How to Fight a Supreme Court Nomination (And Win)

In case you were, like me, on a plane without wifi this afternoon, Justice Anthony Kennedy is retiring.  Many on Twitter and in the blogosphere (not to mention the mainstream news) are bemoaning the loss of the Supreme Court “swing vote,” and decrying the “shortlist” put forward by the Trump Administration.  Others, of course, are celebrating.  Setting aside the dubious labeling of Justice Kennedy’s “legacy” happening, I want to address one key question: can liberals defeat the confirmation of Kennedy’s successor? And if they can, how will such a defeat happen?

A gut answer is that they can’t.  Not that it’s impossible to defeat a Supreme Court nomination (see Merrick Garland), but it’s pretty difficult to do so while the President’s party controls the U.S. Senate.  Five out of the last six defeated Supreme Court nominees went down before a Senate controlled by the opposing party.  The exception, Harriet Miers, was doomed by conservative opposition, not the Democratic minority.  As such, many observers have resigned themselves to Trump’s next nominee replacing Kennedy.

However, this does not mean that liberals can’t defeat a Trump SCOTUS nominee.  In fact, I’d proffer that they can, provided that certain factors go their way.

1. Maintain Messaging Discipline

“I am not a member of any organized party – I am a Democrat”

The Will Rogers quote above may have been tongue in cheek, but it perfectly encapsulates Democrats’ current problem.  Compared to Republicans, Democrats have a greater amount of ideological diversity within their party.  This diversity has allowed Democrats to maintain a close gap in the Senate despite being sharply outnumbered in the number of states that lean in their direction.  However, this diversity also means that it is difficult to keep the caucus united.  However, if Democrats are to win a SCOTUS battle, it’ll be because they maintained, if not unity, then messaging discipline.

Take the example of Merrick Garland.  Within hours of Justice Scalia’s passing, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he would leave that seat open until after the 2016 Presidential election.  That became the official stance of the Republican Party relatively quickly and stayed consistent throughout the election.  To win this battle, Democrats need to maintain a similar messaging discipline.

2. Highlight the Right Messenger

Let’s say you’re a swing voter who is undecided about the new nominee President Trump has sent forward for Kennedy’s seat.  The nominee seems smart, competent, and reminds you of your next door neighbor (the one who always has his lawn mowed).  Now, you hear your Democratic senator call the nominee a “conservative ideologue” and an “extreme right-wing jurist.”  Is that going to convince you to oppose the nominee?  More importantly, will it persuade you to pick up the phone and call your senator?  My guess is no.

Now, instead, let’s say you see the following ad on television:

A young man in a military uniform stands before an American flag.  He explains that he and his brother enrolled in the military together to serve their country; that they served several tours of duty together.  Then one day, his brother died.  Not because of the enemy, but because the military contractor in charge of making body armor cut corners and sent him shoddy equipment.  He goes on: his family sued the contractor, demanding justice, but that the case was thrown out by the judge on a technicality.  Another judge would have given them a chance to refile.  This judge didn’t care.  And now the President wants to give this judge a promotion.  

Isn’t that more likely to move you to action?

Even if you disagree with the example I’ve laid out, there is evidence that campaigns with a personal touch are remarkably effective.

In 2014, conservative groups successfully defeated the nomination of NAACP attorney Debo Adegbile to head the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division.  The opposition was largely based on Adegbile’s representation of Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner.  Conservatives effectively leveraged the testimony of Maureen Faulkner, the officer’s widow, who publicly urged senators to oppose Adegbile.

More recently, California voters threw out Judge Aaron Persky based on his sentencing Brock Turner, convicted of sexual assault, to a six months in prison.  Persky’s recall, while supported by political officials, was ultimately kickstarted by the victim’s statement going viral, reinforcing the theme: highlighting the right messenger is key.

If Democrats do defeat the next SCOTUS nominee, it’ll be because they stepped back and highlighted the right messengers to make these arguments.

3. Raise the Political Cost of a Yes Vote

 

In 2014, I was meeting with the staffer of a Senate Democrat, a moderate and key swing vote, to urge the support of a particularly embattled nominee.  I listed all the reasons that the nominee was well-qualified for the position, explained the spuriousness of the opposition’s charges, and detailed the importance of filling this position.  The staffer  listened to me politely.  As I finished, he stated that he understood my points and added:

“If you want the senator to ignore the fact that constituents contacting the office in opposition outnumber supporters 10:1, that’s one thing; when it’s 100:1, our hands are tied.”

The staffer’s point was clear.  The merits of a particular stance on a nominee don’t ultimately decide the vote.  The vote is dictated by the political cost of voting yes.  In this case, the senator couldn’t vote to support the nominee unless the political cost was lower.

Similarly, if liberals want to defeat a Trump SCOTUS nominee, their top priority needs to be to highlight the political costs of a “yes” vote.  And this requires erasing the engagement gap.

4. Erase the Engagement Gap

Conservatives care more about courts than liberals.  They have for years.  It is because of their view on judges that Donald Trump is now President.  It is because of their view on judges that McConnell felt politically safe in holding open a Supreme Court seat for a new President to fill, and why he feels safe in filling Kennedy’s vacancy, even though we are less than six months from an election.

There are many reasons why this engagement gap exists, not the least of which being that conservatives have carefully tilled the ground on court issues for the last forty years.  Liberals, having focused on a variety of other issues, are now trying to catch up.  I feel safe in predicting that, without erasing the engagement gap on judges, liberals cannot win a SCOTUS fight.  And to erase the engagement gap, liberals need to build the appropriate infrastructure.

5. Build the Infrastructure

Name a prominent conservative organization:

Some of you would name the Federalist Society, the conservative legal organization whose membership card can be found in the wallets of many judges and nominees.  Others might suggest the National Rifle Association (NRA), one of the most powerful pro-gun lobbying groups in the country.  Other names should come to mind quickly: Focus on the Family; Moral Majority; Christian Coalition of America; Family Research Council, etc.  What do all these organizations have in common?  They are all involved in judicial politics (Now, the Federalist Society does not take positions on judges, but prominent FedSoc leader Leonard Leo advises the President on judicial issues).

Now name a prominent liberal organization:

Most of you would name the ACLU, which is one of the only organizations on the left whose fundraising and membership rival the conservative groups mentioned above.  However, unlike the groups noted above, the ACLU does not take a position on nominations and steers clear of judicial politics.

While other organizations, including Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the Leadership Conference, and People for the American Way, do get involved on judges, their ability to mobilize voters and constituents still pales in comparison.

Take an example:

The Judicial Crisis Network, run by Justice Thomas clerk Carrie Severino, has raised and spent millions to fight Obama judges and promote Trump’s picks.  Yet, no liberal equivalent existed until this year, when Demand Justice was founded.

To be clear, the infrastructure gap will not go away overnight, but Democrats will only be able to win a SCOTUS fight if they have managed to significantly narrow it.

 

As the SCOTUS fight unfolds and both sides flex their muscle, keep an eye on the five factors highlighted above.  Conservatives have shown how to win on judges for decades, but if liberals can maintain unity, highlight the right messenger, raise the political cost of a yes vote, erase the engagement gap, and build the infrastructure, they may be able to pull off an upset.

 

On the “Correctness” of Brown v. Board of Education

This morning, five judicial nominees testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the most controversial of whom was Wendy Vitter, tapped for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  Among many sharp exchanges that Vitter had with Committee Democrats during the hearing, one was particularly notable:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) asked Vitter if she believed that Brown v. Board of Education, the seminal Supreme Court decision desegregating public schools, was correctly decided.  Vitter answered as follows:

“Senator, I don’t mean to be coy, but I think I get into a difficult…diff…difficult area when I start commenting on Supreme Court decisions, which are correctly decided and which I may disagree with.  Again, my personal, political, or religious views, I would set aside.  That is Supreme Court precedent.  It is binding.  If I were honored to be confirmed, I would be bound by it and of course I would uphold it.”

Blumenthal pressed his question and Vitter repeated her refusal, stating:

“And again, I would respectfully not comment on what could be my boss’ ruling, the Supreme Court.  I would be bound by it.  And if I start commenting on ‘I agree with this case or don’t agree with that case,’ I think we get into a slippery slope.”

Vitter’s answer has already been criticized by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and judicial nominations guru Christopher Kang, among others.  It will no doubt be raised repeatedly by opponents to argue that Vitter is an opponent of the Brown decision and thus, unfit for the bench.  Setting aside any normative evaluation of Vitter, it is worth asking: how can a judicial nominee ethically answer Blumenthal’s question?

The “Correct” Answer

From a moral sense, there is little doubt Brown was correctly decided.  This is the consensus position of the legal community and of most (but not all) Americans.  As such, isn’t that the “correct” answer to the question?

Last month, Sixth Circuit nominee John Nalbandian seemed to agree, answering Blumenthal’s question as follows:

“Brown, Senator, is a seminal decision in the Supreme Court’s history and corrected an egregious error in Plessy v. Ferguson and I believe…I believe it was [correctly decided].”

However, about a minute later, Nalbandian was asked if  Roe v. Wade, which established the right to terminate a pregnancy, was correctly decided.  He said the following:

“I’m reluctant, and I think it would be inappropriate for me to go down a list of Supreme Court cases and say I think this case was rightly decided and that case was not, because I think it would call into question my partiality going forward.”

The problem here is that the two answers are essentially irreconcilable.  Regardless of one’s feelings about the cases, both Brown and Roe are binding precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court.  As such, it is truly odd that a nominee can comment on the “correctness” of one without compromising his impartiality, but not the other.

Nalbandian did attempt a distinction between Roe and Brown, arguing that Brown is widely accepted while Roe raises issues that may come before him as a judge.  However, it’s hard to accept this answer for two reasons:

First, Nalbandian is up for a lower court judgeship.  As such, he will have no opportunity to opine on the “correctness” of Roe.  Rather, it is his responsibility to apply Roe, its progeny, and all other Supreme Court precedents.  Thus, as a lower court judge, all Supreme Court precedents bind him equally.

Second, there is no such thing as a case that will NEVER come before the judge.  Long settled precedents are constantly re-examined in the legal system.  AustinBowers, MillerBakke have all been challenged and re-evaluated before the Supreme Court in the last two decades.  As such, the distinction between a “settled” case like Brown and an “unsettled” case like Roe appears even more spurious.

The “Principled” Answer

So setting aside the BrownRoe decision Nalbandian made, we come back to the Vitter answer, which is to decline to opine on all Supreme Court precedents.  After all, it is a lower court judge’s responsibility to apply ALL Supreme Court precedents, even those that they believe to be wrongly decided.  As such, the only “principled” answer is to decline to state the “correctness” of any Supreme Court decision.

Unfortunately, this answer looks awful from a political sense.  It leads to a nominee being battered for not “supporting” popular precedents such as Brown, or worse, having their partiality questioned through their refusal to answer.

Avoiding the Trap

The dual pressures noted above are not a bug but rather a feature of Blumenthal’s question.  Asking whether Brown was correctly decided, while innocuous on the surface, is a cleverly worded Catch-22.  Answer in the affirmative and you’re forced into unprincipled verbal gymnastics when the follow-up question about Roe hits.  Decline to answer out of principle and you’re branded uncooperative or prejudiced.

As such, I’d propose the following answer to Blumenthal’s question:

“Senator, Brown is a very important precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court.  If you’d asked me about the case when I was a private citizen, I would have happily discussed my respect for the decision and its progeny.  However, I’m here as a judicial nominee, and as such, I have a responsibility to conduct myself as I would on the bench.  Just as it would be inappropriate for a lower court judge to discuss the “correctness” of Supreme Court decisions, it would be equally inappropriate for me.  I can, however, assure you that I will faithfully apply Brown and its progeny, as well as all other Supreme Court cases.”

Such an answer adopts the best parts of both Nalbandian’s and Vitter’s answers.  It sidesteps the Brown question but makes clear the reasons for the sidestep while re-iterating respect for Brown.  While no answer is immune to being twisted, it is unlikely that the answer above would be taken to suggest that the nominee opposed Brown itself.

It will be interesting to see if Blumenthal repeats the Brown question at the hearing in two weeks, and, if he does so, how judicial nominees choose to answer.  Should they choose to do so, nominees adopting the proposed answer above will be seen as exercising the sincerest form of flattery.

Judicial Nominations 2017 – Year in Review

Percentage of Nominees Confirmed in 1st Year of Presidency

As 2017 draws to a close, let us look back at the Trump Administration’s push to fill judicial vacancies, and compare the numbers from his first year to those of the past few presidents (all numbers are drawn from the Federal Judicial Center).

Nominations

In the first year of his presidency, Trump submitted 69 nominees to Article III courts, more than any other modern president.  Compare the following:

Nominations

Nominations sent to the Senate in 1st Year of Presidency

As seen from the table above, Trump has submitted more district court nominees in the first year of his presidency than any of the last five presidents.  He also submitted more court of appeals nominees than any president other than George W. Bush.  While this is partially a function of a higher number of vacancies that Trump inherited at the beginning of his term, it is nonetheless a testament to the focus on judges by White House Counsel Don McGahn and his team.

Confirmations

In 2017, the Senate confirmed 19 of Trump’s nominees: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch; 12 judges to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and 6 to the U.S. District Courts.

Confirmations

Nominees Confirmed in 1st Year of Presidency

As seen from the chart, while Trump has had more appellate nominees confirmed than the other modern presidents, he has also had the fewest district court nominees confirmed.  This is largely the result of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s prioritizing of appellate nominees when calling a vote.  In general, McConnell has largely ignored district court nominees, focusing on quick votes on the appellate picks.

This prioritization means that, as a whole, Trump has seen a smaller percentage of his judicial nominees confirmed than any of the last five presidents.

Percentage

Percentage of Nominees Confirmed in 1st Year of Presidency

Withdrawals

Of the 69 nominees sent to the senate this year, three have already been (informally) withdrawn by the Administration: Jeff Mateer; Matthew Petersen; and Brett Talley.  This is unusual for two reasons: first, as of this point in their presidencies, none of the past five presidents had withdrawn a single nominee; and second, in general, this represents a higher percentage of “nominee failure” than previous presidents.

In comparison, out of all the nominations made in their first year, Presidents Reagan, and George H.W. Bush saw every single nominee confirmed.  Presidents Clinton and Obama each submitted one nomination in their first year that was ultimately not confirmed: Theodore Klein to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida; and Louis Butler to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.  While President George W. Bush had to eventually withdraw four of his first year nominees: Terrence Boyle; Miguel Estrada; Charles Pickering; and Henry Saad, all of these nominees were blocked either through home-state opposition, or through the filibuster.  As such, the defeat of three nominees in a post-filibuster universe is particularly notable.

Diversity

I wrote earlier in the year that the Trump’s administration’s nominees have been relatively less diverse than those of previous presidents.  At the time of that post, Trump had nominated 36 federal judges.  Looking at all 69 of his appointments, it is important to re-evaluate the picture:

Trump has nominated four women to the courts of appeals, and twelve women to the district courts.  As such, 23% of Trump’s judicial nominees are women.  In comparison, 38% of Obama’s judicial nominees from his first year were women, as were 25% of George W. Bush’s, 37.5% of Clinton’s, 17% of George H.W. Bush’s, & 5% of Reagan’s.

Trump has nominated one African American nominee: Judge Terry Moorer, one Hispanic nominee: Fernando Rodriguez; and four Asian American nominees: Judge Amul Thapar; Judge James Ho; Karen Gren Scholer; and Jill Otake.  As such, 9% of Trump’s judicial nominees are lawyers of color.

Age

While Trump nominees have drawn some criticism for their youth and inexperience, overall, their ages are not significantly different than those of prior appointees.

Trump’s appellate nominees so far have an average age of 49.5, while his district court nominees have an average age of 52.5.  As noted earlier, this is comparable to the ages of Bush, Clinton, and Obama nominees.

Overall Assessment

Reviewing his first year in office,  many observers agree that judicial appointments constituted an area of success for President Trump.  Looking at the empirical evidence, it is clear the Trump Administration has moved quickly on nominations, submitting more judges to the senate than any other recent president.  However, when it comes to confirmations, they still lag behind other recent presidents.

Furthermore, the data suggests that declarations of a “flood” of young conservatives reaching the bench are hyperbole.  As noted above, on average, Trump’s nominees are comparable in age to those of other recent presidents.  Furthermore, McConnell’s focus on appellate confirmations has caused district confirmations to lag.  As such, the district courts, where a significant portion of American caselaw is decided, remain, as of yet, untouched by Trump.

 

Bending Blue Slips: What was the Need?

For those few who haven’t heard, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley announced yesterday that, contrary to previous statements, he is moving forward with hearings on two appellate judges who did not have positive blue slips from both home state senators: Justice David Stras for the Eighth Circuit; and Stuart Kyle Duncan to the Fifth Circuit (whom Republican home-state senator John Kennedy has not yet committed to supporting).

Let’s set aside the merits of Grassley’s new “case-by-case” blue slip policy.  You can make arguments on either side.

Let’s also side Grassley’s hypocrisy in setting aside a policy he strictly abided by when it hurt a Democratic President, blocking numerous well-qualified appellate nominees, including:

  • Former Indiana Supreme Court Justice Myra Selby
  • U.S. District Court Judge Abdul Kallon
  • Appellate Head at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania Rebecca Ross Haywood
  • Kentucky Supreme Court Justice Lisabeth Hughes

Let’s instead focus on what I keep asking myself about Grassley’s announcement:

What was the Need?

I have yet to find the masses of Trump appellate nominees being blocked by blue slips.  Out of the eighteen appellate nominees put forward by the Trump Administration, only three have not had both blue slips returned: Stras, Michael Brennan for the Seventh Circuit; and Ryan Bounds to the Ninth Circuit.  In fact, of the eleven Democratic senators with an opportunity to return blue slips on appellate nominees, seven have done so.  As Grassley’s staff itself stated a month ago, there is no issue with Democratic senators not returning their blue slips.  So, why the urgency?

Now, it may be possible that many prospective Trump nominees are being blocked pre-nomination by the intransigency of home-state senators.  But, in his statement justifying his actions, Grassley made no mention of this.  Instead, his focus was on the nominations already made, a measure by which Trump is already doing far better than his predecessors.

I hypothesize that Grassley’s announcement has less to do with the level of obstruction and more to do with the current political climate.  With the GOP’s poor performance in the 2017 elections, and the recent revelations affecting the Alabama special election, Senate Republicans are suddenly facing the possibility that they may be in the minority after the 2018 elections.  Facing a shorter window to confirm judges, Grassley may have felt the pressure to move as many as possible.

At any rate, Grassley’s move, whether principled or politically motivated, was strategically misguided, as I will discuss in the companion piece to this post.

 

The End of Blue Slips? Two Reasons To Be Skeptical

This morning, the Weekly Standard released an interview with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, focusing on judicial nominations.  Among various pronouncements, McConnell declared in the interview that blue slips “won’t be honored at all.”  Various pundits seized upon this, declaring “a serious escalation in the judicial wars” and that the confirmation process has been eased for “Trump’s most ideological judges.”  Despite the declaration from McConnell, there are two reasons to believe that reports of the blue slip’s death have been greatly exaggerated.

First, consider the source of the statement.  As much as he may wish it so, Mitch McConnell does not control blue slips (if the majority leader had such control, it is likely that then-Majority Leader Harry Reid would have killed blue slips in the Obama Administration).  Rather, the blue slip in the Judiciary Committee tradition, and as such, its future rests in the control of the Committee leadership.  So far, Chairman Chuck Grassley has offered no comment on McConnell’s statement, suggested either: Grassley’s not on board; or Grassley is supportive but was not consulted before McConnell’s interview.  Either way, it doesn’t look like McConnell’s remarks are part of a coordinated assault on the blue slip.

Second, none of the relevant parties in question: the White House; the Judiciary Committee; or Senate Democrats, are acting like blue slips are on their deathbed.  The White House has studiously avoided nominating judges in states with Democratic Senators.  The Judiciary Committee has held off on hearings from any nominee that does not have two positive blue slips (it avoided a golden opportunity to challenge blue slips by holding a hearing on Justice David Stras next week, instead going with Greg Katsas who has no blue slip issues).  Senate Democrats have not yet reacted to McConnell’s statements (as would be imminent if blue slips were truly gone).

So, if blue slips are not dead, why would McConnell declare it so.  I can think of three reasons: first, to persuade restive conservative groups that Republicans are serious about judicial nominations; second, to pressure recalcitrant Democrats into returning blue slips; and third, to prepare the groundwork for a future assault on the blue slip.  As such, it is better to think of McConnell’s comments as the first salvo in the battle, rather than a declaration of the outcome.

One final comment: if McConnell and Grassley do choose to axe blue slips, it will be one of their most strategically foolish decisions.  As much as the Judicial Crisis Network may pretend otherwise, the blue slip is one of the greatest gifts that Republicans have.  This is because, over the last four Administrations, it is Republicans who have successfully wielded blue slips.  For example, in the Obama Administration, seven appellate nominees were partially or successfully held up through blue slips, compared to just five in the Bush Administration.  Out of the vacancies left at the end of the Obama Administration, a whopping 33 can be tied partially or directly to blue slips.  In comparison, just 12 vacancies at the end of the Bush Administration can be tied to blue slips.  So far, the Trump Administration has 50 judicial nominees pending before the Senate.  Out of those, exactly three face blue slips issues (and in each of those cases, Democratic senators are willing to substitute equally conservative nominees that they have agreed upon).  So, as such, why change the rules of a game you’re winning?  If McConnell does end up axing blue slips, he’ll have gained virtually nothing (other than more cloture votes, fewer time agreements, and a longer, more exhaustive calendar) and will have lost his best tool for keeping liberal judges off the bench.

 

 

Nominations – Sept. 28, 2017

Today, the White House announced nine new judicial nominations (seven to lifetime appointments).  The new nominees are:

Barry Ashe, a New Orleans based civil litigator, has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Daniel Domenico, the former Solicitor General of Colorado, has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

Stuart Kyle Duncan, an appellate attorney and former counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Judge Kurt Engelhardt, a federal district judge appointed by President George W. Bush, has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

James Ho, a partner in the Dallas Office of Gibson Dunn, and the former Solicitor General of Texas, has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Ryan T Holte, a professor at the University of Akron School of Law, has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Gregory E. Maggs, the Arthur Selwyn Miller Research Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School, has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. (Full disclosure, Maggs taught me in law school, wrote several of my clerkship recommendations, and remains a mentor.)

Howard Nielson, a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice, has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.

Justice Don Willett, currently serving on the Texas Supreme Court, has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

 

New Judicial Nominations – Sept. 7, 2017

Today, President Donald Trump announced the nominations of three circuit court nominees and thirteen district court nominees. The nominees are as follows:

Judge R. Stan Baker – a federal magistrate judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Baker has been tapped to fill a vacancy on the same district.

Jeffrey Uhlman Beaverstock – a partner in a Mobile law firm, Beaverstock has been nominated to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.

Ryan Wesley Bounds – a federal prosecutor and former clerk to conservative Judge Diarmund O’Scannlain, Bounds has been nominated to fill O’Scannlain’s Oregon seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Judge Elizabeth Branch – a judge on the Georgia Court of Appeals, Branch has been nominated to fill the Georgia seat vacated by Judge Frank Hull on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

John W. Broomes – a partner in an Overland Park based law firm, Broomes has been tapped for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

Judge Walter David Counts III – a federal magistrate, Counts has been nominated to a fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.  He had been nominated to the same court by President Obama but was not confirmed.

Rebecca Grady Jennings – a Louisville law firm partner, Jennings has been tapped for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

Matthew Kacsmaryk – Deputy General Counsel to the First Liberty Institute, Kacsmaryk has been nominated for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Gregory Katsas – a Deputy White House Counsel and former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, Katsas has been nominated to fill a vacancy left by Judge Janice Rogers Brown on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Emily Coody Marks – a Montgomery law firm partner, Marks has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

Jeff Mateer – the first Assistant Attorney General of Texas, Mateer has been nominated for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Judge Terry F. Moorer – a federal magistrate judge, Moorer’s nomination was announced for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama in May (but never submitted).  Moorer has instead been nominated for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.

Matthew Petersen – a Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, Petersen has been nominated for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Fernando Rodriguez – field office director in the Dominican Republic for International Justice Mission, Rodriguez has been nominated for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Karen Gren Scholer – a principal at a Dallas law firm, Scholer has been nominated to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  She had previously been nominated to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas by President Obama.

Brett Talley – a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Policy at the Department of Justice, Talley has been nominated to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.