon School of Law in 1996.

A year after graduation, Kasubhai opened his own law practice in Eugene, Oregon, which he maintained until being appointed to the Oregon Workers’ Compensation Board in 2003.

In 2007, Governor Ted Kulongoski appointed Kasubhai to the Lane County Circuit Court. In 2018, Kasubhai was chosen to be a U.S. Magistrate Judge with the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, where he currently serves.

History of the Seat

Kasubhai has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. This seat will open on December 29, 2023, when Judge Ann Aiken moves to senior status. Kasubhai was among six candidates recommended to the White House by Oregon Senators in June 2023.

Legal Experience

Kasubhai started his legal practice in Eugene Oregon in 1997 and maintained that practice until his appointment to the Oregon Board of Workers’ Compensation in 2003. His practice consisted largely of representing plaintiffs in workers’ compensation claims and in personal injury suits. In addition to a heavily administrative practice, Kasubhai also tried ten jury trials. Notably, Kasubhai represented the daughter of a decedent who died of carbon monoxide poisoning after the use of a propane heater in a tent. Kasubhai represented the plaintiffs in a 8-day jury trial which ended in a verdict for the plaintiff, which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. See Benjamin v. Walmart, 185 Or. App. 444 (2002). Kasubhai also represented a worker who cracked a tooth on an employer-provided snack in administrative proceedings and before the Oregon Court of Appeals. See Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. Nichols, 186 Or. App. 664 (2002).

Jurisprudence

Kasubhai served as a Circuit Court Judge from 2007 to 2018. In this role, he served as a primary trial judge, supervising criminal and civil cases. In a notable decision later affirmed by the Oregon Court of Appeals, Kasubhai denied a motion to suppress, finding that the defendant, as a guest in the home being searched, lacked a privacy interest implicating the Fourth Amendment. See State v. Gonzalez, 292 Or. App. 342 (2018). In another notable decision, Kasubhai instructed a jury that drug use, drug dependence, and drug-induced psychosis did not constitute mental diseases or defects that affected the defendant’s culpability in murdering his girlfriend, which the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed. See State v. Folks, 290 Or. App. 94 (2018).

Since 2018, Kasubhai has served as a federal magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, in which role he handles pretrial release, discovery matters, as well as cases where parties consent to his jurisdiction. Among the notable cases he handled, parties consented to have him hear a “rule of reason” Sherman Act claim regarding a collective decision by Defendant neurologists to stop covering the Plaintiff’s calls. See Ireland, M.D. v. Bend Neurological Associates, et al., No. 6:16-cv-02054-MK, 2021 WL 1229937 (D. Or. Mar. 31, 2021). Kasubhai granted summary judgment to the Defendants on the claims, which was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. See 2023 WL 2783240 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2023). In another decision pending on appeal, Kasubhai granted summary judgment in favor of a union, finding that its withdrawal of union fees from the plaintiff did not violate the First Amendment because it was not a state actor. See Cram v. Local 503 SEIU, 590 F. Supp. 3d 1330 (D. Or. 2022).

Political Activity

Kasubhai has a handful of political donations to his name, all to Democratic candidates.

Writings and Statements

Kasubhai has written and spoken frequently on the law, particularly in favor of greater diversity both on the bench in the legal community, with some of his expressed views being raised in criticism at his confirmation hearing. See also The Honorable Mustafa Kasubhai, Old Oregon, Autumn 2009 (available at https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/10018/OQ_Autumn09.pdf). However, Kasubhai’s writings extend back to his law student days, when he authored an article critical of state rape laws that required showings of force in order to criminalize rape, arguing that the laws should be based around consent (or lack thereof) demonstrated by the victim. See Mustafa T. Kasubhai, Destabilizing Power in Rape: Why Consent Theory in Rape Law is Turned On Its Head, 11 Wis. Women’s L.J. 37 (1996-1997) (available at https://api.law.wisc.edu/repository-pdf/uwlaw-library-repository-omekav3/original/03d50dd18ada15fb757ee7dce07c20df3c1172d1.pdf).

Overall Assessment

Reviewing Kasubhai’s judicial record reveals some contrast with the portrait painted by critics at his confirmation hearing. His rulings have largely been affirmed and do not reveal anything out of the judicial mainstream. Judge Michael Mosman, probably the most prominent conservative voice on the Oregon district court bench, has written in support of Kasubhai’s nomination. However, despite all of this, it is likely that Kasubhai’s nomination will prove controversial based on his past writings. Nonetheless, if Democrats buckled down, they likely could confirm Kasubhai in due course before Judge Aiken moved to senior status.

42 CommentsLeave a comment

Shanlyn Park – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii

State Judge Shanlyn Park, who had spent most of her career as a federal public defender in Hawaii, has been nominated to a lifetime appointment on Hawaii’s federal bench.

Background

Shanlyn Alohakeao Souza Park was born in Honolulu in 1969. She received a B.A. from the Chaminade University of Honolulu in 1991 and her J.D. from the University of Hawaii William S. Richardson School of Law in 1995. After graduating, Park clerked for U.S. Magistrate Judge Francis Yamashita and then became an Assistant Federal Public Defender with the District of Hawaii in 1997. In 2017, she left to return to private practice in Honolulu.

Since 2021, Park has served as a Circuit Court Judge for the First Circuit for the State of Hawaii.

History of the Seat

Park has been nominated for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. This seat will open when Judge Leslie Kobayashi moves to senior status on October 9, 2024.

Legal Experience

For the vast majority of her career, Park worked as a federal public defender in Hawaii, representing indigent defendants in both misdemeanor and felony matters in federal court. Notably, Park represented a co-defendant in a murder case, where she was able to negotiate a 30 year sentence for her client with opposing counsel Jill Otake (who later joined the federal bench under President Trump). See United States v. Jackson, Cr. No. 15-00293 SOM-KSC (D. Haw.). Notably, Park also represented Jeffrey Drye, who was charged with abusive sexual contact and sexual assault in the first degree. Drye v. United States, Civ. No. 12-00355 JMS (D. Haw.). After his conviction, Drye filed a petition alleging, among other claims, that Park provided him with ineffective assistance of counsel. See id. Specifically, Drye alleged that Park was ineffective in allowing Drye to testify at trial, in failing to file an appeal, and in her representation at sentencing. Id. Judge J. Michael Seabright rejected all three contentions. On the first, he found that, while Park advised Drye to testify, that advice “was a reasonable, strategic choice.” See id. On the second contention, Seabright noted that Drye himself had declined to file an appeal and that Park would not have been able to help him on a petition suggesting that she herself was ineffective. See id. Regarding the sentencing, Seabright noted:

“The only conclusion these facts support is that Park provided Drye extremely competent representation that resulted in Drye receiving a lower sentence than he otherwise could have received.”

From 2017 to 2021, Park worked in private practice, working on commercial litigation, including mediations and arbitration. Notably, Park represented Kaluakoi Poolside, LLC. in a commercial arbitration involving a dispute over the maintenance of common areas of a shared commercial property. See The West Molokai Association of Apartment Owners v. Kaluakoi Poolside, LLC., Case No. 16-0033-A (Dispute Prevention & Resolution Hawai’i Inc.).

Jurisprudence

In 2021, Park was appointed to the First Circuit of Hawaii by Governor David Ige. She initially worked in the Family Court Division and then in 2023 shifted to the Criminal Division. Over the course of her tenure, Park has presided over 21 jury trials, all in criminal cases.

Overall Assessment

Park’s Judiciary hearing attracted relatively little attention, and there is little reason to believe that this will change through the confirmation process. With Judge Kobayashi’s departure from active status still a year away, Park is almost certain to be confirmed well in advance of the vacancy opening.

42 CommentsLeave a comment

Micah Smith – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii

Micah Smith, a former SCOTUS clerk, and longtime federal prosecutor, would bring a star-studded resume to the federal bench.

Background

Born in Mill Hall, Pennsylvania in 1981, Micah Smith graduated summa cum laude from the Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania in 2003 and then received a J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 2006. After graduating, Smith clerked for Judge Guido Calabresi on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and then for Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court, in a clerk class that included Senator Josh Hawley, California Solicitor General Michael Mongan, and federal judge Rachel Kovner.

Smith subsequently joined the Washington D.C. Office of O’Melveny & Myers and in 2012 moved to be a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. In 2018, he shifted to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Hawaii, where he serves as Appellate Chief.

History of the Seat

Smith has been nominated for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. This seat will open when Judge J. Michael Seabright moves to senior status on January 30, 2024.

Legal Experience

After his clerkships, Smith started his legal career at the D.C. Office of O’Melveny & Myers. In this role, Smith worked primarily on appellate litigation, handling a wide variety of issue areas. This included briefing at the Supreme Court, where he was part of the legal team for Antoine Jones, who successfully challenged the attachment of a GPS tracking device on his vehicle under the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2011). Smith also represented the D.C. Public Charter School Board pro bono in defending its decision to revoke the charter of a failing school. See KIMA v. D.C. Public Charter School Board, 55 A.3d 894 (D.C. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2012).

Between 2012 and 2018, Smith worked as a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. Smith started as a line prosecutor with the office before advancing into a supervisory role. His notable cases with the office included a jury trial resulting in the conviction for conspiring to distribute crack cocaine in the Bronx. See United States v. Muir, 710 F. App’x 510 (2d Cir. Feb. 9, 2018). Smith was also co-lead counsel alongside fellow judicial nominee Margaret Garnett in the trial leading to the conviction of a defendant charged with ordering hitmen to murder his nephew. See United States v. Ventura, 673 F. App’x 82 (2d Cir. Dec. 15, 2016).

After moving to Hawaii in 2018, Smith has worked as a federal prosecutor. Smith has handled a number of supervisory roles with the office, to include the Criminal Civil Rights Coordinator and his current role as Chief of Appeals and Legal Strategy. While with the office, Smith notably prosecuted an individual for assaulting the patron of an illegal gambling business while working as security because the patron refused to share his winnings with him. See United States v. Siatunuu, No. 19-cr-00119 (D. Haw. 2019-21) (Judge J. Michael Seabright). In this representation, Smith litigated against Assistant Federal Public Defender Shanlyn Park, who has been nominated alongside him to the Hawaii federal bench.

Overall Assessment

While he is unlikely to get the support of his co-clerk sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Smith nonetheless is likely to sail to confirmation. Given his youth and stellar credentials, Smith would likely also be a strong contender for future elevation, including potentially when Judge Mark Bennett takes senior status.

100 CommentsLeave a comment

Colleen Holland – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York

The 39-year-old Holland has served for the last five years as a career law clerk to Chief Judge Elizabeth Wolford on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. Holland now has been nominated to join Wolford as a judge on the court.

Background

Born in 1984, Holland received a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science from the University of Rochester in 2006 and went onto earn her J.D. summa cum laude from Cornell Law School in 2010 (graduating first in her class). Holland then went into private practice, moving between Nixon Peabody LLP, LeClairRyan PC and Boylan Code LLP.

In between her private practice positions, Holland clerked for Judge Elizabeth Wolford and for Judge Michael Telesca on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.

Since 2018, Holland has served as a career law clerk for Chief Judge Wolford and also as special counsel for her since 2021.

History of the Seat

Holland has been nominated to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. This seat opened on April 1, 2023, when Judge Frank Geraci moved to senior status.

Legal Experience

Of the thirteen years that Holland has spent out of law school, she has spent more than half in the chambers of the Western District of New York, where she has served as a clerk and an advisor to the judges of the court, including in drafting “hundreds of judicial opinions.” However, as none of Holland’s work as a clerk bears her name, it is difficult to determine the exact nature of her work product.

Outside of her time at the Western District of New York, Holland has worked in commercial litigation in the Rochester area. Among her cases during this time, Holland represented Tumac Lumber Company in a contract dispute involving a failure to pay for delivered goods. See Tumac Lumber Inc. v. Chenango Valley Pet Foods, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-0698 (DEP) (N.D.N.Y. May 15, 2012). Holland also filed a breach of contract suit against Coupons.com, alleging that the site was using proprietary technology that was provided to them for use in evaluating a business relationship. See Document Security Sys. Inc. v. Coupons.com, Inc., No. 11-CV-6528-CJS (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2012).

Writings

As a law student, Holland authored a note discussing the increasing diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorders (“ASDs”) and the legal rights implicated for those diagnosed. See Colleen D. Holland, Autism, Insurance, and the Idea: Providing a Comprehensive Legal Framework, 95 Cornell L. Rev. 1253 (2009-2010), available at https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3183&context=clr. In the paper, Holland advocates for a new conception of ASDs, arguing that it is important to support the “actual, expressed needs of the autistic individual.” See id. at 1282.

Overall Assessment

It is not unprecedented for career law clerks to be appointed to the federal bench (Judge Frank Volk in West Virginia is another recent example), as many of the skills they develop on the job transfer over to the position of judge. However, as much of their work as a career law clerk is behind the scenes, it is difficult to gauge a nominee’s temperament or philosophy when they have spent a significant portion of their career as a career law clerk. When combined with Holland’s youth and the fact that she has spent over 4-5 years litigating, many may criticize Holland over a lack of judicial experience. As such, perhaps more than other nominees, Holland needs to watch out for “gotcha” moments at her confirmation hearing.

372 CommentsLeave a comment

Judge Ramona Manglona – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands

The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (“CNMI”), an unincorporated territory of the United States, is served by one federal Article IV court, which means that the judges who serve on the court don’t have lifetime tenure but are instead appointed for ten year terms. As such, the court is currently serving without a senate confirmed judge since Chief Judge Ramona Villagomez Manglona’s term expired on July 28, 2021. Two years later, President Biden has renominated Manglona to serve an additional ten year term.

Background

A native of the Mariana Islands, Manglona was born in Saipan on February 26, 1967. She subsequently attended the University of California at Berkeley, graduating with a B.A. in 1990 and then worked in her family’s real estate business before receiving a J.D. in 1996 from the University of New Mexico School of Law.

After graduation, Manglona clerked for the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands before joining the CNMI Attorney General’s Office in the criminal division. In 2001, Manglona shifted to the Civil Division and in 2002 was named Deputy Attorney General and later that same year became Attorney General (the first female attorney general in CNMI history).

In 2003, Manglona was named to the Northern Mariana Islands Superior Court. She held that position until 2011 when President Obama named her to succeed Judge Alex Munson on the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands. While Manglona’s term expired in 2021, she still serves on the court pursuant to a law permitting her to hold the post until a successor is confirmed.

History of the Seat

Manglona has been reappointed to replace herself on the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands. If confirmed, Manglona would serve an additional ten year term on the bench.

Legal Experience

Manglona has spent her entire career prior to taking the bench at the CNMI Attorney General’s Office. She has held a variety of positions with the office: the Criminal Division; the Civil Division; Deputy Attorney General; and as Attorney General. During this time, Manglona tried seven jury trials: five criminal; and two civil.

Manglona’s most notable criminal case involved the first prosecution for “shaken baby syndrome” in the Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Manila, Crim. No. 00-0509 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Oct. 21, 2001). Manglona led the prosecution of the defendant who was convicted after a jury trial and sentenced to sixty years in jail. Her most notable civil jury trial was in a Section 1983 lawsuit brought against three police officers on charges of police brutality, which ended in a jury verdict for the defendants on the pending counts. See Cabrera, et al. v. CNMI Dep’t of Public Safety, et al., Civ. No. 00-0022 (D.N.M.I. Dec. 18, 2001) (Hon. Alex R. Munson).

Jurisprudence

From 2003 to 2011, Manglona served on the Northern Mariana Islands Superior Court, a court of general jurisdiction that hears both civil and criminal cases. Manglona was also retained in a 2007 election to a full six year term. Through her tenure, Manglona presided over approximately 150 cases. Among her notable cases, Manglona presided over a request by Kazuyoshi Miura (a business whose case was dubbed the “O.J. Simpson case of Japan”) who was challenging an arrest warrant and extradition order to California for trial for the murder of his wife in Los Angeles. See In re Extradition Matter of Kazuyoshi Miura, Crim. No. 08-0030C (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Sept. 15 2008). Manglona denied Miura’s motion for a writ of habeas corpus and authorized his extradition to California.

As part of her role, Manglona also sat as Justice Pro Tem on the Guam Supreme Court and as a Judge Pro Tem on the Guam Superior Court.

Since 2011, Manglona has served as the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands. Of her notable decisions in that court, Manglona held that a limitation issued by the Commonwealth limiting voting in certain elections to individuals of “Northern Marianas descent” constituted a race-based restriction in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment. See Davis v. Commonwealth Election Comm’n, 844 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2016). This decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. See id. In another notable decision, Manglona held that a challenge by environmental groups to the relocation of training ranges onto Guam was barred by the “political question” doctrine. See Tinian Women Ass’n v. United States Dep’t of Navy, 976 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2020). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, but held that it should be for lack of standing, finding that the relocation was based on a treaty with Japan, which rendered the claims non-redressable. See id. at 834.

Overall Assessment

In 2011, Manglona was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to serve on the federal bench on the Northern Mariana Islands. Her record reflects little that should change that assessment. While judicial confirmation is significantly more partisan today than it was even a decade ago, a failure to confirm Manglona would not keep her off the bench as she could continue to serve until a successor was confirmed. As such, it is likely that, while Manglona will likely attract more opposition today than she did in 2011, she will likely be confirmed in due course.

196 CommentsLeave a comment

Rich Federico – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

The Kansas-based vacancy on the Tenth Circuit vacated by Judge Mary Briscoe in March 2021 is the oldest pending appellate vacancy on the federal judiciary. After the withdrawal of initial nominee Jabari Wamble, the White House is hoping for better luck with federal public defender Rich Federico.

Background

Richard E.N. Federico got a B.A.J. from Indiana University in 1999 and a J.D. from the University of Kansas School of Law in 2002. After graduating, Federico joined the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate Corps as a naval prosecutor, and shifted to being a defense counsel in 2008. In 2015, Federico became appellate defense counsel, while also serving as an Assistant Federal Public Counsel for the District of Oregon.

Since 2017, Federico has served at the Federal Public Defender’s Office for the District of Kansas, serving as Senior Litigator since 2020.

History of the Seat

Federico was tapped for a Kansas seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The seat was vacated by Judge Mary Briscoe’s move to senior status on March 15, 2021. The White House previously nominated federal prosecutor Jabari Wamble to fill the vacancy, and it preliminarily seemed that Wamble had a smooth path to confirmation. However, Wamble’s nomination was subsequently shifted to the U.S. District Court and then, in anticipation of a bad A.B.A. review, Wamble withdrew his nomination entirely.

Legal Career

Federico started his legal career as a naval prosecutor in the J.A.G. Corps, before switching to become a naval defense counsel in 2008. In the latter role, Federico served as defense counsel in the Office of Military Commissions, representing Guantanamo Bay detainees in trials before military tribunals for war crimes. See Lieutenant Commander Rich Federico, The Unusual Punishment: A Call For Congress to Abolish the Death Penalty Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for Unique Military, Non-Homicide Offenses, 18 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 1 (2013).

Since 2017, Federico has served as a federal public defender for the U.S. Public Defender’s Office for the District of Kansas. Notably, Federico represented Tyler Bariss, a Kansas man sentenced to 20 years in prison for a “swatting” attack that led to the death of Andrew Finch. See Steve Almasy and Melissa Alonzo, His ‘Swatting’ Call Led to the Death of a Man. Now He is Going to Prison for 20 Years, CNN.com, Mar. 30, 2019, https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/us/swatting-suspect-20-year-sentence/index.html. Bariss plead guilty with both parties arguing sentence, with prosecutors requesting 25 years, while Federico requested 20. See id. Judge Eric Melgren went with the defense request, which was still well above the sentencing guidelines, which recommended 10 years. See California Man Behind ‘Swatting’ Call That Led to Fatal Shooting Gets 20 Years, CBS.com, Mar. 30, 2019, https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/california-man-swatting-call-fatal-shooting-gets-20-years/.

Political Activity

Federico has only two political donations to his name, one in 2020 to Democratic Presidential candidate Amy Klobachar, and one in 2022 to Republican Attorney General candidate Tony Mattivi.

Statements and Writings

In 2013, Federico authored a notable paper urging for the limited abolition of the death penalty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, arguing to limit the penalty to homicide crimes. See Lieutenant Commander Rich Federico, The Unusual Punishment: A Call For Congress to Abolish the Death Penalty Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for Unique Military, Non-Homicide Offenses, 18 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 1 (2013). Federico’s paper outlines the history of executions in military justice, and has been cited by the D.C. Circuit. See Jackson v. Modly, 949 F.3d 763, 771 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 2020).

In 2015, Federico testified as a witness before the Judicial Proceedings Subcommittee of the U.S. Department of Defense Judicial Proceedings Panel. Among the issues the panel was focused on was the rewriting of sexual assault statutes in order to make them more workable. In his testimony, Federico urged the definition of the term “incapable of consenting” in the statute as it relates to impairment from substances such as alcohol. Testimony starts at P. 253 line 15 (https://texasdefenselawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Transcript-2-1.pdf).

Overall Assessment

After the failure of the Wamble nomination, Federico has at least received a warm reception from his home state senators. Despite having served in court-appointed defense for the past fifteen years, Federico’s military background as well as his support of Mattivi should insulate him from claims that he is strongly left-wing.

608 CommentsLeave a comment

Judge Jeffrey Bryan – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Judge Jeffrey Bryan has a long history in the Minnesota legal community, having practiced law here for over a decade and then spent another decade as a state court judge. Bryan is now poised to join the federal bench.

Background

Bryan was born in El Paso, Texas, on April 16, 1976. Bryan attended the University of Texas at Austin, receiving a B.A. in 1998. He then attended Yale University Law School, graduating in 2002.

After graduation, Bryan clerked for Judge Paul Magnuson on the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. He then joined the Minneapolis office of Robins Kaplan LLP as an associate. In 2007, Bryan left the firm to become a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota.

In 2013, Democratic Governor Mark Dayton appointed Bryan to a seat on the 2nd Judicial District of Minnesota, which covers Ramsey County (St. Paul).

In 2019, Governor Tim Walz appointed Bryan to the Minnesota Court of Appeals to replace Judge Heidi Schellhas. He continues to serve on that court to this day.

History of the Seat

Bryan has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to replace Judge John Tunheim, who will take senior status upon appointment of a successor.

Legal Career

Bryan began his legal career as an associate at Robins Kaplan LLP, where he worked on complex civil litigation. However, Bryan also represented indigent clients as part of appointments as a Special Assistant Public Defender. See, e.g., State v. Fenning, No. A04-275 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).

In 2007, Bryan shifted to become a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota, where he worked on white collar, gang, and drug trafficking cases. See, e.g., United States v. Mims, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (D. Minn. 2008). Bryan also argued cases before the Eighth Circuit. See, e.g., United States v. Ybarra, 580 F.3d 735 (8th Cir. 2009) (affirming conviction for conspiracy to distribute marijuana).

Jurisprudence

Bryan was appointed to be a District Court judge in St. Paul by Governor Mark Dayton in 2013 to replace Judge J. Thomas Mott. In this role, he served as a primary trial judge, supervising criminal and civil cases. Bryan also served at Co-Chair of the Ramsey County Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative.

In 2019, Governor Tim Walz appointed Bryan to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, replacing Judge Heidi Schellhas, and Bryan has served on the court since. Of his recent opinions from the Court of Appeals, Bryan reversed a district court decision denying a motion for postconviction relief, finding that the district court had erred in finding that the claim was procedurally barred. See Edwards v. State, No. A22-1221 (Minn. Ct. App. 2023).

Writings

In 2006, Bryan authored an article discussing the intersection of feminism and Christianity. See Jeffrey M. Bryan, Sexual Morality: An Analysis of Dominance Feminism, Christian Theology, and the First Amendment, 84 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 655 (2006-2007). Specifically, Bryan discusses the role of Christian feminists in narrowing a gap between Christianity and feminism, and outlines points of convergence that can be found. See id.

Overall Assessment

Senator Amy Klobuchar has had a significant degree of success in ensuring the smooth confirmation of judges in her home state. Based on his record, there is little to suggest that Bryan will be an exception, and it is expected that Bryan will join the Minnesota bench before the end of the year.

37 CommentsLeave a comment

Judge Joshua P. Kolar – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

After the smooth confirmation that Judge Doris Pryor saw to an Indiana seat on the Seventh Circuit, the Biden Administration has tapped another Indiana magistrate judge, Judge Joshua Kolar, to fill a second seat on the Seventh Circuit.

Background

Kolar received a B.A. from Northwestern University in 1999 and a J.D. from Northwestern University Law School in 2003.

After graduating law school, Kolar joined Mayer Brown as an associate, with a year hiatus clerking for Judge Wayne Anderson on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In 2007, Kolar then joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Indiana, rising to become the National Security Head in 2015 (after a year in active duty in Afghanistan).

In 2019, Kolar was appointed to be a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, where he currently serves. Kolar also serves as a Lieutenant Commander for the U.S. Navy Reserve.

History of the Seat

Kolar has been nominated for an Indiana seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. This seat opened upon the death of Judge Michael Stephen Kanne on June 16, 2022.

Legal Career

While Kolar started his career at the firm of Mayer Brown, he spent the most significant portion of his pre-bench career at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Indiana.

While at the office, Kolar handled a number of appeals before the Seventh Circuit. See, e.g., United States v. Allday, 542 F.3d 571 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming conviction and sentence for receiving sexually explicit images and videos of minors). For example, Kolar argued to defend sentences imposed against two codefendants in a bank robbery case. See United States v. Quintero, 618 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2010). The codefendants challenged the sentence they received, with one claiming that he failed to receive a guidelines reduction for acceptance of responsibility, while the other argued that her guidelines were improperly calculated. The Seventh Circuit, however, affirmed the sentences in both cases. See id. In another case that Kolar argued before the Seventh Circuit, the court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion for resentencing after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal sentencing guidelines were advisory. See United States v. Guyton, 636 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. 2011).

Political Activity

Kolar has a handful of political donations to his name, including two to Senate Majority Leader Richard Durbin and two to Presidential candidate John Kerry, both Democrats.

Jurisprudence & Reversals

Since 2019, Kolar has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. In this role, he presides over settlement, preliminary hearings, bail, and any cases where the parties consent to his jurisdiction.

Among the notable cases that Kolar has handled as a magistrate, he partially denied a motion by attorneys for former Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner seeking dismissal of all claims by Brian Vukadinovich, who argued that Posner owed him $170,000 for his work at the Posner Center for Justice for Pro Ses. See Jacqueline Thomsen, Court Says Former Judge Posner Should Face Some Claims in Wage Case, Reuters, June 22, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/court-says-former-judge-posner-should-face-some-claims-wage-case-2023-06-22/.

In a notable opinion, Kolar remanded a damages claim against State Farm Insurance back to state court, noting that the defendant filed to meet the 30-day clock for removing the case to federal court. See Tedesco v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 599 F. Supp. 3d 750 (N.D. Ind. 2022).

In another notable opinion, Kolar denied a motion to quash a subpoena filed for records of a psychotherapist who counseled the plaintiff, declining to answer the novel legal question of whether a psychotherapist-patient privilege existed in Indiana, but instead noting that, even if the privilege existed, it had been waived. See Doe v. Purdue Univ., Cause No. 2:17-CV-33-JPK (N.D. Ind. Jan. 11, 2021).

Overall Assessment

As of this point, Judge Kolar looks likely to share the smooth confirmation that his fellow magistrate had last year. There is little in his background that is likely to ignite opposition, and his military background is also likely to draw support. As such, it is fairly likely that Kolar will be confirmed before the end of the year.

74 CommentsLeave a comment

Judge Eumi Lee – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

A year after naming Judge Trina Thompson to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, President Biden has nominated her Alameda County colleague, Judge Eumi Lee, to join her on the Northern District bench.

Background

Lee got her B.A. from Pomona College in 1994 and her J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1999. After graduating, Lee clerked for Judge Jerome Turner on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and then for Judge Warren Ferguson on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Subsequently, Lee joined Keker & Van Nest, shifting in 2005 to become a Clinical Professor of Law at the University of California College of Law, San Francisco (formerly UC Hastings). In 2018, Lee became a Superior Court Judge in Alameda County, where she currently serves.

History of the Seat

Lee has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to a seat vacated on May 17, 2023, by Judge William Orrick.

Legal Experience

Lee started her legal career in private practice at the firm of Thelen Reid & Priest, further moving to Keker & Van Nest. During her time in private practice, Lee represented the French company Societe Commerciale Toutelectric in an appeal from a default judgment imposed after striking its answer as a discovery sanction for failing to produce three witnesses for deposition. See Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Societe Commerciale Toutelectric, 104 Cal. App. 4th 406 (2002). The appellate court affirmed the sanction and the default judgment. See id.

While at Keker & Van Nest, Lee was part of the legal team representing Cobra Solutions, Inc., which successfully sued to have San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera disqualified from an investigation of the company as Herrera had previously worked at a firm that had represented Cobra Solutions. See San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc.,135 P.3d 20 (Cal. 2006). After the trial court disqualified the City Attorney’s office and a divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed, the California Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision by Justice Joyce Kennard, affirmed the disqualification of the entire office. See id.

Lee subsequently spent thirteen years as a clinical professor of law at the University of California College of Law, San Francisco (formerly UC Hastings), where she co-founded the Hastings Institute for Criminal Justice.

Jurisprudence

Since 2018, Lee has served as a judge on the Alameda County Superior Court. In this role, Lee presides over trial court matters in criminal, civil, family, and other state law matters. Lee was the first Korean American judge in Alameda County.

Statements and Writings

As a law professor, Lee has frequently written on spoken on issues in the law. Early in her time as a professor, Lee joined a Comment urging retention of robust protections under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) in response to a Request for Information issued by the Department of Labor under President George W. Bush.

Lee has written extensively on prison populations in California, the parole system, and the recurring problem of recidivism. Compare Eumi K. Lee, The Center to Real Reform? Political, Legal, and Social Barriers to Reentry in California, 7 Hastings Race and Poverty L.J. 243 (2010) with Eumi K. Lee, An Overview of Special Populations in California Prisons, 7 Hastings Race and Poverty L.J. 223 (2010). As part of her writing on criminal justice issues, Lee has been a sharp critic of the proliferation of websites publishing booking photos and keeping them up barring payment to take the photos down. See Eumi K. Lee, Monetizing Shame: Mugshots, Privacy, and the Right to Access, 70 Rutgers U.L. Rev. 557 (2017-2018). Lee has argued that such websites essentially ensure that the subjects are forever tainted by the arrest, when where the charges are eventually dropped. See Olivia Solon, Haunted By a Mugshot: How Predatory Web Sites Exploit the Shame of Arrest, Taipei Times, June 18, 2018, https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2018/06/18/2003695058.

Political Activity

Lee has been a frequent donor to Democratic Party candidates throughout her career. California Attorney General Rob Bonta has been a frequent recipient of donations from Lee, having received around $1800 total.

Overall Assessment

If confirmed, Lee would join a federal court that already has a reputation as one of the most liberal in the nation. Lee’s record, while demonstrating her experience and scholarship with various areas of law, also suggests that she would sit within the liberal mainstream of that court. While Lee is likely to draw strong opposition through the confirmation process, she should nonetheless see confirmation by the end of the year.

41 CommentsLeave a comment