Alongside Trina Thompson and Eumi Lee, Noel Wise marks the third Alameda County Superior Court judge named to the Northern District by President Biden.

Background

The 56 year old Wise got her B.S. from the University of Nevada in 1989 and her J.D. cum laude from Nova Southeastern University School of Law in 1993. Wise clerked for Justice Harry Lee Anstead on the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals and then joined the U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental and Natural Resources Division, as a trial attorney in Washington D.C.

In 2002, after obtaining a J.S.M. from Stanford Law School, Wise returned to San Francisco to become Of Counsel at Stoel Rives LLP. In 2004, she left to become an in-house counsel at Pacific Gas and Electric Company. In 2006, she became a partner at Wise Gleicher in Alameda.

In 2014, Governor Jerry Brown appointed Wise to the Alameda County Superior Court to replace Judge Carrie McIntyre Panetta. Wise has served on the court since.

History of the Seat

Wise has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to replace Judge Edward Davila, who will take senior status upon confirmation of a successor.

Legal Experience

Wise has held a number of different positions throughout her legal career, but has primarily worked in environmental law, starting at the Department of Justice as a trial attorney in the Environmental and Natural Resources Division.

Later in her career, Wise worked at the Pacific Gas and Electric Company as head environmental attorney.

Jurisprudence

Since 2014, Wise has served as a judge on the Alameda County Superior Court. In this role, she presides over trial court matters in criminal, civil, family, and other state law matters. Among her notable decisions as a judge, Wise dismissed a class action wage suit filed against the Alameda Health System, ruling that the System was a “statutorily created public agency” that was not subject to the California labor code. See Stone v. Alameda Health System, 88 Cal. App. 5th 84 (Cal. 1st Dist. Div. 5 2023). The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling. See id. In another notable ruling, Wise found that Governor Gavin Newsom retained the authority to certify the construction of a new baseball stadium in the City of Oakland for streamlined environmental review, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. See Pacific Merchant Shipping Ass’n v. Newsom, 67 Cal. App. 5th 711 (Cal. 1st Dist. Div. 1 2021).

Statements and Writings

During her time at the Department of Justice, Wise authored a law review article advocating for greater personal liability for corporate officers whose companies commit civil violations of the law, arguing that such liability properly deters such misconduct. See Noel Wise, Personal Liability Promotes Responsible Conduct: Extending the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine to Federal Civil Environmental Enforcement Cases, 21 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 283 (2002) (available at https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/yg384xb7078).

Later, while at Stoel Rives, Wise authored a book review discussing the effects and remedies for environmental racism, or the systemic effects of environmental damage on people of color and minorities. See Noel Wise, To Debate or to Rectify Environmental Injustice: A review of Faces of Environmental Racism, 30 Ecol. L. Quart. 2 (2003), 353-375.

Political Activity

Wise has a handful of political donations throughout her career, all to Democrats.

Overall Assessment

Wise’s background in environmental law is relatively unusual among federal judicial nominees. That being said, the calendar is likely to be the bigger obstacle to Wise’s confirmation. With Republicans opposing most Biden judicial nominees as the election draws closer, Wise’s confirmation will depend on support from Democrats. Within the confirmation process, her writings on environmental racism, in particular, are likely to draw such scrutiny.

A year after naming Judge Trina Thompson to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, President Biden has nominated her Alameda County colleague, Judge Eumi Lee, to join her on the Northern District bench.

Background

Lee got her B.A. from Pomona College in 1994 and her J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1999. After graduating, Lee clerked for Judge Jerome Turner on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and then for Judge Warren Ferguson on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Subsequently, Lee joined Keker & Van Nest, shifting in 2005 to become a Clinical Professor of Law at the University of California College of Law, San Francisco (formerly UC Hastings). In 2018, Lee became a Superior Court Judge in Alameda County, where she currently serves.

History of the Seat

Lee has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to a seat vacated on May 17, 2023, by Judge William Orrick.

Legal Experience

Lee started her legal career in private practice at the firm of Thelen Reid & Priest, further moving to Keker & Van Nest. During her time in private practice, Lee represented the French company Societe Commerciale Toutelectric in an appeal from a default judgment imposed after striking its answer as a discovery sanction for failing to produce three witnesses for deposition. See Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Societe Commerciale Toutelectric, 104 Cal. App. 4th 406 (2002). The appellate court affirmed the sanction and the default judgment. See id.

While at Keker & Van Nest, Lee was part of the legal team representing Cobra Solutions, Inc., which successfully sued to have San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera disqualified from an investigation of the company as Herrera had previously worked at a firm that had represented Cobra Solutions. See San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc.,135 P.3d 20 (Cal. 2006). After the trial court disqualified the City Attorney’s office and a divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed, the California Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision by Justice Joyce Kennard, affirmed the disqualification of the entire office. See id.

Lee subsequently spent thirteen years as a clinical professor of law at the University of California College of Law, San Francisco (formerly UC Hastings), where she co-founded the Hastings Institute for Criminal Justice.

Jurisprudence

Since 2018, Lee has served as a judge on the Alameda County Superior Court. In this role, Lee presides over trial court matters in criminal, civil, family, and other state law matters. Lee was the first Korean American judge in Alameda County.

Statements and Writings

As a law professor, Lee has frequently written on spoken on issues in the law. Early in her time as a professor, Lee joined a Comment urging retention of robust protections under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) in response to a Request for Information issued by the Department of Labor under President George W. Bush.

Lee has written extensively on prison populations in California, the parole system, and the recurring problem of recidivism. Compare Eumi K. Lee, The Center to Real Reform? Political, Legal, and Social Barriers to Reentry in California, 7 Hastings Race and Poverty L.J. 243 (2010) with Eumi K. Lee, An Overview of Special Populations in California Prisons, 7 Hastings Race and Poverty L.J. 223 (2010). As part of her writing on criminal justice issues, Lee has been a sharp critic of the proliferation of websites publishing booking photos and keeping them up barring payment to take the photos down. See Eumi K. Lee, Monetizing Shame: Mugshots, Privacy, and the Right to Access, 70 Rutgers U.L. Rev. 557 (2017-2018). Lee has argued that such websites essentially ensure that the subjects are forever tainted by the arrest, when where the charges are eventually dropped. See Olivia Solon, Haunted By a Mugshot: How Predatory Web Sites Exploit the Shame of Arrest, Taipei Times, June 18, 2018, https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2018/06/18/2003695058.

Political Activity

Lee has been a frequent donor to Democratic Party candidates throughout her career. California Attorney General Rob Bonta has been a frequent recipient of donations from Lee, having received around $1800 total.

Overall Assessment

If confirmed, Lee would join a federal court that already has a reputation as one of the most liberal in the nation. Lee’s record, while demonstrating her experience and scholarship with various areas of law, also suggests that she would sit within the liberal mainstream of that court. While Lee is likely to draw strong opposition through the confirmation process, she should nonetheless see confirmation by the end of the year.

Altshuler Berzon partner P. Casey Pitts has spent most of his career as a union-side labor lawyer. He is now poised to join the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where he would be the only judge to identify as LGBTQ.

Background

Pitts got his B.A. from Yale University in 2003 and his J.D. from Yale Law School in 2008. After graduating, Pitts clerked for Judge Stephen Reinhardt on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and then joined Altshuler Berzon LLP in San Francisco, serving currently as a Partner in the firm.

History of the Seat

Casey has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to a seat vacated on December 15, 2021, by Judge Lucy Koh’s elevation to the Ninth Circuit.

Legal Experience

Pitts has spent his entire legal career at the left-leaning law firm Altshuler Berzon LLP (co-founded by Ninth Circuit liberal lion Marsha Berzon). At the firm, Pitts focused primarily on union-side labor law. Notably, Pitts represented the Writers Guild of America in a suit challenging talent agencies from accepting packaging fees from studios. See Writers Guild Suggests Judge’s Recusal in Agency Packaging Suit, Variety, May 1, 2019. The suit ended in a settlement. See Bryan Koenig, Writers Guild Cuts Deal With Last Talent Agency in Fee Suit, Law360, Feb. 8, 2021. Pitts also represented SEIU Local 668 in defending against a claim seeking repayment of union dues. See Bill Wichert, 3d Circ. Nixes Post-Janus Challenges to Union Dues, Law360, Jan. 19, 2021.

Among non-labor matters, Pitts argued before the California Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of plaintiffs challenging alleged false advertising on behalf of Apple Inc. See Justices Recharge iPhone Marketing Suit Against Apple, ICT Monitor Worldwide, Sept. 16, 2014. Pitts also represented a transgender employee fired by Tower Loan after he refused to sign a document stating that he was not in compliance with their personnel policies. See Civil Rights Groups Sue National Finance Company for Illegally Firing Transgender Employee, Targeted News Service, Apr. 13, 2015.

Statements and Writings

As a law student, Pitts authored an article critical of the military’s then policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” arguing that it hurts recruitment among the youth. See P. Casey Pitts, To Young People, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Means “Don’t Enlist,”, 116 Yale L.J. Pocket Part. 254 (November 14, 2006).

Overall Assessment

Pitts is facing a tight deadline to get confirmed by the end of the year. If not confirmed, Pitts’ confirmation would depend on Democrats keeping the Senate as it’s unlikely that a Republican senate would find him an acceptable nominee.

San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Rita Lin would, if confirmed, be the first Chinese American woman on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Background

Lin got her B.A. from Harvard University in 2000 and her J.D. from the Harvard Law School in 2003. After graduating, Lin clerked for Judge Sandra Lynch on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and then joined the San Francisco office of Morrison & Foerster. In 2014, she became an Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California.

In 2018, Governor Jerry Brown appointed Lin to the San Francisco County Superior Court, where she has served since.

History of the Seat

Lin has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to a seat vacated on May 17, 2022, by Judge Edward Chen.

Legal Experience

Lin started her legal career at the San Francisco office of Morrison & Foerster. Among the matters she handled at the firm, Lin represented Karen Golinski in a suit to seek spousal benefits for her wife. See Pam Spaulding, Lambda Legal Sues U.S. OPM on Behalf of Fed Lesbian Employee Whose Wife Was Denied Insurance, Pam’s House Blend, Jan. 20, 2010. The suit ended in Judge Jeffrey White ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional, which was echoed by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Windsor. See Aaron Kase, Defense of Marriage Act Thrown Out By Supreme Court, Lawyers.com, June 26, 2013.

From 2014 to 2018, Lin worked as a federal prosecutor in the Northern District of California. In this position, Lin prosecuted Melinda Van Horne for environmental damage to federal lands from her cultivation of marijuana, ending with Van Horne pleading guilty and receiving a 12 month prison sentence. See Whitehorn Woman Sentenced to 12 Months Imprisonment for Environmental Damage from Marijuana Grow on National Conservation Land, States News Service, Aug. 3, 2016.

Jurisprudence

Since 2018, Lin has served as a judge on the San Francisco County Superior Court. In this role, Lin presides over trial court matters in criminal, civil, family, and other state law matters. Lin also presides over preliminary hearings that see if sufficient evidence exists to proceed on felony charges. See, e.g., Adam Ruthenbeck, Deterring Theft By Encouraging It, The People’s Vanguard of Davis, Oct. 7, 2019 (noting that Judge Lin found probable cause for bike theft charges).

Statements and Writings

Lin has sometimes made media statements regarding the law and policy. For example, as an undergraduate student, she supported a protest against clothing company Guess? due to the conditions the clothes were manufactured in. See Breezy Tollinger, Harvard Students Protest Labor Conditions at Guess?, University Wire, Sept. 25, 1998.

Overall Assessment

With experience on both the civil and criminal side, as well as time on the bench, Lin would, despite her youth, be deemed qualified for a federal judicial appointment. Lin may draw opposition based on her pro bono representations with Lambda Legal but, if she gets a hearing this Congress, Lin should be confirmed by the end of the year.

Civil rights attorney Araceli Martinez-Olguin is the first non-judge that Biden has tapped for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Background

Born in 1977 in Mexico City, Mexico, Martinez-Olguin attended Princeton University and the University of California, Berkeley Law School. After graduating, Martinez-Olguin spent two years clerking for Judge David Briones on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. She then joined the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (ACLU), working in the Women’s Rights Project based in New York City.

Martinez-Olguin then moved to San Francisco to become a staff attorney at Legal Aid at Work. After three years there, Martinez-Olguin returned to New York to work at the ACLU, this time with the Immigrants’ Rights Project.

Martinez-Olguin then spent a year apiece at the Office of Civil Rights with the U.S. Department of Education and as managing director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project of Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto before joining the National Immigration Law Center, where she works as Supervising Attorney.

History of the Seat

Martinez-Olguin has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to a seat vacated on February 1, 2021, by Judge Jeffrey White.

In March 2021, Martinez-Olguin applied and interviewed for a federal judgeship with selection committees set up by California’s Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein and Alex Padilla. In January 2022, Martinez-Olguin interviewed with the White House and was selected as a nominee in August 2022. Martinez-Olguin was nominated on August 1, 2022.

Legal Experience

While Martinez-Olguin has spent her career among many different organizations, her role in all of them has been fairly consistent, as a civil rights lawyer.

Martinez-Olguin started her career working on women’s rights. Notably, she represented Jessica Lenahan, who sued in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, noting that the failure of law enforcement to enforce a domestic violence protective order against her abusive husband (who ended up abducting and murdering her daughters) violated her human rights. See Joy Resmovits, Columbia U. Law School Defends Human Rights, University Wire, Mar. 26, 2008. Subsequently, at the Legal Aid Society, Martinez-Olguin worked on employment law, representing Hani Khan, who sued Abercrombie & Fitch, alleging that she was not hired because she wore a hijab. See Jason Dearen, Muslim Woman Sues Abercrombie & Fitch, Says Company Fired Her For Refusing to Remove Headscarf; Muslim Woman Sued Abercrombie & Fitch Over Hijab, Canadian Press, June 27, 2011.

As her career moved on, Martinez-Olguin primarily worked on immigrants’ rights. Notably, she represented a class of Latino workers at a meatpacking plant who alleged that federal agents targeted them during a 2018 raid of the plant. See Jennifer Doherty, Too Late to Add IRS Agents to ICE Raid Suit, Feds Say, Law360, Dec. 1, 2021. The suit is ongoing.

Writings and Statements

In her role as an attorney, Martinez-Olguin has frequently given media statements in relation to her legal activities. See, e.g., Joy Resmovits, Columbia U. Law School Defends Human Rights, University Wire, Mar. 26, 2008 (quoting Araceli Martinez-Olguin) (“Jessica Lenahan was forced to turn to an international body because the U.S. justice system failed to provide her with even a bare modicum of justice.”). On one occasion, Martinez-Olguin described school districts who required teachers with accents to undergo speech improvements as “discrimination.” See Marc Lacey, In Arizona, Complaints that an Accent Can Hinder a Teacher’s Career, N.Y. Times, sept. 25, 2011.

As a law student, Martinez-Olguin described the distinction between law and policy in judicial rulings, noting:

“…I was later also shocked by the way the judges distanced themselves from the ability to influence public policy. At the time, the line the judges drew between themselves and Congress made sense to me. After all, I’d spent the entire first semester learning about the formalistic way in which the law is created. Yet more time in law school and reflection about the trip has made me skeptical about questions of policy and politics not entering the mix when judges rule.” See Araceli Martinez-Olguin, Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence on the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation: Student Reflections on Grutter v. Bollinger: Redefining Moment, 13 La Raza L.J. 109 (Spring 2002).

Overall Assessment

Unlike the other sitting judges that California senators have recommended for the federal bench, Martinez-Olguin brings a different perspective as a nominee. That being said, her nomination is nonetheless likely to be extremely controversial. Martinez-Olguin will draw opposition not only due to her work as a civil rights attorney but because, as a law student, she herself advocated for blurring the distinction between law and policy, allowing opponents to argue that she sees herself as an advocate, even when she is on the bench.

That being said, if Democrats remain united, they should be able to discharge Martinez-Olguin and confirm her by the end of the year.