Twelve State Court Judges the Next Democratic President May Elevate to the Court of Appeals

For the last few weeks, we have been looking at potential nominees for the Court of Appeals.  Previously, we looked at  state court judges who may be potential appellate nominees under President Trump.  This time, we’ll look at potential Democratic appellate nominees from the state bench.

D.C. Circuit – Judge Corinne Beckwith

While there are dozens of qualified Democrats waiting for appointment to the D.C. Circuit in a potential Biden Administration, don’t sleep on Judge Corinne Beckwith of the D.C. Court of Appeals.  Judge Beckwith, who is 57, has impeccable credentials, having clerked for Judge Richard Cudahy on the Seventh Circuit and Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court.  Furthermore, unlike most Supreme Court clerks, Beckwith has spent her entire legal career as a public defender, serving at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia until her appointment to the bench in 2011.  As Democrats seek to diversify the career pools that lead to the bench, Beckwith may well be a judge they turn to.

First Circuit – Judge Melissa Long

Judge Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson has been a trailblazer on the bench, having been the first African American woman on the Rhode Island Superior Court and on the First Circuit.  If she takes senior status upon reaching eligibility next year, the frontrunner may be Judge Melissa Long, who has followed Judge Thompson’s example.  The 49-year-old Long, who is currently under consideration for an appointment to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, was Deputy Secretary of State before being appointed by Governor Gina Raimondo to the Rhode Island Superior Court.

Second Circuit – Justice Raheem Mullins

The 42-year-old Mullins, who serves on the Connecticut Supreme Court, has already been a judge for eight years, in which time he has established himself as a fair and reasoned jurist with opinions in key areas of law.  For example, Mullins wrote for the Connecticut Supreme Court in ordering the release of police records regarding Adam Lanza, the shooter in the Sandy Hook shooting of 2012.  Mullins has already been touted here as a prospective Supreme Court nominee, but he would also be a compelling nominee to the Second Circuit to replace Judges Jose Cabranes, Susan Carney, or Robert Katzmann.

Third Circuit – Justice Tamika Montgomery Reeves

While recently confirmed New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Fabiana Pierre-Lewis is an obvious choice for the Third Circuit, one that is mentioned far less often is Delaware Supreme Court Justice Tamika Montgomery-Reeves.  Montgomery-Reeves is, at 39, younger than Pierre-Lewis, and already has five years of judicial experience.  Furthermore, she has already made history as the first African-American on the Delaware Supreme Court, and could continue the trend by being the first African-American woman on the Third Circuit.

Fourth Circuit – Judge Christopher Brook

Judge James Wynn, who is eligible for senior status in 2022, has established a reputation as one of the most liberal judges on the Fourth Circuit.  In choosing to replace him, the Biden Administration may well turn to Judge Christopher Brook, who serves on the North Carolina Court of Appeals.  Brook, who is 41 years old, formerly served as the Legal Director of the state affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, and his civil rights background would be consistent with the recent calls for candidates from unconventional backgrounds.

Fifth Circuit – Judge Chari Kelly

The 2018 elections left Democrats with an embarrassment of riches when it comes to appellate judges across Texas.  Many of the newly elected judges are young and diverse and would be strong contenders of the Fifth Circuit or the U.S. District Courts.  One name to consider is that of Judge Chari Kelly, who serves on the Austin based Third District Court of Appeals.  Kelly, who is in her early forties, is a veteran and former Travis County prosecutor who was previously named prosecutor of the year by Mothers Against Drunk Driving.  Kelly would make a viable candidate for the Fifth Circuit if a vacancy opened.

Sixth Circuit – Judge Camille McMullen

Judge Camille McMullen may only be 49 years old, but she’s already had twelve years of experience as an appellate judge, allowing her to hit the ground running if she’s chosen to replace Judges Bernice Donald, Julia Smith Gibbons, or Jane Stranch.  Judge McMullen was a federal prosecutor for years before being appointed to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals in 2008 by Governor Phil Bredesen.  As Biden has indicated that he seeks to replenish the bench of African American jurists on the Court of Appeals, McMullen seems like a promising choice.

Seventh Circuit – Judge Rachel Graham

In June 2019, Governor Tony Evers made his first judicial appointment, picking 43-year-old Rachel Graham to serve on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.  Judge Graham was then re-elected unopposed in 2020 and currently serves on the appellate bench.  The Wisconsin native would be one of the first choices if Judge Diane Sykes vacates her seat in a Biden Administration.

Eighth Circuit – Justice Courtney Hudson

Justice Courtney Hudson may only be 47 years old but she already has a decade of experience on the Arkansas Supreme Court.  With the Eighth Circuit desperately short of female judges, Hudson could be first on the list of candidates considered if Judges Bobby Shepherd or Lavenski Smith took senior status.

Ninth Circuit – Judge Gabriel Sanchez

When looking at state court judges for elevation, one obviously has to consider the four young Democrats serving on the California Supreme Court.  However, an appointment to the Ninth Circuit could arguably be a demotion for these justices, and more viable options could be drawn from the California courts of appeal.  Consider, for example, Judge Gabriel Sanchez of the First District Court of Appeal.  Sanchez is well-qualified for an appellate seat, having graduated from Yale Law School, clerked on the Ninth Circuit, and having practiced law at Munger Tolles & Olson and the California Attorney General’s Office.  Furthermore, Sanchez, who was the first latino judge on the First District Court of Appeal, is only 44 and could serve decades if tapped for the Ninth Circuit.

Tenth Circuit – Justice Monica Marquez

Judge Carlos Lucero is 80 years old, and has been eligible for senior status from 2008.  As such, it would not be surprising to have him take senior status in the next four years, and, if elected, expect the Biden Administration to strongly consider Justice Monica Marquez of the Colorado Supreme Court.  The 51 year old Marquez was the first Latina and the first LGBTQ judge on the Colorado Supreme Court when she was appointed in 2010.  Since then, she has established a strongly liberal record on the high court, and would be an ideal Democratic pick for the Tenth Circuit.

Eleventh Circuit – Judge Ken Hodges

The 54-year-old Hodges is a rarity, a Democrat elected statewide in Georgia.  The Peach State native was elected to the Georgia Court of Appeals with 70% of the vote in 2018, an impressive showing for someone without a statewide profile.  While Hodges does have his share of controversies, if Democrats take the Senate, they would be no longer limited by blue slips for appellate positions, and Hodges could be a contender for the Eleventh Circuit.

Twelve State Court Judges President Trump May Elevate to the Court of Appeals in His Second Term

For the last few weeks, we have been looking at potential nominees for the Court of Appeals in the next four years.  Previously, we looked at federal district court judges.  This time, we’ll look to another potential source of federal judges, the state courts.  As always, we’ll look at one prospective nominee for each geographically based court of appeal.

D.C. Circuit – Justice Sarah Hawkins Warren

There’s nothing requiring a nominee to the D.C. Circuit to come from D.C.  After all, President George W. Bush picked California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown for a seat on the D.C. Circuit.  With the D.C. Court of Appeals lacking any viable conservatives to elevate, it wouldn’t be surprising to see President Trump look to other courts for conservatives to mine.  And Warren, who currently serves on the Georgia Supreme Court, is an appealing pick.  Not only is she young, at only 39, but Warren has close connections to D.C., having clerked for Judge Richard Leon on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and having been a Partner at the Washington D.C. office of Kirkland & Ellis.

First Circuit – Justice Patrick Donovan

The First Circuit is the only one of the twelve geographic circuits that Trump has yet to name a nominee to.  The sole New Hampshire member of the court, Chief Judge Jeffrey Howard, becomes eligible for senior status this year and may well take it in the next four years.  If he does, Justice Patrick Donovan of the New Hampshire Supreme Court is likely to be strongly considered.  Donovan has strong credentials, including working for the New Hampshire House of Representatives, and will have a champion in Governor Chris Sununu.  Furthermore, the Justice, while conservative, is unlikely to attract strong opposition from the state’s Democratic senators.

Second Circuit – Justice Karen Carroll

How many judicial conservatives are there in Vermont?  The White House will have to consider this if Judge Peter Hall takes senior status in a second Trump term.  Among its candidates, the White House will have to seriously consider Vermont Supreme Court Justice Karen Carroll.  The 56-year-old jurist was Republican Governor Phil Scott’s first appointment to the court and would be the first woman from Vermont on the Second Circuit.

Third Circuit – Judge P. Kevin Brobson

The 49-year-old Brobson, who currently serves on the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, made the news in 2017 for declining to strike down Pennsylvania’s congressional maps as being gerrymandered.  Brobson’s ruling (which was later overturned), alongside the fact that he has spoken at Federalist Society events, and his strong reputation in the Pennsylvania Bar, may make him an attractive conservative choice for a Pennsylvania seat on the Third Circuit.

Fourth Circuit – Judge Richard Dietz

The 43 year old Dietz has the trifecta of strong conservative bona fides, good Republican connections, and excellent academic credentials (having been first in his class at Wake Forest Law).  Dietz, who serves on the North Carolina Court of Appeals, will be strongly considered by the Trump Administration if Judge James Wynn moves to senior status in 2022.

Fifth Circuit – Justice Jimmy Blacklock

There are many conservatives who would be salivating for a seat on the Fifth Circuit under a second Trump term.  A strong contender would be Texas Supreme Court Justice Jimmy Blacklock.  The strongly conservative jurist started his career at the Department of Justice and has close connections to Gov. Greg Abbott, a strong Trump surrogate and supporter (Blacklock was the longtime General Counsel for Abbott).  It doesn’t hurt that, at forty, Blacklock could spend decades on the bench.

Sixth Circuit – Justice Elizabeth Clement

The 43 year old Clement had a long history with the Michigan Republican Party when she was appointed to the Michigan Supreme Court to replace Judge Joan Larsen in 2017.  Nonetheless, she soon attracted fire from conservatives for voting to permit an Independent Redistricting referendum to go on the Michigan ballot.  Despite being booed at the state convention, Clement retained the nomination of the Michigan Republican Party and was comfortably re-elected in 2018, the only Republican to win statewide in Michigan that year.  Despite the hand-wringing over that decision, Clement’s record on the Court is generally conservative, while Michigan’s Democratic Senators may sign off on her elevation to allow Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to replace her.

Seventh Circuit – Justice Brian Hagedorn

If Judge Diane Sykes took senior status in 2022 under a Trump Administration, Hagedorn would be the favorite to fill the vacancy.  The 42-year-old jurist has a strongly conservative background, while also establishing a reputation as a principled jurist on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, occasionally dissenting from the more aggressive views of his colleagues.  Hagedorn’s quieter form of conservatism is also less likely to draw opposition than the more vocal views of his colleague, Justice Rebecca Bradley, who may be a rival for the appointment.

Eighth Circuit – Justice Jonathan Papik

In 2017, Papik narrowly missed out on an appointment to the Eighth Circuit when the White House chose Leonard Grasz instead of him.  Nonetheless, Papik found himself appointed to the Nebraska Supreme Court in 2018, despite being only 36 years old at the time.  Papik, who clerked for Justice Neil Gorsuch (on the Court of Appeals) will be closely considered for an Eighth Circuit vacancy, and, while Grasz is not expected to leave the court anytime soon, if he does under Trump, expect Papik to be the nominee.

Ninth Circuit – Judge Jerome Tao

Here’s where it gets interesting.  Judge Jerome Tao is, at least nominally, a Democrat who started his career working for former Senator Harry Reid.  Nonetheless, the judge was appointed to the Nevada Court of Appeals by Republican Governor Brian Sandoval, ran a fiercely conservative campaign for the Nevada Supreme Court in 2018 (unsuccessfully), and recently made the news for a concurring opinion decrying deference to administrative agencies.  The Trump Administration’s judge-pickers care deeply about administrative law, and, if Judge Johnnie Rawlinson takes senior status, expect Tao to be strongly considered.

Tenth Circuit – Justice Thomas Lee

Judge Scott Matheson will be eligible for senior status in 2022, and, if he chooses to take it under a Trump Administration, Justice Thomas Lee from the Utah Supreme Court will be a strong contender to replace him.  Lee is already on Trump’s radar, with a place on his Supreme Court shortlist, as well as being the brother of Sen. Mike Lee.  The only knock against Lee is his age (he will be 58 in 2022).  Nonetheless, he will likely have right of first refusal for the position, given his credentials (clerked for Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson and Justice Clarence Thomas) and his connections.

Eleventh Circuit – Justice Nels Petersen

Another former Georgia Solicitor General, like Warren and Eleventh Circuit Judge Britt Grant, Petersen would be a safe pick if Judge Beverly Martin’s seat opened in a second Trump term.  The 42 year old jurist has established a solidly conservative profile on the Georgia Supreme Court.

 

End of an Era – Why It is Time to End the ABA’s Privileged Role in Judicial Nominations

In 1953, when President Dwight Eisenhower requested that the American Bar Association, the leading nonpartisan legal organization in the country, start vetting prospective judicial nominees before they were sent to the Senate, it was seen as a guarantee for an impartial and nonpartisan judiciary.  This tradition was followed for five decades by presidents of both political parties until President George W. Bush ended it in 2001. President Obama revived pre-nomination ABA vetting in 2009 and President Trump again ended it in 2017.  Regardless of whether President Trump is re-elected or if a President Biden is elected in 2020, there will be significant pressure on the President to revive this tradition.  For the sake of the judiciary and the country, he should refuse.

History of ABA and Judicial Nominations

As noted earlier, the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has been vetting judicial nominations since the invitation of President Eisenhower in 1953.  For most of this history, this process has been pre-nomination.  In other words, the prospective nominee is handed over to the ABA for interviews, vetting, and a final rating.  The ABA would then provide their rating to the White House, at which point a final decision would be made on whether to move forward on the nomination.

In 2001, President George W. Bush changed this tradition.  Instead of providing names before the nomination was official, Bush announced that the ABA would receive the names only after the nomination was public.  Bush’s decision was the culmination of decades of conservative grumbling about the ABA, manifested from the ABA’s decision to give low ratings to President Reagan’s nominations of Professors Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook to the federal bench, and to rate Judge Robert Bork’s nomination for the Supreme Court as “qualified” rather than “well qualified.”  Nonetheless, even after the decision, the ABA continued rating judicial nominees and Senators generally refrained from action on a nomination until the ABA rating came in.

In 2009, President Obama restored the ABA’s pre-nomination vetting role.  However, this decision wasn’t without backlash of its own.  Liberals soon began to grumble that the ABA vetting process took too long and unduly slowed the nominations process.  More significantly, the rejection rate of President Obama’s nominees increased dramatically by the ABA, preventing the Administration from effectively filling vacancies.  Despite this tension, Obama did not reduce the ABA’s role.

In 2017, Trump again ended the ABA’s role in vetting nominees pre-nomination, and a number of nominees ratedNot Qualified” have been confirmed under Trump (although others have been rejected).

One consistent thread throughout the process has been the criticism of the ABA’s process for bias against conservatives.  However, looking at all the evidence, the bigger problem with the ABA’s ratings is not bias, but arbitrariness.

The “Arbitrariness” of ABA Evaluations

For any “objective” rating system to have credibility, it needs to be clear, understandable, and consistently applied.  The ABA’s rating system purports to be as such, but falls short of that standard.  The ABA claims to evaluate a nominee’s “professional competence, integrity, and judicial temperament” without taking into regard the nominee’s ideology.  However, in practice, questions of ideology frequently commingle into questions of temperament.  As a result, you have nominees like Leonard Grasz, who was poorly rated for a “lack of open-mindedness and freedom from bias.”  How does an evaluation into a nominee’s “bias” steer clear of an evaluation of their ideology?  The ABA doesn’t clarify.

More worryingly, even the “objective” portions of their criteria are often arbitrarily applied.  For example, the ABA purports to seek 12 years of legal work experience as a minimum guideline for judicial nominees.  However, this guideline is rarely straightforwardly applied.  Missouri judicial nominee Sarah Pitlyk received a “Not Qualified” rating based on a lack of requisite trial or litigation experience (Pitlyk was out of law school for 11 years at that point), but Alabama nominee Edmund LaCour received a “Qualified” rating despite only having around eight years of legal experience.  The ABA argued that Pitlyk had not tried any cases in court, but neither had Ninth Circuit nominee Daniel Bress, who nonetheless received a mixed “Qualified/Well Qualified” rating.  At a time when so few cases proceed to trial, how can trial experience be the primary indicator of judicial competency?

Again, how does one explain that Holly Lou Teeter, who fell a month short of the 12 year guideline, received a “Not Qualified” rating based on her lack of experience, while Taylor McNeel, who had the same level of experience when nominated, received a “Qualified” rating?  Similarly, how does nominee Justin Walker, who was rated “Not Qualified” for a federal trial court seat suddenly get rated “Well Qualified” for an appellate seat, with the only difference being three months on a trial court?

Overall, a consistent thread looking at ABA ratings is that they vary significantly based on the circuit and the evaluator.  One nominee with ten years of legal experience may receive a “Well Qualified” rating, while another may only be rated “Qualified.”  The difference is never explained as the ABA only needs to explain its “Not Qualified” ratings.

The ABA and Female/Minority Judges

While the ABA has largely been criticized from the right, it is the left that arguably has more to lose from its evaluation process.  During the Obama Administration, the ABA’s rejection of the President’s nominees increased 3.5 times from the previous Bush Presidency, with many of the nominees being rejected being women or minorities.  For example, Nevada judicial nominee Gloria Navarro had been nominated after a mixed “Qualified/Not Qualified” rating based on her lack of prior judicial experience.  However, a few years earlier, fellow Nevada nominee Brian Sandoval, who also had no judicial experience, received a “Well Qualified/Qualified” rating.

The ABA’s poor ratings of women and minorities goes back decades, with the ABA kneecapping many female and minority nominees during the Carter Administration.  For example, the ABA strongly opposed Carter’s efforts to name Prof. Joan Krauskopf to the Eighth Circuit, arguing that she lacked judicial experience and was “too liberal.”  President Carter ended up filling the seat with a male judge who was younger than Prof. Krauskopf.  No women would be confirmed to the Eighth Circuit until sixteen years later when Judge Diana Murphy was appointed by President Clinton.

Similarly, the ABA strongly opposed President Richard Nixon when he proposed nominating California judge Mildred Lillie to the Supreme Court.  The Committee voted 11-1 to find Lillie, who had been an appellate judge for 14 years, “Unqualified” for a Supreme Court seat.  In contrast, Nixon’s replacement for Lillie, William Rehnquist, received the ABA’s highest rating despite never having served as a judge at all.

It’s Time to Move On

Given these controversies, it is obvious why the value of an ABA rating has deteriorated.  Where senators agree with the nominee’s philosophy, they tout the rating when it’s good and attack the ABA when it’s not.  When they don’t, the ABA suddenly becomes the “gold standard” for nominees.  There are other issues with ABA ratings that this post doesn’t even touch on, such as allegations that they fail to follow their own processes when evaluating certain nominees.

As a bottom line, there is no doubt that the ABA performs a valuable service in its evaluation of judicial nominations.  However, given the arbitrariness of its ratings, valid allegations that it discriminates against women, minorities, and non-litigators, and serious cracks in its credibility on the Hill, there is no longer much benefit to giving the ABA such a privileged position in the nomination process.  The ABA should instead be encouraged to contribute its evaluations as part of the judicial confirmation process, as dozens of other legal organizations do.  It is time to move on.

Thirteen Federal Judges President Trump May Elevate to the Court of Appeals in His Second Term

Last week, we looked at thirteen district court judges who would be strongly considered for elevation to the Court of Appeals under a prospective President Biden.  This week, we’ll look at thirteen district court judges who would be considered for elevation by President Trump if he is re-elected to a second term.  As we did last week, we’ll limit our pick to thirteen judges, one for each Court of Appeal.

Judge Trevor McFadden (D.D.C.)

Judge Trevor McFadden is not only the youngest member of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (McFadden is only 42), but he is also the most conservative.  In his three years on the bench, McFadden has racked up a number of rulings in favor of the Trump Administration, including ruling that the House of Representatives lacks standing to enforce its appropriations in court and in delaying the House suit seeking the President’s tax returns.  McFadden’s bid for the D.C. Circuit would be hampered by the hundreds of qualified D.C. conservatives who’d want such a post, but if the Administration wants a district court judge, McFadden would be their expected pick.

Judge Lance Walker (D. Me.)

Maine Judge Lance Walker may seem like an idiosyncratic choice for the Trump Administration to elevate, given his past decisions against anti-abortion groups and his ruling that essentially singlehandedly ensured the ranked-choice election of Democrat Jared Golden.  However, Walker, who would be only 51 when Judge William Kayatta would become eligible for senior status in 2023, is also a longtime member of the National Rifle Association and the Federalist Society.  Given this and his bipartisan confirmation to the district court, Walker may well be an ideal choice for Trump for this left-leaning circuit.

Judge Rachel Kovner (E.D.N.Y.)

Judge Rachel Kovner certainly has the pedigree to sit on the Second Circuit, having clerked for Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson and for Justice Antonin Scalia.  Also considering that Kovner has argued 11 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and was confirmed with an overwhelming 88-3 margin, it seems more a matter of when, rather than if, Judge Kovner will be elevated.  While the forty year old judge has time on her side, she is likely to be closely scrutinized in a second Trump Administration.

Judge William Stickman (W.D. Pa.)

There is a good chance that Chief Judge Brooks Smith on the Third Circuit will move to senior status upon the conclusion of his term as Chief Judge in 2021, and Judge Stickman, who would only be 42 then, will likely be one of the leading contenders to replace him.  Despite a conservative record, Stickman had the support of Democratic Sen. Bob Casey in his district court confirmation, although, as Judge Peter Phipps experienced, support on the district court level is not a guarantee of support for an appellate seat.

Judge Thomas Kleeh (S.D.W.V.)

The 46 year old Kleeh has largely avoided making waves in his two years on the federal bench.  Nonetheless, Kleeh, who has strong connections with the West Virginia legal community, would likely be first on the list if Judge Robert King moved to senior status in a second Trump term.

Judge Brantley Starr (N.D. Tex.)

Judge Brantley Starr, who was confirmed to the Northern District of Texas last year has already made a name for himself on controversial cases, ruling that the federal government couldn’t ban bump stocks without compensating individuals under the Takings Clause, and his background prompting a transgender plaintiff to ask the judge to recuse himself from her case.  The 41 year old Starr is primed for a Fifth Circuit appointment, potentially if the equally conservative and inflammatory Judge Edith Jones moves to senior status in a second Trump term.

Judge Hala Jarbou (W.D. Mich.)

We’re cheating slightly with this one as Judge Jarbou has not yet been confirmed to the federal bench, but a vote on her nomination has been teed up for September, and she will likely sail to confirmation.  With two Michigan judges on the Sixth Circuit eligible for senior status and a third set to become eligible next year, the 49-year-old Jarbou would make a readily confirmable nominee, even if the Administration faces a Democratic Senate.

Judge Martha Pacold (N.D. Ill.)

The 41 year old Judge Pacold, despite having clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas and having a conservative’s dream resume, was nearly unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate to the trial court.  While it is unclear if she would attract that level of support if elevated to the Seventh Circuit, she is likely to be considered the leading candidate to replace Judge Ilana Rovner if she retires in a second Trump term.

Judge Sarah Pitlyk (E.D. Mo.)

If Judge William Duane Benton moves to senior status in a second Trump term, expect the shortlist for his seat to essentially consist of one candidate: Pitlyk.  The 43 year old Pitlyk, who squeaked to confirmation over bipartisan opposition, would be a dream candidate for conservatives, given her vocal support for Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination and her strong anti-abortion record.

Judge Dominic Lanza (D. Ariz.)

It’s interesting that Lanza is a strong contender for the Ninth Circuit in a second Trump term given the fact that he was already rejected for a Ninth Circuit seat once by Trump.  The 44 year old jurist was originally recommended to be appointed to the Ninth Circuit by Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake, only to be rejected by the Trump Administration, who were pushing Administration attorney James Burnham.  Ultimately, the Administration went with the Senators’ second choice, Judge Bridget Bade, and Lanza got a consolation appointment to the district court.  Now, Lanza, who was recently in the news for rejecting challenges to Arizona’s mail-in-ballot deadlines, will be closely watched for the Ninth Circuit if Judge Andrew Hurwitz moves to senior status in 2022.

Judge Patrick Wyrick (W.D. Okla.)

The 39-year-old Judge, who previously served on the Oklahoma Supreme Court, was previously the youngest nominee on President Trump’s Supreme Court shortlist.  Few believe that Wyrick will be tapped for the highest court without building a record on the Court of Appeals, and if an Oklahoma vacancy opens (neither of the 10th Circuit’s Oklahoma judges will be eligible to retire in the next four years), Wyrick’s name will be at the top of the list.

Judge Roy Altman (S.D. Fl.)

The 38 year old Altman was the youngest district court judge in the country when he was appointed in 2019, and, despite that youth, he sailed to confirmation by a 2-1 margin, a landslide among recent confirmation votes.  Altman will likely be strongly considered for a seat on the Eleventh Circuit if Judge Charles Wilson moves to senior status in a second Trump term, or if Judges Lagoa or Luck are elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Amos Mazzant (E.D. Tex.)

The Federal Circuit generally attracts less controversy than the other courts of appeals, which may be a reason for the Trump Administration to tap one of many young lawyers it has named to the Court of Federal Claims.  However, if it chooses an Article III appointee, Judge Amos Mazzant, who currently serves on the Eastern District of Texas, is a possible choice.  Judge Mazzant may have been named to the bench by President Obama, but he’s a strong conservative who was recommended by Sen. Ted Cruz.  Additionally, the 55-year-old Judge Mazzant has over a decade of experience on the patent heavy docket of the Eastern District of Texas, which would prepare him well for the Federal Circuit.

Thirteen Federal Judges the Next Democratic President May Elevate to the Court of Appeals

With the COVID-19 pandemic on everyone’s minds, judicial nominations have largely been on the backburner for the last few months.  While a few more district nominees will likely be processed in the next few months, it’s safe to say that the victor of the 2020 election will nonetheless have many judicial vacancies to fill in the next four years.

Since speculation is what this blog enjoys most, let’s think about potential candidates for the federal appellate bench under a Democratic President.  We’ll start by looking at federal district court judges who are poised for elevation to the appellate bench, and, for the sake of geographic diversity, we’ll limit our pick to thirteen judges, one for each Court of Appeal.  As such, here are 13 district judges who would be strongly considered for elevation if a Democrat was elected in 2021.

Judge Ketanji Jackson (D.D.C.)

Here’s my first prediction: Jackson will be the first Democratic nominee to the D.C. Circuit in 2021, potentially replacing Judge Judith Ann Wilson Rogers, another black woman.  Jackson, a clerk of Justice Breyer, has impressed enough to seriously be considered for a Supreme Court appointment in 2016.  At 49, Jackson has another 10 years or so of viability for a Supreme Court appointment, and it would not be surprising to have her be the first black woman on the court.

Judge Mary McElroy (D.R.I)

Judge Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson is eligible for senior status in 2021, and Judge McElroy would be the frontrunner to replace her.  This is particularly unusual given that McElroy is a Trump appointee.  However, McElroy’s Trump appointment is an anomaly.  She is a Democrat and her nomination was championed by Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.  Furthermore, McElroy’s long career as a public defender would bring a fresh perspective to the First Circuit, which is dominated by former prosecutors.

Judge Jesse Furman (S.D.N.Y.)

I feel fairly safe in saying that Furman will be at the top of Democratic lists for elevation to the Second Circuit given his role in the suit over the Census Citizenship question.  Throughout the complicated nature of the litigation, Furman maintained firm control of the proceedings, and his judgment was largely upheld by the Supreme Court.  Interestingly, Furman was the target of an oblique critique from Justice Thomas who suggested he was “predisposed to distrust” Trump.  Despite Justice Thomas’ broadside, a majority of the Supreme Court sided with Furman’s position on the Census Question.  At 47 years old, Furman is perfectly placed for elevation in 2021 or even in 2025, when he would only be 52 years old.

Judge Cathy Bissoon (W.D. Pa.)

When she was appointed in 2011, Judge Cathy Bissoon was both the first Hispanic and the first Indian American judge on the Western District of Pennsylvania.  Today, the 51-year-old judge is poised for elevation to the Third Circuit, which desperately needs more female judges, down to just two out of fourteen.

Judge George Hazel (D. Md.)

At 45 years old, Hazel is the youngest Democratic-appointed federal judge in the country, and was the youngest federal judge in the country between his appointment in 2014 and the appointment of Judge Trevor McFadden in 2017.  Hazel has made a name for himself by handling the Maryland case challenging the Census Citizenship question, where he ruled that the Trump Administration violated the law in adding the question to the Census.  Hazel would be only 45 in 2021 and would be poised to join the Fourth Circuit where both Judges Paul Niemeyer and Diana Gribbon Motz are eligible for senior status.

Judge Carlton Reeves (S.D. Miss.)

Perhaps no district court currently sitting has had the degree of significance as Carlton Reeves, who has issued landmark decisions on same-sex marriage, religious liberty, race, voting rights, qualified immunity and more.  While, at 56, Reeves is on the older end of eligible nominees, his name will be first on the list for any Mississippi vacancy on the Fifth Circuit, perhaps if Judge James Graves moves to senior status upon eligibility in 2022.

Judge Travis McDonough (E.D. Tenn.)

McDonough doesn’t have the controversial opinions that others on this list do, but as a young, noncontroversial judge, he is a prime candidate for a Tennessee seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, including if Judge Bernice Donald moves to senior status.

Judge Andrea Wood (N.D. Ill.)

A Democrat hasn’t appointed a judge to the Seventh Circuit since Judge David Hamilton’s appointment in 2009, and the circuit is fairly lopsided as a result.  If and when the appointment comes, expect Judge Andrea Wood to be strongly considered.  The 47-year-old Wood has presided over a number of prominent cases in Chicago, including a class action against Bose Headphones, and has the intellectual rigor to hold her own in the notoriously academic court.

Judge Kristine Baker (E.D. Ark.)

The 49-year-old Baker has developed a bit of reputation from her Little Rock court as a judge willing to make hard decisions, even if they may fly against popular sentiment in her home-state.  For example, Baker relied on Supreme Court precedent to block a number of draconian anti-abortion measures in Arkansas from going into effect, a decision which prompted cries of judicial “activism.”  Setting the issues aside, Baker would be an ideal candidate if Judges Bobby Shepherd or Lavenski Smith moved to senior status.  Her status as a woman would also diversify one of the most male-dominated courts in the country (only two women have ever served on the Eighth Circuit).

Judge Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.)

The 50-year-old Chhabria has already made a name for himself as a strongly liberal voice on an even-otherwise liberal bench, making notable rulings, including striking down a law that prohibited IMDB from posting the birthdates of actors, citing the First Amendment.  If elevated, Chhabria would be the first Indian American judge on the Ninth Circuit.

Judge Robert Shelby (D. Utah)

Shelby may seem like an unusual choice for a Democratic appellate appointee, given that he is, at least nominally, a Republican.  Nonetheless, Shelby has won plaudits in Utah for his fair rulings, including many that seem downright liberal.  For example, in 2013, Shelby made headlines by striking down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage, despite the fact that almost no court in the country had adopted such a position.  Shelby’s prescience in reading the law would serve him well on the Tenth Circuit, particularly to replace Judge Scott Matheson (if he moves to senior status upon eligibility).

Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner (M.D. Ga.)

The sister of the famous Stacey Abrams, Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner made history as the first woman ever appointed to the Middle District of Georgia.  The 45-year-old Gardner is poised to potentially make history again as the first black woman appointed to the Eleventh Circuit (and potentially further to the Supreme Court).

Judge Lucy Koh (N.D. Cal.)

I’m cheating a bit by including Koh in here as she has already been a nominee, tapped late in the Obama Administration for the Ninth Circuit, but never confirmed.  Personally, however, Koh seems a better fit for the Federal Circuit.  Throughout the history of the Federal Circuit, only one district judge has ever served on the court (Judge Kate O’Malley).  Koh, who handled patent matters in private practice, and who became famous for presiding over Apple’s suits against Samsung over smartphones, has the expertise and the intellect to excel on this specialized court of appeals.

Want Proof that Democrats Are Playing A Losing Game on Judges: Look to the States

Take two candidates for the bench: a forty year old attorney who has spent their career as a legal bombthrower, marching in protests and writing strong-worded blog and twitter posts; and a sixty year old partner at a top law firm who has donated generously to their home state senator but has otherwise undeveloped legal views.  It may be a cliche to say that the former is more likely to get nomination under a Republican Administration while the latter is under a Democratic Administration, but it’s a cliche that’s borne out by experience.  Just look at what’s happening now in state judiciaries across the country.

So far, in 2020, 18 vacancies have opened up in state supreme courts where the justices are appointed by the state’s governor.  Of those 18 vacancies, just six were in states appointed by Republican Governors, while 12 were in states appointed by Democrats.  Given this structural advantage in reshaping the state bench, you’d expect Democratic Administrations to work closely with progressive groups in picking young, liberal jurists to rebalance the bench.  The reality, however, is that, from a combination of a lack of resources and a lack of interest, Democrats at the state level are getting lapped by their Republican counterparts on judges.

To start, Republicans have been much quicker in their appointments.  Georgia Governor Brian Kemp appointed Judge Carla Wong McMillian to the Supreme Court less than a month after Justice Robert Benham’s retirement.  Similarly, Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy and Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds made their appointments within a month of the respective vacancies opening.  In contrast, Maine Supreme Court Justice Leigh Sauffley stepped off the Court on April 14, 2020.  Governor Janet Mills still has yet to make an appointment three months later.  Similarly, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont waited more than two months after the retirement of Justice Richard Palmer to make his appointment, despite the fact that Justice Palmer was forced to retire due to age and the vacancy was predicted years in advance.

Even where they have made appointments, the nominees are remarkably different.  For example, Justice McMillian, appointed by Kemp, is only 46.  Dunleavy’s appointment of Dario Borghesan is only 40.  Justice Matthew McDermott, appointed to the Iowa Supreme Court by Reynolds, is only 42.  All three also have been active in conservative legal circles.

In comparison, look at the judges appointed by Democratic Governors this year.  Gov. Jay Inslee’s appointees to the Washington Supreme Court were both in their 50s: Justice Raquel Montoya Lewis is 53, and Justice Helen Whitener is 55.  And they’re the young ones.  Justice Gordon Moore, appointed by Gov. Tim Walz to the Minnesota Supreme Court, is 57.  Justice Catherine Connors, appointed by Mills in Maine, is 61.  And Justice Andrew Horton, another Mills appointee, is seventy-one years old.  Similarly, in Connecticut, Lamont has chosen Judge Christine Keller for the Supreme Court, a particularly myopic appointment, given that the 67-year-old jurist will be required to step off the Supreme Court in three years, just in time for Lamont’s successor to replace her.

Even where Democratic Governors have sought to make bolder appointments, they’ve been stymied by conservative opposition and a lack of liberal support.  Take the case of Carl Folsom III, a forty-year-old Assistant Federal Public Defender who was tapped for the Kansas Court of Appeals by Gov. Laura Kelly.  Folsom’s nomination was rejected by the Kansas Senate, where opponents disingenuously argued that Folsom was a poor choice because he had represented an accused child molester.  Setting aside the fact that opponents should really be objecting to our Founding Fathers for codifying the Sixth Amendment, Folsom was a public defender and, as such, unable to select his clients.  Yet, as his nomination went down, there was virtually no outcry outside of Kansas.

This past week, the Democratic Party announced that it would be revising its party platform, adding a plank calling for “structural changes” to the judiciary.  Despite the vagueness of the change, it induced paroxyms of joy in many liberals, thrilled that Democrats were finally showing up to the gun fight with something more than a blade.  However, structural changes are meaningless if political actors lack the will to take advantage of them.  And watching Democrats let opportunity after opportunity to reshape the bench go by this year doesn’t raise confidence as to their performance next year.  Despite the occasional bright spot (e.g. the appointment of Justice Fabiana Pierre Lewis to the New Jersey Supreme Court by Gov. Phil Murphy), Democrats have overlooked opportunities to reshape state appellate courts with young liberals.  Liberals can only hope that a prospective President Biden doesn’t continue this pattern.

 

Judicial Nominations 2019 – Year in Review

2019 was one hell of a year for judicial confirmations.  Freed from the time-consuming schedule of a Supreme Court nomination, the Senate plowed through over 100 judicial confirmations, dramatically reshaping both the courts of appeals and district courts.  

Nominations and Confirmations

This year, the Senate confirmed 20 appellate judges and 80 district court judges (as well as two judges to the Court of International trade).  As such, President Trump has had 187 confirmations as of the third year of his presidency.  In comparison, President Obama saw 124 confirmations by the end of the third year of his presidency, President Bush saw 168, and President Clinton saw 175.

Failed Nominations

The expanded Republican majority in the Senate from the 2018 elections and the frequent absences of Democratic senators running for President have allowed Republicans to push through many nominees on narrow party-line votes.  As such, the Administration has been relatively successful at pushing through its nominees, even controversial ones.

Nonetheless, a handful of Trump nominees have been blocked from confirmation in 2019.  Namely, judicial nominees John O’Connor and Maureen Ohlhausen were not renominated at the beginning of the 116th Congress.  Furthermore, the nomination of Michael Bogren to the Western District of Michigan was withdrawn in the face of Republican opposition (similar opposition has stalled the nomination of Judge Halil Ozerden to the Fifth Circuit).  Additionally, Judge Thomas Marcelle, nominated for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, withdrew due to failure to get blue slips from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.

Demographics of Confirmed Nominees

Let’s take a look at demographics of the 102 confirmed Trump appointees this year.

Age

In the past Congress, the average age of Trump’s appointees ranged between 50-51, in line with previous presidents.  This Congress, the average age of the Trump appointees is slightly younger at 49 years of age, which is still not too far from the presidential average.

The oldest Trump appointee tapped for the federal bench this year is Judge John Milton Younge, a Democrat who was first nominated to the federal bench by President Obama but blocked by Republicans.  Younge was 64 when confirmed.  The youngest was Judge Allison Rushing, who was just 36 when she was confirmed to the Fourth Circuit.

Race

Trump’s judicial confirmations continue to be overwhelmingly white, although the ratio has improved significantly since the previous congress.  Twenty of the 100 judges confirmed this Congress were non-white: seven Asian; six Hispanic; and seven African American judges respectively.

Gender

Of the 100 nominees confirmed this year, 26 are female: 5 appellate appointees and 21 district court appointees.  These numbers (26% female) are slightly better than the previous congress, where the appointees were around 22% female.  However, they still are lower than the 42% female figure President Obama managed to hit.

LGBTQ Identity

This year, the Senate confirmed two nominees who identify as members of the LGBTQ community: Judge Mary Rowland to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; and Patrick Bumatay to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Looking Ahead

Largely due to rules changes muscled through by the enlarged Republican majority, President Trump has succeeded in dramatically reshaping the federal bench in 2019.  However, his success has reduced the number of nominees who would be expected to be confirmed next year.  When the Senate recessed, it left just five pending judicial nominees on the Senate floor.  Nonetheless, while all of Washington will spend much time absorbed in an impeachment fight next year, the senate will likely continue its processing of judicial nominees.

Initial Thoughts on the Demand Justice Shortlist

On May 19, 2016, then candidate Donald Trump unveiled a list of thirteen judges, pledging only to appoint candidates to the Supreme Court from that list.  The intent of the list was to shore up flagging conservative support for the candidate, and it worked.  The list, along with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s refusal to fill the vacancy created by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, meant that the Supreme Court was a key issue in the 2016 Presidential election, and conservative judicial voters carried Trump to a narrow victory.

So far, no Democratic presidential candidate has taken a page from Trump’s playbook and released their own list, but liberal judicial group Demand Justice has taken up that mantle, releasing a list of 32 lawyers, law professors, and judges for appointment to the Supreme Court.  The list has attracted both praise and criticism, including from those who have argued that the list is not even close to a plausible Democratic shortlist.  However, Demand Justice is not running for President.  Where Trump’s list was intended to convince conservatives that he can be trusted to appoint “safe” picks, Demand Justice’s shortlist is seeking something different: to remind progressives that there are alternatives to the traditional appellate hunting grounds for court appointments.  In that sense, the list has been successful.

That being said, let’s break down the names further.

Demographic Diversity

Demographic diversity was obviously important to Demand Justice’s compilers, as the list reflects nominees from across the racial and ethnic spectrum.  The list is majority female and majority POC.  In fact, there is only one cisgender straight white male on the list: Philadelphia D.A. Larry Krasner.  Rather than being a coincidence, this is likely a deliberate effort on Demand Justice’s part to craft a list that is more diverse than the names typically considered.

Geographic Diversity

Let us look at the home states of the last five Democratic nominees to the Supreme Court: Ginsburg (N.Y./D.C.); Breyer (Mass.); Sotomayor (N.Y.); Kagan (Mass./D.C.); Garland (D.C.).  In fact, the last Democratic SCOTUS nominee who was not from New York, D.C., or Massachusetts was Homer Thornberry in 1968, and the last successful appointment not from one of these three states/districts was Arthur Goldberg in 1962 (and even he was serving as a cabinet official in D.C. before his appointment).  Unfortunately, the Demand Justice list is also heavy with nominees from these three states, although you can also add California, which hosts a fair number of shortlisters.  Leaving out these four states, you have Krasner from Pennsylvania; Judge Jane Kelly from Iowa; Judge Carlton Reeves from Mississippi; Judge Richard Boulware from Nevada; and Justice Anita Earls from North Carolina.

Educational Diversity

Much has been made of the Harvard-Yale duopoly on the Supreme Court, and this list is unlikely to change that too much.  Of the 32 names on that list, 19 are alumni of either Harvard or Yale (or in some cases, both).  Of those who are not, only ONE attended a non-top 20 law school (ACLU attorney Brigitte Amiri, who attended Northeastern Law).

Experiential Diversity

Here’s where this list differs the most from Trump’s.  Every single candidate on Trump’s shortlist was a judge (either on state or federal court).  In contrast, the majority of Demand Justice’s list has no judicial experience.  Only two serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals (Judges Jane Kelly and Nina Pillard), while another two serve as U.S. District Court Judges (Judges Richard Boulware and Carlton Reeves).  Four serve on State Supreme Courts (Justices Liu, Cuellar, and Krueger from the California Supreme Court and Justice Earls on the North Carolina Supreme Court).  The remaining twenty four (75%) have no judicial experience.

Rather, the list is heavy with law professors, civil rights lawyers, and even includes three elected officials (one of whom, Rep. Katie Porter, was a former academic).  The list does include a fair number of former clerks.  Nine on the list clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court including:

  • 3 Blackmun clerks (Michelle Alexander; Pam Karlan; Cecillia Wang)
  • 1 Stevens clerk (Leondra Kruger)
  • 1 O’Connor clerk (James Forman)
  • 2 Ginsburg clerks (Goodwin Liu; M. Elizabeth Magill)
  • 1 Breyer clerk (Timothy Wu)
  • 1 Sotomayor clerk (Melissa Murray)

Age and Youth

One factor that Republican Administrations tend to prize in their appointments is youth, generally selecting nominees in their 40s and early 50s, while Democrats tend to choose older judges with more experience.  While there are a handful of younger picks on the list, for the most part, the Demand Justice continues the pattern of older Supreme Court picks.

By mid-2021, which is the earliest that a Democrat can expect to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, seven members on the list would be sixty or above (Becerra; Earls; Karlan; Krasner; Minter; Pillard; Stevenson).  If we go to 2025, seventeen fall into that category.

Overall Analysis

Between the age issue and the judicial experience issue, one can see why some would criticize this list as being unrealistic.  However, as noted above, Demand Justice is not making appointments.  Its goal here is to push the conversation about Democrats towards nominating progressives for the bench, and it has done so here.

Furthermore, not everyone on Trump’s own lists was a plausible Supreme Court choice (did anyone realistically believe that Trump would appoint Michigan Supreme Court Justice Robert Young to the Supreme Court).  Rather, for many, placement on the list was intended to raise their profile before an expected lower federal appointment.  It is for this reason that so many names on the list found their way onto the federal bench.  Similarly, don’t be surprised if a President Warren or Sanders or Biden appoints Dale Ho to the Second Circuit; or Deepak Gupta to the D.C. Circuit; or Katie Porter to the Ninth Circuit.  As such, the greatest impact of this list may well be on the courts of appeals.

 

The Irony of Michael Bogren’s Defeat

Early in the Trump Administration, a judicial nominee with strongly conservative credentials faced critical questioning from senators regarding a motion he had filed in a case involving LGBTQ rights.  In response to questioning, he noted:

“The views I express in litigation are those of my clients.”

The nominee in question is Howard Nielson, the Utah attorney whose involvement in defending California’s Proposition 8 was deeply controversial.  Nielson was ultimately confirmed this year by a narrow margin but his battle has a curious coda.  Just as Nielson took the bench in Utah, another nominee, Michael Bogren, withdrew his nomination to a U.S. District Court seat.  The reason: his defense of an East Lansing ordinance that barred businesses that discriminated against LGBT customers from taking part in city events.

Bogren went down, essentially, for engaging in the practice of law, which requires lawyers to make reasonable arguments on behalf of their clients.  Others on both sides of the aisle, including Bogren himself, have pointed out the absurdity of the attacks on Bogren.  Rather than reiterate those points, I’ll focus on a unique irony.

Bogren’s nomination was the result of a detailed negotiation between the White House and Michigan’s Democratic senators.  The negotiations lasted over two years before they produced the nominations package of Bogren and Judge Stephanie Davis (nominated for the Eastern District of Michigan).  Now, Bogren’s withdrawal costs the White House half of their deal.  More specifically, it costs them the conservative half of the deal.

Bogren, derailed by Sen. Josh Hawley and other conservatives, was a member of both the Federalist Society and the Republican National Lawyers Association.  Furthermore, he has contributed solely to Republicans including Presidential candidates John McCain and John Kasich, and the Republican National Committee.  In contrast, almost every single Republican who objected to Bogren had no problem approving Davis, who conducted election protection for the Obama campaign and served on the transition committee of former Detroit mayor Dennis Archer.

This is not to say that Davis, who has an impressive resume, should be opposed.  Rather, it is to note the absurdity of judging a nominee’s entire career by three lines in a legal brief.  It is also telling that Bogren was opposed for defending a municipal government’s right not to support businesses who discriminate, and not for, in another case, representing the Bay View Association, a Methodist resort association, which barred a Jewish buyer from purchasing property.

In any case, Bogren is not likely to be forgotten.  Democrats are sure to chant his name as a talisman the next time Republicans complain that a Trump nominee is being judged on the basis of his advocacy rather than his ability.

 

Judging the 2020 Contenders – The Others

Is it too soon to start a conversation about 2020?  Perhaps no other election, with the exception of 2016, is poised to have a greater effect on our federal bench.  The re-election of President Trump would allow him four more years of filling the bench with young conservatives, while the election of a Democratic president would stall that trend.  For many progressives, however, what they want is not a pause in the appointment of conservative judges but rather an active effort to move the federal bench in a liberal direction.  As such, let us look at the leading (and lagging) contenders for the Democratic Presidential nomination, and what their records on judges are.

We previously looked at the 2020 candidates who have experience as governors and as senators.  Today we look at those who do not fall into either camp.  Obviously, it is difficult to build up a record on judicial matters if you have neither appointed judges nor voted on them.  Nevertheless, we look at the remaining contenders and their public stances (if any) on judicial matters.  Most, if not all, of the contenders in this category have not spoken out on judges and have a thin record on this front.

Stacey Abrams

Abrams, a Georgia state legislative leader who narrowly lost the 2018 gubernatorial election in the state, is, funnily enough, the sister of a federal judge, Judge Leslie Abrams of the U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Georgia.  Regarding other nominations, Abrams came out against the nomination of Thomas Farr in December, which ultimately fell short of a vote.

Michael Bloomberg

Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is currently planning a run for President in 2020, either as a Democrat or as an Independent.  Unlike other candidates in this category, Bloomberg had the opportunity to appoint judges, namely, municipal judges to the New York City Criminal Court, Civil Court and the Family Court.  However, Bloomberg’s appointments to these courts have made few waves and do not reveal much about his judicial views.

Outside of his role as mayor, Bloomberg is primarily known for his advocacy on gun control, as well as his support for the New York stop and frisk policy.

Pete Buttigieg

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg is the youngest candidate in the 2020 Presidential race, and is the only openly gay candidate.  However, Buttigieg’s largely local pedigree has left him little room to develop positions on judicial issues, and he has been silent on such issues since announcing.

Julian Castro

Julian Castro is the only Hispanic candidate who has currently announced a bid for President, and, with experience leading San Antonio, one of the Nation’s largest cities, and heading the Department of Housing and Urban Development, he has the experience in an executive role.

That being said, Castro has been virtually invisible on the issue of judges, with virtually no formal statements on the issue.

John Delaney

Former Maryland Congressman John Delaney was the first major Democrat to announce for the 2020 Presidential camapign.  Despite fairly detailed positions on many major issues, Delaney has largely been silent on judicial issues, with no mention of judicial nominations on his campaign site.

Tulsi Gabbard

Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is, perhaps, one of the most polarizing candidates in the 2020 race. On one side, Gabbard is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and was one of the strongest supporters for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign in 2016.  On the other, she has been criticized for her lack of support on LGBT issues, and her demagoguery on such issues in the past.

Particularly notoriously, Gabbard wrote an op-ed criticizing Democratic Senators (including fellow Presidential candidate Kamala Harris) for probing judicial nominee Brian Buescher over his membership in the Knights of Columbus, arguing that their questions constituted religious bias.  While Gabbard did note that she herself opposed Buscher’s nomination, her position nonetheless brought pushback from fellow Hawaii Democrats.

Richard Ojeda

The former West Virginia State Senator and unsuccessful Congressional candidate does not have a section on judges on his Presidential campaign website.

Beto O’Rourke

Former Congressman Beto O’Rourke ran a surprisingly strong Senate campaign in 2018, falling just narrowly short of Sen. Ted Cruz despite running in strongly Republican Texas.  During the campaign, O’Rourke opined on the pending Kavanaugh nomination, wishing that there had been more focus on Kavanaugh’s judicial positions during the confirmation battle.  O’Rourke has said little about Trump’s other judicial nominations, however, including many appointed to Texas courts.  Interestingly, O’Rourke’s strong campaign nonetheless propelled many Texas judicial candidates to victory, flipping many courts across the state to Democrats.

Tim Ryan

Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan has been planning a run for President since mid-2018, even as he led an aborted coup against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  While Ryan has made a name for himself as a Pelosi opponent, he has been largely invisible on the issue of judicial nominations, although he did issue a statement opposing the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.

Eric Swalwell

Swalwell has served in the U.S. House since his election in 2012 and currently serves on the House Judiciary Committee (which, unlike its senate counterpart, has no role in judicial confirmations).  In 2018, Swalwell came out strongly against the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the Supreme Court.