Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot.Click to learn more!

Raymond Kethledge

From Ballotpedia

Jump to:navigation,search

Raymond Kethledge

Nonpartisan

United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit

Tenure

2008 - Present

Years in position

Education

Bachelor's

University of Michigan, 1989

Law

University of Michigan Law, 1993

Personal

Birthplace

Summit, NJ

Raymond M. Kethledge is afederal judge on theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. He joined the court in 2008 after being nominated by PresidentGeorge W. Bush.^[1]

Kethledge was included on PresidentDonald Trump’s (R) June 2018 list of 25 potentialSupreme Court nominees to replace JusticeAnthony 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]

Biography

Kethledge graduated from the University of Michigan with his bachelor's degree in 1989 and from the University of Michigan Law School with hisJ.D. in 1993.^[1]

Following his graduation, Kethledge was a law clerk for Sixth Circuit Judge Ralph B. Guy Jr. He then served as counsel to Sen. Spencer Abraham (R) from 1995 to 1997. After that, Kethledge clerked for Associate JusticeAnthony Kennedy in 1997.

Kethledge joined the law firm of Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn after this clerkship, where he eventually became a partner. He also served as an in-house counsel for Ford Motor Company and later joined Feeney, Kellett, Wienner & Bush as a partner. Kethledge has taught at the University of Michigan Law School.^[4]

Career outline

2008-present: Judge,United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
2002-2008: Private practice,Michigan
2001-2002: Counsel, Ford Motor Company
1998-2001: Private practice, Michigan
1997-1998: Law clerk, Hon.Anthony Kennedy,Supreme Court of the United States
1995-1997: Counsel for former U.S. Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.)
1994: Private practice, Michigan
1993-1994: Law clerk, Hon.Ralph Guy, Jr.,United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit^[1]

Judicial career

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Nomination Tracker

Nominee Information
Name: Raymond M. Kethledge
Court:United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
Progress
Confirmed 727 days after nomination.
ANominated: June 28, 2006
AABA Rating:Substantial Majority Well Qualified, Minority Qualified
Questionnaire:
AHearing: May 7, 2008
Hearing Transcript:Hearing Transcript
QFRs:(Hover over QFRs to read more)

AReported: June 12, 2008
AConfirmed: June 24, 2008
AVote: Voice vote
AReturned: December 9, 2006

Kethledge was first nominated to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit by PresidentGeorge W. Bush on June 27, 2006, to a seat vacated by JudgeJames L. Ryan, as Ryan assumedsenior status. Under the provisions of Rule XXXI, paragraph 6 of the standing rules of the Senate, Kethledge's nomination was returned to the president on December 9, 2006. On March 19, 2007, President Bush resubmitted Kethledge's nomination. TheAmerican Bar Association rated KethledgeSubstantial Majority Well Qualified, Minority Qualified for the nomination.^[5]^[6] Hearings on Kethledge's nomination were held before theUnited States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on May 7, 2008, and Kethledge's nomination was reported by U.S. Sen.Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on June 12, 2008. Kethledge was confirmed on a voice vote of theU.S. Senate on June 24, 2008, and he received his commission on July 7, 2008.^[1]^[7]^[8]

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

Kethledge was listed by PresidentDonald Trump (R) as a potential Supreme Court nominee to replace JusticeAnthony Kennedy. Kennedy announced he would retire from the court effective July 31, 2018.^[9] Trump ultimately choseBrett Kavanaugh as the nominee.Click here to learn more.

2017

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

A White House statement announcing the nominees stated,^[10]

“

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.^[11]

”

Views on theadministrative state

TheNew Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a public interest law firm with a focus on theadministrative state, published anassessment of potential replacements forJustice Anthony Kennedy based on how each of them approached questions about the administrative state.^[12]^[13]

Its assessment noted that Kethledge would likely support rulings that pare back the powers of the administrative state.^[12] Kethledge has been critical ofChevron deference, an administrative law principle that compels federal courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that Congress delegated to the agency to administer:^[12]

“

Judge Kethledge gave a speech at his alma mater late last year detailing his skeptical views onChevron deference, how judges handle ambiguous statutes, and the use of legislative history. Kethledge’s criticism ofChevron focuses on separation of powers concerns (not judicial bias), but he also details practical problems with judicial deference: agencies seek interpretations that support policy preferences, judges take the easy way out and find ambiguity instead of figuring out what a statute means, agencies cut corners and become sloppy when counting on deference, and they even distort relevant statutes in their presentations to courts “under cover of deference.” Kethledge reports he “never yet had occasion to find a statute ambiguous,” which certainly signals antipathy to employingChevron deference.

Judge Kethledge does not support using legislative history to resolve ambiguity. As a former judiciary staffer for Sen. Spence Abraham, Kethledge knows that staffers write legislative history largely unsupervised—“like being a teenager at home while your parents are away for the weekend.” Staffers write for “an audience in robes,” whereas senators approve legislation, not what is in the legislative history (which many ignore). For Kethledge, “the idea that most statutes are badly written is a myth.” He believes the Office of Legislative Counsel has tremendous expertise in writing with clarity. Hence, Kethledge concludes, Scalia and Kagan “are rightly skeptical that legislative history should play some kind of central role in determining the rights and obligations of our citizens.”^[11]

”

Noteworthy cases

Warrantless use of third-party cell phone data upheld (2016)

See also:Sixth Circuit (United States v. Timothy Ivory Carpenter and Timothy Michael Sanders, Nos. 14-1572, 14-1805)

On April 13, 2016, a three-judge panel of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld a judgment reached by JudgeSean Cox of theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. In this case, Timothy Ivory Carpenter and Timothy Michael Sanders were convicted based on cell tower data collected by the petitioners' cellular service providers and obtained by the government without a warrant; instead, the information was obtained via judicial orders authorizing the collection and use of the data under the Stored Communications Act (SCA). Carpenter and Sanders moved to suppress the evidence before trial, arguing that the government both conducted an illegal search without a warrant and improperly seized their private property (the cell tower data), in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Judge Cox denied the motion, and both Carpenter and Sanders were convicted at trial.

On appeal, Carpenter and Sanders challenged the denial of their motion to suppress the cell tower data. In upholding the convictions, JudgeRaymond Kethledge, writing for a three-judge panel of theSixth Circuit, held that the use of the cellphone data did not require a warrant or a showing of probable cause because the data was not subject to considerations of private property under the Fourth Amendment. Judge Kethledge further held that the business records used in this case did not contain any information regarding the content of the calls and, therefore, did not constitute private information protected by the Fourth Amendment. JudgeJane Stranch wrote an opinion concurring in part and in the judgment in which she stated that while she agreed the motion to suppress the cell data evidence was correctly denied by the district court, there were outstanding Fourth Amendment jurisprudential concerns raised by the case that must be addressed by federal courts going forward. Thepetitioners appealed the Sixth Circuit's ruling and theU.S. Supreme Court agreed to hearthe case during the court's2017 term.^[14]^[15]

For more, seeCarpenter v. United States