Judge Nancy Maldonado – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

In 2022, Judge Nancy Maldonado became the first Hispanic woman on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Two years later, she could become the first Hispanic judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Background

Born on November 28, 1975, Maldonado attended Harvard College, graduating cum laude in 1997. She then attended the Columbia Law School, graduating in 2001.

After graduating, Maldonado clerked for Judge Ruben Castillo on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. After finishing up her clerkship, Maldonado joined the Chicago Office of Miner, Barnhill, & Garland as an Associate. She became a Partner at the firm in 2010. In 2022, Maldonado was appointed by President Biden to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, replacing Judge Matthew Kennelly. Maldonado has served on the court since.

History of the Seat

Maldonado has been nominated to replace Judge Ilana Rovner, who has announced that she will take senior status upon the confirmation of a successor.

Legal Experience

Maldonado spent her entire pre-vench legal career at Miner, Barnhill, & Garland, where she primarily focused on employment litigation, representing both plaintiffs and defendants. Notably, Maldonado represented Dilan Abreu, a bricklayer who sued over workplace harassment over his race at the Chicago Department of Water Management. See Ray Long and Hal Dardick, Latino Worker Alleges Abuse in Water Department; Says Boss Tried to Throw Him in a Hole, Called Him ‘dumb Puerto Rican’, Chicago Tribune, Mar. 29, 2019. Abreu notably alleged that his boss retaliated against him for objecting to racist behavior by trying to push him into a 6-foot deep hole. See id.

Maldonado was also part of the legal team for Maura Anne Stuart, a commercial driver whose gender discrimination suit was thrown out by Judge Milton Shadur. See Stuart v. Local 727, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 771 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2014). Maldonado persuaded a panel of the Seventh Circuit to reverse the dismissal (the panel also reassigned the case, citing the “tone of derision” in Judge Shadur’s opinion). See id. at 1020.

In non-employment related matters, Maldonado was part of the legal team filing an amicus brief from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in an Illinois state court suit challenging the Cook County Assault Weapons Ban under the Second Amendment. See Wilson v. Cnty. of Cook, 968 N.E.2d 641 (Ill. 2012). She also represented citizens in a 1983 suit against officials who allegedly barred citizens from expressing opposition to a local towing ordinance. See Surita v. Hyde, 665 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 2011).

Political Activity & Memberships

Maldonado has made a number of political contributions, including to President Obama, Sen. Michael Bennet, and Rep. Colin Allred.

Additionally, Maldonado was active in the Chicago legal community, serving on the Board of Directors of the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and of La Casa Norte, a social service organization serving Chicago youth.

Jurisprudence

Since her confirmation in 2022, Maldonado has served as a U.S. District Court Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Below is a summary of some of the decisions/opinions Maldonado has rendered during her tenure:

  • Maldonado dismissed a claim brought by a clothing retailer against their insurer for lost business revenue during the Covid-19 pandemic, finding that the plaintiff’s claims for damages for “direct physical loss” were foreclosed by relevant Seventh Circuit precedent. See American Male & Co. d/b/a American Male v. Owners Ins. Co., No. 21 CV 02595 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2023);
  • Maldonado granted summary judgment against a pro se prisoner, finding that the evidence in the case did not establish that the doctor who treated him was deliberately indifferent to his condition, nor that a pattern or practice of the prison caused his damages. See McVay v. Obaisi, Case No. 18 CV 6244 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2023);
  • Maldonado dismissed a claim alleging emotional damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, finding that the alleged injuries do not arise to injuries-in-fact to create subject matter jurisdiction for the claim. See Branham v. TrueAccord Corp., No. 22 CV 00531 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2023);
  • Maldonado remanded a insurance lawsuit to state court, finding that the defendants had improperly removed it, and ordered plaintiff’s court costs and attorneys fees to be paid. See Aspen Am. Ins. Co. v. Mirov et al., No. 22 CV 05661 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2023);
  • Maldonado granted summary judgment against a 1983 lawsuit alleging false arrest, illegal detention, and malicious prosecution. See Lietzow v. Village of Huntley et al., No. 17 CV 05291 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 2023);
  • Maldonado granted an injunction from the Department of Labor removing two trustees from the United Employee Benefit Trust Fund and appointing an independent fiduciary. See Su v. Fensler, No. 22-cv-01030 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 10, 2023);
  • Maldonado denied summary judgment as to a Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claim brought by an inmate who was injured by a fellow detainee in a corrections facility. See Miller v. Mascillino, No. 15-cv-11746 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2023);
  • Maldonado refused to dismiss a Monell liability claim brought against the Village of Dolton in a wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution suit. See Billups-Dryer v. Village of Dolton, No. 20 CV 1597 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2023);
  • Maldonado declined to grant summary judgment against a Title VII claim alleging a hostile work environment due to sexual harassment, although she granted a motion to dismiss the retaliation claim, finding that the plaintiff had abandoned that claim. See Brinson v. Eagle Express Lines, Inc., No. 18 CV 3733 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2023);
  • Maldonado granted summary judgment against a copyright infringement suit brought against hip hop artist French Montana based on his song “Ain’t Worried About Nothin”, finding that there was no triable issue of fact based on the small similarities in sound alleged. See Richardson v. Kharbouch, No. 19 CV 02321 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2024).

One of Maldonado’s decisions that was considered on appeal was her decision to grant summary judgment against claims by inmates alleging Fourth Amendment violations from the presence of cameras in holding cells with semi-private toilets. See Alicea v. County of Cook, No. 22-2863 (7th Cir. Dec. 18, 2023). The Seventh Circuit affirmed Maldonado’s ruling. See id.

Overall Assessment

Nancy Maldonado’s first confirmation two years ago was relatively smooth. On her time in the bench, Maldonado’s rulings have generally not attracted controversy and there should be little for critics to seize onto to lead to a different outcome this time around. While Maldonado is unlikely to attract any new supporters, she is also fairly likely to be confirmed.

103 Comments

  1. We all knew she was the most likely pick. While I was hoping for Nico Martinez, I still give Nancy an A. I look forward to the 7th circuit finally getting its first Hispanic judge in the coming months & I’m happy it’s a young progressive to boot.

    Like

    • Durbin is talking about blanket holds & blue slips right now in the SJC executive meeting. He said he is getting pressure from the left to ditch them but Senator Graham has assured him they will uphold blue slips regardless of who is the majority & who the president is. I wonder if he told him that before or after he told him he would not hold a Supreme Court hearing for a nominee in an election year even if the president was a Republican. I swear…smh

      Like

  3. SJC Meeting Vote Recap:

    -Ali was a party-line vote
    -DuBose and Harjani were 12-9 (Graham)
    -White and Yoon were 14-7 (Graham, Kennedy, Tillis)

    The non-judicial nominee votes if you’re curious:

    -Levy (MA Attorney) was a party-line vote
    -Lutzko (NDOH Attorney) was 14-7 (Graham, Cotton, Tillis)
    -Minter (SDGA Marshal) was a party-line vote
    -Carter (US Parole Commission) was 12-9 (Graham)

    Nothing unexpected, only question for me was it was a coin flip on whether or not DuBose would have been a party-line vote.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I called the DuBose vote. The tell was that when Kennedy got all hysterical and emotional bc Durbin commented that Kennedy was once a Democrat, Graham’s the one who stepped in to defuse that and then followed it up by asking DeBose if she was aware of the college newspaper article (Reps accused her of purposely hiding it from the committee). She said she didn’t know it existed to which Graham said, “OK, well if you didn’t know it existed, that explains why you didn’t include it.”

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Doesn’t seem like Maldonado’s had many controversial/high-profile civil cases in her time on NDIL so far, which is probably a good thing for her confirmation to CA7. The profile also doesn’t touch on how she’s been handling criminal cases/sentencing so far – though I’m not sure if those documents are publicly available in the same way that her issued opinions are. 

    I’ll be interested to see how her SJC hearing goes and whether the Rs try to tag her as soft on crime based on a normal/not extreme sentence. Given that she’ll be the only appellate nominee, will they still take the same amount of time and just ask her twice as many questions?

    Lastly, Maldonado got Collins, Murkowski, Graham, and Tillis (?) for her confirmation to NDIL. That’s probably the most she can get for CA7 (though obviously not guaranteed, as de Alba got some bipartisan votes for EDCA before a party-line/no-from-Manchin confirmation to CA9). 

    Liked by 1 person

      • That was the one & only down side of announcing Maldonado so quickly. We had six circuit court vacancies without a nominee so theoretically Biden could have announced two in three separate batches so that there were two nominees in each SJC hearing panel ones.

        That way Republicans would have to either split their time between two nominees or pile up on one while the other one slide by with minimal questioning like when de Alba & Ramirez had their hearing the same day. But Since Maldonado is a district court judge & Biden won’t dare sent her backfill to the senate until she’s confirmed (I still don’t understand why when there is no rule against doing so), time is of the essence.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. She was the frontrunner all along and no one should be shocked she’s the nominee.
    If nothing else, while I don’t think she would have taken back her senior status, Judge Rovner made pretty clear in her interview if you read between the lines that she wanted a woman replacing her.
    Not a big deal in this case IMO, given that Maldonado is an excellent nominee.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Republicans in North Carolina nominated a whole bunch of far right extremists for their statewide offices. 

    Most have heard of their Gov candidate Mark Robinson, the state’s Lt Gov, and the gross number of highly inflammatory comments (repeatedly denying the Holocaust , suggesting that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, calling the LGBTQ+ community filth). The NC GOP also nominated extremists up and down the ballot.

    But they also nominated an anti-choice extremist as their nominee to take on Allison Riggs for NC Supreme Court. The judge Jefferson Griffin, joined an opinion that suggested that “life begins at conception”. The ruling was so controversial that the appeals court withdrew the opinion three weeks later. 

    Liked by 1 person

  11. If the Senate is going to be around tomorrow for the minibus I’m not sure if we’ll get cloture motions today, they might be the last thing done Friday. One possible tea leaf that the Senate may not scrap next Monday for working on the Friday and begin the week on Tuesday afternoon is that I do see an SJC hearing on voting rights set for Tuesday morning, would have to think that’d be rescheduled if that was the case.

    I would be on the lookout for a voice vote on the next wrap-up. I guess Hawley lifted his hold on a few nominees (the FTC and the NTSB). I remember the FTC nominee hold since they tried to get the FTC nominees on a voice vote before the wrap-up for the holidays last year but Hawley was the hold-up. Sounds like an exchange for allowing his Radiation Exposure bill to pass this afternoon?

    The Radiation Exposure Bill needed 60 to pass, had a weird coalition of Republicans, several hardline Republicans like Cruz, Cotton, Schmitt, Marshall, Hagerty, and not much support from the rank-and-file (Collins was no but Murkowski yes). Pretty much every Democrat supported it to get it over the finish line.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. I don’t think we can rely on the lame duck session to confirm a lot of judges. The reason is if the 2024 elections result in Biden reelected but a GOP Senate, the lame duck session will be used to confirm as many Cabinet nominees for Biden’s next term as possible. The cloture for Cabinet officials is 30 hours, the same as a Circuit Court nominee.

    While I’m more optimistic than most about our chances of holding the Senate, but there is still a decent chance that it flips.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Durbin also started his Mangi defense with a spiel about the judge selection, including this:

    …have to do background checks on these individuals, submit them to the FBI for further background checks, do our own due diligence…it’s not a an easy process. Lengthy questionnaires are given to each nominee to identify so many details of their lives that you find it hard that they kept track of a record of it. But they did.

    I doubt that was simply part of his Mangi speech. We recently had DuBose unaware of that news article, and it seems highly probable that a GOP senator’s staff found it when it wasn’t found by the FBI/WH. So I’d guess that’s the root of Graham’s comment yesterday, though there could be more behind the scenes.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Schumer wrapped up. Senators will gather at 8:20 to head to the House to the SOTU. A ton of nominees confirmed on voice votes, I believe they were all those NTSB/FTC nominations I mentioned (Hawley lifted his hold on two but these tend to be package deals).

    Also, it sounds like both WDTX nominations (he mentioned executive calendar 532 and 533) will get straight up confirmation votes and no cloture will need to be invoked.

    As expected, no cloture motions filed tonight but the Senate will be back tomorrow morning for the minibus, so if we get anything setup for next week, it’ll happen then.

    Liked by 3 people

  18. Biden and Durbin are really going to let that sleazebag Ron Johnson hold a district court seat open for 6 years+ (Guaranteed he successfully blocks Biden from filling it). And then I bet you that he calls for “unity” or “working together” to fill it if Trump is president again. Disgusting.

    On one hand, Ron Johnson’s fuckery makes a strong case for getting rid of blue slips (just like the GOP did magically with circuit judges when they had power). On the other, I’m sure Tammy Baldwin has saved that EDWI seat from going to a real nutjob under Trump. So damned if you do, damned if you don’t. The only way to make abolishing blue slips worthwhile would be if the Dems filled every vacancy and left no remaining vacancies for whenever there was a GOP president and senate majority. There would be more conservative judges in blue states (NDCA, SDNY, WDWA, DOR, DNV, etc.,) but I’d gladly trade that for liberal judges in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, SC, etc.,

    Liked by 2 people

  19. A random observation I made the other day was that the circuit justice assignment appeared to be based on where that justice came from (birth state or previous appellate court tenure). But it also seems as if the circuit assignment lines up perfectly with the ideological makeup of the circuit.

    1st: (The most liberal circuit by far) (And the smallest, perfect circuit assignment for the newest justice) – KBJ

    2nd: (Slightly liberal, and Sotomayor’s old stomping ground) – Sotomayor

    3rd: (Soon to be split, but leans conservative, also Alito’s old stomping ground) – Alito

    4th: (Formerly a very conservative court before Obama did a number on it, but a history of conservative rulings) – CJ Roberts

    5th: (Very very conservative court, lines up perfectly for the purest conservative on SCOTUS) – Alito

    6th: (Conservative court, one to give one of the newer and younger justices) – Kavanaugh.

    7th: (Conservative court and Barrett’s old stomping ground) – Barrett

    8th: (Very very very conservative court, one to give Kavanaugh to keep him busy) – Kavanaugh.

    9th: (Formerly very liberal court, but now liberal court. The biggest by far, one to give one of the more respected liberals on the court) – Kagan

    10: (Left-leaning court, and Gorsuch’s old stomping ground) – Gorsuch

    11th: (Conservative court and where Thomas grew up) – Thomas:

    DC & FC (special courts and reserved for the CJ) – CJ Roberts

    It pretty much lines up perfectly ideologically. I’m not sure if that’s by accident or on purpose. Maybe it’s to not cause hell amongst the judges on each circuit. I can’t imagine Sotomayor being over the 5th and having to actually take the opinions coming from there seriously and anything besides partisan drivel.

    Liked by 2 people

    • That’s a really good observation. However, (at least for now) justices tend to refer contentious cases to the full court, so we see instances where Alito puts a temporary hold on an abortion ban or Sotomayor temporarily blocks the release of Trump’s tax records, even though they sometimes end up dissenting when the full court decides the case on the shadow docket.

      That is an interesting observation though.

      Liked by 1 person

    • The circuit justice assignments are not permanent and often change each time there’s a new SCOTUS appointee – a few years ago, Sotomayor was assigned CA10/CA6, Kavanaugh had CA7, etc: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/court-issues-new-circuit-assignments-2/

      The chief justice assigns the circuit justices, but I’m sure the other justices have some input/can request certain circuits (likely with the most senior justices getting first dibs) – hence why a lot of the justices are circuit justices over the appellate court on which they used to sit. Wouldn’t be surprised if Thomas/Alito requested CA11/CA5 based on ideological leanings, as none of the other justices were from those circuits.

      KBJ has CA1 b/c she took over for Breyer (and she did clerk on CA1 herself) – despite having the most Dem appointees, CA1 has never been that liberal because some of those appointees (e.g. Lynch) were very moderate.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Leon Schydlower is a certified Democrat. I believe Ernesto Gonzalez is unaffiliated. But his record seems to show he is a centrist, at worst slightly right of center. He needed police protection after prosecuting drug Lords. He’s perfectly fine for a red state district court nominee though.

      Liked by 1 person

  24. I didn’t even catch the Rankin voice vote until it was mentioned here. Kind of surprised that Allen wasn’t teed up for a voice vote, considering she was a unanimous vote out of the SJC (only Hawley opposed Rankin). Not only that but if even Hawley isn’t opposed to a nominee backed by Mike Lee, who else would be? Rand Paul?

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Good to see the vote on Rankin.
    With Republican nominees like this, you do either voice votes or send them to the back of the line.
    Also mostly agree with the court rankings.
    I would say (as someone else did) that under Biden, the 1st Circuit has gotten more liberal, as Lynch was moderate/rightish on criminal justice and other things.
    The damage done to the 9th was the last two remaining Carter Judges doing an RBG and not retiring when they should have which saw their seats flip as well as a liberal/moderate Clinton judge taking senior status which allowed the flip of his seat as well.
    Otherwise Trump would have matched W’s total for judges on the 9th.
    As to the 7th and 11th..what should have been.
    All I’m gonna say on those.
    See the Senate will in tomorrow, let’s see if they file cloture on anyone.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. On the Eastern District of Wisconsin seat, keep in mind that under Trump, Johnson wanted Federalist Society hack and anti-choice/anti-LGBT bigot Gordan Giampietro to be the nominee.
    Baldwin used her blue slip to block him which is why the seat is still open and shows the doubled edged sword of them.
    We couldn’t keep bad folks on circuit court seats in blue/purple states but for district court ones, we were able to keep horrible people off in some cases.

    Liked by 2 people

  27. Confirming the Senate Executive Calendar has a unanimous consent agreement to proceed to votes on the two WDTX nominees (TBD):

    chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf

    Small victories… I believe the UT nom may be a voice vote as well.

    Hopeful for more nominees next week!

    Liked by 1 person

  28. I just love seeing the senate in session on a Friday. I just saw the congressional record & saw this, which I’ve never seen before…

    ”10:07 a.m. A quorum not being present, the Senate began voting on the motion to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the presence of absent Senators.”

    ”11:28 a.m. By a vote of 72-18, the Senate agreed to the motion to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the presence of absent Senators.”

    Like

  31. Schumer filed cloture on 3 District Court nominees, and all were ones who cleared YESTERDAY..

    So 3 Circuit court nominees continue to collect dust as are the 4 District court nominees who were all nominated last year

    Liked by 1 person

    • It’s kind of funny, had the Senate not come back today Schumer wouldn’t have been able to file cloture on any of the nominees reported on Thursday, since they would not have been on yesterday’s executive calendar.

      Those three nominees (and White) are probably the safest non-red state nominees to vote on next week. Best case is that cloture is filed for the more dicey nominees on Monday where Schumer would probably have a better grip on attendance next week.

      Liked by 1 person

  32. Minibus passed. Schumer wrapping up. Cloture filed on Yoon, Harjani, and DuBose.

    The two NTSB nominees that weren’t confirmed on a voice vote were voice voted today.

    It looks like the Senate also got an agreement to vote on a State Department nominee without cloture needed.

    Most importantly, Senate WILL be back Monday, cloture on Yoon will be voted on then. We’ll see if any additional cloture motions are filed on Monday for Wednesday, and a possible cloture motion sent on Tuesday for an appeals court nominee for Thursday.

    Also, it looks like Cantwell probably picked some short straw since she presided on wrap-up, that’s typically reserved for the more junior Senators (she was first elected in 2000).

    Liked by 2 people

    • Nice. I always hear them say “We, the undersigned senators” so it’s nice to actually see it. It looks like we will add two more nominees to the Shanlyn Park & Amy Baggio waiting list. Jasmine Yoon’s seat doesn’t become vacant until July 4th & Melissa DuBose’s seat doesn’t become vacant until January 1st.

      Liked by 1 person

  35. Not shocked to see Yoon & DuBose having cloture votes even though they just had their hearings and their seats don’t open for a while.
    This a way to help give them time to clear up their dockets before they take the bench down the line.
    Also if you know have the votes for them, nothing wrong with getting easy ones out of the way so you can focus on others later on.
    As for Harjani, not surprised to see his name given that the seat he is up for is a judicial emergency and I imagine Durbin doesn’t want to let one in his state linger for too long.

    Liked by 1 person

      • For a while out of the big three it was Schumer that was farthest behind. With two weeks left before Easter recess, we may be at the point where Biden is further behind Schumer & Durbin. I really hope we get a new batch next week with more than six nominees.

        We can’t afford anymore hearings with an open slot for whatever reason. Between Kanter-like repeats & the possibility of anything else popping up that can make somebody miss their hearing slot (Death in the family or Republican senator going back on an agreement & not turn in their blue slip), Biden really needs to be at least one nominee over the number of slots per hearing. At least nominate an intent to nominate for the NDIL since we have a running list of recommendations & the 28 day clock as soon as they are announced.

        Liked by 1 person

      • We should be able to get some more red state nominees if Biden negotiates with circuit court vacancies. We could get a WDTN nominee with the two 6th vacancies, a Maine nominee with the 1st vacancy & up to four Florida vacancies for the 11th vacancy.

        There were already wasted opportunities with the remaining Indiana & Kansas district court vacancies not getting filled along with the circuit court seats. And of course don’t get me started on the five Texas vacancies left. Hopefully we don’t see a repeat of that in the states mentioned above.

        Like

  36. I imagine we will likely see the two TX nominees be confirmed as well next week, question is who comes after that.
    As Tsb1991 pointed out, won’t be a shocker if Robert White gets a vote next week as well.
    IF we see any Circuit court nominees get cloture, Thursday is the likely day for it IMO.
    Have to wait and see.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Kagan also qualifies for retirement in August of next year. We could get a liberal bloc entirely born in the 1970s. A second term would yield many fewer judges for Biden, even with a Dem senate, but multiple SCOTUS vacancies could throw that math out the window.

      He should end this term with 1 SCOTUS, 48 circuit, and 178+ district appointees; by the end of the next term, 5 SCOTUS, 63 circuit, and 207 district judges (plus ~30 carryover vacancies) will be qualified, but roughly half of them are GOP appointees. An optimistic goal for the next term with senate control for at least the final congress would be 2 SCOTUS, 30 circuit, and 100 district appointees.

      Liked by 2 people

  40. Mitchell S. Goldberg was sworn in on Tuesday as the new Chief Justice for EDPA. Goldberg is a GWB appointee who will become eligible for senior status at the end of this year when he turns 65. With his relatively young age and this new promotion, I’m guessing he will not be taking it anytime soon.

    The outgoing Chief is Juan Ramon Sanchez. Sanchez will turn 69 later on this year, so I’m not sure why he’s stepping down as Chief now. He’s been eligible for senior status since Dec 2020.

    Sanchez is interesting because he was a GWB appointee at a time when PA had two Republican Senators, but he was definitely an Arlen Spector pick rather than a Rick Santorum one.

    Sanchez’s career before joining EDPA was a staff attorney for Legal Aid, then worked as a Public Defender for 13 years, and the became a Court of Common Pleas judge.

    Sanchez, who was born in Puerto Rico, is a BIG proponent of diversity. He’s written and spoken a lot about the need to have juries that include an array of people that actually look like the community as a whole and has spoken about the need to make Federal clerkships accessible to a broad spectrum of schools and types of people.

    I’m not as familiar with the Chief Justice rules, but I thought you could keep it until you turned 70. (Someone who knows more about this, please correct me if I’m wrong). Sanchez seems like someone who’d prefer to have a successor named by Biden rather than Trump, so I wonder if we’re going to get an announcement soon.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Either he’s stepping down soon or he’d prefer Goldberg as CJ/wanted to give him a chance at it. Had Sanchez served out his term, he’d have been succeeded by Obama’s Wendy Beetlestone. Now, unless Goldberg cuts his term short, he’ll be succeeded by Trump’s FedSoc Josh Wolson. Beetlestone’s been the chancellor of the University of Liverpool for the past 14 months, so maybe she didn’t want the additional responsibility. But she could have passed it up and gave it to Obama’s Mark Kearney.

      Like

      • I assume that Mitchell Goldberg wanted to become chief judge. We should consider here, that the late judge Edward Smith would have been the next in line behind Goldberg, so neither Wendy Beetlestone nor Mark Kearney could have expect to become chief judge, while Goldberg could do so.

        We also have to consider that this is a court with a very high average age, of whom some are eligible and some not, but in respect of the chief judge, that Joshua Wolson would become chief sooner or later.

        I agree with the fact, that he won’t assume senior status for the next five years, but some others could do so, on the other hand we it has not worked that well in the last years.

        At a bigger court like this one it’s not that bad, but when we look to the Middle District of North Carolina, the chief judge has also stepped down earlier, and the new chief assumes senior status just one year later, while two of the remaining three have already been chiefs and the third is too old. I expect Judge Osteen has to start a second term when Eagles leaves.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Sanchez seems like a moderate/liberal Republican. He was a judge in Chester Co at a time when the county was heavily GOP for local races and was presumably appointed by PA Gov. Tom Ridge.

      Both Sanchez and Nitza Quinones Alejandro should consider senior status. They would clearly have to be replaced with Hispanic nominees, any ideas on who? One option would be US Atty Jacqueline Romero, especially as a replacement for the latter.

      Liked by 1 person

      • The requirement for chief judge is as follows… The chief judge serves for a term of seven years, or until age 70, whichever occurs first. The age restrictions are waived if no members of the court would otherwise be qualified for the position.

        Sanchez served for six years & is 68 so he must have chosen to step down. As for Hispanic options for the EDPA, here are a couple from @Ethan’s list;

        Renee Garcia (born c. 1981)

        Jacqueline C. Romero (born c. 1971)

        Liked by 1 person

      • He was a Judge on the Court of Common Pleas. It’s an elected position. The PA Governor doesn’t really appoint many judges.

        Jackie Romero would be a great nominee, especially for Quinones-Alejandro since they are not only both Hispanic but they’re also both LGBTQ. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that the WH might not want to pull Romero out of her role as US Attorney for such an important area in a key state right as we’re going into an election. I think they will want to have a season professional in place for November.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Nelson Thayer is the First Assistant in that office and would be the Acting if Romero were to leave. Do you know much about him? From the little I have gathered he is a long time AUSA and seems to have prosecuted civil rights and police brutality cases in the past. If he’s acceptable then it might be ok to appoint Romero to the bench.

        My understanding was that the PA Gov appoints when there is a judicial vacancy with Senate confirmation with 2/3 votes. I couldn’t find out whether Sanchez was initially appointed or elected. Either way, he’s most likely was a Republican.

        Liked by 2 people

  41. I’d add Diana Cortes

    • c1982.
    • Partner at Morgan and Lewis
    • Former Philadelphia city solicitor/general counsel (she held this role during Covid/quarantine so there might be stuff there that the GOP would grill her on)
    • Clerked for Sanchez
    • The only donation I see for her is one for AOC

    Liked by 2 people

  43. I have a couple of issues about the article. First, I don’t agree with the saying SCOTUS has 6 archconservatives. I would argue SCOTUS only has 2 (Thomas and Alito), and I guess one could make a decent argument for Gorsuch, even though I wouldn’t consider him an archconservative due to his rulings on Native American rights. To me, Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch seem to be generally mainstream conservatives. The Dobbs decision is often brought up as a reason why they’re archconservatives, but being against abortion is part of the mainstream conservative ideology whether we like it or not. Cases that prove that SCOTUS doesn’t have 6 archconservatives to me are Bostock v Clayton County, Biden v Texas, Allen v Milligan, Haaland v Brackeen, and Moore v Harper. Don’t get me wrong the current SCOTUS is very conservative, but just not to the point of being archconservative.

    Second, it’s highly unlikely any sort of impeachment action is going to happen to Thomas is 2024 considering that House’s GOP control, and the fact that most GOP are defensive of Thomas.

    Other than that, the article is pretty accurate on what the situation is and what voters need to do to prevent the judiciary from shifting further to the right. Pretty interesting.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. Looking ahead, given that Congress likes to avert shutdowns at the 11th hour at every deadline, there’s no reason why the Senate wouldn’t be a nominations factory until the 22nd, when the other half of the government funding is up. Chances are the Senate passes it Thursday night and then go on about their two-week break.

    Looking way out ahead, I noticed the Senate has Juneteenth off, which falls on a Wednesday. Sucks that we’re losing a full working day on a week where they’re in on Monday, but wouldn’t that give them a chance to confirm more than one appeals court nominee that week, if there’s more than one pending? You could vote on cloture on one as the last vote on Tuesday, and then come back Thursday morning to confirm, since you could consider that Wednesday off to be part of a 30-hour postcloture period. Then you could wrap up the Thursday by voting on another appeals court nominee (although that’s when their two week 4th of July break starts). Not to mention there’s always the possibility an appeals court judge is confirmed the Monday of that week as a leftover from the previous Thursday.

    One could only dream though.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. One another I wanted to touch on in that article.
    Yes, Clarence Thomas is a corrupt hack but he’s one that does the bidding of Republicans.
    You aren’t getting one vote from them on impeachment and since you need 67, there is no point.
    Biden & Democrats have to win the Senate and see if he can hold on if they want to flip his seat.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a comment