Amul Thapar

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Amul Thapar
Image of Amul Thapar

Nonpartisan

United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
Tenure

2017 - Present

Years in position

7

Prior offices
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky

Education

Bachelor's

Boston College, 1991

Law

University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1994

Personal
Birthplace
Detroit, Mich.


Amul Roger Thapar is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. He was nominated to the court by President Donald Trump (R) on March 21, 2017, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May 25, 2017, by a vote of 52-44.[1] To see a full list of judges appointed by Donald Trump, click here.

Prior to his elevation to the 6th Circuit, Thapar was a judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. He joined the court in 2008 after being nominated by President George W. Bush (R).

The United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit is one of 13 U.S. courts of appeal. They are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal courts. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky is one of 94 U.S. district courts. They are the general trial courts of the United States federal courts. To learn more about the courts, click here.

Thapar was included on President Donald Trump’s (R) June 2018 list of 25 potential Supreme Court nominees to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the court. Trump first released such a list during his 2016 presidential campaign and stated, “This list is definitive and I will choose only from it in picking future Justices of the United States Supreme Court.”[2][3]

Judicial nominations and appointments

United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit (2017-present)

See also: Federal judges nominated by Donald Trump

Thapar was nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit by President Donald Trump (R) on March 21, 2017. The U.S. Senate confirmed Thapar on May 25, 2017, by a vote of 52-44.[1] He received commission that same day.[4] To read more about the federal nomination process, click here.

Nomination Tracker
Fedbadgesmall.png
Nominee Information
Name: Amul R. Thapar
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
Progress
Confirmed 65 days after nomination.
ApprovedANominated: March 21, 2017
ApprovedAABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified
Questionnaire: Questionnaire
ApprovedAHearing: April 26, 2017
QFRs: (Hover over QFRs to read more)
ApprovedAReported: May 18, 2017 
ApprovedAConfirmed: May 25, 2017
ApprovedAVote: 52-44

Confirmation vote

The U.S. Senate confirmed Thapar on May 25, 2017, by a vote of 52-44.[5] To see a full breakdown of the vote on the official U.S. Senate website, click here.

Amul Thapar confirmation vote (May 25, 2017)
Party Yea Nay No vote
Electiondot.png Democratic 0 42 4
Ends.png Republican 52 0 0
Grey.png Independent 0 2 0
Total 52 44 4

Senate Judiciary Committee hearing

Thapar had his hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 26, 2017. The committee voted to advance Thapar's nomination to the full Senate on May 18, 2017.[6]

Nomination

Thapar was nominated to replace Judge Boyce Martin, who retired on August 16, 2013.

The American Bar Association unanimously rated Thapar well qualified for the position.[7] To read more about ABA ratings, click here.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (2008-2017)

See also: Federal judges nominated by George W. Bush

Thapar was nominated to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky by President George W. Bush (R) on May 24, 2007. The U.S. Senate confirmed Thapar on December 13, 2007. He received commission on January 4, 2008.[4] To read more about the federal nomination process, click here.

Thapar was the first Indian American judge named to the federal judiciary.[8]

Confirmation vote

The U.S. Senate confirmed Thapar Thapar on December 13, 2007, by voice vote.[9]

Senate Judiciary Committee hearing

Hearings on Thapar's nomination were held before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on October 24, 2007, and his nomination was reported by U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on November 15, 2007.[9]

Nomination

Thapar was nominated to a seat vacated by Joseph Hood, who assumed senior status on October 14, 2007.

The American Bar Association unanimously rated Thapar well qualified with one committee member abstaining.[10] To read more about ABA ratings, click here.

Early life and education

Born in Detroit, Michigan, Thapar graduated from Boston College with his bachelor's degree in 1991. He earned his J.D. from the University of California at Berkeley School of Law in 1994.[4]

Professional career

Possible Donald Trump nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court

See also: Possible nominees to replace Anthony Kennedy on the United States Supreme Court
See also: Process to fill the vacated seat of Justice Antonin Scalia

2018

Thapar was listed by President Donald Trump (R) as a potential Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy announced he would retire from the court effective July 31, 2018.[11] Trump ultimately chose Brett Kavanaugh as the nominee. Click here to learn more.

2017

On November 17, 2017, Thapar was included in a third list of individuals from which President Donald Trump would choose to fill vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court.

A White House statement announcing the nominees stated,[12]

“

One year ago, President Donald J. Trump was elected to restore the rule of law and to Make the Judiciary Great Again. Following the successful confirmation of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States and the nomination of more than seventy Federal judges—including five individuals from his Supreme Court list—President Trump today announced that he is refreshing his Supreme Court list with five additional judges. President Trump will choose a nominee for a future Supreme Court vacancy, should one arise, from this updated list of 25 individuals. The President remains deeply committed to identifying and selecting outstanding jurists in the mold of Justice Gorsuch. These additions, like those on the original list released more than a year ago, were selected with input from respected conservative leaders.[13]

”

Views on the administrative state

The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a public interest law firm with a focus on the administrative state, published an assessment of potential replacements for Justice Anthony Kennedy based on how each of them approached questions about the administrative state.[14][15]

In its assessment, the group concluded that Thapar likely believes that current applications of Chevron deference weaken the separation of powers as established by the Constitution. While Thapar applied Chevron deference to agencies in cases where he found that statutory language was ambiguous, other rulings suggest that he would not expand the doctrine.[14]

Examining Thapar's judicial record, the NCLA said:[14]

“
Crediting Justice Scalia’s legacy, Judge Thapar maintains that “we’re all textualists now.” Moreover, “[t]he governing text and precedent are the common threads constraining federal judges across the United States to treat like cases alike—no matter the judges’ divergent conceptions of the common good.” Thus, in Thapar’s view, textualism and stare decisis go hand in hand as the foundational principles of the American legal system, ensuring the intelligible, efficient, and uniform adjudication of what the law is. Judge Thapar has explained that the truly pragmatic judge is one whose rulings flow naturally from the governing legal text, the precedents reasonably interpreting that text, and the record of the case in a way that is predictable beforehand and ascertainable thereafter.


On the occasions Judge Thapar has adjudicated administrative law-related cases, he has consistently applied this textual approach within the context of controlling precedent. For instance, where a federal bond hearing statute contained ambiguous language, Thapar employed the Chevron doctrine and deferred to the agency’s interpretation of the statute because he was convinced that the interpretation was reasonable.

In a recent law review article, Judge Thapar has also argued directly that “deference to the administrative state” both “disserves litigants” through undermining “stability [and] predictability” in the law, and “sacrifices the legitimacy courts claim from publicly showing their work.” For his latter legitimacy argument, Thapar cites NCLA’s own Professor Hamburger.

Thus, although Judge Thapar has applied Chevron deference in the past, or at least demonstrated a willingness to apply Chevron under the prudentially appropriate circumstances, footnote 5 in his Hicks opinion and Thapar’s academic writing suggest that, were he freed from the bounds of controlling precedent in his jurisdiction, Thapar might be inclined to constrain federal courts’ deference to agency rules and interpretations.[13]

”

Noteworthy cases

Federal judges arrive at disparate conclusions regarding Auer deference and agency guidance (2018)

On October 22, 2018, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit issued dissimilar conclusions in U.S. v. Havis that either challenged or upheld the use of Auer deference—a deference principle in which a federal court defers to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous rule promulgated by the agency.[16][17]

The case involves the sentencing of Jeffrey Havis on a firearms charge in Tennessee. The United States Sentencing Commission increased Havis’ base sentence due to a prior conviction for attempting to deliver cocaine. Havis argued that the commission’s sentencing guidelines only call for enhanced sentences in the case of a completed drug transfer. The sentencing guidelines for attempted transfers are only featured in the agency’s commentary on sentencing guidelines and, Havis claimed, are not entitled to Auer deference.[16][17]

Commentary is a form of agency guidance—documents created by government agencies to explain, interpret, or advise interested parties about rules, laws, and procedures. Guidance documents clarify and affect how agencies administer regulations and programs. However, they are not legally binding in the same way as rules issued through one of the rulemaking processes of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).[16][17]

The Sixth Circuit upheld Havis’ sentence due to precedent in the 2012 case U.S. v. Evans, which held that the sentencing guidelines include attempts to sell or distribute drugs. However, all three judges on the panel—Amul Thapar, Jane Stranch, and Martha Daughtrey—agreed that the 2012 court may have reached the incorrect conclusion by treating agency guidance as binding. In order to overturn precedent, Thapar and Stranch agreed that the case would need to be heard by the Sixth Circuit en banc or by the United States Supreme Court. Daughtrey dissented and argued that U.S. v. Evans was not controlling precedent because the case did not address Havis' concerns regarding the separation of powers.[16][17]

Thapar criticized Auer deference in his concurrence, arguing that the deference principle violates the separation of powers by calling for federal courts to yield to agency interpretations of their own rules. "How is it fair in a court of justice for judges to defer to one of the litigants?” questioned Thapar. "In essence, the argument boils down to this—the government is populated by experts and when they speak we should tip the scales of justice in their favor. Such deference is found nowhere in the Constitution—the document to which judges take an oath.”[16][17]

Stranch, on the other hand, defended Auer deference in her concurrence. She argued that “[t]he current arguments for curtailing agency deference risk dismissing a system that Congress created out of a need to employ the significant expertise held by agencies and their stakeholders in complex areas of the law and instead substituting courts that are ill-equipped for the task.”[16][17]

Should Havis seek further review, the case would be reheard by the full Sixth Circuit.[16][17]

Company granted summary judgment in firing of blind employee (2015)
See also: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Gordon Michael Wagner v. Sherwin-Williams Company, No. 14-178-ART)

On September 2, 2015, a federal court granted summary judgment to the Sherwin-Williams Company in a dispute between the company and a former employee who alleged the company failed to accommodate his disability and wrongfully terminated him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gordon Wagner, the plaintiff, worked as a store manager for Sherwin-Williams in Pikeville, Kentucky. Among his responsibilities as a manager, Wagner was responsible for visiting off-sit locations for making deliveries, which required him to drive. In 2013, Wagner suffered a stroke and lost the use of his peripheral vision. As a result, he was unable to drive. Wagner's vision loss eventually became permanent and Sherwin-Williams "decided that he could no longer perform the essential functions of his job, removed him from his position, and placed him on disability leave."[18]

Wagner filed a lawsuit against the company under the Americans with Disabilities Act and under Kentucky law. Wagner claimed that "Sherwin-Williams discharged him because of his disability, failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation, and retaliated against him for requesting one." Sherwin-Williams filed for summary judgment, arguing that Wagner "failed to show a genuine issue as to whether he could perform his job’s essential functions" and "that no reasonable jury could find that he was discharged because he requested an accommodation." Judge Amul Thapar of the Eastern District of Kentucky granted Sherwin-Williams' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Wagner's claims against the company. In examining the statutory and regulatory factors, Thapar concluded that driving was an essential function of Wagner's job and that no reasonable jury would conclude otherwise based on the evidence presented by both parties. Thapar also rejected Wagner's claim that Sherwin-Williams retaliated against Wagner, holding, at this stage of the proceedings, that Wagner had failed to present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that he was terminated for requesting an accommodation.[18] On May 10, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld Judge Thapar's ruling.[19]

About the court

6th Circuit Court of Appeals

Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals
US-CourtOfAppeals-6thCircuit-Seal.png
Judgeships
Posts: 16
Judges: 16
Vacancies: 0
Judges
Chief: Jeffrey Sutton
Active judges: Rachel Bloomekatz, John K. Bush, Eric Clay, Stephanie Dawkins Davis, Richard Griffin, Raymond Kethledge, Joan Larsen, Andre Mathis, Karen Moore, Eric Murphy, John Nalbandian, Chad Readler, Kevin Ritz, Jane Stranch, Jeffrey Sutton, Amul Thapar

Senior judges:
Alice Batchelder, Danny Boggs, R. Guy Cole Jr., Deborah Cook, Martha Daughtrey, Julia Gibbons, Ronald Gilman, Ralph Guy, David McKeague, Alan Norris, John M. Rogers, James Ryan, Eugene Siler, Richard Suhrheinrich, Helene White


The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is a federal appellate court with appellate jurisdiction. It hears appeals from all of the circuit courts within its jurisdiction and its rulings may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Sixth Circuit has 16 authorized judicial posts. The chief judge of the court is Jeffrey Sutton, who was appointed by President George W. Bush (R). Six of the judges on the court were appointed by Donald Trump (R).

Appeals are heard in the Potter Stewart United States Courthouse in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Four judges of the Sixth Circuit went on to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. Howell Edmunds Jackson was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1893 by Benjamin Harrison (R), William R. Day was appointed in 1903 by Theodore Roosevelt (R), Horace Harmon Lurton was appointed in 1909 by William Howard Taft (R), and Potter Stewart was appointed in 1958 by Dwight Eisenhower (R).

The Sixth Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over cases heard in one of its subsidiary districts. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law. Appeals of rulings by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals are petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the circuit justice for the Sixth Circuit.

The United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over the United States district courts in the following federal judicial districts:

To read opinions published by this court,click here.

Eastern District of Kentucky

Eastern District of Kentucky
Sixth Circuit
KY-ED.gif
Judgeships
Posts: 6
Judges: 6
Vacancies: 0
Judges
Chief: Danny Reeves
Active judges: Claria Horn Boom, David Bunning, Karen Caldwell, Danny Reeves, Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, Robert Wier

Senior judges:
William Bertelsman, Joseph Hood


The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky is one of 94 United States district courts. The district operates out of courthouses in Lexington, Ashland, Covington, Frankfort, London and Pikeville, Kentucky. When decisions of the court are appealed, they are appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit based in downtown Cincinnati at the Potter A. Stewart Federal Courthouse and Building.

The Eastern District of Kentucky has original jurisdiction over cases filed within its jurisdiction. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law.

There are six court divisions, each covering the following counties:

The Ashland Division, covering Boyd, Carter, Elliott, Greenup, Lawrence, Lewis, Morgan, and Rowan counties.

The Covington Division, covering Boone, Bracken, Campbell, Gallatin, Grant, Kenton, Mason, Pendleton, and Robertson counties.

The Frankfort Division, covering Anderson, Carroll, Franklin, Henry, Owen, Shelby, and Trimble counties.

The Lexington Division, covering Bath, Bourbon, Boyle, Breathitt, Clark, Estill, Fayette, Fleming, Garrard, Harrison, Jessamine, Lee, Lincoln, Madison, Menifee, Mercer, Montgomery, Nicholas, Powell, Scott, Wolfe, and Woodford counties.

The London Division, covering Bell, Clay, Harlan, Jackson, Knox, Laurel, Leslie, McCreary, Owsley, Perry, Pulaski, Rockcastle, Wayne, and Whitley counties.

The Pikeville Division, covering Floyd, Johnson, Knott, Letcher, Magoffin, Martin, and Pike counties.

The court is based in Lexington and also holds sessions in federal courthouses in Ashland, Covington, Frankfort, London, and Pikeville. The court also meets in Richmond and Jackson. In addition, at one time the court also met in Catlettsburg, however the court left Catlettsburg when the Carl D. Perkins Federal Building and United States Courthouse in Ashland was completed.

To read opinions published by this court,click here.

The federal nomination process

Federal judges are nominated by the president of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. There are multiple steps to the process:

  • The president nominates an individual for a judicial seat.
  • The nominee fills out a questionnaire and is reviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  • The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing with the nominee, questioning them about things like their judicial philosophy, past rulings or opinions, etc.
  • As part of this process, the committee sends a blue slip to senators from the home state in which the judicial nomination was received, allowing them to express their approval or disapproval of the nominee.
  • After the hearing, the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote to approve or return the nominee.
  • If approved, the nominee is voted on by the full Senate.
  • If the Committee votes to return the nominee to the president, the president has the opportunity to re-nominate the individual.
  • The Senate holds a vote on the candidate.
  • If the Senate confirms the nomination, the nominee receives a commission to serve a lifelong position as a federal judge.
  • If the Senate does not confirm the nomination, that nominee does not become a judge.


See also

External links


Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 United States Congress, "PN 105 — Amul R. Thapar — The Judiciary," May 25, 2017
  2. ↑ CBS News, "Trump says Justice Kennedy's replacement will come from list of 25," June 27, 2018
  3. ↑ FindLaw, "Trump Revises His Supreme Court Picks," September 26, 2016
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Federal Judicial Center, "Biography of Judge Amul Roger Thapar," accessed May 27, 2017
  5. ↑ United States Congress, "PN 105 — Amul R. Thapar — The Judiciary," May 25, 2017
  6. ↑ United States Congress, "PN 105 — Amul R. Thapar — The Judiciary," May 25, 2017
  7. ↑ American Bar Association, "Ratings of Article III and Article IV judicial nominees," accessed April 25, 2017
  8. ↑ India West "Jay C. Gandhi Named Federal Judge in California," April 22, 2010
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Congress.gov, "PN607 — Amul R. Thapar — The Judiciary," accessed April 22, 2020
  10. ↑ American Bar Association, "Ratings of Article III judicial nominees, 110th Congress," accessed September 23, 2016
  11. ↑ CBS News, "Trump says Justice Kennedy's replacement will come from list of 25," June 27, 2018
  12. ↑ The White House, "President Donald J. Trump Announces Five Additions to Supreme Court List," November 17, 2017
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 New Civil Liberties Alliance, "NCLA Ranks the Short List of Candidates to Replace Justice Kennedy," July 6, 2018
  15. ↑ New Civil Liberties Alliance, "About the Organization," accessed July 9, 2018
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 Reuters, "6th Circuit judge (and SCOTUS short-lister) calls for end to Auer deference," October 23, 2018
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 Reason, "Three Judges, Four Opinions, and a Debate on Auer Deference," October 23, 2018
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Gordon Michael Wagner v. The Sherwin-Williams Company, September 2, 2015
  19. ↑ U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Gordon Michael Wagner v. The Sherwin-Williams Company, May 10, 2016

Political offices
Preceded by
- 		United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
2017-Present		 Succeeded by
-
Preceded by
- 		United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
2008-2017		 Succeeded by
-




Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Amul_Thapar&oldid=9657495"