Court Grants Motion to Seal Saudi Crown Prince’s WhatsApp Number

From Judge K. Michael Moore today, in Oueiss v. Bin Salman Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud; I blogged about the motion when it was filed last month, so I thought I’d follow up. As I noted in the original post, here’s a brief Bloomberg: summary of the underlying case:

An Al Jazeera news anchor sued the crown princes of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for allegedly hacking into her phone and stealing and doctoring images to disparage and intimidate her on social media.

Ghada Oueiss claims she was a target of the harassment because of her reporting on human rights abuses, according to her complaint filed on Wednesday [Dec. 9, 2020] in Miami federal court. Her suit names Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia and Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan of the UAE as defendants, as well as other officials and agents of those nations….

And here’s an excerpt from the motion to seal that Judge Moore granted (correctly so, I think):

Given the anticipated difficulties of effecting service on certain Defendants, … Plaintiff has filed the Ex Parte Motion, in which Plaintiff requests the Court’s permission to serve MBS [Mohammed Bin Salman Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud], MBZ, al Bannai, Al Qahtani, Al-Asaker, DarkMatter, MiSK, Zeinab, al Otaibi, Al Menaia, Al-Owerde (together, the “Foreign Defendants”) via alternative means pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3).

In support of the Ex Parte Motion, and for the Court’s ease of reference, Plaintiff
intends to file Exhibit “K” to the Declaration of Daniel Rashbaum [D.E. 5-1], which is a chart containing the relevant addresses (physical, email, social media) at which Plaintiff proposes she be permitted to serve each of the Foreign Defendants.

Among the alternative means proposed in the Ex Parte Motion, Plaintiff requests the Court’s permission to serve MBS via WhatsApp, and Plaintiff therefore intends to include MBS’s WhatsApp number in Exhibit “K.”

Given that MBS is the current Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, however, his WhatsApp telephone number is highly sensitive information that is not in the public domain….

Plaintiff requests that she be permitted to preserve the confidentiality of MBS’s WhatsApp telephone number by filing Exhibit “K” under seal.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38i2t3k
via IFTTT

Congress Suspends Electoral College Certification as Protesters Storm U.S. Capitol

CapitolRiot

Congress was forced to suspend the final certification of the presidential election on Wednesday afternoon as pro-Trump protesters stormed the U.S. Capitol and engaged in violent clashes with police around and inside the building.

The House and Senate were separately debating an objection raised by some Republican lawmakers to the election results in Arizona when, shortly after 2 p.m., both chambers unexpectedly recessed. Vice President Mike Pence, who was presiding over the Senate debate, was hustled out of the chamber by security.

Multiple media reports indicate that the U.S. Capitol complex is on full lockdown after protesters breached security barriers and entered the building.

The scenes inside and around the Capitol are stunning and terrifying.

Several lawmakers and congressional staff tweeted that they were sheltering in place inside the Capitol and the various office buildings that are part of the wider Capitol complex. Some private residences in the nearby Capitol Hill neighborhood were reportedly evacuated by police as well.

For weeks, President Donald Trump has encouraged his supporters to gather in Washington today to challenge the final certification of last year’s election, which he lost. Earlier on Wednesday, Trump spoke to a crowd of thousands gathered outside the White House and continued to stoke the anger about what he said was a “rigged” and “stolen” election.

It is truly an incredible scene: a sitting president who campaigned on a message of “law and order” calling for his supporters to riot because he lost reelection. Hopefully, it will end without any further escalation or violence. This is no way for a functioning democracy to operate.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3q0sL01
via IFTTT

Congress Suspends Electoral College Certification as Protesters Storm U.S. Capitol

CapitolRiot

Congress was forced to suspend the final certification of the presidential election on Wednesday afternoon as pro-Trump protesters stormed the U.S. Capitol and engaged in violent clashes with police around and inside the building.

The House and Senate were separately debating an objection raised by some Republican lawmakers to the election results in Arizona when, shortly after 2 p.m., both chambers unexpectedly recessed. Vice President Mike Pence, who was presiding over the Senate debate, was hustled out of the chamber by security.

Multiple media reports indicate that the U.S. Capitol complex is on full lockdown after protesters breached security barriers and entered the building.

The scenes inside and around the Capitol are stunning and terrifying.

Several lawmakers and congressional staff tweeted that they were sheltering in place inside the Capitol and the various office buildings that are part of the wider Capitol complex. Some private residences in the nearby Capitol Hill neighborhood were reportedly evacuated by police as well.

For weeks, President Donald Trump has encouraged his supporters to gather in Washington today to challenge the final certification of last year’s election, which he lost. Earlier on Wednesday, Trump spoke to a crowd of thousands gathered outside the White House and continued to stoke the anger about what he said was a “rigged” and “stolen” election.

It is truly an incredible scene: a sitting president who campaigned on a message of “law and order” calling for his supporters to riot because he lost reelection. Hopefully, it will end without any further escalation or violence. This is no way for a functioning democracy to operate.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3q0sL01
via IFTTT

The Yale Law School and Federalist Society Experience 2003-2006

I posted yesterday about my experience running for Yale Law School Federalist Society president against Sen. Josh Hawley. This has sparked many interesting conversations, including on what it actually meant to be in the group and why I joined—including as someone who has never been a registered Republican and is currently a registered Democrat. Also, as a (non-US born) woman. So I thought I would color in the lines a bit, in part because I believe this history provides a small piece of the puzzle of how we got where we got politically as a country.

I arrived at Yale Law School with socially liberal views, and economic views that are best described as idiosyncratic. On the latter front, I basically believed that government should intervene when there was a true collective action problem, and I had a fairly high bar for the amount of evidence required. Today, I am in some ways even more socially liberal than then, mainly in the sense of having gained deeper knowledge of gender and racial issues. I am also more economically liberal in the sense of being willing more quickly to accept that something is a collective action problem. This is an oversimplified summary but should give some insights as to my general framework.

Some of the Yale Law faculty during my time as a student did not provide, shall we say, the most hospitable environment for discussing a variety of ideas and perspectives in the classroom. For example, my civil procedure professor made repeated critical jokes about Republicans and then-President George W. Bush during class. The irony was that I actually agreed with said professor about the substance of his criticisms, which were focused on national security, Guantanamo, etc. But his nonchalant attitude also made me realize that this professor was potentially unlikely to welcome any views that did not match his own.

I had long-standing experience with teachers who would punish students for their viewpoints, especially during my time in public high school in Switzerland. The history teacher I had for five years was extremely ideological, handed out only materials written by himself and never a textbook, and grades depended on the level at which students were able to parrot back his views successfully. I guess at least I didn’t have the history teacher at the school who taught students that the Berlin Wall was built so that people from the West wouldn’t flee to the East!

I had concluded that disagreeing with some educators would not help much of anything and frequently kept my views to myself in the classroom. Even so, I got myself screamed at by a YLS constitutional law professor the spring of my 1L year in the main hallway of the school for suggesting the “wrong” topic for my final paper. I had proposed comparing and contrasting some aspects of history presented in John Ely’s Democracy and Distrust with those in (my now VC co-blogger) Randy Barnett’s Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty. The professor told me no and yelled at me: “I consider Randy Barnett a friend, but I refuse to read his book or any paper about his book. All he does is impose his right-wing ideology on his theory of constitutional interpretation.” Well, then.

The Federalist Society provided a forum where a diversity of ideas could be discussed. I disagreed with a good number of those ideas then and probably disagree even more with them now. And by no means do I believe every idea that exists out there is worth discussing–the conspiracy theories and other nonsense that have entered the American mainstream (and some that were always there) are not worthy of debate. But the intellectual environment of the YLS classroom was too restrictive, and the Federalist Society provided an alternative.

How the Republican party came to be dominated by populist demagogues is a complex question, but I don’t think that what conservative, libertarian, or simply idiosyncratic thinkers encountered in their classrooms throughout lower and higher education has been helpful at times. Yale Law School did not make people like Sen. Hawley what they are. But it contributed to the creation of subgroups that became their own, increasingly unreachable bubbles.

On a more positive note, while the Republican Party has largely gone off the rails, the vast majority of judges–many of them affiliated with the Federalist Society at some point in their careers–have held against Trump in his attempts to steal the election. This is true even of the judges appointed by President Trump himself. Whatever one might think of individuals affiliated with the Federalist Society, the ones who have been put on the bench haven’t simply fallen in line with the worst aspects of Trumpism.

During non-pandemic times, I regularly speak to Federalist Society student chapters across the country, and I occasionally attend faculty events. Nobody in the Federalist Society has ever told me what I could or couldn’t say, even when I have held views that I am certain the vast majority of its leadership disagrees with. In particular, some of my scholarship has taken a feminist turn that some of them likely place between the strange and the incorrect (or worse).

Federalist Society chapters vary in who they attract, and each chapter is run with significant autonomy. Some are undoubtedly dominated by bowtie types or by bros. Others by nerds who want to explore ideas. Many Fed Soc members are centrists of various sorts who abhor the MAGA crowd as much as liberals do. After the pandemic, students can see for themselves what the events at their particular school are like. Who knows, it might not be what they expect.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38ivagj
via IFTTT

Biden Will Nominate Merrick Garland As Attorney General

President-Elect Biden has announced the top leadership for the Department of Justice. Judge Merrick Garland will step down from the D.C. Circuit, and be nominated as Attorney General. (Although the Incompatibility Clause would not require him to do so.)

This selection was not a huge surprise. Last week, the D.C. Circuit released opinions from panels on which Garland sat. Each case included a footnote stating “Judge Garland was a member of the panel at the time this case was argued but did not participate in the final disposition of the case.” This practice reminds me of the run-up to the Kavanaugh nomination. Shortly before Kavanaugh was nominated, the D.C. Circuit released several opinions from Kavanaugh panels.

Lisa Monaco will be nominated as the Deputy Attorney General. If, for whatever reason, Garland has to recuse, Moncao will act as Attorney General.

Vanita Gupta will be nominated as the Deputy Attorney General. She previously served in the Obama DOJ. Long before anyone had heard of the Vacancies Reform Act, Gupta served as the acting head of the Civil Rights Division. But she was never confirmed. My colleagues Ilya Shapiro and Thomas Berry wrote about challenges to her position on National Review and in this bulletin.

Finally, Kristen Clarke will be nominated as the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.

We do not yet know who Biden will select as Solicitor General, and head of the Office of Legal Counsel.

I am content with Biden’s nomination of Garland as Attorney General. Garland should bring some stability to DOJ. He does not strike me as the kind of person who will seek to criminally prosecute President Trump. I thought Garland’s biggest demerit was that he was a white male. I suspected Biden would pick a female, or a person of color. But his selection of the apparent-moderate as Attorney General provides cover for his far more progressive selections: Gupta and Clarke. They will be able to push forward a far more aggressive agenda, with Garland as a senior statesman figure–almost a titular figurehead of DOJ. Savvy pick for Biden.

Soon, there will be a vacancy on the D.C. Circuit. I have to think that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is on the SCOTUS short list, would be a likely selection. But if Justice Breyer announces his retirement at the end of this term, it would not make sense to force Judge Brown Jackson to go through two confirmation hearings in the span of a few months. And there are risks of having a short-lister going through an unnecessary brutal fight.

There will be other D.C. Circuit vacancies in due time. Judges Rogers and Tatel have long been eligible for senior status. The Republican-appointed judges will become a permanent minority on the D.C. Circuit. I suspect the Supreme Court will have to grant many more cert petitions from D.C., especially in cases involving voting rights.

Update: Co-Blogger Jon Adler published a post about the Garland nomination shortly before I did. We agree on several points.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3opBmsD
via IFTTT

Attorney General Merrick Garland

Today it’s been reported that President Biden will nominate Judge Merrick Garland to be the next Attorney General of the United States. For reasons I highlighted back in November, this was a wise choice.

Judge Garland is well-respected on both sides of the aisle and [should] be a relatively non-controversial Attorney General nominee. More importantly, his stature and independence would give him a degree of credibility more “political” nominees might lack. If President-elect Biden is looking for an Ed Levi-like figure to take over the helm at Justice, it would be hard to do better than Judge Garland.  Indeed, given the tumult and controversy within the Department of Justice these past four years, a figure like Merrick Garland might be just what the Department needs.

I don’t praise the Garland pick because of my policy preferences. As a former Justice Department official, former prosecutor, and judge, Garland has been more pro-government and less liberty-oriented than I would like, and certainly more so than some potential alternatives. In 2021, however, the AG pick is about more than policy preferences.

In normal times, any of the names floated as potential AGs would have been perfectly fine nominees for a Democratic Administration. Yet these are not normal times, and Judge Garland is uniquely qualified to lead the Justice Department in this divided time. Unlike former Senator Doug Jones, Judge Garland has not run for partisan political office and has managerial experience within the Department. Unlike former Acting AG Sally Yates, Garland will not be viewed as a partisan figure, will not have to recuse from matters such as the oversight of the Durham investigation, and (perhaps most importantly) will be able to make decisions on weighty matters, such as how to handle claims of alleged illegality by Trump Administration officials or even of President Trump, without undue suspicion of his motives.

Some progressives are expressing disappointment with the pick, but I think their complaints are unwarranted. The early indication is that the Biden Administration will tap attorneys with clear progressive pedigrees for many of the more policy-oriented positions within the department. The AP is reporting Biden will nominate former Obama Administration Homeland Security advisor Lisa Monaco as Deputy Attorney General, former Justice Department civil rights chief Vanita Gupta as Associate Attorney General and Kristen Clarke, president of Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, as Assistant AG for Civil Rights.

The Gupta and Clarke picks, in particular, should give progressives confidence that the DOJ will lean left on the policy matters they care most about. On day-to-day matters that do not reach the AG’s desk, they will be calling the shots. Further, with Judge Garland as AG, progressives will actually have more room to maneuver. In a Nixon-goes-to-China way, Garland’s position as AG will help shield their efforts and enable the Department to do more to advance progressive priorities than it would be otherwise.

It is also significant that, by nominating Judge Garland to be AG, Biden will free up a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The odds-on favorite to fill the seat has to be Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, a rumored Supreme Court short-lister should Justice Breyer retire. Yet this is unlikely to be the last D.C. Circuit vacancy President Biden will get to fill, so pay attention to who gets considered now. Runners up for this vacancy would likely be at the top of the list should Judges Tatel, Rogers, or Henderson take senior status. There are lots of highly qualified contenders for this court, including quite a few administrative law academics.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/35xQgG3
via IFTTT

The Yale Law School and Federalist Society Experience 2003-2006

I posted yesterday about my experience running for Yale Law School Federalist Society president against Sen. Josh Hawley. This has sparked many interesting conversations, including on what it actually meant to be in the group and why I joined—including as someone who has never been a registered Republican and is currently a registered Democrat. Also, as a (non-US born) woman. So I thought I would color in the lines a bit, in part because I believe this history provides a small piece of the puzzle of how we got where we got politically as a country.

I arrived at Yale Law School with socially liberal views, and economic views that are best described as idiosyncratic. On the latter front, I basically believed that government should intervene when there was a true collective action problem, and I had a fairly high bar for the amount of evidence required. Today, I am in some ways even more socially liberal than then, mainly in the sense of having gained deeper knowledge of gender and racial issues. I am also more economically liberal in the sense of being willing more quickly to accept that something is a collective action problem. This is an oversimplified summary but should give some insights as to my general framework.

Some of the Yale Law faculty during my time as a student did not provide, shall we say, the most hospitable environment for discussing a variety of ideas and perspectives in the classroom. For example, my civil procedure professor made repeated critical jokes about Republicans and then-President George W. Bush during class. The irony was that I actually agreed with said professor about the substance of his criticisms, which were focused on national security, Guantanamo, etc. But his nonchalant attitude also made me realize that this professor was potentially unlikely to welcome any views that did not match his own.

I had long-standing experience with teachers who would punish students for their viewpoints, especially during my time in public high school in Switzerland. The history teacher I had for five years was extremely ideological, handed out only materials written by himself and never a textbook, and grades depended on the level at which students were able to parrot back his views successfully. I guess at least I didn’t have the history teacher at the school who taught students that the Berlin Wall was built so that people from the West wouldn’t flee to the East!

I had concluded that disagreeing with some educators would not help much of anything and frequently kept my views to myself in the classroom. Even so, I got myself screamed at by a YLS constitutional law professor the spring of my 1L year in the main hallway of the school for suggesting the “wrong” topic for my final paper. I had proposed comparing and contrasting some aspects of history presented in John Ely’s Democracy and Distrust with those in (my now VC co-blogger) Randy Barnett’s Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty. The professor told me no and yelled at me: “I consider Randy Barnett a friend, but I refuse to read his book or any paper about his book. All he does is impose his right-wing ideology on his theory of constitutional interpretation.” Well, then.

The Federalist Society provided a forum where a diversity of ideas could be discussed. I disagreed with a good number of those ideas then and probably disagree even more with them now. And by no means do I believe every idea that exists out there is worth discussing–the conspiracy theories and other nonsense that have entered the American mainstream (and some that were always there) are not worthy of debate. But the intellectual environment of the YLS classroom was too restrictive, and the Federalist Society provided an alternative.

How the Republican party came to be dominated by populist demagogues is a complex question, but I don’t think that what conservative, libertarian, or simply idiosyncratic thinkers encountered in their classrooms throughout lower and higher education has been helpful at times. Yale Law School did not make people like Sen. Hawley what they are. But it contributed to the creation of subgroups that became their own, increasingly unreachable bubbles.

On a more positive note, while the Republican Party has largely gone off the rails, the vast majority of judges–many of them affiliated with the Federalist Society at some point in their careers–have held against Trump in his attempts to steal the election. This is true even of the judges appointed by President Trump himself. Whatever one might think of individuals affiliated with the Federalist Society, the ones who have been put on the bench haven’t simply fallen in line with the worst aspects of Trumpism.

During non-pandemic times, I regularly speak to Federalist Society student chapters across the country, and I occasionally attend faculty events. Nobody in the Federalist Society has ever told me what I could or couldn’t say, even when I have held views that I am certain the vast majority of its leadership disagrees with. In particular, some of my scholarship has taken a feminist turn that some of them likely place between the strange and the incorrect (or worse).

Federalist Society chapters vary in who they attract, and each chapter is run with significant autonomy. Some are undoubtedly dominated by bowtie types or by bros. Others by nerds who want to explore ideas. Many Fed Soc members are centrists of various sorts who abhor the MAGA crowd as much as liberals do. After the pandemic, students can see for themselves what the events at their particular school are like. Who knows, it might not be what they expect.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38ivagj
via IFTTT

Biden Will Nominate Merrick Garland As Attorney General

President-Elect Biden has announced the top leadership for the Department of Justice. Judge Merrick Garland will step down from the D.C. Circuit, and be nominated as Attorney General. (Although the Incompatibility Clause would not require him to do so.)

This selection was not a huge surprise. Last week, the D.C. Circuit released opinions from panels on which Garland sat. Each case included a footnote stating “Judge Garland was a member of the panel at the time this case was argued but did not participate in the final disposition of the case.” This practice reminds me of the run-up to the Kavanaugh nomination. Shortly before Kavanaugh was nominated, the D.C. Circuit released several opinions from Kavanaugh panels.

Lisa Monaco will be nominated as the Deputy Attorney General. If, for whatever reason, Garland has to recuse, Moncao will act as Attorney General.

Vanita Gupta will be nominated as the Deputy Attorney General. She previously served in the Obama DOJ. Long before anyone had heard of the Vacancies Reform Act, Gupta served as the acting head of the Civil Rights Division. But she was never confirmed. My colleagues Ilya Shapiro and Thomas Berry wrote about challenges to her position on National Review and in this bulletin.

Finally, Kristen Clarke will be nominated as the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.

We do not yet know who Biden will select as Solicitor General, and head of the Office of Legal Counsel.

I am content with Biden’s nomination of Garland as Attorney General. Garland should bring some stability to DOJ. He does not strike me as the kind of person who will seek to criminally prosecute President Trump. I thought Garland’s biggest demerit was that he was a white male. I suspected Biden would pick a female, or a person of color. But his selection of the apparent-moderate as Attorney General provides cover for his far more progressive selections: Gupta and Clarke. They will be able to push forward a far more aggressive agenda, with Garland as a senior statesman figure–almost a titular figurehead of DOJ. Savvy pick for Biden.

Soon, there will be a vacancy on the D.C. Circuit. I have to think that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is on the SCOTUS short list, would be a likely selection. But if Justice Breyer announces his retirement at the end of this term, it would not make sense to force Judge Brown Jackson to go through two confirmation hearings in the span of a few months. And there are risks of having a short-lister going through an unnecessary brutal fight.

There will be other D.C. Circuit vacancies in due time. Judges Rogers and Tatel have long been eligible for senior status. The Republican-appointed judges will become a permanent minority on the D.C. Circuit. I suspect the Supreme Court will have to grant many more cert petitions from D.C., especially in cases involving voting rights.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3opBmsD
via IFTTT

Attorney General Merrick Garland

Today it’s been reported that President Biden will nominate Judge Merrick Garland to be the next Attorney General of the United States. For reasons I highlighted back in November, this was a wise choice.

Judge Garland is well-respected on both sides of the aisle and [should] be a relatively non-controversial Attorney General nominee. More importantly, his stature and independence would give him a degree of credibility more “political” nominees might lack. If President-elect Biden is looking for an Ed Levi-like figure to take over the helm at Justice, it would be hard to do better than Judge Garland.  Indeed, given the tumult and controversy within the Department of Justice these past four years, a figure like Merrick Garland might be just what the Department needs.

I don’t praise the Garland pick because of my policy preferences. As a former Justice Department official, former prosecutor, and judge, Garland has been more pro-government and less liberty-oriented than I would like, and certainly more so than some potential alternatives. In 2021, however, the AG pick is about more than policy preferences.

In normal times, any of the names floated as potential AGs would have been perfectly fine nominees for a Democratic Administration. Yet these are not normal times, and Judge Garland is uniquely qualified to lead the Justice Department in this divided time. Unlike former Senator Doug Jones, Judge Garland has not run for partisan political office and has managerial experience within the Department. Unlike former Acting AG Sally Yates, Garland will not be viewed as a partisan figure, will not have to recuse from matters such as the oversight of the Durham investigation, and (perhaps most importantly) will be able to make decisions on weighty matters, such as how to handle claims of alleged illegality by Trump Administration officials or even of President Trump, without undue suspicion of his motives.

Some progressives are expressing disappointment with the pick, but I think their complaints are unwarranted. The early indication is that the Biden Administration will tap attorneys with clear progressive pedigrees for many of the more policy-oriented positions within the department. The AP is reporting Biden will nominate former Obama Administration Homeland Security advisor Lisa Monaco as Deputy Attorney General, former Justice Department civil rights chief Vanita Gupta as Associate Attorney General and Kristen Clarke, president of Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, as Assistant AG for Civil Rights.

The Gupta and Clarke picks, in particular, should give progressives confidence that the DOJ will lean left on the policy matters they care most about. On day-to-day matters that do not reach the AG’s desk, they will be calling the shots. Further, with Judge Garland as AG, progressives will actually have more room to maneuver. In a Nixon-goes-to-China way, Garland’s position as AG will help shield their efforts and enable the Department to do more to advance progressive priorities than it would be otherwise.

It is also significant that, by nominating Judge Garland to be AG, Biden will free up a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The odds-on favorite to fill the seat has to be Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, a rumored Supreme Court short-lister should Justice Breyer retire. Yet this is unlikely to be the last D.C. Circuit vacancy President Biden will get to fill, so pay attention to who gets considered now. Runners up for this vacancy would likely be at the top of the list should Judges Tatel, Rogers, or Henderson take senior status. There are lots of highly qualified contenders for this court, including quite a few administrative law academics.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/35xQgG3
via IFTTT

Joe Biden Picks Merrick Garland for Attorney General

rtrleight342646

The Joe Biden administration has just delivered its first disappointment to criminal justice reform advocates. It probably won’t be the last.

“According to people familiar with the decision,” reports The Washington Post, the incoming president has picked Merrick Garland “to become the next attorney general.” Garland is the rare federal appellate judge who is practically a household name. In 2016, President Barack Obama tapped Garland, a long-serving judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. But the Garland pick was effectively filibustered by the Republican-controlled Senate, which refused to even hold hearings on the nominee. President Donald Trump later appointed Neil Gorsuch to fill the Scalia vacancy.

Many rank-and-file Democrats are sure to enjoy the sight of Garland being readily confirmed by what now looks to be a Democratically-run Senate thanks to the results from yesterday’s special elections in Georgia. Garland may even enjoy a satisfied smirk or two himself.

But as I’ve previously noted, “the idea of Garland serving as attorney general is also likely to trouble many criminal justice reform advocates. That is because Garland has the sort of judicial record that police and prosecutors are quite happy to see.” A former federal prosecutor himself, Garland has seemed all-too-content to give law enforcement officials the benefit of the doubt in many cases.

New York Times reporter Charlie Savage reached a similar conclusion after conducting his own review of Garland’s judicial record. “In close cases involving criminal law,” Savage reported, Garland “has been far more likely to side with the police and prosecutors over people accused of crimes.”

Garland’s elevation to the position of attorney general does contain one potentially huge silver lining for the criminal justice reform crowd. With Garland gone from the D.C. Circuit, Biden will have the opportunity to name a new jurist to what is often called the second most powerful court in the nation. That’s a great opportunity for Biden to replace Garland with a lawyer whose past experience includes battling the government in court, such as a current or former criminal defense attorney, public defender, or public interest litigator.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/39dOxGW
via IFTTT