Not All Trump Court Nominees Get Confirmed: Thomas Farr Edition
Farr's confirmation appears to have collapsed a day after the vice president had to break a tie to advance the nomination to the Senate floor for a vote.
November 29, 2018 at 07:06 PM
4 minute read
The nomination of Thomas Farr, a controversial judicial pick up for an Eastern District of North Carolina seat, appeared dead Thursday evening after Sen. Tim Scott, R-South Carolina, announced he would not support the nominee.
In a statement first reported by a South Carolina newspaper, Scott said his opposition came after he spent time reviewing a 1991 Justice Department memo that included details of Farr's past work on the campaigns of former Sen. Jesse Helms in North Carolina.
The memo, reported by the Washington Post, described Farr as “the primary coordinator” of an effort that included sending postcards to voters in mostly black precincts. It said the mailing was “designed to serve as a basis to challenge voters on election day.”
The White House did not return a request for comment Thursday. Farr—currently a Raleigh, North Carolina-based shareholder at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart—also did not respond to a request for comment.
Scott's opposition comes a day after Farr's nomination advanced to a Senate floor vote. Vice President Mike Pence broke a 50-50 tie on cloture Wednesday, which cleared the way for a floor vote. Scott had voted to advance Farr's nomination.
All 49 Senate Democrats voted against cloture. Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, had previously announced he would vote against Farr's bid, in part holding out his vote until legislation meant to bolster special counsel Robert Mueller's job security received a vote.
If the White House withdraws Farr's bid, it will be the second time Scott's opposition has felled a judicial nomination. Ryan Bounds' nomination to the Ninth Circuit was pulled after Scott, the lone black Republican in the Senate, came out against his bid.
That came after Bounds' writings as an undergraduate student, including a column railing against “race-focused groups” on college campuses, surfaced.
Farr, whom President Donald Trump nominated in July 2017, has faced a firestorm of controversy throughout his nomination, largely revolving around his past defense of voting restrictions. The Congressional Black Caucus last year described Farr as “the preeminent attorney for North Carolina Republicans seeking to curtail the voting rights of people of color.”
Civil rights and progressive legal groups have opposed him over what they describe as a record of hostility to voting rights. Critics have cited, for example, his defense of a 2013 North Carolina voter identification law in addition to his work for Helms. A Fourth Circuit panel struck down the identification law, finding it targeted black voters with “almost surgical precision.” The Supreme Court did not take up Farr's appeal.
“It is no exaggeration to say that had the White House deliberately sought to identify an attorney in North Carolina with a more hostile record on African-American voting rights and workers' rights than Thomas Farr, it could hardly have done so,” members of the Congressional Black Caucus wrote in their letter to the U.S. Senate last year, opposing his nomination.
“We believe that Mr. Farr's record raises serious questions regarding his commitment to equal justice under the law that disqualifies him from service on the federal bench,” they said.
The district court seat to which Farr has been nominated has been vacant since 2005, making it the country's longest federal judicial vacancy.
President George W. Bush had nominated Farr to the seat during his tenure, but Farr's nomination failed to advance under the then-Democratic majority in the Senate.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
‘A Force of Nature’: Littler Mendelson Shareholder Michael Lotito Dies At 76
3 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250