Menashi Advances Closer to 2nd Circuit Despite Bipartisan Rebuke Over Obstinance
Steven Menashi exasperated Democrats and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee during his nomination hearing after he repeatedly refused to answer questions about what topics he offered legal guidance for while at the White House.
November 07, 2019 at 11:28 AM
4 minute read
The Senate Judiciary Committee has advanced the nomination of Steven Menashi for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, despite the backlash the White House lawyer faced after a testy nomination hearing last month.
The committee's vote came nearly a day after The New York Times reported on a legal memo Menashi wrote while he was acting general counsel at the U.S. Department of Education. That memo outlined a plan to use Social Security data to deny students debt relief, a legal strategy that was ultimately rejected by a federal judge.
Democrats seized on that report to add on to their criticism of Menashi, while Republicans ultimately said it would be wrong to criticize a nominee for providing legal advice one party disagrees with.
President Donald Trump tapped Menashi, a White House lawyer and special adviser to the president, in August for the Second Circuit spot.
However, Menashi faced backlash for past writings, particularly a 2010 law review article where he criticized "ethnically heterogeneous societies." He defended the piece at his nomination hearing, saying it was about Israel and not the United States.
And the nominee exasperated both Democrats and Republicans on the Judiciary panel during his nomination hearing in September, as he repeatedly refused to answer questions about what topics he offered legal guidance for the White House.
Democrats warned on Thursday that allowing a nomination to advance despite ignoring questions from both sides of the aisle would set a bad example.
"This is a nominee is in a class of his own in evading and avoiding questions," Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, said. "Not even tough questions, all questions. That is what has struck a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle."
There were rumblings that Menashi could face rare GOP opposition after the hearing: Republican Sen. John Kennedy said last week that he was "not feeling good" about Menashi but that he didn't know how he would vote on the nominee.
"I just want him to answer my questions and not dodge, bob, weave. This isn't a game," Kennedy said weeks ago. "He may be Oliver Wendell Scalia, but I can't tell, because he won't answer my questions."
On Thursday, Kennedy said he liked Menashi's legal reasoning and would support his nomination but criticized the White House's strategy in handling the nomination process.
"I think they're overcoached," Kennedy said. "The first time we had a nominee say 'I can't give you an opinion about Brown v. Board of Education, I was appalled. And I hope it gets better."
Democrats also raised concerns about Menashi's potential role in White House counsel's handling of records of a July phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
A whistleblower complaint alleged that White House attorneys directed efforts to cover up the call. Senate Judiciary Democrats sent a letter to Menashi asking him if he was involved in the alleged actions, but the nominee did not respond.
Menashi, 40, previously served as acting general counsel at the Education Department. He is a former partner for Kirkland & Ellis, and clerked for Justice Samuel Alito and for Judge Douglas Ginsburg on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Please contact Michael Marciano at [email protected] if you have news to report or are submitting an op-ed piece or letter to the editor. If you are inquiring about writing a legal analysis, please send it to [email protected]. If you'd like to invite a Law Journal photographer to an event, please contact [email protected].
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 AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readAmir Ali, MacArthur Justice Center Director, Confirmed to DC District Court
From ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readConservative Boutiques That Backed Trump Reap Their Rewards
Trending Stories
- 1The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
- 2Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
- 3In Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
- 4Pharmaceutical Patents: Benefits and Challenges
- 5Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
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