Court of Appeals

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 Irma Carrillo Ramirez – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

U.S. Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez was tapped for the federal bench late in the Obama Administration. Despite support from Texas Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, Ramirez was never confirmed. Today, with Cornyn and Cruz supporting her again, President Biden has tapped Ramirez for the Fifth Circuit.

Background

Born in 1964 to a family of immigrants from Mexico, Irma Carrillo Ramirez graduated from West Texas A&M University in 1986 and received a J.D. from the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law in 1991.

After graduating, Ramirez spent four years at Locke Purnell Rain Harrell P.C. in Dallas (now Locke Lord LLP), before becoming a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas.

In 2002, Ramirez became a federal magistrate judge with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. She serves in that capacity today.

On March 15, 2016, President Obama nominated Ramirez to replace Judge Terry Means on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. While Ramirez received a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 7, 2016, the Committee never voted her nomination out, and Ramirez was never confirmed. President Trump did not renominate Ramirez, instead filling the seat with Judge Ada Brown.

History of the Seat

Ramirez has been nominated for a Texas seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. This seat opened on August 31, 2022 with Judge Gregg Costa’s resignation from the court. Ramirez, who is eight years older than Costa, was recommended for the position by Texas senators Cornyn and Cruz.

Legal Career

Ramirez started her career in private practice in Dallas, primarily practicing commercial and employment litigation. For example, Ramirez was part of the legal team defending the Service Merchandise Company in a employment discrimination lawsuit brought by a plaintiff who was fired for allegedly harassing female employees. See Manison v. Service Merchandise Co., No. 3:02-cv-909-R (N.D. Tex.) (Buchmeyer, J.).

From 1995 to 2002, Ramirez worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Dallas, starting in the Civil Division and then moving to the Criminal Division. On the civil side, Ramirez defended the Department of the Interior in a multi-plaintiff reverse race and gender discrimination lawsuit, which ended with a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. See Arnold, et al. v. Babbitt, 213 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 2000) (appeal from jury trial verdict on attorney’s fees). On the criminal side, Ramirez led the prosecution of ten codefendants for the manufacturing and distributing of methamphetamines. See United States v. Adds, et al., No. 3:01-CR-93-P (N.D. Tex.) (Solis, J.).

Jurisprudence

For the past twenty years, Ramirez has served as a magistrate judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. In this role, Ramirez has presided over discovery disputes, as well as making reports and recommendations and handling agency appeals. Ramirez also presides over civil cases with the consent of the parties. Notably, Ramirez presided over a three-day bench trial over a failure to police lawsuit brought against the City of Dallas, ultimately ruling for the defendants, a decision that was affirmed on appeal. See Cox v. City of Dallas, 430 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 2005), reh’g en banc denied, 160 F. App’x 163 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1130 (2006). In another trial, Ramirez presided over a breach of contract bench trial and awarded judgment to the plaintiff on primary claims and to the defendant on a counterclaim. See Always at Market, Inc. v. Girardi, et al., 2009 WL 1033650 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2009).

In more recent decisions, Ramirez recommended the dismissal of a wrongful death lawsuit filed against the City of Dallas by the family of Botham Jean, who was shot and killed by Amber Guyger, then serving as a Dallas police officer. See Jim Schutze, Dallas Can Grieve for Botham jean Without Bowing to Shame, Dallas Observer, Oct. 9, 2019, https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/grief-for-botham-jean-does-not-require-shame-from-dallas-11775689. Ramirez found that the complaint failed to allege a sufficient policy and pattern of behavior to overcome immunity from liability. See id.

Most of Ramirez’s decisions have been adopted and affirmed by district court judges and by the Fifth Circuit. Among her reversals, the Fifth Circuit reversed Ramirez’s ruling that overturned a final arbitration award in a contract dispute, ruling for the defendant that the arbitration award should be confirmed. See OMG, LP v. Heritage Auctions Inc., 11 F. Supp. 3d. 740 (N.D. Tex. 2014), aff’d in part, rev’d in part and remanded by 612 F. App’x 207 (5th Cir. 2015).

Overall Assessment

With over three decades of legal experience and two decades on the bench, Ramirez has developed strong ties to the Dallas legal community. With the support of her home-state senators, she can expect a fairly smooth confirmation.

273 CommentsLeave a comment

Judge Ana de Alba – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

In December 2022, Judge Paul Watford shocked the legal community by announcing that, at the age of 55, he was stepping off the prestigious U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to return to private practice. The Biden Administration, however, has put forward a nomination fairly quickly, Judge Ana de Alba.

Background

Born Ana Isabel de Alba in 1979, the daughter of immigrant farmworkers, de Alba received her B.A. from the University of California Berkeley in 2002 and her J.D. in 2007 from the UC Berkeley School of Law. While a law student, de Alba worked with elementary and middle school students on mock trials. See Minerva Perez, Pupils Convene Court, Los Banos Enterprise, Mar. 30, 2007 After law school, de Alba joined Lang Richet & Patch PC. She also continued her work with mock trial. Thaddeus Miller, Mock Trial Enlightens View of Future for Los Banos Sixth-Graders, Los Banos Enterprise, Mar. 16, 2012. In 2018, de Alba was appointed to the Fresno County Superior Court by Governor Jerry Brown. On January 19, 2022, President Biden nominated de Alba to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. She was confirmed on June 21, 2022, and has served on the Eastern District since.

History of the Seat

de Alba has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to a seat that will be vacated by the resignation of Judge Paul Watford on May 31, 2023.

Legal Experience

Other than a brief stint at the ACLU Immigrants Rights Project, de Alba spent her entire career before becoming a judge at Lang Richet & Patch PC. Among her work there, de Alba represented a credit union in a suit by borrowers alleging promissory fraud that went up to the California Supreme Court. See Riverisland Cold Storage Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Product, 55 Cal. 4th 1169 (Cal. 2013). The California Supreme Court overruled a prior ruling limiting the use of “parol evidence” (evidence of verbal or written agreements outside the language of a contract) in cases of promissory fraud. See id. at 1172. Additionally, while at the firm, de Alba received the Jack Berman Award of Achievement from the California Young Lawyers’ Association in 2012 for her pro bono work, including serving on the Board of Directors for Central California Legal Services, Inc. California Lawyers, Judges to Receive Awards for Legal Service and Excellence, Targeted News Service, Oct. 4, 2012.

Jurisprudence

State Court

Since 2018, de Alba has served as a Superior Court judge in Fresno County. In this role, she presides over civil, criminal, and domestic cases. Among the matters she handled on the bench, de Alba presided over a suit by the American Chemistry Council alleging that California had improperly listed SPF systems using methylene diphenyl diisocynates (MDI) as priority products for the state’s green chemistry program, restricting their commercial use. See Judge Questions Core ACC Claim in Suit Over DTSC Spray Foam Listing, Inside Cal/EPA, Jan. 15, 2021. de Alba ordered the delisting of the challenged products, while rejecting three other challenges. Judge Scraps California DTSC’s Spray Polyeurethane Foam Listing, Inside Cal/EPA, Apr. 2, 2021. California’s appeal of the ruling is currently pending. California Urges Appellate Court to Uphold Green Chemistry Product Listing, Inside Cal/EPA, Feb. 4, 2022.

Additionally, during the COVID-19 pandemic, de Alba gained some news attention for her rulings relating to scheduling and court compliance. In one ruling, de Alba refused to extend or excuse deadlines for a defendant’s community service, noting that she had seen no evidence that the defendant had worked towards the service before the pandemic hit. See Jeannette Parada, COVID-19 or No COVID-19, Fresno Judge Wants Defendant’s Community Service Done – Or It’s Jail, The People’s Vanguard of Davis, June 29, 2020. In another case, de Alba withdrew bench warrants that had been issued for defendants who failed to appear, noting that they did not have access to steady housing or transportation, and allowed them to participate virtually. See Phoebe Glick, Coronavirus Court Precautions Can Lead to Unforeseen Complications, The People’s Vanguard of Davis, Aug. 7, 2020.

In other rulings, de Alba found probable cause that a defendant had committed an act of domestic violence based on the testimony of the reporting officer. See Angelina Caplanis, Defender Argues Victim Lied on 911 Call; Judge Still Finds Probable Cause for Arrest, The People’s Vanguard of Davis, July 15, 2020.

Federal Court

Since her confirmation in June 2022, de Alba has served as a U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California. In this role, de Alba has handled both civil and criminal cases. Among the civil cases she has handled, de Alba adopted a magistrate’s recommendation and declined to grant summary judgment against a pro se civil rights plaintiff for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Tran v. Smith, Case No. 1:19-cv-00148-ADA-SAB (PC). de Alba also granted a plaintiff’s motion to amend a breach of contract lawsuit against the City of Fresno. See David Taub, Granite Park Operator Adds New Accusations in Lawsuit vs. City, Elected Leaders, GV Wire, Feb. 8, 2023, https://gvwire.com/2023/02/08/granite-park-operator-adds-new-accusations-in-lawsuit-vs-city-elected-leaders/.

In a notable dispute, defendants sought to have de Alba thrown off presiding over a wage theft class action suit brought against Anthony Vineyards, Inc., arguing that de Alba’s past legal work on behalf of farmworkers would render her biased. See Jane Mundy, California Ranch Operator Says Judge is Biased in Second Wage Theft Class Action, Lawyers and Settlements.com, Feb. 9, 2023, https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/legal-news/california_labor_law/california-ranch-operator-says-judge-biased-in-second-wage-theft-23686.html. However, their motion was ultimately denied. See Jennifer Bennett, Judge’s Past Employment Work Not Disqualifying in Wage Case, Bloomberg Law, Feb. 22, 2023, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/judges-past-employment-law-work-not-disqualifying-in-wage-case.

It appears that only one of de Alba’s opinions has received appellate review in her short tenure. In the opinion in question, the Ninth Circuit affirmed de Alba’s revocation of a defendant’s supervised release and her sentence of nine months. See United States v. Martinez, No. 22-10274 (9th Cir. Apr. 26, 2023).

Overall Assessment

Last year, de Alba had a relatively comfortable confirmation process, with few questions being raised and three Republican senators crossing party lines to support her. Based largely on her relatively uncontroversial tenure on the district court, there is little reason that her elevation should be different. However, appellate nominations always carry more contention and the absence of Senator Dianne Feinstein may slow down de Alba’s nomination somewhat. Nonetheless, Democrats still have more votes today than they did when de Alba was first confirmed, and she is strongly favored to be confirmed comfortably.

170 CommentsLeave a comment

Michael Delaney – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Former New Hampshire Attorney General Michael Delaney has built a wide variety of legal experience that equips him for a federal appellate position.

Background

Born in Danvers, Massachusetts on July 19, 1969, Michael Delaney received a bachelor’s degree in political science from the College of the Holy Cross in 1991 and then received a J.D. from Georgetown University in 1994. Delaney subsequently joined Wiggin & Nourie in Manchester, New Hampshire.

In 1999, Delaney joined the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, being elevated to Deputy Attorney General in 2004. In 2006, Governor John Lynch, a Democrat, chose Delaney to be his Chief of Staff.

In 2009, Delaney was confirmed to be New Hampshire Attorney General, replacing Kelly Ayotte. He held that position throughout the Lynch Administration, leaving upon the election of Maggie Hassan in 2012. Since 2012, Delaney works with the Manchester office of McLane Middleton.

History of the Seat

Upon the recommendation of New Hampshire Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan, Delaney has been nominated for a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. This seat opened when Judge Jeffrey Howard took senior status on March 31, 2022.

Legal Experience

Delaney started his career at Wiggin & Nourie in Manchester, where he briefed and argued actions before the New Hampshire Supreme Court. See, e.g., Simonds v. City of Manchester, 141 N.H. 742 (1997). See also Mason v. Smith, 140 N.H. 696 (1996). He subsequently shifted to the New Hampshire Attorney General’s office, where he rose to become Senior Assistant Attorney General and Chief of the Homicide Division. As Assistant Attorney General, Delaney continued to argue before the New Hampshire Supreme Court. See, e.g., State v. Almodovar, 145 N.H. 541 (2000).

In 2006, Delaney became chief counsel for Governor John Lynch, a role which he held until he was appointed to be Attorney General.

From 2009 to 2012, Delaney served as the Attorney General of New Hampshire, an appointed position. In this role, Delaney:

  • Spoke out in favor of the death penalty in New Hampshire. See Kevin Landrigan, New Hampshire Commission Examines Costs to Carry Out Capital Punishment, The Nashua Telegraph, Dec. 5, 2009.
  • Supported a comprehensive plan to cut New Hampshire’s rate of prison recidivism, which included increased funding for treatment. See Kevin Landrigan, New Hampshire Panel Backs Plan to Reduce Prison’s Revolving Door, The Nashua Telegraph, Feb. 9, 2010. The plan was signed into law by Lynch. Kevin Landrigan, Lynch Inks Sweeping Jail Reform Bill, The Nashua Telegraph, July 1, 2010.
  • Opposed expanded gambling in New Hampshire. See Kevin Landrigan, Governor Cites Casino Concerns, The Nashua Telegraph, Mar. 26, 2010.
  • Secured a $60,000 settlement after a 2009 oil spill on the Souhegan river. See Kathy Cleveland, 2 Oil Firms to Pay $60K to ‘09 Spill, The Nashua Telegraph, Feb. 9, 2010.
  • Fought efforts by the Republican state legislature to force his office to challenge the Affordable Care Act in court. See Kevin Landrigan, Legislative Lawyers, AG Before Court, The Nashua Telegraph, May 24, 2011. The New Hampshire Supreme Court sided with Delaney and indicated that he did not need to join the lawsuit.
  • Criticized “stand your ground” laws, arguing that they can lead to greater citizen harm. See Kevin Landrigan, No-Retreat Law Under Scrutiny, The Nashua Telegraph, Apr. 3, 2012.

Since 2013, Delaney has been in private practice. In this role, he was hired to conduct an independent review of Keene State College’s investigation and termination of Gino Vallante, who was accused of making sexually explicit remarks to members of the basketball team. See Meghan Foley, D.C. Lawyer Retained Plans to Investigate Keene State, New England College, The Keene Sentinel, N.H., May 8, 2014. Delaney’s report found a pattern of sexual harassment. Law Firm Report Sheds Some Light of Keene State Coaches’ Dismissals, The Keene Sentinel, N.H., Mar. 27, 2015.

Writings

While working as a Senior Assistant Attorney General, Delaney authored an article discussing a prosecutor’s ethical obligations when making media statements in relation to homicide prosecutions. See Michael A. Delaney, Attorney General Article: Public Comments from the Criminal Bureau: Navigating the Uncharted Waters of Professional Conduct Rule 3.6, 45 N.H.B.J. 49 (Spring 2004). In the article, Delaney notes that prosecutors are held to a higher standard as other attorneys with relation to trial publicity, given their roles as “ministers of justice.” See id. at *51.

Political Activity

Delaney has an extensive history of giving to New Hampshire Democrats, including Shaheen, Hassan, Lynch, and Rep. Chris Pappas.

Overall Assessment

Throughout his career, Delaney has developed expertise in both criminal and civil law, and is well-respected in the New Hampshire legal community. As such, he should be a relatively uncontroversial selection for the First Circuit.

121 CommentsLeave a comment

Anthony Johnstone – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

University of Montana Law Professor Anthony Johnstone has spent his career engaging with the law, including serving as Montana Solicitor General under then Attorney General Steve Bullock.

Background

Anthony Devos Johnstone was born in 1973 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Johnstone graduated from Yale University in 1995 and from the University of Chicago Law School in 1999 before joining the New York office of Cravath Swaine & Moore.

In 2004, Johnstone moved to Montana to join the Attorney General’s Office. In 2008, Johnstone was selected to be Montana’s State Solicitor, where he served until 2011.

Since 2011, Johnstone has served as a professor at the University of Montana Blewitt School of Law.

History of the Seat

Johnstone has been nominated for a future vacancy that will open upon his former boss Thomas’ move to senior status upon confirmation of a successor. Originally recommended for the vacancy by Sen. Jon Tester, Johnstone was nominated after interviews with Tester and Sen. Steve Daines and with the White House.

Legal Career

After clerking for Judge Sidney Runyan Thomas, Johnstone started his career at the New York office of Cravath Swaine & Moore.

From 2004 to 2008, Johnstone worked for the Montana Attorney General’s Office. In this role, he advised on the language of ballot initiatives, including a proposed initiative to ban same sex marriage. See Bob Anez, Gay Advocacy Group Attacks Same-sex Marriage Ban, A.P. State & Local Wire, Apr. 26, 2004. He also worked on advisory opinions, including one stating that county voters had the right to vote on closing a garbage incinerator. See Draft Opinion: Voters Have Right to Decide Fate of Incinerator, A.P. State & Local Wire, June 22, 2004. In this role, Johnstone also defended the constitutionality of prospective ballot measures in court. See, e.g., Matt Gouras, Another Legal Challenge to Spending Cap Heard Thursday, A.P. State & Local Wire, Sept. 14, 2006. Johnstone also argued before the Montana Supreme Court regarding misconduct by trustees for the art collection of Alberta Bair. See Susan Gallagher, State Supreme Court Weighs Fate of Museum on Montana Ranch, A.P. State & Local Wire, Nov. 1, 2007.

From 2008 to 2011, Johnstone worked as Montana’s State Solicitor, serving as Montana’s primary lawyer in court. In this role, Johnstone argued a number of cases before the Montana Supreme Court, including a ruling in which the Montana Supreme Court ruled that Montanans had the right to assisted suicide. See Baxter v. Montana, 2009 MT 449 (2009). Johnstone also argued that gay couples were not entitled to spousal benefits under state law because the statute limited them to married couples (gay marriage being banned in Montana at the time). See Matt Volz, Gay Couples Argue for Same Rights as Wedded People, A.P. State & Local Wire, Jan. 26, 2011.

Since 2011, Johnstone has served as a law professor, focusing on issues of constitutional law.

Writings

As a law professor, Johnstone has written and spoken extensively on the law. We cover some of the topics he has covered below.

Election Law and Campaign Finance

Election law is one of Johnstone’s expertises. He has testified before the Senate in support of campaign finance restrictions invalidated by the Supreme Court in its Citizens United decision. See Richard Hanners, Federal Judge Rules Against State Campaign Finance Limits, Hungry Horse News, Oct. 4, 2012. He also argue in favor of a resolution calling Citizens United wrongly decided at a debate between the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society. See Resolved: Citizens United Was Wrongly Decided, US Official News, May 4, 2015. He has also written on the negative impact of Citizens United on judicial elections. See Anthony Johnstone, A Past and Future of Judicial Elections: The Case of Montana, 16 J. App. Prac. & Process 47 (Spring 2015).

Criminal Law

On the criminal side, Johnstone commented on whether the Constitution’s Speedy Trial right applies to sentencing as well as trial. See Matt Volz, U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Speedy Trial Fight in Montana Case, A.P. State & Local, Mar. 24, 2016.

First Amendment

Johnstone has been critical of campus “free speech zones,” arguing that they necessarily imply that there are certain areas on campus where free speech was not protected. See Claire Shinner, Legislation Aims to Bolster Campus First Amendment Rights, Montana Kaimin: University of Montana, Feb. 23, 2021. Johnstone has also criticized legislative proposals that prevent the removal of students from groups for harassment, noting that they may prevent the university from enforcing its policies. See Mariah Thomas, Free-Speech Legislation Raises Discrimination Concerns, Montana Kaimin: University of Montana, Mar. 2, 2021.

Overall Assessment

Given the extensive nature of Johnstone’s writings and media comments, there is plenty for opponents to mine. Nonetheless, the bulk of his writings and legal experience makes Johnstone hard to pigeonhole as an ideologue. If Democrats hold the Senate, he will likely be confirmed comfortably.

10 CommentsLeave a comment

Jabari Wamble – 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 eighteen months without a nominee, the White House has put forward the name of federal prosecutor Jabari Wamble.

Background

Jabari Brooks Wamble got a B.A. from the University of Kansas in 2002 and a J.D. from the University of Kansas School of Law in 2006. After graduating, Wamble spent two years in the Johnson County District Attorney’s Office before becoming an assistant attorney general in Kansas.

In 2011, Wamble joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Kansas and has served there since.

Wamble is married to Marissa Cleaver, the daughter of U.S. Representative Emanuel Cleaver from Kansas City, Missouri.

History of the Seat

Wamble 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.

Legal Career

Wamble has spent his entire career in criminal prosecution, albeit at three different levels. He started his career at the Johnson County District Attorney’s Office. From 2007 to 2011, Wamble served in the Kansas Attorney General’s office. While at the Attorney General’s office, Wamble defended the conviction of Oliver McWilliams for Medicaid fraud. See State v. McWilliams, 283 P.3d 187 (Kan. 2012). While the Court of Appeals reversed McWilliams’ conviction, the Kansas Supreme Court reinstated it over the dissent of Justice Johnson.

Since 2011, Wamble has served as a federal prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Kansas. Among his notable prosecutions with the office, Wamble prosecuted Richard Ballard, who pleaded guilty to wire fraud for collecting investment for environmentally friendly bottled water and pet chews, and then using the funds for personal use.

Wamble has also briefed and argued a number of appeals before the Tenth Circuit. For example, he was counsel of record in a suit that affirmed the defendant’s conviction for failing to pay child support. See United States v. Fuller, 751 F.3d 1150 (10th Cir. 2014).

Overall Assessment

Despite his youth, Wamble has built a solid reputation during his legal career, which likely speaks to Kansas Senator Jerry Moran’s relatively positive reaction to the nomination of a young Democrat for the Kansas seat. See Hannah Albarazi, Biden’s 10th Cir. Pick Seen as Humble Yet Savvy Prosecutor, Law360, Aug. 11, 2002. While some may criticize Wamble for having leapfrogged more experienced candidates due to his connection to Cleaver, there is little to criticize in Wamble’s record itself. If Democrats make his nomination a priority, Wamble will likely be confirmed before the end of the Congress.

40 CommentsLeave a comment

Judge DeAndrea Benjamin – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Having lost a bitter battle to join the South Carolina Court of Appeals last year, Judge DeAndrea Benjamin has now been nominated for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Background

Born DeAndrea Gist in Columbia, South Carolina, in 1972, Benjamin received a B.A. from Winthrop University in 1994 and a J.D. from the University of South Carolina Law School in 1997. After graduating, Benjamin clerked for Judge L. Casey Manning on the Fifth Judicial Circuit of South Carolina. She then spent two years at the Fifth Judicial Circuit Solicitor’s Office and another two years at the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office before opening her own practice in 2001.

While practicing, Benjamin also worked part-time as a Columbia city judge and on the Juvenile Parole Board. In 2010, Benjamin narrowly lost an election in the South Carolina legislature to become a family court judge to Gwendolyn Young Smalls. See Small Bests Benjamin for Family Court Judge, S.C. Politics Today, Feb. 3, 2010. In 2011, Benjamin was appointed to be a Circuit Judge on the Fifth Judicial Circuit in a unanimous vote. See Wife of Columbia Mayor Elected Judge, A.P. State & Local Wire, Feb. 3, 2011.

Benjamin’s husband, Steve Benjamin is a prominent South Carolina Democrat who lost a race for Attorney General to (now Governor) Henry McMaster in 2002 and served as Mayor of Columbia from 2010 to 2022. In 2010, during the mayoral election, the Benjamins were criticized for listing two primary residences of their tax forms, which they explained was because they moved. See Tax Wars Dominate Capital City Mayoral Race, FITSNews For You, Apr. 17, 2010.

In 2013, Benjamin’s brother Donald Gist Jr. was tragically shot and killed in Charlotte, N.C. See SC Mayor’s Brother-in-Law Killed in Charlotte, A.P. Online, Dec. 7, 2013.

In 2021, Benjamin was up for a seat on the South Carolina Court of Appeals but lost after opposition from conservatives critical of her husband. See Judge and Columbia Mayor’s Wife Loses Partisan Judicial Race, A.P. State & Local, Feb. 3, 2021. The legislature selected Judge Jay Vinson instead.

History of the Seat

Benjamin has been nominated to replace U.S. Circuit Henry Floyd, who moved to senior status on December 31, 2021. Benjamin was recommended for the vacancy by U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, who is close to the Biden Administration.

Legal Experience

Benjamin has held a variety of positions throughout her legal career. She started her career at the Fifth Judicial Circuit Solicitor’s Office, where she handled criminal prosecutions in Richland and Kershaw counties. Subsequently, at the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office, she continued criminal prosecutions, including the sexual assault prosecution of York County Sheriff’s Deputy Tommy Benfield Sr. See Former Sheriff’s Deputy Indicted on Sex Charges, A.P. State & Local Wire, Sept. 23, 2000.

From 2001 to 2011, Benjamin worked as a solo practitioner in Columbia. Among the cases she handled during this time, Benjamin represented James McKinney, a teacher who sued an investigator with Richland County for arresting him on warrants not supported by probable cause. See McKinney v. Richland Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 431 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2005). After Judge Margaret Seymour denied summary judgment for the defendants, the Fourth Circuit reversed, finding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 419.

Benjamin also handled a number of employment discrimination suits, including that of Ada Irene Dawson, an African-American FBI agent who sued for racial discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation. See Dawson v. United States, 549 F. Supp. 2d 736 (D.S.C. 2008). Benjamin also represented Beverly Mahomes who sued the U.S. Postal Service for racial discrimination after her termination. See Mahomes v. Potter, 590 F. Supp. 2d 775 (D.S.C. 2008).

Jurisprudence

Benjamin has served as a South Carolina Circuit Court judge since her election in 2011. In this role, she serves as a trial judge handling both civil and criminal matters for the counties of Richland and Kershaw.

Among her criminal cases, Benjamin has shown a willingness to hand out harsh sentences. For example, she sentenced Brett Parker to two terms of life in prison after he was convicted of killing his wife and his business partner. See Judge Sentences Columbia Man to 2 Life Terms, A.P. State & Local Wire, May 29, 2013. She also sentenced Christopher Harmon to 20 years in prison for kidnapping and sexual assault. See North August Man Sentenced to 20 Years for 2017 Kidnapping, Sexual Assault Case, Aiken Standard, Dec. 19, 2019.

On the civil side, Benjamin dismissed a suit challenging South Carolina’s ban on online eye exams, finding the company had failed to plead an injury sufficient to give them standing to challenge the law. See Judge Dismisses Case Challenging Online Eye Exam Ban, Columbia Regional Business Report, Jan. 30, 2018. The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the requirements for standing had been met. See Opternative, Inc. v. S.C. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 859 S.E.2d 263 (S.C. App. 2021).

Benjamin also sat by designation on the South Carolina Supreme Court. See, e.g., Burch v. Burch, 717 S.E.2d 757 (S.C. 2011).

During her time on the circuit court bench, some of Benjamin’s decisions were appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals and the South Carolina Supreme Court. The majority of these decisions were affirmed. See, e.g., State v. Brown, 740 S.E.2d 493 (S.C. 2013) (affirming jury instructions given in larceny conviction). Some of the decisions that were reversed are highlighted below:

Lee v. Univ. of S.C. (757 S.E.2d 394 (S.C. 2014)) – The plaintiff contracted with the University to give him an opportunity to purchase football and basketball tickets throughout his lifetime in consideration for taking out a life insurance policy with the University as a beneficiary. The University subsequently began imposing seat license fees on all purchases, which the plaintiff challenged as a breach of contract. Benjamin ruled that the plaintiff was not being denied his contractual right of purchase by imposing the licensing fees. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed 4-1, finding that the payment of the licensing fee constituted an additional condition the University attempted to impose on a contract that did not require it. Justice Costa Pleicones would have affirmed.

Sanders v. State (773 S.E.2d 580 (S.C. 2015)) – The Defendant in the case agreed to waive all collateral review of any conviction in exchange for the state agreeing not to seek the death penalty. When the Defendant subsequently attempted to collaterally challenge his conviction, Benjamin dismissed the challenge under the agreement. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed, finding that Benjamin should have convened an evidentiary hearing to confirm if the Defendant’s attorney was constitutionally defective in advising him to consent to the agreement.

Lucero v. State (777 S.E.2d 409 (S.C. App. 2015)) – The Defendant challenged her conviction for drug trafficking collaterally after an immigration judge ordered her removed based on the conviction. Benjamin granted post-conviction relief based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, which found that defense counsel needed to advise non-citizens of immigration consequences from their pleas. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the Padilla decision could not be applied retroactively to the Defendant’s case.

State v. Stukes (787 S.E.2d 480 (S.C. 2016)) – The Defendant was convicted of rape after a trial in which the complainant claimed that she was assaulted while the Defendant argued that the intercourse was consensual. Benjamin advised the jury, consistent with the statute, that the complainant’s statement need not be corroborated to be believed. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed 3-2, finding that, while the instruction was an accurate statement of the law, it confused the jury in this instance and was impermissible. Justice Kittredge dissented, finding any error to be harmless.

State v. Herndon (845 S.E.2d 499 (S.C. 2020)) – The Defendant, after a conviction for voluntary manslaughter, challenged Benjamin’s refusal to give the jury a Logan charge, or an instruction advising them as to how they should consider circumstantial evidence, as opposed to direct evidence. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed, finding that, as the state’s evidence was almost entirely circumstantial, the charge was required to be given.

Overall Assessment

Benjamin has had her share of judicial disappointment, including losing bids for the Family Court and the South Carolina Court of Appeals. While Benjamin may well draw opposition in her bid for the Fourth Circuit, her confirmation will largely be tied to what Sen. Lindsay Graham chooses to do. Graham, who has generally been one of the most friendly Republican senators to Biden nominees, could grease the path for his home-state nominee if he supports her. If Graham chooses to oppose Benjamin, however, it is unlikely that she would be confirmed.

37 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

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

Cindy Chung – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Cindy Chung currently serves as the chief federal prosecutor in Western Pennsylvania, and has now been tapped to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Background

Cindy Kyounga Chung was born in 1975 in Omaha, Nebraska. She attended Yale University, getting a B.A. in 1997. She spent two years as a Fellow at the Yale-China Association and then got a J.D. from Columbia Law School in 2002.

After law school, Chung clerked for Judge Myron Thompson on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama and then joined the New York District Attorney’s Office. In 2009, Chung moved to the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division as a trial attorney. In 2014, Chung became a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Chung was nominated in October 2021 to be U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania. She was confirmed by voice vote on November 19, 2021 and has served since then.

History of the Seat

Chung has been nominated to Judge D. Brook Smith’s seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Smith, a Republican, was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by President Ronald Reagan in 1988 and to the Third Circuit by President George W. Bush in 2002.

Legal Experience

Other than her clerkship, Chung has spent her entire legal career as a state and federal prosecutor. She started with the New York District Attorney’s Office, where she prosecuted rapper Foxy Brown for violating probation after assaulting two manicurists. Judge Wants More Info on Foxy Brown’s Ear Woes Before Deciding Whether to Let Her Out of Jail, A.P., Jan. 18, 2008. She also sought the dismissal of charges against a bicyclist who was charged with assaulting a police officer, after videotapes on Youtube showed little support for the assault. See Barbara Ross, Bicyclist in Cop-Shove Vid Pedals Away a Free Man, New York Daily News, Sept. 6, 2008.

In 2009, Chung became a trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice, where she litigated civil rights cases around the country. In one case, Chung prosecuted police officers involved in the cover-up after the Danziger Bridge shootings in New Orleans. See Michael Kunzelman, Ex-Cop Says He Helped Cover Up Katrina Shootings, A.P., July 11, 2011. In another notable case, Chung prosecuted a Pennsylvania police officer for tasering an inmate while he was banging his head against the cell door. See Rich Lord, Millvale Police Officer Pleads Not Guilty: Says Plaintiff Was on ‘Substance’, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 25, 2014. This prosecution went to trial, which resulted in the officer being convicted of civil rights violations. See Brian Bowling, Jurors Convict Officer of Civil Rights Violation, Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Nov. 20, 2014.

In 2014, Chung began serving as a federal prosecutor in Pittsburgh, where, among other cases, she brought to the judge’s attention that the defendant’s counsel was sleeping through large portions of the trial, leading to a mistrial. See Joe Mandak, Man Gets New Trial for Mortgage Fraud Because of Sleeping Lawyer, A.P., May 2, 2017. She also prosecuted felon in possession cases. See Adam Brandolph, Jury Weighs Gun Charges Against Baldwin Felon, Pittsburgh Tribune Review, May 21, 2015.

Additionally, Chung prosecuted Ryan Kyle under the 2009 Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act based on his assault of a black man at a Pittsburgh subway station. See Torsten Ove, Defendant to Serve Concurrent Prison Time for Federal Hate Crime, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Feb. 24, 2017. She similarly prosecuted Jeffrey Burgess for beating up an Indian man at a Red Robin. See Torsten Ove, Bethel Park Man Guilty in Hate Crime Beating of Indian Man, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Nov. 29, 2017. The two prosecutions were the first two ever to be brought in the Western District under the Shepard-Byrd Act. See id.

In 2021, President Joe Biden appointed Chung to be U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania. After she was unanimously confirmed by the Senate, Chung took charge of the federal prosecutions in Western Pennsylvania. While U.S. Attorney, Chung’s office indicted Zachary Dinell and Tyler Smith under the Shepard-Byrd Act for abusing residents of a special needs facility. See Torsten Ove, Pair Indicted on Hate Crime Charges; Prosecutors: Former Caretakers Beat Patients, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mar. 26, 2022.

Overall Assessment

Unlike Biden’s other Pennsylvania nominee to the Third Circuit, Chung has the support of both her home-state senators for elevation. That, combined with her painless and swift confirmation to her current post, makes it fairly likely that Chung will join the Third Circuit by the end of the Congress.

74 CommentsLeave a comment