The vacancy on the New Mexico District Court vacated by Judge Judith Herrera in 2019 is one of the longest pending judicial vacancies in the country. With the nomination of Matthew Garcia, the New Mexico district court is the closest it’s been in years to being fully staffed.

Background

Garcia received his B.A. from the University of New Mexico in 1999, a M.P.P. from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government in 2003, and a J.D. from the University of New Mexico School of Law in 2005. Garcia spent a year as a Fulbright scholar in Finland before joining Freedman Boyd Daniels Hollander Goldberg in Albuquerque as an associate.

In 2009, Garcia became a Partner with Bach & Garcia. In 2012, he shifted to become a Partner with Garcia Ives Nowara. In 2018, he became general counsel for incoming Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham in New Mexico. In 2020, he came Lujan Grisham’s chief of staff.

History of the Seat

Garcia has been nominated to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico vacated on July 1, 2019 by Judge Judith Herrera’s move to senior status. In May 2020, President Trump nominated Brenda Saiz to fill the vacancy. However, New Mexico’s Senators refused to return blue slips on Saiz due to the Trump Administration’s decision to push through a nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg upon her death. The Biden Administration then nominated Garcia.

Legal Career

Garcia started his legal career at the firm of Freedman Boyd Daniels Hollander Goldberg in Albuquerque. While at the firm, Garcia represented Auditor candidate Hector Balderas (currently New Mexico Attorney General) in a suit by the Republican Party by New Mexico blocking Balderas from replacing the previous Democratic party candidate on the ballot. See Johnson v. Vigil-Giron, 140 N.M. 667 (2006). Garcia also represented a water utility in a suit against the Dona Ana Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association, which was dismissed based on municipal immunity. See Moongate Water Co. v. Dona Ana Mut. Consumers Ass’n, 145 N.M. 140 (2008).

In 2009, Garcia shifted to Bach & Garcia, where he worked on insurance litigation. See, e.g., Jordan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 149 N.M. 162 (2010).

In 2012, Garcia became a Partner at Garcia Ives Nowara. While at the firm, he represented the ACLU of New Mexico as amicus curiae in a suit against the New Mexico Children, Youth, and Families Department. See Ramirez v. State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t, 326 P.3d 474 (N.M. App. 2014). Garcia also argued before the New Mexico Supreme Court in seeking to maintain a Whistleblower Protection Act claim against Secretary of State Mary Herrera. See Flores v. Herrera, 384 P.3d 1070 (N.M. 2016).

After the election of New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, Garcia joined her staff. In that role, he represented the Governor in inter-governmental litigation. See, e.g., State ex rel. Egolf v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm’n, 476 P.3d 896 (N.M. 2020). He also represented the Governor in successfully defending public health regulations governing the management of the Covid-19 pandemic. See Grisham v. Reeb, 480 P.3d 852 (N.M. 2020); see also Grisham v. Romero, 483 P.3d 545 (N.M. 2021).

Political Activity

Garcia has an extensive political history outside of his work for Lujan-Grisham. This includes multiple donations to President Barack Obama, New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas, and State Senator Eric Griego, all Democrats.

Overall Assessment

The 48-year-old Garcia brings both political connections and legal experience to the federal bench. While Garcia is likely to attract strong opposition due to his Democratic bona fides, it should nonetheless permit him to get confirmed by the end of the Congress.

Nina Morrison has spent the last twenty years representing inmates in seeking to re-evaluate convictions and establish evidence of innocence. She now has an opportunity to step into a different role, as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Background

Born in 1970, the daughter of Alan Morrison, a Dean at the George Washington University Law School who argued twenty cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, Morrison attended Yale University, graduating in 1992. Morrison then attended New York University Law School, graduating in 1998. She then clerked for Judge Pierre Leval on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

After her clerkships, Morrison became an associate at Emery Cuti Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP where she focused on civil rights litigation. After three years there, Morrison joined the Innocence Project, where she works as executive director and senior litigation counsel.

History of the Seat

Morrison has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This seat opened when Judge Dora Irizarry moved to senior status on January 26, 2020. On August 12, 2020, the White House nominated HUD attorney David Woll to fill this vacancy, but Woll never received a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

On September 1, 2021, Morrison was recommended for a nomination by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to the White House. She was nominated on December 15, 2021.

Legal Experience

While Morrison has held other positions, her primary experience over the past twenty years has been at the Innocence Project, a non-profit that advocates on behalf of individuals wrongly convicted of crimes. Morrison’s work at the Project led to the re-evaluation of hundreds of cases and the release of many. Not all the individuals released were “proven innocent”, with, in some cases, the evidence merely casting doubt on the original conviction rather than definitively establishing innocence. See, e.g., Sarah Brumfield, Maryland Man Convicted of Two Kilings in 1985 is Freed After DNA Tests Undermine Evidence, A.P., June 19, 2003. In other cases, prosecutors moved to retry defendants who had managed to overturn their original convictions. See, e.g., Bruce Lambert, Prosecutor Will Retry Man Freed by DNA in L.I. Rape-Murder, N.Y. Times, Sept. 12, 2003. We have summarized some of the important cases Morrison worked on by the state of conviction below.

Arkansas

Morrison represented Ledell Lee, an Arkansas death row inmate seeking a stay to permit DNA testing to prove his innocence. Kelly P. Kissel and Jill Bleed, Arkansas Suffers 2 Setbacks to Multiple Execution Plan, A.P., Apr. 20, 2017. Lee was ultimately executed after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal. Kelly P. Kissel and Sean Murphy, Arkansas Overcomes Legal Hurdles, Carries Out Execution, A.P., Apr. 21, 2017. Four years after the execution, new DNA evidence emerged linking a different man to the murder that Lee was executed for. See Heather Murphy, 4 Years After an Execution, a Different Man’s DNA is Found on the Murder Weapon, N.Y. Times, May 7, 2021.

Florida

Morrison got involved in reviewing and advocating for DNA testing in 80 Florida cases after the Legislature, in 2003, opened a two-year window for such testing. Mitch Stacy, Florida Attorneys Scramble to Beat Deadline for Inmate DNA Testing, A.P., Sept. 25, 2003. Among the men freed was Wilton Dedge, who spent 22 years in prison after being mistakenly identified by a rape victim. See Florida Frees Exonerated Man After 22 Years in Prison, But Leaves Him With Nothing, A.P., Sept. 12, 2004. Another was Orlando Bosquette, a prison escapee who was exonerated by the coordinated efforts of Morrison and Florida prosecutor Mark Kohl. See Jim Dwyer, Innocent Man Describes Decade of Life on the Run, N.Y. Times, May 23, 2006.

New York

Morrison represented Jeffrey Deskovic, convicted of the rape and murder of his high school classmate in 1990. See Fernanda Santos, DNA Testing Frees Man Imprisoned for Half His Life, N.Y. Times, Sept. 21, 2006. Deskovic’s request for DNA testing was initially fought by District Attorney Jeanine Pirro (later a GOP candidate for Attorney General) but was later approved by her successor Janet DiFiore (currently a judge on New York’s highest court), leading to Deskovic’s release. See id. Morrison also successfully obtained the release of Scott Fappiano, who was exonerated after an inventory of DNA samples in his rape conviction were retested. See Nicholas Confessore, After 21 Years, DNA Testing Sets Man Free in Rape Case, N.Y. Times, Oct. 7, 2006.

Notably, Morrison represented Roy Brown, who sought to overturn his conviction for the murder of social worker Sabina Kulakowski, arguing that DNA evidence suggested the real killer was her boyfriend’s brother. See Fernanda Santos, Inmate Finds Vindication in His Quest for a Killer, N.Y. Times, Dec. 21, 2006. However, Judge Peter Corning declined to order a release without additional evidence and testing. Fernanda Santos, Prosecutors Pursue DNA Case as Judge Lets Verdict Stand in ‘91 Killing, N.Y. Times, Dec. 22, 2006. However, after prosecutors subsequently exhumed the body of the accused killer and found a DNA match, Brown was exonerated and released. See Fernanda Santos, With DNA From Exhumed Body, Man Finally Wins Freedom, N.Y. Times, Jan. 24, 2007.

Texas

Morrison was an advocate for Brandon Moon, who was convicted of rape in 1988 largely based on the expert testimony of blood testing expert Glen David Adams. See Barbara Novovitch, Free After 17 Years for a Rape He Did Not Commit, N.Y. Times, Dec. 22, 2004. The case led to Moon’s exoneration and the exposure of flaws in Adams’ methodology, with the El Paso District Attorney publicly apologizing to Moon for the time he had spent in prison. See id. Morrison also represented James Waller, who was exonerated of a raping a minor child in Dallas after DNA evidence ruled him out as a suspect. See Ralph Blumenthal, A 12th Dallas Convict is Exonerated by DNA, N.Y. Times, Jan. 18, 2007.

Notably, Morrison represented Michael Morton, who was convicted of killing his wife in 1987 despite evidence showing that she had been killed by an intruder. See Will Weissert, DNA Helps Free Texas Man Convicted in Wife’s Death, A.P., Oct. 3, 2011. The case also drew attention because exculpatory evidence, including statements by Morton’s toddler son, who was home at the time of the murder, were not properly disclosed to defense counsel. See Brandi Grissom, Inmate’s Release Brings Call for New Evidence Law, N.Y. Times, Oct. 9, 2011. The withholding of evidence eventually led to the conviction of prosecutor Ken Anderson for contempt of court. See Chuck Lindell, Ken Anderson to Serve 10 Days in Jail, Austin American Statesman, Nov. 8, 2013, http://www.statesman.com/news/news/ken-anderson-to-serve-10-days-in-jail/nbmsH/.

Statements and Writings

In her role as the Executive Director of the Innocence Project, Morrison has spoken out frequently about her clients and the state of current criminal law. For example, Morrison has been critical of laws that restrict inmates to having a single year to present DNA evidence of innocence, noting that preparing cases often takes much longer. See Sharon Cohen, Deborah Hastings, For 110 Inmates Freed By DNA Tests, True Freedom Remains Elusive, A.P., May 28, 2002. Morrison has also been critical of eyewitness accounts of crimes, noting that they are frequently unreliable and result in innocent people getting locked up. See Ron Kampeas, Setbacks in Sniper Search Illustrate the Frequent Unrealiability of Eyewitnesses, A.P., Oct. 17, 2002. She has pushed for more resources for the re-integration of exonerees. See Florida Frees Exonerated Man After 22 Years in Prison, But Leaves Him With Nothing, A.P., Sept. 12, 2004. Morrison has also spoken out for greater accountability against prosecutors who fail to disclose exculpatory evidence. Nina Morrison, What Happens When Prosecutors Break the Law, N.Y. Times, June 18, 2018. See also Emily Bazelon, She was Convicted of Killing Her Mother. Prosecutors Withheld the Evidence That Would Have Freed Her, N.Y. Times, Aug.1, 2017; Tom Hays, Report Blames Prosecutor Missteps in Botched NYC Convictions, N.Y. Times, July 9, 2020.

In an interview describing the Deskovic case, Morrison noted that she joined the Innocence Project because she wanted to fight for “people who didn’t have a voice or an advocate” and because she wanted to have a greater impact than merely securing settlements in favor of civil rights plaintiffs. See Adam Nichols, DNA Key to Unlock a Cell: Attorney’s “Long Shot” Triumph to Clear Man, Daily News, Sept. 24, 2006.

In other writings, Morrison has praised state courts that have drawn broad constitutional protections for criminal defendants, noting that they are remedying the “constitutional amnesia” of federal courts by more closely aligning their jurisprudence with the underlying principles of the Bill of Rights. See Nina Morrison, Curing “Constitutional Amnesia”: Criminal Procedure Under State Constitutions, 73 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 880 (June 1998).

Political Activity

Morrison has been a frequent donor to Democratic candidates for office, giving to the presidential campaigns of John Kerry, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden. Morrison has also donated to gubernatorial candidates Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams.

Overall Assessment

Having spent two decades working intimately in the trenches of criminal law and procedure, Morrison will join the bench with no learning curve on those issues. While she has less experience with civil litigation, Morrison will have an opportunity to convince senators that her background reflects the intellect and the ability to get up to speed on those issues.

Given her success in overturning convictions and her outspoken-ness on issues of criminal law, many senators are likely to argue that Morrison would be an “activist” on the bench. However, Morrison and her defenders can always argue that ensuring that the innocent are not punished for someone else’s crime is an issue that everyone can get behind.

With over two decades on the Alameda County bench, Trina Thompson should be a fairly uncontroversial candidate for the bench. However, her teaching activities, as well as her background in criminal defense, may draw scrutiny.

Background

Thompson got her B.A. from U.C. Berkeley in 1983 and her J.D. from the U.C. Berkeley School of Law in 1986. After graduating, Thompson became an assistant public defender with the Alameda County Public Defender’s Office. After five years there, Thompson opened up her own criminal defense practice.

In 2000, Thompson was selected as a Juvenile Court Commissioner in Alameda County. She subsequently was elected to the Alameda County Superior Court in 2002, and has served as a judge since. Additionally, during the Obama Administration, Thompson served on the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

History of the Seat

Thompson has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to a seat vacated on February 1, 2021, by Judge Phyllis Hamilton.

Legal Experience

Thompson started her legal career as an assistant public defender in the Alameda County Public Defender’s office, representing indigent defendants in juvenile and criminal proceedings. Thompson subsequently opened and managed her own criminal defense practice for nine years before her appointment as a Juvenile Court Commissioner.

Jurisprudence

Since 2002, Thompson has served as a judge on the Alameda County Superior Court. In this role, Thompson presides over trial court matters in criminal, civil, family, and other state law matters. Thompson has also served as the presiding judge of the Juvenile Court, where, among other responsibilities, she presided over adoption ceremonies. See Josh Richman, Adoption Day Changes Lives Forever, The Oakland Tribune, Nov. 20, 2010.

Among the notable matters over which Thompson has presided, she presided over a trial of two defendants charged with 36 counts of involuntary manslaughter resulting from a 2016 fire at Oakland’s Ghost Ship warehouse. Alexandra Casey, Oakland Jury Reaches Jumbled Verdict on Ghost Ship Warehouse Fire, Daily Californian: University of California – Berkeley, Sept. 5, 2019. The case ended with the acquittal of one codefendant and a guilty plea from the other.

Statements and Writings

As part of her role as a judge, Thompson has occasionally commented on legal issues in the press. See, e.g., Sayre Quevado, The Complications Clearing a Juvenile Record, The Huffington Post, July 31, 2013.

Thompson also taught an ethnic studies course “Race and the Law” at the University of California, Berkeley. The course explored the role of the law in enforcing racial and gendered power structures. See Alice Ventura, Legacy of Desegregation Should Lead to More Latinx Representation, Daily Californian: University of California – Berkeley, Feb. 8, 2018.

Overall Assessment

With more than 35 years of judicial experience, Thompson represents a more old-school nominee model than the more youthful judicial candidates favored in recent years. While it is difficult to argue with Thompson’s qualifications, conservatives may look askance at Thompson’s teaching activities, particularly as it relates to race and the law. Liberals, meanwhile, may be disappointed with Thompson’s age.

A prosecutor with a relatively apolitical background, Stephanie Haines looks poised for a comfortable confirmation to the federal bench in Pennsylvania.

Background

A Western Pennsylvania native, Haines was born in Johnstown in 1969.[1]  Haines attended Juniata College in Huntingdon, Pa. and received a B.A. degree in 1992, subsequently getting a law degree from Ohio Northern University.[2]

After graduating, Haines clerked for Judge Eugene Fike in Somerset, Pa. and then joined the U.S. Army, working in various legal roles, including as a Legal Assistance Attorney, a Prosecutor, and an Appellate Defense Attorney.[3]  Since 2005, Haines has been a Judge Advocate with the West Virginia National Guard.

In 2002, Haines became a federal prosecutor in West Virginia and, since 2007, has served as a federal prosecutor in Johnstown, Pennsylvania (the sole one since 2018).[4]

History of the Seat

The seat Haines has been nominated for opened on November 24, 2017, with the move to senior status of Judge David Cercone.  In March 2017, Haines applied for a federal judgeship with the application committee set up by Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senators Bob Casey (D-PA) and Pat Toomey (R-PA).[5]  While the panel recommended Haines, no further action was taken until July 31, 2018, when Toomey interviewed Haines and her name was passed to the White House.[6]

Haines was officially nominated on March 5, 2019.

Legal Experience

Haines has practiced law for over twenty years, working in one of two capacities: as a military lawyer; and as a federal prosecutor.  In the former position, Haines represented service members in assisting with estate planning, family law, and other matters, as well as prosecuting and defending soldiers in military courts.[7]  Since 2002, Haines has represented the U.S. government as a federal prosecutor, first in West Virginia and, since 2007, in Pennsylvania.  During this time, Haines tried approximately 40 cases.[8]

Among the most notable cases Haines handled, she prosecuted Rev. Joseph Maurizio, a Catholic priest, charged with sexually exploiting minors during trips to Honduras.[9]  Early in the case, Haines successfully convinced Judge Kim Gibson to reverse the grant of home detention for the defendant.[10]  Maurizio was eventually found guilty in a jury trial of five counts, including those alleging illicit sexual conduct.[11]

Overall Assessment

As a result of close cooperation between Casey and Toomey, Pennsylvania’s district court nominees have generally avoided the partisan rancor that other states have produced.  Haines looks likely to be no different, and, given her background as a prosecutor and her long service record, she is unlikely to draw much controversy.

---

Longtime appellate attorney and former Scalia clerk Dan Collins is one of three California nominees to the Ninth Circuit who face the joint opposition of home state senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris.  His nomination moved out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote despite this opposition.

Background

Daniel Paul Collins was born in Brooklyn in 1963.  Collins received an A.B. from Harvard in 1985 and a J.D. from the Stanford Law School in 1988.[1]  After graduating from law school, Collins clerked for Judge Dorothy Nelson on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and then spent two years at the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.  Collins then clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court, clerking with Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit and conservative lawyer Ed Whelan.[2][3]

After his clerkships, Collins became a federal prosecutor in the Central District of California, leaving in 1996 to join the Los Angeles Office of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP.[4]  In 2001, Collins left Munger to work as Associate Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice.[5]  Collins rejoined Munger in 2003 and has served as a Partner since.

History of the Seat

Collins has been nominated for a California seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  This seat opened on December 11, 2015 when Judge Harry Pregerson moved to senior status.  On February 25, 2016, President Obama nominate U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh to fill the vacancy.  Even though the Senate was controlled by Republicans, Koh received a favorable reception before the Senate Judiciary Committee and was approved 13-7 on September 15, 2016.  However, she was blocked from a final floor vote by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and never confirmed.

In March 2017, Collins was contacted by the White House to gauge his interest in an appointment to the Ninth Circuit.[6]  In late 2017 and early 2018, Collins interviewed with Advisory Committees set up by California’s Democratic Senators.[7]  Collins’ nomination was announced in October 2018 and he was renominated on February 6, 2019.

Both of Collins’s home state senators, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Sen. Kamala Harris, have expressed opposition to Collins’s nomination.

Political Activity & Memberships

Collins has a very active political history, having donated extensively to Republican candidates from 1998 to 2016.[8]  Over this time, Collins has given over $85000 to Republican candidates.[9]  For example, in a single contribution in December 2013, Collins gave $15000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.[10]  Similarly, in October 2016, Collins gave $2700 contributions to Republican Senate candidates Marco Rubio, Todd Young, Ron Johnson, and Joe Heck (all except Heck won their elections).[11]

Furthermore, Collins has been a member of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies (a conservative legal organization that is the source of many Trump nominees) since 1995.[12]

Legal Experience

Collins has primarily worked in two legal postures.  The first is at the government, as a prosecutor from 1992 to 1996 and at the Department of Justice, where he was from 2001 to 2003.  The second is at Munger, Tolles & Olson, where he has spent virtually the rest of his legal career.

Assistant U.S. Attorney

From 1992 to 1996, Collins worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney with the Central District of California.  Here, Collins primarily handled appeals, while also trying eight jury trials during his tenure.[13]  One of those trials was that of Jeffrey Van Poyck who was convicted of two counts of armed bank robbery and one count of conspiracy (the convictions were upheld on appeal).[14]

Department of Justice

From 2001 to 2003, Collins worked in the Department of Justice, serving as Associate Deputy Attorney General.  In this role, Collins worked on several of the Department’s legislative initiatives, including the drafting and passage of the PROTECT Act of 2003, which increases penalties and authorizes additional law enforcement tools relating to child pornography and sexual abuse.[15]  To this end, Collins testified in Congress in support of much of the language that eventually found its way into the PROTECT Act, specifically noting that such language would not interfere with “First Amendment freedoms.”[16]

Munger Tolles & Olson

Since 2003, Collins has been a Partner in the Los Angeles Office of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP working in appeals and complex civil litigation.  As a Munger Partner, Collins helped recruit Paul Watford (now a judge on the Ninth Circuit) to the firm.[17]  At the firm, Collins has extensive experience with complex commercial appeals, including representing Occidental Petroleum Corp. against suits alleging complicity in illegal bombings conducted by the Colombian military,[18] defending Jeppesen Data Plan, Inc. against allegations that they transported the plaintiffs to locations where they were tortured,[19] and representing Philip Morris in a suit to successfully strike down Massachusetts regulations restricting cigarette advertising.[20]  Particularly notably, Collins represented a series of oil companies in defending against a suit by native american tribes seeking damages for global warming.[21]

Writings

Collins has frequently written on the law, starting as a law student, when he authored a student note discussing the role of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof on a decision to grant or deny summary judgment.[22]  In much of his writing, Collins looks back to the original understanding or meaning of a law to decipher its current application, suggesting that Collins would identify as an “originalist.”  For example, in one article, Collins outlines the history of the Alien Tort Statute as a way of understanding its scope.[23]  In another article, Collins argues that the right to a jury trial is innately tied with the accuracy of the outcome, citing the debates over the jury right during the drafting of the Constitution.[24]

Overall Assessment

It is easy to compare Collins with his former Munger colleague Judge Watford.  Both were former Supreme Court clerks (Watford clerked for Justice Ginsburg) and longtime commercial litigators at Munger when nominated for the bench.  As such, some may argue that Collins deserves the bipartisan confirmation that Watford received in 2012.  However, opponents are likely to draw a few distinctions.  First, Watford had built a largely nonideological profile before his nomination, with prominent conservatives confessing that they had no idea what his political views were.  In contrast, Collins is a clearly defined conservative with his writings showing an originalist lean and a long political history.  Second, Watford had the support of his home-state senators, unlike Collins.

On his own merits, Collins obviously has the intellectual capacity and legal ability for the Ninth Circuit.  It remains for senators to decide if his record has demonstrated the requisite level of impartiality needed to be a fair judge as opposed to an advocate.

---

James Wesley Hendrix is not even 42 yet, and still has the distinction of having been nominated to the bench by Presidents of two different parties.  After his initial nomination under President Obama stalled, Hendrix has a new opportunity under President Trump.

Background

James Wesley Hendrix was born in Lubbock, TX in 1977.  He attended the University of Chicago, receiving his Bachelor of Arts with Honors in 2000 and a Juris Doctor with High Honors from the University of Texas School of Law in 2003 (alongside fellow Northern District nominee Matthew Kacsmaryk).  After graduating from law school, Hendrix clerked for Judge Patrick Higginbotham on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and then joined the Dallas office of Baker Botts as an associate (again, alongside Kacsmaryk).

In 2007, Hendrix left Baker Botts and joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas as an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) (Kacsmaryk would make the same move a year later).  For his part, Hendrix stuck with the office, serving as Chief of the Appellate Division since 2011.

History of the Seat

Hendrix has been nominated to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to a seat vacated by Judge Samuel Cummings on December 31, 2014.  On March 15, 2016, Obama, with the approval of Texas Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, nominated U.S. Magistrate Judge E. Scott Frost to fill the vacancy.  Hendrix himself was nominated for a different vacancy on the court.  While both Frost and Hendrix received favorable receptions before the Senate Judiciary Committee, neither was reported out before the end of the Obama Administration.

While Hendrix applied almost immediately for a renomination, he was not initially recommended by Cornyn and Cruz to the Trump Administration.[1]  It was only after Hendrix reapplied in 2018 that Cornyn and Cruz sent his name to the White House.  Nevertheless, Hendrix interviewed with the White House in July 2018 and was nominated on January 17, 2019.[2]

Legal Experience

Hendrix has worked in two primary legal positions in his career: as an associate at Baker Botts; and as a federal prosecutor.  In his initial position at Baker Botts, Hendrix focused on civil litigation, handling wage-and-hour, patent, and real estate litigation.[3]

Since 2007, Hendrix worked as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas.  In this capacity, Hendrix worked primarily with the appellate division, handling over 350 appeals over the course of his career.[4]  Notably, Hendrix argued before the en banc Fifth Circuit that Texas burglary constituted a qualifying offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act, which would trigger enhanced sentencing penalties.[5]  The Fifth Circuit narrowly found against Hendrix’s position on a 8 to 7 vote in an opinion authored by his former boss, Judge Higginbotham.[6]

Overall Assessment

While his career has largely been parallel to that of Kacsmaryk’s, Hendrix is unlikely to share Kacsmaryk’s controversy.  While Kacsmaryk has attracted opposition for his work for the First Liberty Institute, Hendrix has gained respect across the board with his work in the government.  Furthermore, Hendrix’s nomination by the Obama Administration, and the reluctant endorsement by Cornyn and Cruz, suggests that he is not an aggressive conservative, and will likely be confirmed by a bipartisan majority this year.

---