John K. Bush, a distinguished commercial litigator, is the second Kentucky nominee named by President Trump to the Sixth Circuit.  Like the first, Judge Amul Thapar, Bush has a close connection with the Federalist Society.  However, unlike Thapar, Bush has no judicial record, making his conservative legal background even starker.

Background

John Kenneth Bush was born on Aug. 24, 1964 in Hot Springs, Arkansas.  After getting a B.A. from Vanderbilt University and a J.D. from Harvard Law School, Bush clerked for Judge J. Smith Henley on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  After his clerkship, Bush joined the Washington D.C. office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, working primarily in federal appellate matters.

In 1996, Bush moved to the Louisville office of Bingham, Greenebaum & Doll LLP, becoming a member in 1998, and a partner in 2012.  At Bingham, Bush served as Co-Chair of the Litigation Department, as well as Team Leader of the Antitrust Team.

Starting in 1997, Bush has served as President of the Louisville Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society, an organization dedicated to shaping the American legal system in accordance with originalist and textualist principles.

In November 2016, Bush indicated his interest in serving as a federal judge to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).  After meetings with McConnell, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), and officials in the White House Counsel’s Office and the Department of Justice, Bush was formally nominated on May 8, 2017.^[1]

History of the Seat

Bush has been nominated for a Kentucky seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  This seat opened in February 2017 with Judge Danny Julian Boggs’ move to senior status.^[2]  Boggs, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, has been eligible to take senior status (a status which allows for more flexibility in workload, and opens up a vacancy on the court) since October 2009, but did not announce the move until shortly before President Trump’s inauguration.

Legal Experience

In almost thirty years as an attorney, Bush has primarily worked on commercial litigation, both on the trial and the appellate level.  As the head of Bingham’s Antitrust team, many of Bush’s most prominent cases involve antitrust litigation.  Early in his year, Bush was chief trial counsel for Hillerich & Bradsby Co. (H&B.), a baseball bat manufacturer in Louisville, in multidistrict litigation involving NCAA rules governing aluminium baseball bats.^[3]

In one of his most significant cases, Bush represented Vibo Corporation, a tobacco manufacturer, in challenging its payment obligations under the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) negotiated between the tobacco industry and state attorney generals in the 90s.  In the suit, Bush challenged the MSA, arguing that the agreement violated federal antitrust law.  The primary suit, brought in the Western District of Kentucky, resulted in both trial and appellate rulings against Bush’s client.^[4]

Despite his primary focus on commercial litigation, Bush has also worked on some more controversial cases.  Alongside Theodore Olson, Bush was part of President Ronald Reagan’s defense team during the Iran-Contra investigation.^[5]  Bush also worked with law school classmate Mark Nielson to sue the State of Connecticut and force implementation of a voter-approved constitutional limit on state spending.^[6]  Bush was also part of the legal team that successfully defended a low sentence for Stacey C. Koon, the Los Angeles police sergeant convicted of civil rights violations for his role in the beating of Rodney King.^[7]

Furthermore, Bush’s participation as amicus counsel in two politically charged cases may also be brought up at his confirmation hearing.  In 2007, Bush filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Louisville Area Chamber of Commerce, Inc. urging the Supreme Court to uphold the Louisville school district’s desegregation plan.^[8]  Despite drafting a brief aimed at drawing conservative votes, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to strike down the desegregation plan for relying too closely on race.^[9]  Furthermore, last year, Bush participated as amicus counsel in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, a landmark First Amendment case which struck down Ohio’s ban of false statements in political campaigning.^[10] 

Political Activity

Bush, a registered Republican,^[11] has a long history of involvement with the Republican party.  Bush has contributed to the campaigns of numerous Republicans including McConnell, Paul, Congressman Andy Barr, and former Congresswoman Anne Northup.^[12]  Over the course of his career, Bush has contributed $4500 to McConnell and $1050 to Paul, as well as volunteering for both Senators’ re-election campaigns.^[13]

Bush has also made two small contributions to the Louisville and Jefferson County Republican Committee, as well as serving as an Executive Committee Member for the Jefferson County Republican Party for the last year.  Bush also served on Republican Governor Matt Bevin’s Transition Team.

Speeches and Writings

Over his thirty year long legal career, Bush has both spoken and written extensively on legal issues.  While most of Bush’s speeches and writings focus on the practice of litigation^[14] and antitrust law,^[15] two in particular may draw controversy.

Right to Privacy and the Kentucky Supreme Court

In 2006, Bush co-authored a paper for The Federalist Society of Law and Public Policy Studies alongside Prof. Paul E. Salamanca of the University of Kentucky School of Law.  The paper, titled “Eight Ways to Sunday: Which Direction, Kentucky Supreme Court?” criticized a series of rulings made by the Kentucky Supreme Court that the authors felt had expanded judicial authority at the expense of the legislature, and had disregarded precedent.  Among the areas of criticism, the authors noted the Kentucky Supreme Court’s tendency “to find rights in the state constitution above and beyond those in the U.S. Constitution.”^[16]  Specifically, they highlighted that the Court “immunized consensual sodomy from criminal prosecution” despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to the contrary in Bowers v. Hardwick.^[17]

Bush and Salamanca also criticized the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, noting that while the Court was initially willing to defer to state regulation of abortion, it’s “affirmance of the state’s efforts to protect unborn life was short-lived.”^[18]  They also chided former Justice Charles Leibson, stating that “Justice Leibson’s interpretation of Roe gave little, if any, weight to the protection of unborn life.

Originalist Interpretation of Libel Law

On March 7, 2009, Bush spoke at the Symposium on Constitutional Law at the University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law.  His speech, titled “The Constitution and the Importance of Interpretation: Original Meaning” included an endorsement of originalism: a method of interpretation that gives primacy to the words of the constitution as they were understood by the authors.^[19]  In his speech, Bush singled out the Supreme Court case of New York Times v. Sullivan as a case inconsistent with originalism.^[20]  Sullivan, which insulated news articles that criticized public figures, has been cited as a case that protects freedom of the press.^[21]  As such, Bush’s criticism of the case may raise questions about his willingness to interpret and apply it as a federal judge.  Bush’s remarks have already drawn concern from liberal groups, who argue that they could be used as a blueprint by the Trump Administration to target independent journalists.^[22]

Overall Assessment

Unlike the previous nominees featured on the Vetting Room, Bush has no experience as a judge.  While there is nothing innately disqualifying about this, Bush’s lack of judicial experience makes it more difficult to gauge what kind of a judge he will be.  However, looking at his extensive history with the Federalist Society, his endorsement of originalism, and his long involvement with the Republican party, it is reasonable to conclude that Bush will be a deeply conservative addition to the Sixth Circuit.

While partisan activity should not be a bar to judicial service, Bush’s background makes it easy for progressive legal groups to build a case against his confirmation.  In particular, Bush’s criticism of both Sullivan and an expanded right to privacy, as well as his defense of Koon, a white police officer charged with violating the civil rights of a black man, could be used as grounds for concern.^[23]

Overall, there is enough in Bush’s record to draw concern from the Judiciary Committee Democrats.  If and when Bush’s nomination comes up for Committee consideration, I expect a partisan battle over his confirmation.

---