Arthur Randolph
Arthur Raymond Randolph is an Article III federal judge onsenior status with theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He joined the court in 1990 after being nominated by PresidentGeorge H.W. Bush. He has served onsenior status since November 1, 2008.[1]
Randolph ruled with the majority in a 2014 case striking down a Securities and Exchange Commission rule related to minerals mined in central Africa. Read morebelow.
Before joining the appeals court, Randolphserved as special assistant attorney general for three states between 1983 and 1990.
Education
Born in Riverside, New Jersey, Randolph graduated from Drexel University with his B.A. in 1966, and later received aJ.D. degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1969.[1]
Professional career
- 1986-1990: Special assistant attorney general, State ofUtah
- 1985-1990: Special assistant attorney general, State ofNew Mexico
- 1983-1990: Special assistant attorney general, State ofMontana
- 1979-1980: Special counsel, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
- 1977-1990: Attorney in private practice, Washington, D.C.
- 1975-1977: Deputy solicitor general, United States Department of Justice
- 1974-1978: Adjunct professor of law, Georgetown University Law Center
- 1973-1975: Attorney in private practice, Washington, D.C.
- 1970-1973: Assistant to the solicitor general,United States Department of Justice
- 1969-1970: Law clerk, Hon. Henry J. Friendly,Second Circuit[1]
Judicial career
On the recommendation of the at-large congressional delegation for the District of Columbia, Randolph was nominated to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by PresidentGeorge H.W. Bush onMay 8, 1990, to a seat vacated bySpottswood Robinson. Randolph was confirmed by the unanimous consent of the U.S. Senate onJuly 13, 1990, and received commission onJuly 16, 1990.[2] Randolph assumed senior status onNovember 1, 2008.[1]
Noteworthy cases
Legal challenges to President Trump's civil service executive orders (2018-2019)
- See also:Civil Service Reform Act,E.O. 13836,E.O. 13837, andE.O. 13839
The following timeline identifies key events in a 2018-2019 lawsuit,American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Trump, brought by a group of federal employee unions against President Donald Trump's (R) three civil service executive orders issued in May 2018:Executive Order 13837,Executive Order 13836, andExecutive Order 13839.
October 2019: Injunction expires, agencies allowed to implement executive orders
The injunction blocking provisions of President Trump's three civil service executive orders expired on October 2, 2019. TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on October 3 issued a mandate to implement itsJuly 16 decision vacating the district court ruling and allowing federal agencies to fully implement the orders.[3][4]
September 2019: D.C. Circuit declines rehearing request
TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an order on September 25, 2019, declining to rehearAmerican Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Trump before the full court. The order did not provide a reason for the decision.[5]
August 2019: Unions file for rehearingen banc before full D.C. Circuit
Federal employee unions challenging Trump's three civil service executive orders filed a petition on August 30, 2019, requesting a rehearing ofAmerican Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Trump before the fullUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit held in July that the court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the case because theFederal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute requires labor practice complaints to be brought before theFederal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA).[6]
August 2019: SEIU files new lawsuit claiming civil service executive orders exceed president's constitutional authority
A chapter of theService Employees International Union (SEIU) representingU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs employees inBuffalo, New York, filed a lawsuit in theUnited States District Court for the Western District of New York on August 13, 2019, arguing that President Trump's three civil service executive orders exceeded the president's constitutional authority and violated theCivil Service Reform Act. The union claimed that the district court had jurisdiction over the case in part because theFLRA had lacked a general counsel for almost two years—preventing the agency from hearing unfair labor practice complaints.[7]
Because theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over theUnited States District Court for the Western District of New York, theD.C. Circuit's July 2019 decision upholding the civil service executive orders was not controlling on the case.[7]
July 2019: D.C. Circuit panel reverses district court ruling, holds district court lacked jurisdiction to issue injunction
A three-judge panel of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on July 16, 2019, reversed and vacated the district court ruling. JudgesThomas Griffith,Srikanth Srinivasan, andArthur Randolph held that the district court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the executive orders and that the plaintiffs should have brought the case before theFLRA as required by theFederal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.[8][9]
Trump administration officials on July 23, 2019, asked the D.C. Circuit to immediately lift the injunction blocking enforcement of the three civil service executive orders rather than wait for the 45-day grace period for rehearing requests to expire. The court denied the administration's request on August 14, 2019.[10][11]
April 2019: D.C. Circuit hears oral arguments in appeal, DOJ claims district court lacked jurisdiction in case
TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments in the appeal on April 4, 2019. An attorney for theU.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction in the case and that the plaintiffs should have filed an unfair labor practices complaint with theFederal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) instead. An attorney representing the union groups countered that the FLRA lacked the authority to weigh in on governmentwide rules that are not subject to collective bargaining negotiations.[12][13]
November 2018: OPM instructs agencies to comply with effective executive order provisions
TheOffice of Personnel Management (OPM) released a memo in November 2018 instructing federal agencies to comply with the provisions of the civil service executive orders that remained in effect, including guidelines related to employee discipline and the use of official union time.[14]
September 2018: DOJ appeals district court ruling
TheDOJ appealed the district court's ruling on September 25, 2018. The notice of appeal was filed with theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Oral argument in the case was scheduled for April 4, 2019.[15][16]
August 2018: District court ruling strikes provisions of executive orders, cites conflict with federal statute
JudgeKetanji Brown Jackson of theUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia struck down several provisions of President Trump's civil service executive orders in a ruling issued on August 25, 2018. The stricken provisions included components of the executive orders that Brown Jackson claimed conflicted with federal statute, such as limitations on the amount of government-funded time that full-time federal employees can dedicate to union activities, a reduction in the amount of time that poor-performing employees can demonstrate improvement, and certain restrictions on workplace issues that federal agencies can negotiate with unions.[17][18]
ADOJ representative responded to the ruling on August 25, stating that the DOJ was "reviewing the decision and considering our next steps." Then-OPM Director Jeff Pon issued a memo to all federal agencies on August 29 stating that the OPM would comply with Jackson's order and encouraging compliance by other agencies. The OPM also rescinded agencyguidance related to the blocked provisions of the executive orders.[17][19]
May 2018: Unions file suit against civil service executive orders, claim orders are unconstitutional and violate federal statute
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality ofExecutive Order 13837 on May 30, 2018. The lawsuit claimed that the order violates freedom of association protections under the First Amendment and alters sections of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute—Title VII of theCivil Service Reform Act of 1978—without congressional action.[20][21][22]
Brown Jackson consolidated AFGE's lawsuit with two other lawsuits challenging Trump's civil service executive orders (E.O. 13837,E.O. 13836, andE.O. 13839) filed by the National Treasury Employees Union and a coalition of 13 smaller public sector unions. A hearing in the case took place on July 25, 2018.[23]
D.C. Circuit cannot rule on filibuster lawsuit due to jurisdictional issue (2014)
In April 2014, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit, comprised of Judges Randolph,Karen Henderson andStephen F. Williams, blocked a lawsuit filed by the advocacy group Common Cause having to do with Senate filibuster rules invoked as to the DREAM and DISCLOSE bills. The decision, written by Judge Randolph, noted that the advocacy group failed to sue the proper party, namely, the Senate itself, as it was the cause of the alleged injury in question. Judge Randolph further stated that the Senate was an "absent third party," and that the D.C. Circuit therefore lacked jurisdiction to rule on the case.
Articles:
D.C. Circuit strikes down "conflict minerals" rule as unconstitutional (2014)
On April 14, 2014, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit, comprised of Judges Randolph,David Sentelle andSrikanth Srinivasan, struck down a securities law concerning "conflict minerals" (i.e., minerals that were mined in central Africa), noting that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rule violated the First Amendment. In the opinion, Judge Randolph wrote that “[b]y compelling an issuer to confess blood on its hands, the statute interferes with that exercise of freedom of speech under the First Amendment.”
Articles:
See also
External links
Officeholder United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit |
Footnotes
- ↑1.01.11.21.3Federal Judicial Center, "Biography of Arthur Raymond Randolph," accessed September 27, 2014
- ↑THOMAS, "Presidential Nominations 101st Congress: A. Raymond Randolph (USCA, D.C. Cir.)," accessed September 27, 2014
- ↑FedSmith, "Executive Orders Allowed to Take Effect After Injunction is Lifted," October 2, 2019
- ↑United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, "Mandate," October 3, 2019
- ↑Government Executive, "Appeals Court Declines to Rehear Case Against Trump's Workforce Executive Orders," September 25, 2019
- ↑Government Executive, "Unions Request Rehearing of Trump's Federal Workforce Orders Case," August 30, 2019
- ↑7.07.1Government Executive, "Another Union Sues to Block Trump Workforce Orders," August 16, 2019
- ↑The Washington Post, "In win for Trump administration, appeals court stymies union challenge to civil service restrictions," July 16, 2019
- ↑United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, "American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Trump," July 16, 2019
- ↑Government Executive, "Trump Administration Asks Court to Allow Agencies to Implement Workforce Orders Immediately," July 24, 2019
- ↑Government Executive, "Court: Injunction Blocking Workforce Executive Orders Will Remain in Place," August 14, 2019
- ↑Government Executive, "Judges Fixate on Jurisdictional Question in Appeal of Decision Invalidating Trump Workforce Orders," April 4, 2019
- ↑Reuters, "D.C. Circuit hears Trump administration's bid to revive civil service executive orders," April 4, 2019
- ↑FEDweek, "Enforce Parts of Orders Not Blocked, OPM Tells Agencies," November 13, 2018
- ↑Government Executive, "Trump Administration Appeals Court Ruling On Workforce EOs," September 25, 2018
- ↑United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, "Order No. 18-5289," February 19, 2019
- ↑17.017.1The Wall Street Journal, "Judge Curbs Trump Orders That Made It Easier to Fire Federal Workers," August 25, 2018
- ↑Government Executive, "Judge Strikes Down Trump Executive Orders Limiting Federal Employee Union Bargaining," August 25, 2018
- ↑Office of Personnel Management, "Updated Guidance Relating to Enjoinment of Certain Provisions of Executive Orders 13836, 13837, and 13839," August 29, 2018
- ↑Government Executive, "Largest Federal Employee Union Sues to Block Official Time Executive Order," May 31, 2018
- ↑UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, "AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO vs. DONALD TRUMP," May 30, 2018
- ↑Common Dreams, "'This Is a Democracy, Not a Dictatorship': Federal Workers Union Sues Donald Trump," May 31, 2018
- ↑Government Executive, "Federal Judge Consolidates Lawsuits on Workforce Executive Orders, Schedules Hearing," June 19, 2018
| Political offices | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by: Spottswood Robinson | Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. 1990–2008 | Succeeded by: Srikanth Srinivasan |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1989 | Barksdale •Bonner •Buckwalter •Cyr •Fernandez •Garbis •Harmon •Lee •Lindberg •Lodge •Nelson •Nottingham •Plager •Rosen •Rymer •Smith •Spatt •Thomas •VanBebber •J. Walker •V. Walker •Wiener •Wright | ||
| 1990 | Alito •Amon •Birch •Boudin •Cleland •Clevenger •Dubina •Hamilton •Henderson •Hood •Hornby •Jones •Kent •Levi •Loken •Lourie •Martin •McBryde •McClure •McKenna •McLaughlin •McNamee •Moreno •Mullen •Nelson •Nickerson •Niemeyer •Norton •Parker •Pickering •Rader •Rainey •Randolph •Shanstrom •Shedd •Shubb •Singleton •Skretny •Souter •Sparr •Stahl •Stamp •Suhrheinrich •Taylor •Vollmer •Ware •Wilson | ||
| 1991 | Albritton •Andersen •Armstrong •Arnold •Bartle •Bassler •Batchelder •Beckwith •Belot •Benson •Blackburn •Bramlette •Brody •Brody •Burrell •Carnes •Caulfield •Cauthron •Clement •Collier •Conway •Cooper •Dalzell •DeMent •DeMoss •Doherty •Echols •Edmunds •Faber •Freeh •Gaitan •Garza •Graham •Haik •Hamilton •Hansen •Hendren •Herlong •Highsmith •Hogan •Huff •Hurley •Irenas •Johnson •Joyner •Kelly •Kleinfeld •Legg •Leonard •Lewis •Longstaff •Lungstrum •Luttig •Matia •McCalla •McDade •McKeague •McKelvie •Means •Merryday •Moore •Morgan •Nielsen •Nimmons •Osteen Sr. •Padova •Payne •Reinhard •Robinson •Robreno •Roll •Roth •Schlesinger •Scullin •Siler •Solis •Sotomayor •Sparks •Stohr •Thomas •Traxler •Trimble •Ungaro •Van Sickle •Wanger •Werlein •Whyte • Yohn | ||
| 1992 | Baird •Barbadoro •Black •Boudin •Carnes •Covello •DiClerico •Gilbert •Gonzalez •Gorton •Hansen •Heyburn •Jackson •Jacobs •Keeley •Kendall •Kopf •Kyle •Lewis •McAuliffe •McLaughlin •Melloy •Preska •Quist •Randa •Rosenthal •Rovner •Schall •Sedwick •Simandle •Stahl •Vratil •Williams | ||
