Republicans Heap Praise on Eastern District of Texas Nominee Sean Jordan
Eastern District of Texas judicial nominee Sean Jordan encountered little resistance at a sparsely attended Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday.Sens.…
March 05, 2019 at 01:41 PM
4 minute read
Eastern District of Texas judicial nominee Sean Jordan encountered little resistance at a sparsely attended Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday.
Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, both R-Texas, lavished praise on Jordan while Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, pressed him on various U.S. Supreme Court precedents. Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, was not present for the hearing, but Cornyn said at the end of the session that he was hopeful Graham would soon hold a vote for Jordan and Mark Pittman, a nominee for the Northern District of Texas who was also questioned Tuesday.
Jordan is with Jackson Walker in Austin, where he co-chairs the firm's Appellate Practice Group, and previously served in the office of Solicitor General for the State of Texas.
Cruz, a former Texas solicitor general who hired Jordan as an assistant solicitor general and later promoted him to a deputy solicitor general, praised Jordan's service in the U.S. Army as an infantryman and paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division.
“I will tell you, Sean brings his background as a paratrooper to practicing law, because in major cases, Sean was always the person you could count on to jump on the grenade and handle the most difficult issues,” Cruz said.
Cornyn asked Jordan, a Connecticut native who attended the University of Texas at Austin for undergrad and law school, to describe his military service and how he came to settle in Texas.
“I consider my experience in the military transformative—it was a tremendous honor to serve our country,” Jordan said. “People I met in the Army strongly recommended I go to the University of Texas. That is how I wound up being in Texas. It was the best decision I ever made.”
Blumenthal, the only Democrat in attendance, noted that Jordan participated in preparation of amicus curiae briefs for Texas in two landmark gun control cases, District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and McDonald v. Chicago in 2010. Blumenthal noted that the Judiciary Committee will soon hold hearings on a so-called red flag statute, which allows law enforcement officers to seek a court order taking guns away from someone who is considered dangerous.
“Do you view that statute as inconsistent with the positions you have taken in Heller and McDonald?” Blumenthal asked.
“I believe the Heller decision acknowledges there is an individual right to keep and bear arms. Because I'm appearing before this committee as a nominee, I believe it would be inappropriate to comment on pending legislation,” Jordan said.
Blumenthal also asked Jordan if he believed Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark Supreme Court decision desegregating schools, was correctly decided.
“That is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court,” Jordan replied. “It overturned Plessy. I would faithfully apply that precedent as I would all Supreme Court precedent.”
Blumenthal went on to ask Jordan to ask if he believed Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling declaring the right to abortions, was correctly decided. Jordan replied that he didn't “think it would be appropriate to comment on its correctness. I assure you I would faithfully apply Roe and every Supreme Court decision.
Blumenthal later remarked that he was “disappointed” with Jordan's responses to those questions. “I believe personal beliefs are important. Often applying the law isn't simply a rote or algorithmic exercise. I hope you will have the courage of commitment because you will be the face and voice of justice if you are confirmed.”
Blumenthal has repeatedly questioned President Donald Trump's nominees about Brown and Roe. A question on Brown v. Board of Education tripped up Wendy Vitter, a district court nominee for Louisiana, who faced backlash from civil rights groups afterward. Her nomination is currently pending.
“I don't mean to be coy,” Vitter said during her April 2018 hearing. “But I think I can get into a difficult, difficult area when I start commenting on Supreme Court decisions—which are correctly decided and which I may disagree with.”
She added that the ruling “is Supreme Court precedent. It is binding. If I were honored to be confirmed, I would be bound by it and of course I would uphold it.”
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 All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readArt of the Settlement: Trump Attorney Reveals Strategy in ABC Lawsuit
Uvalde Shooting 'Fresh in Everyone's Mind:' Lone Dissenting Judge Disagrees with School's Disciplinary Decision Over Pellet Gun
2 Federal Judges Rescind Senior Status After Trump Win. Might More Follow?
Trending Stories
- 1Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- 2The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 3Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 4For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 5As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
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