Biden judicial nominee frequently reversed by DC Circuit Court
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Joe Biden's pick to replace now-Attorney General Merrick Garland on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has a history of writing opinions that have been overwhelmingly reversed by her prospective colleagues.
© Provided by Washington Examiner
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who currently sits on the U.S. District Court for D.C., has in the past several years seen a string of her opinions in prominent cases reversed by both liberal and conservative circuit court judges. The pattern was similar in each case. Jackson's long, often rhetorically inflected opinions were appealed to the D.C. Circuit where judges tore apart their reasoning.
In 2018, Jackson ruled against several of then-President Donald Trump's executive orders in which the administration had attempted to rein in the power of federal labor unions. The judge, in a 122-page decision, stripped away Trump rules limiting labor negotiations and allowing for more leeway in disciplining unproductive employees.
The administration appealed the case to D.C. Circuit, which unanimously reversed Jackson's decision on the grounds that the district court didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place. Judge Thomas Griffith, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, wrote in the majority opinion that the federal government was right to say that Jackson had "erred" in thinking the district court had jurisdiction in the matter.
Instead, Griffith wrote, the federal unions should have pursued their case through the Federal Labor Relations Authority, which falls directly under the review of the D.C. Circuit Court. Obama appointee Judge Sri Srinivasan and President George H.W. Bush appointee Raymond Randolph joined him in that opinion.
Jackson in 2020 also faced a high-profile reversal in a case involving the Department of Homeland Security. The year before, Jackson had ruled in a 126-page opinion that DHS's policy of "expedited removal" of illegal immigrants was "arbitrary and capricious." Jackson issued a preliminary injunction against the federal agency after writing that a series of activist groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union had established jurisdiction in her court.
As with the federal unions case, the Trump administration appealed, and an entire panel of D.C. Circuit Court judges agreed that Jackson was wrong in her thinking. Obama appointee Patricia Millett in her majority opinion wrote that while Jackson had improperly issued the injunction because, in this circumstance, DHS was not under the review of the Administrative Procedure Act, as Jackson had claimed.
In a dissent, Trump appointee Judge Neomi Rao wrote that she did not think Jackson was right in thinking the district court had the jurisdiction to hear the case at all. Rao did agree, however, with Millett that Jackson had been wrong to issue the injunction against DHS. Regardless of jurisdiction questions, Rao wrote, federal immigration law "categorically prohibits injunctive relief absent proceedings against an individual alien."
In one of Jackson's most prominent cases to date, she ruled that the House Judiciary Committee could sue in a federal court to force former Trump White House counsel Don McGhan to testify in the investigation that led to Trump's 2020 impeachment. Jackson's rhetoric in the 118-page decision was widely quoted at the time, as it contained several strongly worded invectives against the then-president.
"Presidents are not kings," Jackson wrote of Trump's efforts to keep McGahn from testifying. "This means that they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control. Rather, in this land of liberty, it is indisputable that employees of the White House work for the People of the United States, and that they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
When the administration appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court in early 2020, a three-judge panel initially upheld Jackson's decision. But later in the year, the court ruled in an en banc decision, meaning every judge took part, that while the House had standing to sue McGahn, the rest of Jackson's conclusions needed further scrutiny. Days later, another panel on the D.C. Circuit Court reversed her decision.
Jackson, who is considered a top Supreme Court contender, will join the D.C. Circuit Court if the narrowly Democratic-dominated Senate confirms her. She did not respond to requests for comment.
Tags:News, D.C. Circuit, Supreme Court, Judge, Merrick Garland, Joe Biden, DHS, Don McGahn, Donald Trump
Original Author:Nicholas Rowan
Original Location:Biden judicial nominee frequently reversed by DC Circuit Court
Tags
Who is online
80 visitors
Looks like Republicans will have legitimate reasons for voting against this Biden choice.
Better than just making some crap up about "assaults" happening over 30 years before!
By the looks of it, she appears to be another liberal activist DC judge, with a less than impressive grasp of the law. That she is being considered as a possible SCOTUS nominee is scary.
This is not about the law; it is about using the courts to change laws to what Democrats want them to be. Having knowledge of actual law is a detriment to that cause.
Banana oil. What a bunch of shyster hypocrits. The R's had no problem confirming the long list of unqualified, play for pay, ass kissing Trumpturds in positions they had no business being in.
So pithy!
Got any thoughts on the nominee and her record?
Why waste my time when you back someone whose appointee tried to dismantle the USPS to try to suppress mail in votes. You are just pissed that the big bad lady told Trump NO. She said it best...."Presidents are not kings."
Gee, this is not about Trump.
Trump lost the elections, and Biden is President now.
WTF does Trump have to do with Biden's pick?
Can liberals not discuss any topic without bringing up their obsession with Trump?
It's really kind of sad.
Imagine being so obsessed with someone that your ability to hold normal conversations is severely hindered.
Which makes her no more qualified. The only reason she is being nominated is that she is leftist enough to appease the Democrat radicals. The law doesn't matter to them; just enforcing their ideology in the courts.
You best hope Democrats are ALL on board for THIS nominee.
I don't think 50 Democratic Senators will vote for her.
Banana oil. What a bunch of shyster hypocrits. The R's had no problem confirming the long list of unqualified, play for pay, ass kissing Trumpturds in positions they had no business being in.
Can you name any of them.
Here's just a few for you:
Chad Readler, Neomi Rao, Steven Menashi, Cory Wilson.
More of Donald Trump’s judicial picks have received “not qualified” ratings from the American Bar Association than did those nominated by his four most-recent predecessors in the first two years of their presidencies, Bloomberg Law research shows.
But Democrats don't care about the ABA ratings, as they have proven with ACB and Kavanaugh hearings.
Even Biden doesn't go by the ratings.
Um, YOU brought up ABA ratings.
Don't come crying to me because I shot holes in your post.
I provided a list of incompetent Trump picks. Where exactly are those holes???
Like I said--YOU brought up ABA ratings like they actually are significant, and I pointed out how Democrats didn't think they mattered in a few notable cases, nor does Biden get the ratings before he makes his picks.
Sorry that bothers you.
You just aren't trying today Texan. The fact that I provided a link to an article that mentioned the ABA while listing the incompetence of many of Trump's picks, does not mean that I brought it up.
You live and you die by your strawman fallacies Texan.
You crack me up.
Keep blabbing about strawman arguments.
BTW, who was the first to bring up Trump nominees on an article about a Biden nominee?
Deflect much?
P.S. The last is rhetorical.
Not a soul said anything about ABA ratings until you introduced them,.
That's all you have, strawman arguments.
lmmfao!
This is a Washington Examiner article ... anyone have a grain of salt?
Do you have any evidence that anything in the article is untrue?
If you do, present it instead of attacking a source because YOU don't like it.
If you present some evidence, at least it won;t look like whining.
Maybe you should look at the click-bait catch words.
Maybe you should present evidence that something written in the article is untrue.
If you can, I mean.
Just think the entire DC Court overturned her ideological ruling!
I remember her well. Does anybody recall her activism?
It's fairly clear how far left Biden has gone.
Which gives legitimacy to those opposing her nomination.
How refreshing to see a nominee opposed for the work they did on the bench instead of salacious fake "sex scandals" and "sex assaults".
Just think, they ruled Jackson didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place. Of course, Jackson wanted to hear & rule on anything to stop President Trump.
She should be impeached & removed.
Thus far, we have had:
Trump brought into something not concerning him.
ABA ratings which Democrats choose to ignore when it is convenient for them.
An attack on the source because it said mean things about a Biden nominee.
Sounds about par for the course.
Par for the course.
I will say this for you Texan, at least you don't spend your day deleting comments.