Martha Pacold, only 39, is part of a 3-judge package for the Northern District of Illinois negotiated between Senators Richard Durbin & Tammy Duckworth, and the White House. While Pacold is currently based out of Washington D.C., she has spent the majority of her legal career in Chicago and is favored to return there as a federal judge.
Martha Maria Pacold was born on February 3, 1979, in Richmond, VA. Pacold attended Indiana University, graduating with highest honors in 1999 (at just 20). She then attended the University of Chicago Law School, graduating with honors in 2002.
After graduating, Pacold clerked for Judge Arthur Raymond Randolph on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, for Judge Jay Bybee on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and then for Justice Clarence Thomas on the U.S. Supreme Court. In the latter position, Pacold was co-clerks with former Solicitor General Jeff Wall.
After finishing up her clerkships, Pacold joined the Department of Justice as Counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. After a year, she joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia as a Special Assistant United States Attorney (SAUSA).
In 2007, Pacold joined the Chicago Office of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP as an Associate. She became a Partner at the firm in 2010. In 2017, she left that position to serve as Executive Secretary in the Department of the Treasury. She became Deputy General Counsel a few months later and currently serves in that capacity.
History of the Seat
Pacold has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This seat opened on March 1, 2017, when Judge John Darrah moved to senior status.
In June 2017, Pacold was contacted by the White House to gauge her interest in a federal judgeship. In February 2018, she applied with a screening committee set up by Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, both Democrats. Pacold was chosen as a prospective nominee for the Northern District by the end of February and was nominated as part of a three-judge package on June 7, 2018.
While Pacold has held many legal positions throughout her legal career, the most significant and longest is her ten year tenure at Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP in Chicago. In this position, Pacold primarily handled civil litigation on behalf of corporations. For example, Pacold represented chemical company DuPont in defending against allegations of environmental contamination in New Jersey. She also represented Bayer Pharmaceuticals in a patent suit against Novartis.
Notably, Pacold represented the City of Chicago and a team of Chicago police officers against a 1983 action based on claims of excessive force and false arrest. The case emerged from the defendant’s arrest while she was questioning police officers regarding their simultaneous arrest of her son. After a jury verdict in favor of the officers, Pacold successfully defended the decision on appeal.
Over the last ten years, Pacold has made a handful of political contributions, all to Republicans. Among the recipients included the Presidential campaigns of John McCain and Mitt Romney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Sens. Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton.
Of Pacold’s writings, two may draw attention. First, as a law student, Pacold authored a paper discussing fee shifting provisions in class actions. In the paper, Pacold argues that current fee shifting statutes give plaintiff’s attorneys too strong an incentive to settle rather than take cases to trial, as their attorney fee recoveries are often higher during settlement. Pacold notes that this is counterintuitive as “the desire of plaintiffs’ attorneys to obtain higher fees at the expense of their clients is not a legitimate reason to increase the rate of settlements further.” Instead, Pacold proposes reforming the statutory fee shifting structure by not applying it in the settlements context.
Pacold’s second notable writing is a Letter to the Editor written as an undergraduate, in which Pacold argues that laws prohibiting sex discrimination do not prohibit same-sex sexual harassment (relating to the then-pending Oncale case). Instead, Pacold argues that Oncale, a male who suffered sexual harassment from his male boss, cannot prove sex discrimination because his workplace has no females. The Supreme Court disagreed in a unanimous decision.
While Martha Pacold is, ultimately, a package nominee, to be considered with two others supported by Senators and the Administration, she may draw more opposition than her fellow nominees. This is for three reasons: first, Pacold is the youngest of the nominees at only 39 (although she does meet the ABA’s 12 years of practice requirement); second, Pacold is on record indicating that Title VII does not protect same-sex sexual harassment, a controversial position given the current focus on Title VII’s protection for transgender and LGBT individuals; third, Pacold clerked for Justice Thomas, who is notorious for selecting many deeply conservative individuals to clerk for him. The combination of these factors may draw some raised eyebrows from Democrats.
However, with support from Durbin and Duckworth, Pacold remains likely to be ultimately confirmed with a strong bipartisan majority.
 Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong. Martha M. Pacold: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees 1.
 Id. at 2.
 Id. at 31.
 In re Environmental Contamination of Pompton Lakes, N.J.: Super. Ct. (Bergen Cnty.).
 See In re Bayer HealthCare LLC and CSL Behring LLC, Case No. 2010-M918 (Fed. Cir.).
 Whitehead v. Bond, 680 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2012).
 See id. at 922-25.
 See id. at 926.
 Center for Responsive Politics, https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?cand=&cycle=&employ=&name=martha+pacold&order=desc&sort=D&state=&zip= (last visited August 21, 2018).
 See id.
 Martha Pacold, Attorneys’ Fees in Class Actions Governed by Fee-Shifting Statutes, 68 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1007 (Summer 2001).
 Id. at 1028.
 Id. at 1029.
 See id. at 1030-32.
 Martha M. Pacold, When is Sexual Harassment Discrimination, Wash. Post, Dec. 17, 1997.
 See id.
 See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Srvs, Inc., 523 US 75 (1998).