Judge Anne Hwang – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Judge Anne Hwang currently serves on the Los Angeles County Superior Court. If confirmed to the federal bench, Hwang would bring a background in litigation and in indigent defense to the bench.

Background

Born in 1976, Anne Hwang received a B.A. from Cornell University in 1997 and a J.D. from the University of Southern California Law School in 2002. After graduating, Hwang worked as a litigation associate at Irell & Manella LLP for four years and then became a federal public defender with the Central District of California.

In December 2018, Hwang was appointed to the Superior Court for Los Angeles County by Governor Jerry Brown, where she has served since.

History of the Seat

Hwang has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to a seat vacated on November 3, 2023, by Judge George Wu.

Legal Experience

Hwang started her legal career at the firm of Irell & Manella LLP. While at the firm, Hwang represented NBC Studios in a contract dispute with the production company Sander/Moses . See Sander/Moses Prods. Inc. v. NBC Studios, Inc., 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 525 (Cal. App. 4th 2006).

Hwang spent the bulk of her career as a federal public defender based in Los Angeles. Notably, Hwang represented Veronica Garcia-Lopez who was convicted of illegally re-entering the United States after having previously been deported for trafficking 4.2 ounces of cocaine. See United States v. Garcia-Lopez, 691 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (C.D. Cal. 2010). Hwang was able to present sufficient mitigation to convince Judge Cormac Carney that the 41-51 month sentencing guidelines range was unduly harsh. See id. at 1101. Carney instead imposed a six month sentence on the defendant. See id. at 1105.

Jurisprudence

Since 2019, Hwang has served as a judge on the Los Angeles County Superior Court. In this role, Hwang presides over trial court matters in criminal, civil, family, and other state law matters. Notably, as a judge, Hwang dismissed a lawsuit brought against Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon and the probation department by the families of an officer fatally shot by an individual previously prosecuted and given a plea deal by Gascon. Judge Finds Issues with Suit’s Breach of Mandatory Duty Claims, My News LA, Sept. 11, 2023, https://mynewsla.com/crime/2023/09/11/judge-finds-issues-with-suits-breach-of-mandatory-duty-claims/#google_vignette. Hwang nonetheless allowed the plaintiffs to amend their suit. See id.

Hwang has also been active in the Korean American community as a judge, speaking, for example as a Korean American Bar Association event on implicit bias in 2022.

Overall Assessment

Having practiced both civil and criminal law in the Los Angeles area for two decades at this point, as well as serving as a sitting state court judge, Hwang can be deemed to have the experience needed to be a U.S. District Judge. Nonetheless, Hwang’s nomination is likely to draw opposition based on her extensive experience in indigent defense, which has proved to be contentious in the confirmation process.

Stacey Neumann – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine

Portland based attorney Stacey Neumann has distinguished herself over her career as a litigator and has now been tapped for a rare judicial vacancy in Maine.

Background

Stacey D. Neumann attended James Madison University, where she received a B.A. magna cum laude in 2000. Neumann subsequently received a J.D. magna cum laude from Cornell University in 2005 and then clerked for Judge John Dooley on the Vermont Supreme Court and then for Judge Peter Hall on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In 2007, Neumann joined the Office of the Defender General in Chittenden County, Vermont. In 2009, she moved to become an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Maine. In 2013, she left to go into private practice in Portland, where she currently serves as a Partner at Murray, Plumb, & Murray.

History of the Vacancy

Neumann has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine to replace Judge Jon Levy who took senior status on May 6, 2024.

Legal Career

Neumann started her legal career as a public defender in Vermont and then spent a few years as a prosecutor in Maine before joining Murray, Plumb, & Murray in 2013, primarily focused on civil rights law. At the firm, Neumann handled a significant pro bono docket, including asylum cases and employment discrimination suits. See Renee Cordes, Pro Bono Work a Labor of Love for Portland Attorney Stacey Neumann, Maine Biz, Feb. 4, 2019, https://www.mainebiz.biz/article/pro-bono-work-a-labor-of-love-for-portland-attorney-stacey-neumann. For example, Neumann represented a Black Lives Matter protester in a case that led to a settlement promoting restorative justice conversations. See id.

Among her more notable cases, Neumann was part of the legal team representing a student and his family in a suit against a Maine school district for violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. See Ms. S. v. Regional Sch. Unit 72, 829 F.3d 95 (1st Cir. 2016). In another notable case, Neumann represented Charlene Richard, a teacher who sued her school district claiming that she was retaliated against due to her advocacy on behalf of students with disabilities. Richard v. Regional Sch. Unit 57, 296 F. Supp. 3d 274 (D. Me. 2017). After a five day bench trial, Judge Chandler Woodcock ruled that Richard was unfairly targeted by the school but that such targeting did not violate the law. See id. at 308. The First Circuit eventually affirmed the ruling over the dissent of Judge Juan Torruella. See Richard v. Regional Sch. Unit 57, 901 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2018).

Political Activity

Neumann has a handful of political donations to her name, all to Democrats.

Writings and Statements

In 2019, Neumann was profiled in an article discussing her pro bono work in Maine. See Renee Cordes, Pro Bono Work a Labor of Love for Portland Attorney Stacey Neumann, Maine Biz, Feb. 4, 2019, https://www.mainebiz.biz/article/pro-bono-work-a-labor-of-love-for-portland-attorney-stacey-neumann. In the article, Neumann discusses some of her work, and speaks particularly highly of her asylum cases noting that success in those cases is “the most wonderful feeling in the world.” See id.

Overall Assessment

Neumann’s long history with the relatively insular Maine legal community as well as her significant litigation experience are likely to be assets through the confirmation process. As long as she maintains the support of her home state senators, Neumann should be confirmed comfortably.

April Perry – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

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

After her previous nomination be U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois stalled, April Perry has been nominated to be a U.S. District Judge on the court instead.

Background

April Perry graduated from Northwestern University in 2000 and got a J.D. magna cum laude from Northwestern University School of Law in 2003.

After graduation, Perry clerked for Judge Joel Flaum on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Perry then became a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois in 2004. In 2017, Perry left to become Chief Deputy State’s Attorney and Chief Ethics Officer for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office. In 2019, Perry left to join Ubiety Technologies as General Counsel. Since 2022, Perry serves as Senior Counsel at GE HealthCare.

History of the Seat

Perry has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This seat will open upon the elevation of Judge Nancy Maldonado to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Legal Career

Perry started her legal career as a law clerk for Judge Joel Flaum on the Seventh Circuit. Subsequently, Perry spent twelve years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois. During this time, Perry prosecuted Gregory Patzer for bank robbery. See United States v. Patzer, 548 F. Supp. 2d 612 (N.D. Ill. 2008).

From 2017 to 2019, Perry served as the Chief Ethics Officer for Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx. Perry’s time with the office overlapped with the prosecution of Jussie Smolett for making false reports of being targeted for a hate crime. See Andy Grimm, 2 Top Deputies of State’s Attorney Foxx, One Tied to Smollett Case, To Resign, Chicago Sun Times, Apr. 18, 2019, https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/4/18/18619800/2-top-deputies-of-state-s-attorney-foxx-one-tied-to-smollett-case-to-resign. Notably, Perry was critical of Foxx’s decision to assign the case to her First Assistant after her recusal, noting that a special prosecutor should likely have been appointed upon the recusal. See Ben Bradley, Top Foxx Official Said Recusal Wasn’t Right, WGN9, Apr. 17, 2019, https://wgntv.com/news/wgn-investigates/top-foxx-official-said-recusal-wasnt-right/. Perry subsequently resigned from the office. See Ben Bradley, Mysterious ‘Special Prosecutor Order’ Email in Smollett Case, Records Show, WGN9, Apr. 19, 2019, https://wgntv.com/news/wgn-investigates/mysterious-special-prosecutor-order-email-in-smollett-case-records-show/.

Perry has spent the last few years of her career in-house, starting with the Artificial Intelligence tech start up Ubiety Technologies, and more recently in GE HealthCare.

In 2023, Perry was nominated to be U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. Perry’s nomination was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in a bipartisan 12-9 vote but was blocked by Senator J.D. Vance from a final confirmation vote, remaining pending until it was withdrawn for her nomination to the federal bench.

Overall Assessment

While Perry’s nomination to be U.S. Attorney was stalled by Vance, it is likely that Democrats will prioritize Perry’s judicial nomination more during their limited floor time. As such, ironically, Vance’s blocking of Perry’s nomination may result in a lifetime appointment for her.

Judge Sarah Netburn – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Federal Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn has a long history as a litigator, handling a number of civil rights cases, as well as a judge, making her an experienced nominee for the federal bench.

Background

Sarah Netburn received her B.A. from Brown University in 1994 and then her J.D. from the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law in 2001. Netburn then clerked for Judge Harry Pregerson on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and then joined Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP as an Associate. In 2010, Netburn shifted to be the Chief Counsel for the Office of Pro Bono Litigation with the Southern District of New York.

In 2012, Netburn became a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of New York, where she currently serves.

History of the Vacancy

Netburn has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. This seat will open on December 31, 2024, when Judge Lorna Schofield takes senior status.

Legal Career

After her clerkship on the Ninth Circuit, Netburn spent the next eight years working at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, where she notably represented, alongside the Center for Constitutional Rights, a group of protesters arrested while protesting the war in Iraq. See Jim Dwyer, One Protest, 52 Arrests and a $2 Million Payout, N.Y. Times, Aug. 20, 2008, https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/assets/A7_08.20.08_NYTIMES.pdf.

Among other cases she handled, Netburn represented a group of inmates in the New York City correctional system who alleged that they were subjected to a pattern and practice of excessive force from correctional officers. See Ingles v. Toro, 438 F. Supp. 2d 203 (2d Cir. 2006). Netburn also represented proponents of a marijuana legalization initiative in challenging the rejection of the initiative from the ballot by the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office. See Am. Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Lomax, 471 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2006). Netburn has also represented the families of the victims of the Pan Am 103 terrorist attack in suing the Libyan government for supporting the terrorists. See Hurst v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya et al., 474 F. Supp. 2d 19 (D.D.C. 2007).

Jurisprudence

Netburn has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of New York since her appointment in 2012. As a Magistrate Judge, Netburn handles arraignments, pretrial release, discovery disputes, and settlement. She also writes Reports and Recommendations for District Judges, recommending, for example, that the Afghanistan Central Bank’s funds not be used to compensate the relatives of September 11th victims. See Tia Sewell, Magistrate Judge Recommends Court Reject Efforts to Turn Over Frozen Afghan Funds to 9/11 Families, Lawfare, Aug. 30, 2022, https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/magistrate-judge-recommends-court-reject-efforts-turn-over-frozen-afghan-funds-911-families.

Among the notable cases that Netburn has presided over, she is presiding over the Securities and Exchange Commission’s lawsuit against Ripple Labs, alleging that Ripple’s trading of cryptocurrency amounted to trading of unregistered securities. See Qadir AK, Good News! Pro-Crypto Judge Netburn Nominated in Ripple vs. SEC Case, CoinPedia, Apr. 25, 2024, https://coinpedia.org/news/ripple-vs-sec-how-sarah-netburns-nomination-could-shape-the-outcome/. In the suit, Netburn has been occasionally critical of the SEC’s litigation positions, ruling against them regarding access to internal agency documents. See Holly Barker, SEC Crypto Woes: Judicial Rebuke and a Critical Commissioner, July 19, 2022, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/sec-crypto-woes-judicial-criticism-and-a-critical-commissioner.

Overall Assessment

Netburn has, both as an attorney and as a judge, built up significant experience with litigation, including presiding over a fair number of complex cases. As such, Netburn should be favored for a comparatively smooth confirmation to the federal bench.

Brian Murphy – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Worcester criminal defense attorney Brian Murphy has been nominated to replace Judge Patti Saris on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Background

Born in 1979 in Columbia, Maryland, Murphy received a B.A. from The College of Holy Cross in 2002, and then obtained a J.D. from Columbia Law School in 2006. Murphy then spent three years as a public defender at the Committee for Public Counsel Services and then joined Todd and Weld LLP in Boston.

Murphy joined Murphy & Rudolph LLP in 2011 and currently works as a Partner there.

History of the Seat

Murphy has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, replacing Judge Patti Saris, who will take senior status upon the confirmation of a successor.

Legal Career

Murphy started his legal career as a public defender before shifting to the Boston firm Todd & Weld. While at the firm, Murphy represented defendants charged in a 67 count tax conspiracy. See United States v. Pingaro, 784 F. Supp. 2d 77 (D. Mass. 2011).

Murphy has spent the largest portion of his legal career at Murphy & Rudolph, representing criminal defendants in Worcester, Massachusetts. For example, Murphy petitioned the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to order that a transcript of grand jury instructions be produced for his client’s indictments. Robin v. Commonwealth, 480 Mass. 1025 (2018). In other cases, Murphy has represented defendants charged with selling cocaine, fentanyl and heroin in the Worcester area. See United States v. Cruz, 365 F. Supp. 3d 222 (D. Mass. 2019); United States v. Robles, 464 F. Supp. 3d 422 (D. Mass. 2020).

On the civil side, Murphy represented the Blackstone Headwaters Coalition in a suit alleging that the defendants were violating the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. See Blackstone Headwaters Coalition, Inc. v. Gallo Builders, Inc. et al., 410 F. Supp. 3d 299 (D. Mass. 2019). The suit was ultimately dismissed via summary judgment. See id.

Overall Assessment

Democrats are facing an increasingly tightening window for judicial confirmations before the end of the year. However, there is little in Murphy’s background that should cause him too much trouble in the confirmation process.

Detra Shaw-Wilder – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Recommended both by Sen. Marco Rubio and Florida House Democrats, Coral Gables attorney Detra Shaw-Wilder has now been nominated to fill the last vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Background

Detra Shaw-Wilder received a B.S. from the University of Florida in 1990 and a J.D. from the University of Miami School of Law in 1994. After graduation, Shaw-Wilder joined Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, where she became Managing Partner in 2015 and General Counsel since 2017.

History of the Seat

Shaw-Wilder has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to replace Judge Robert Scola, who took senior status on October 31, 2023. Shaw-Wilder was the only candidate that was simultaneously recommended for the federal bench in 2021 by Senator Marco Rubio and Florida House Democrats, but was not nominated in the 3 judge batch put forward in late 2023.

Legal Career

Shaw-Wilder has spent her entire legal career at the Coral Gables firm Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton where she currently serves as General Counsel. While at the firm, Shaw-Wilder has represented limousine drivers in a suit for overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. See Vidinliev v. Carey Intern. Inc. 581 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (N.D. Ga. 2008). Shaw-Wilder also represented three law firms in obtaining a large judgment against two attorneys for impropriety in settling various lawsuits. See Kane v. Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi, 197 So. 3d 137 (Fla. App. 4th Dist. 2016).

Shaw-Wilder has also handled a number of federal appeals, including persuading the Eleventh Circuit to reverse a default judgment against Costa Rican corporation Parrot Bay Village, for lack of jurisdiction over the defendant. See Oldfield v. Pueblo de Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2009).

Political Activity

Shaw-Wilder has a number of political donations to her name, all to Florida Democrats, including former federal judicial nominee Mary Barzee Flores during her run for Congress.

Overall Assessment

The last three nominations put forward to the Southern District with the support of Florida senators have sailed to confirmation. As of now, there is little reason to believe that Shaw-Wilder’s experience will be any different.

Jeannette Vargas – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Former Sotomayor clerk Jeannette Vargas has spent virtually her entire legal career on the civil side of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, which would serve her well if confirmed to be a federal district court judge on that court.

Background

Vargas received her B.A. from Harvard College in 1995 and her J.D. from Yale Law School in 2000. After law school, Vargas clerked for Justice (then Judge) Sonia Sotomayor on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, before joining Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett. In 2002, Vargas joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, serving as Deputy Chief of the Civil Division since 2016.

History of the Seat

Vargas has been nominated to the vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York vacated on August 9, 2023 by Judge Paul Gardephe’s move to senior status.

Political Activity

Vargas has made occasional political donations throughout her career, including donations to Biden and Hillary Clinton.

Legal Career

Vargas has spent virtually her entire legal career with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, where she worked in the civil division (currently serving as Deputy Chief). Among the notable matters she handled, Vargas represented the United States in litigation of Chrysler following the auto bailout in 2008. See In re Chrysler LLC., 576 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009). Vargas also represented the Central Intelligence Agency in defending against Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) claims brought by Amnesty International in seeking information about interrogation techniques. See Amnesty Int’l USA v. CIA, 728 F. Supp. 2d 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

In another notable case, Vargas sued a registered sex offender who was employed as a superintendent in various apartment buildings for violating the Fair Housing Act by subjecting numerous tenants to sexual harassment and sexual extortion. See United States v. Barnason, 852 F. Supp. 2d 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).

Relating to criminal cases, Vargas also worked to defend against habeas actions challenging denials of release from the federal parole commission. See, e.g., Crutchfield v. United States Parole Comm’n, 438 F. Supp. 2d 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

Vargas’ work has also involved arguing a number of appeals. For example, Vargas defended against suits brought by plaintiffs arguing that they were entitled to student loan forgiveness under the Higher Education Act of 1965, arguing that Judge Loretta Preska correctly dismissed the suits. See De La Mota v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 413 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2005). However, the Second Circuit reversed, finding that the plaintiffs were presumptively entitled to the student loan forgiveness. See id. at 74.

Most notably, Vargas represented the United States in defending successfully against FOIA claims brought by the New York Times seeking disclosure of CIA training programs in Syria and CIA treatment of detainees post-2001. See New York Times v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 939 F.3d 479 (2d Cir. 2019); New York Times v. CIA, 965 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2020).

Overall Assessment

Coming from a fairly conventional background without a record of controversial statements, Vargas’ biggest enemy for confirmation is likely the Senate’s limited calendar. As long as Democrats continue to prioritize judicial confirmations, Vargas should be confirmed in due course.

Sparkle Sooknanan – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Department of Justice attorney Sparkle Sooknanan is the White House’s second nominee to replace Judge Florence Pan on the D.C. District Court.

Background

A native of Trinidad & Tobago, Sooknanan moved to New York City at age 16 to attend St. Francis College, graduating summa cum laude in 2002. Sooknanan subsequently got an M.B.A. with Distinction from Hofstra College in 2003 and then started work at HIP Health Plan. Sooknanan continued working there while studying in the evenings at Brooklyn Law School, getting a J.D. summa cum laude in 2010.

After graduating, Sooknanan clerked for Judge Eric Vitaliano on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Guido Calabresi on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and then for Justice Sonia Sotomayor on the U.S. Supreme Court. Sooknanan then joined Jones Day, becoming a Partner in 2020. Sookanan subsequently left Jones Day and joined the U.S. Department of Justice, where she currently serves as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division.

History of the Seat

Sooknanan was nominated, based on the recommendation of Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, to replace Judge Florence Pan, who was elevated to the D.C. Circuit on September 28, 2022. President Biden had previously nominated D.C. Superior Judge Todd Edelman to replace Pan, but despite being approved by the Judiciary Committee multiple times, Edelman never received a floor vote and his nomination was not resubmitted to the Senate in 2024.

Legal Experience

Sooknanan started her career in practice with a brief stint at the Department of Justice between her lower court clerkships and her clerkship with Sotomayor. During this time, Sooknanan had the opportunity to argue before the Ninth Circuit on a Federal Tort Claims Act case. See Dichter-Mad Family Partners, LLP v. United States, 709 F.3d 749 (9th Cir. 2013).

Between 2014 and 2020, Sooknanan practiced at the firm Jones Day. At Jones Day, Sooknanan was part of the legal team representing Everytown for Gun Safety as amici in a suit challenging Colorado’s background check laws. See Colorado Outfitters Ass’n v. Hickenlooper, 823 F.3d 537 (10th Cir. 2016). Sooknanan also represented defendants challenging their convictions relating to the illegal smuggling of drugs (now Judge Trevor McFadden was one of the attorneys representing the government on the suit). See United States v. Mosquera-Murillo, 902 F.3d 285 (D.C. Cir. 2018). One of Sooknanan’s most intensive cases from this time was her involvement in a multi-party litigation related to bonds issued by the Employee Retirement System of the Government of Puerto Rico. See In re Financial Oversight & Manage. Bd. of Puerto Rico, 914 F.3d 694 (1st Cir. 2019).

Notably, Sooknanan, alongside fellow former Supreme Court clerks Benjamin Mizer and Parker Rider-Longmaid, filed amicus briefs in support of the City of Charlottesville’s decision to remove Confederate statues. See City of Charlottesville v. Payne, 856 S.E.2d 203 (Va. 2021). The Virginia Supreme Court ultimately reversed a Circuit Court ruling putting the removal on hold. See id. However, due to Jones Day’s challenges to Pennsylvania election accommodations for the pandemic, Sooknanan resigned from Jones Day.

Since 2021, Sooknanan has been with the Department of Justice, most recently working with the Civil Rights Division.

Political Activity

Sooknanan has a limited political history, including donations to Secretary Hillary Clinton and Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul.

Overall Assessment

While Sooknanan doesn’t have experience as a public defender as Edelman did, her nomination is likely to prove fairly controversial as well. Her resignation of Jones Day and her work at the Civil Rights Division is likely to draw strong conservative opposition. With an election approaching, it remains to be seen if Sooknanan will be muscled through while Democrats have the attendance to do so.

Georgia Alexakis – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

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

Georgia Alexakis currently serves as Criminal Appellate Chief at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago. She is favored to join the federal bench in the next few months.

Background

Georgia N. Alexakis graduated from Harvard University in 2000 and, after working as a consultant for three years, got a J.D. magna cum laude from Northwestern Priztker School of Law in 2006.

After graduation, Alexakis clerked for Judge Marsha Berzon on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and then for Judge Milton Shadur on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Alexakis subsequently joined Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP. Alexakis then became a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois in 2013 and stayed there until 2021 when she came a Partner with Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP. Alexakis rejoined the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 2022 and currently serves as Chief of Appeals of the Criminal Division.

History of the Seat

Alexakis has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This seat will open on August 1, 2024, when Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer will move to senior status.

Legal Career

Alexakis started her legal career as a clerk to Judges Marsha Berzon and Milton Shadur and was even shouted out by Judge Shadur in multiple opinions for her work. See Love v. Frontier Ins. Co., 526 F. Supp. 2d 859, 861 n.3 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (noting a debt to Judge Berzon for “one of this Court’s two fine law clerks this year, Georgia Alexankis”). See also Patino v. Astrue, 574 F. Supp. 2d 862, 873 n. 10 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (noting that this opinion is “public acknowledgment of the outstanding work that has always been done by my extraordinary law clerk Georgia Alexakis”).

Alexakis subsequently started at Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, where she worked on a multi-district litigation involving the potential contamination of U.S. rice crops with non-approved genetically modified strains. See In re Genetically Modified Rice Litig., 666 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (E.D. Mo. 2009). Alexakis also represented Bayer in defending another multidistrict litigation arising from the marketing of low-dose aspirin. See In re Bayer Corp. Combination Aspirin Prods. Mktg. and Sales Practices Litig., 701 F. Supp. 2d 356 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).

The largest portion of Alexakis’ legal career has been with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois. Early in her time with the office, Alexakis argued an appeal involving convictions for distribution of heroin and crack cocaine. See United States v. Chapman, 804 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 2015). In another case, the Seventh Circuit reversed a conviction in a case that Alexakis argued, finding that the district judge should have recused himself from the illegal entry case because he had been involved in the underlying deportation proceeding. See United States v. Herrera-Valdez, 826 F.3d 912 (7th Cir. 2016).

Alexakis has also prosecuted cases of sex trafficking, see, e.g., United States v. Carson, 870 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 2017), and mail fraud, see, e.g., United States v. Walton, 907 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 2018). More recently Alexakis defended on appeal the convictions against police officer Marco Proano, for shooting two passengers of a moving sedan. See United States v. Proano, 912 F.3d 431 (7th Cir. 2019). She also convinced the Seventh Circuit to reverse the sentence for Adel Daoud, who had attempted to blow up a fake bomb provided by an FBI agent, as substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Daoud, 980 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2020), re’hrg en banc denied by 989 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2021).

Overall Assessment

With extensive experience with both civil and criminal litigation, Alexakis should be a fairly uncontroversial choice for the federal bench.

Krissa Lanham – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Krissa Lanham, who currently serves as the appellate chief in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona, has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

Background

Krissa M. Lanham received a B.A. summa cum laude from Yale University in 2002 and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 2007. Lanham subsequently clerked for Judge Robert Chatigny on the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and then for Judge Barry Silverman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Lanham subsequently joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona, where she has served since, including as Appellate Chief since 2020.

History of the Seat

Lanham is being nominated to replace Judge Douglas Rayes, who has announced that he will take senior status on June 1, 2024.

Legal Career

Other than her clerkships, Lanham has spent her entire career at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona. Lanham currently serves as Appellate Chief for the office and has handled many appeals before the Ninth Circuit. Among the cases she has handled, Lanham has:

  • Argued to affirm the district court’s sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice. The Ninth Circuit disagreed due to a lack of factual finding by the district judge and remanded for re-sentencing. See United States v. Castro-Ponce, 770 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 2014);
  • Persuaded the Ninth Circuit not to quash a grand jury subpoena to Glassdoor (represented by now Ninth Circuit Judge Eric Miller). See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 875 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2017);
  • Defended the United States in a Federal Tort Claims Act suit alleging that the Federal Highway Administration caused the plaintiff’s father’s death. See Booth v. United States, 914 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2019);
  • Argued before the en banc Ninth Circuit in favor of a mandatory life sentence imposed upon the juvenile defendant for his role in a robbery that ended in murder. See United States v. Briones, 929 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc);
  • Argued to overturn a grant of habeas relief for a defendant sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause (later struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutionally vague). See United States v. Orona, 923 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2019);
  • Argued that a one-on-one communication can qualify as a “notice offering” child pornography under federal law. The Ninth Circuit agreed. See United States v. Cox, 963 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2020);
  • Argued successfully before the en banc Ninth Circuit to affirm that Second Degree Murder can qualify as a “crime of violence” under the Armed Career Criminal Act. See United States v. Begay, 33 F.4th 1081 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc);
  • Argued successfully to reverse Judge James Soto’s disqualification of the entire U.S. Attorney’s Office from a series of prosecutions based on allegations of potential misconduct against one prosecutor. See United States v. Williams, 68 F.4th 564 (9th Cir. 2023).

Writings

Starting with her time as a law student, Lanham has written multiple articles on the law, particularly in international law. For example, as a law student, Lanham wrote a paper discussing the standards of appellate review in the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals. See Krissa Lanham, “Elusive Abominations”: Standards of Appellate Review in the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals, Int’l Law Research & Writing (Apr. 20, 2007) (available at https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/17759/Krissa_Lanham___Standards_of_Appellate_Review.pdf?sequence=2). Lanham also co-authored a report on the failure of the judiciary in Indian-Administered Kashmir to handle human rights claims. See Manav Bhatnagar, Krissa Lanham, and Bidar Sharma, The Myth of Normalcy: Impunity and the Judiciary in Kashmir, Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic (April 2009) (available at https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Kashmir_MythofNormalcy.pdf).

More recently, Lanham has written to offer advice to advocates giving remote oral arguments during the Covid-19 pandemic. See Eric M. Fraser and Krissa Lanham, Remote Appellate Oral Arguments, Arizona Attorney (March 2021).

Political Activity

Lanham’s sole political donation of record is to Democratic Congressional candidate Lauren Baer in 2017, who was a classmate of Lanham’s at Yale Law School.

Overall Assessment

While Lanham’s entire legal career has been spent at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, she has racked up experience there on both the criminal and civil sides. Given this background, she will likely be comfortably confirmed to join the busy Arizona District Court.