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.

 

Thoughts on the Sept. 6th Judiciary Committee Hearing

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on two circuit court nominees, two district court nominees, and one executive nominee.  Here are my preliminary thoughts on the proceedings, which can be watched here.  (I’ll focus on the first panel, as Parker and Campbell skated through and will be confirmed easily).

DISCLAIMER:  These are just my opinions.  Reasonable observers of the hearing can obviously disagree on any of these points.

  1. Two Circuit Court Nominees Will Not be The Norm – Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) started the day by recognizing that the hearing will be the second with multiple circuit court nominees, a fact that had drawn liberal criticism.  Grassley’s statement acknowledged that the hearing was “unusual” and suggested that he would go back to having only one circuit court nominee per hearing.
  2. Joan Larsen Will Be Confirmed – Republicans really want Justice Larsen on the circuit court bench; running ads to influence home state senators, threatening to ignore blue slips, and double-booking her with another controversial nominee.  Over the course of the hearing, it was clear why.  Larsen was poised and comfortably conversed with senators on several legal issues.  She assured Democrats that she would be willing to rule against Trump, and emphasized the importance of judicial independence.  She also blunted another line of criticism by confirming that she had no role in the controversial “torture memos” which came from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) during her tenure there.  As I’ve noted before, the strongest argument against Larsen is a procedural one based on lack of consultation.  Now that the blue slips are in, it’s a question of when, rather than if, Larsen will be confirmed.
  3. Amy Barrett Will Be Strongly Opposed – As Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) noted early in the hearing, Barrett is “controversial.”  Her writings on Catholic judges and the death penalty and stare decisis have drawn criticism.  For much of the hearing, Barrett carefully navigated her old writings, assuring the Committee that she would follow precedent and that judges could not let their religious views supersede the law.  However, much of the posturing was undone by two key missteps.  First, under questioning from Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Barrett declared that, had she been nominated as a trial judge, rather than as an appellate judge, her Catholic faith would compel her not to enter orders of execution.  Sen. Hirono balked at the answer, but did not ask the obvious follow-up: why does Barrett feel compelled to recuse herself from entering orders of execution as a trial judge, but not from affirming such orders as an appellate judge?  Second (and much more damaging from a PR perspective), in an exchange with Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), Barrett acknowledged that she had accepted $4200 from the controversial anti-LGBTQ group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).  When Franken pointed out that ADF held many extreme views, including supporting the sterilization of transgender persons, and had been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Barrett inexplicably tried to defend ADF.  She argued that as ADF had filed as co-counsel at the Supreme Court with Wilmer Hale and that, as she herself had experienced no discrimination while interacting with them, they could not be a hate group.  It was an unnecessarily defensive performance and undermined her careful answers until that point.
  4. Franken Remains the Minority’s Best Questioner – In the last “big” hearing,  Franken helped lead the Democrat’s charge against John Bush and Damien Schiff.  This time, he shone in his exchange with Barrett, honing in on inconsistencies in her answers, pressing for follow ups, and stepping back when needed.  Despite not having a law degree, Franken’s performance was one any trial attorney would be proud of.
  5. Sen. Kennedy Remains the Majority’s Toughest Questioner – During the Bush-Newsom-Schiff hearing, Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) hammered the latter for his inflammatory blog posts and refused to question Bush at all.  This time, Kennedy started off his questioning by noting that some Republicans had suggested he “go easy” on the Trump nominees.  He declined to do so, pushing Barrett and Larsen to engage with him on legal philosophy, and criticizing them when they refused to do so.  Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) was forced to come to their defense, noting that the nominees were ethically barred from answering some of Kennedy’s questions.  Nevertheless, an unchastened Kennedy maintained the same tempo of questioning in his second round.  At any rate, while Kennedy will likely support both Barrett and Larsen, his desire to engage in real legal debate is refreshing and makes him a welcome presence on the committee.

Where are the Women: The Alarming Gender Gap Among Trump’s Judges

During the 2012 Presidential campaign, Republican candidate Mitt Romney was mocked for declaring that he had “binders full of women” ready to appoint to federal positions.  The phrase, while awkward, signaled Romney’s commitment to gender diversity in his appointments.  In contrast, President Trump’s appointments, from his US Attorneys to his executive appointments, have been overwhelmingly male.  This pattern is evident in his judicial appointments.

As of August 23, 2017, President Trump has named 36 nominees to Article III courts: 11 to the U.S. Court of Appeals; 24 to the U.S. District Courts; and Justice Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Out of these 36 nominees, only seven are women.  In contrast, by August 2009, President Obama had nominated only 17 nominees, but had named just as many women: seven, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Comparatively, only 19% of President Trump’s judicial nominations are women, a lower percentage than the last three presidents, and comparable with the nominations made by President George H.W. Bush.  The ratio is particularly skewed in nominations to the U.S. District Courts.  Only four out of 24 District Court nominations have gone to women.

Out of the seven female nominees, three replace departing female judges and four replace male judges.  In contrast, six of the male nominees put forward replace female judges.  In other words, with the confirmation of these nominees, for the first time since the Eisenhower Administration, the overall number of active female judges would go down.

It is still early, and the Trump Administration could pick up the pace and appoint more women to the federal bench.  However, the tea leaves are not promising.  Rather, the nominees the Administration have in the works are also, generally, male:

  • DC Circuit – While the Administration was looking at four well-qualified female candidates to fill the vacancy left by Judge Janice Rogers Brown’s retirement, the expected nominee, Deputy White House Counsel Greg Katsas, is male.
  • Second Circuit – The Administration has pitched four candidates to New York Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand to fill two 2nd circuit vacancies: all four candidates are male.
  • Third Circuit – The Administration is preparing to nominate Paul Matey to fill one of two vacancies without a nominee.  For the other vacancy, the Administration is mulling David Porter.  Both candidates are male.
  • Fifth Circuit – The Administration is weighing four male candidates for two vacancies on the court.
  • Seventh Circuit – The White House has interviewed three men to replace Judge Ann Claire Williams.
  • Ninth Circuit – The leading candidates for vacancies in Arizona, California, and Oregon are all men.
  • Tenth Circuit – Three male attorneys are being considered for the New Mexico seat vacated by Judge Paul Kelly.
  • Eleventh Circuit – The list of candidates being considered for the vacancy by Judge Frank Hull (a woman), is mostly male, but does include female Georgia Supreme Court Justice Britt Grant.

The Administration and its supporters will argue that this doesn’t matter.  As long as the nominees put forward are qualified, their gender is irrelevant.

While this is true on the individual level, such an argument is based around the erroneous assumption that the only way a female candidate would be chosen over a male one is due to emphasis on diversity.  This is patently false.  Women make up approximately 35% of the legal profession, and this percentage is increasing sharply. Furthermore, the federal bench (the elite of the judiciary) is already one third female.   As such, producing a pool of nominees that is only 19% female suggests an inability to consider qualified female nominees, rather than a slavish devotion to quality.

Since FDR was in office, every single administration appointed a greater percentage of women to the federal bench than the previous administration of their party.  Unless corrective measures are take, the Trump Administration looks set to break that trend.

Update – I wanted to address a reader inquiry.  The reader in question wanted to know why the relevant barometer for comparison was the percentage of women in the legal profession, rather than the percentage of women in organizations like the Federalist Society, from where Trump draws his appointees.  Three responses.

First, federal judges primarily serve the rule of law and the general public.  As such, it is particularly important that the public maintain faith in the judiciary.  Numerous studies have shown that when female or minority judges are left off the bench, that both the quality and perception of justice suffer.  As such, you judge the diversity of federal judges based on those appearing in court before them.

Second, the Federalist Society does not constitute the entirety of conservative lawyers.  While the membership of the Federalist Society may be predominantly white and male, there are other sources of conservative women.  Furthermore, District Court appointments, where the gender gap is particularly bad, generally do not come from the Federalist Society.  In most cases, the male nominees being chosen are themselves not members of the Federalist Society.  As such, it is difficult to believe that Federalist Society membership is the basis on which female judges are being ignored.

Third and most importantly, the pool of conservative attorneys that Trump is drawing upon for his nominees is essentially the same as the pool tapped by past Republican Presidents.  Over ten years ago, despite women making up only about 25% of the legal community, President Bush managed to have women constitute 22% of his appointees.  Twenty five years ago, President George H.W. Bush essentially matched Trump’s current 19% despite working with a female legal population that was substantially lower than what Trump has now.  When these past presidents, whose nominees were equally conservative, could maintain parity between the percentage of women in their appointments and the percentage of women in the legal community, there is no reason why President Trump cannot do so.

New Judicial Nominations – Aug. 3, 2017

Today, the White House submitted another two nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals and six nominees to the U.S. District Courts.  The nominees are:

Michael B. Brennan – a partner at the Milwaukee law firm Gass Weber Mullins LLC. has been nominated for a Wisconsin seat on the Seventh Circuit.

Donald C. Coggins – an attorney in private practice in Spartanburg, Coggins has been nominated for the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.  Coggins had previously been nominated to this court by President Obama.

Judge Terry A. Doughty – a state court judge, Doughty has been nominated for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

L. Steven Grasz – the senior counsel at Husch Blackwell LLP. has been nominated for a Nebraska seat on the Eighth Circuit.

Michael J. Huneau – a Lafayette attorney in private practice, Juneau has been nominated for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

A. Marvin Quattlebaum – an attorney in private practice in Greenville, Quattlebaum has been nominated for the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.

Holly Lou Teeter – a federal prosecutor, Teeter has been nominated for the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

Judge Robert E. Weir – a federal magistrate judge, Weird has been nominated for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

 

The Consultation Double-Standard

Let’s compare excerpts from the Senate Judiciary Questionnaires of two judicial nominees:

“In January 2017, I was asked separately by both Congressman Erik Paulsen and Congressman Tom Emmer if I would be interested in being nominated to fill a vacant position on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  I indicated I would be interested.  In early February 2017, Congressman Paulsen, Congressman Emmer, and Congressman Jason Lewis sent a letter to the White House recommending that I be nominated for the position.  Each congressman met with me separately.  Also in early February 2017, I corresponded and spoke with an official from the White House Counsel’s Office about the vacancy and my potential interest in the position…”

“There is a commission formed by Senators Baldwin and Johnson to recommend judicial candidates to the Senators.  I applied to that commission and was interviewed on November 18, 2014 in Madison, Wisconsin.  On May 7, 2015, Senator Baldwin asked for my permission to include my name on a list of candidates she sent to the White House for consideration…On October 28, 2015, I interviewed with staff from Senator Johnson’s office in Milwaukee, and on November 5, 2015, I interviewed with Senator Johnson at his office in Washington D.C.”

The first is the description of the judicial nomination process offered by Justice David Stras, nominated for a Minnesota seat on the Eighth Circuit, a state with two Democratic Senators.  The second is a description of the same process offered by Donald Schott, a Wisconsin attorney nominated by President Obama to a seat on the Seventh Circuit (but never confirmed).  At the time, Wisconsin had a Democratic and a Republican Senator.

Let’s look at other examples.  Here is Justice Joan Larsen’s path to a Michigan seat on the Sixth Circuit (Michigan has two Democratic Senators):

“Since March 9, 2017, I have been in contact with officials from the White House Counsel’s Office and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Policy about a potential federal judicial appointment.  On April 27, 2017, I interviewed with White House Counsel Don McGahn in Washington D.C.  On May 8, 2017, the President submitted my nomination to the Senate.”

In comparison, here is the path for Judge Carolyn McHugh, who was nominated by Obama to a Utah seat on the Tenth Circuit (Utah has two Republican Senators):

“In January 2013, I submitted a cover letter and resume to Senator Orrin Hatch and to Congressman Jim Matheson for a possible position on the Tenth Circuit.  On January 16, 2013, I interviewed with Senator Hatch and Senator Mike Lee, and on January 30, 2013, I interviewed with Congressman Jim Matheson.  On February 4, 2013, I was notified by Senator Hatch that he and Senator Lee would be recommending me to the White House for consideration.”  

The contrast is stark.  Compared to the Obama Administration, the Trump Administration has engaged in no pre-nomination consultation with Democratic Senators, instead cutting them out of the process.  Now, Senate Republicans are debating whether to support their Democratic colleagues on this issue, or to cut off one of their only avenues for recourse: the blue slip.

 

Consultation under Obama

On March 2, 2009, shortly after President Obama had been sworn into office with a large Democratic Senate majority, all 41 members of the Senate Republican conference sent him a letter with a clear missive: consult Republican home-state senators on nominees, or face a filibuster.  Specifically, the letter noted:

“The principle of senatorial consultation (or senatorial courtesy)…dates to the Administration of George Washington.  Democrats and Republicans have acknowledged the importance of maintaining this principle, which allows individual senators to provide valuable insights into their constituents’ qualifications for federal service.”

The letter goes on to state a bright-line rule on judicial nominees:

“…if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee.”

To his credit, President Obama worked assiduously to engage Republican Senators on judicial nominees, allowing them to name circuit and district court candidates from their states, and refusing to nominate judges when he could not reach an agreement with home-state senators.  For his part, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) backed up his Republican colleagues by refusing to move forward with any nominee who did not have positive blue slips returned from both home-state senators, regardless of their party.  

In the six years that President Obama and Chairman Leahy served together, two circuit and seven district court nominees were blocked based on senatorial courtesy and blue slips:

  • Louis Butler – Western District of Wisconsin
  • Elissa Cadish – District of Nevada
  • Alison Lee – District of South Carolina
  • Jennifer May-Parker – Eastern District of North Carolina
  • Arvo Mikkanen – Northern District of Oklahoma
  • Victoria Nourse – Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Natasha Perdew Silas – Northern District of Georgia
  • Steven Six – Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
  • William Thomas – Southern District of Florida

When Republicans took over the Senate majority in 2014, new Chairman Chuck Grassley continued to strictly enforce senatorial courtesy and blue slips.  During the last two years of the Obama Administration, blue slip use by Republicans ramped up, and the following nominees were blocked:

  • Donald Beatty – District of South Carolina
  • Mary Barzee Flores – Southern District of Florida
  • Rebecca Ross Haywood – Third Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Lisabeth Tabor Hughes – Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Abdul Kallon – Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Myra Selby – Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Dax Erik Shepard – Northern District of Georgia
  • Patricia Timmons-Goodson – Eastern District of North Carolina

 

Consultation under Trump

Under a Trump Administration, Senate Republicans’ dedication to the even-handed application of senatorial courtesy has dimmed.  Rather, some Republicans seem to be ready to trash the “special responsibility” they once defended.

At any rate, such rhetoric may end being just that: rhetoric.  Tradition and principles aside, there are many practical reasons for keeping the blue slip.  Even if Republicans seek to look only at short-term interests, there is one key number to keep in mind: two.  In order words, if all Democrats line up against a nominee, Republicans can only afford to lose two of their own Senators without risking the judge’s confirmation.  While Senate Republicans may be able to muscle through a judge being blocked only based on ideology, it is hard to see them pushing a judge whose nomination was made with no consultation whatsoever.  

In other words, if the Trump Administration wants to see these nominees move, they’d do well to bring home state Democrats on board.  If nothing else, it gives the nominees a champion in the convoluted Senate confirmation process.  To use the words of the Senate Republican Conference:

“[Republicans], as a Conference, expect [senatorial consultations] to be observed, even-handedly and regardless of party affiliation.  And we will act to preserve this principle and the rights of our colleagues if it is not.”

President Trump Announces Ten New Judicial Nominations

Today, according to the Washington Times, President Trump nominated three judges to the U.S. Court of Appeals.  They are:

Stefanos Bibas, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the director of the University’s Supreme Court Clinic, was nominated to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Ralph Erickson, a federal trial judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, was nominated to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Justice Allison Eid of the Colorado Supreme Court, a former clerk of Justice Clarence Thomas, was nominated to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Trump also named three judges to the U.S. District Courts.  They are:

Claria Horn Boom, a Lexington attorney, was nominated to a joint seat on the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky.

Timothy J. Kelly, chief counsel to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Trevor McFadden, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice, was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Finally, Trump nominated Stephen S. Schwartz to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and Michael P. Allen, Amanda Meredith, & Joseph Toth to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.