President Obama Nominates Judge Carolyn B. McHugh to Serve on the United States Court of Appeals

President Obama Nominates Judge Carolyn B. McHugh to Serve on the United States Court of Appeals | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama Get Email UpdatesContact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts 2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2012 Annual Report to Congress 2011 Annual Report to Congress 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff A Commitment to Transparency

Browse White House visitor logs

Issues Civil Rights It Gets Better Defense End of Iraq War Disabilities Economy Jobs Reform and Fiscal Responsibility Strengthening the Middle Class Support for Business Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Refinancing Rural Service Seniors & Social Security Snapshots Creating Jobs Health Care Small Business PreK-12 Education Taxes Tax Receipt The Buffett Rule Technology Urban Policy Veterans Joining Forces Violence Prevention Women Immigration Reform

Creating an Immigration System for the 21st Century

2012 Federal Taxpayer Receipt

Understand how and where your tax dollars are being spent

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden Being Biden Audio Series First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Chief of Staff Denis McDonough Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco Counselor to the President Peter Rouse Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House White House On the Go

Download our mobile apps

Take A Virtual Tour

View the Residence, East Wing and West Wing

Inside the White House Interactive Tour West Wing Tour Video Series Décor and Art Holidays Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows President’s Commission About the Fellowship Current Class Staff Bios News and Newsletters White House Internships About Program Presidential Department Descriptions Selection Process Internship Timeline & FAQs Tours & Events 2013 Easter Egg Roll Kitchen Garden Tours Take a Virtual Tour of the White House Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources /* Maximize height of menu features. */if(typeof(jQuery)!='undefined')jQuery.each($('#topnav'),function(i,v){var o=$(v),oh=o.height(),sh=o.siblings().height();if(oh Home • Briefing Room • Statements & Releases   The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release May 16, 2013 President Obama Nominates Judge Carolyn B. McHugh to Serve on the United States Court of Appeals

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Barack Obama nominated Judge Carolyn B. McHugh to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

“Judge Carolyn B. McHugh has displayed exceptional dedication to the legal profession through her work and I am honored to nominate her to serve the American people as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals,” President Obama said. "She will be a diligent, judicious and esteemed addition to the Tenth Circuit bench."

Judge Carolyn B. McHugh: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Judge Carolyn B. McHugh is the Presiding Judge of the Utah Court of Appeals, a bench on which she has served since her appointment in 2005.  Judge McHugh previously worked at the Salt Lake City law firm of Parr Brown Gee & Loveless for 22 years, joining the firm as an associate in 1983 and becoming a partner in 1987.  Her practice primarily focused on complex civil litigation with an emphasis on environmental matters.  Prior to joining the firm, Judge McHugh served as a law clerk to the Honorable Bruce S. Jenkins of the United States District Court for the District of Utah from 1982 to 1983.  She has also taught as an adjunct professor at the University of Utah College of Law and the University of Utah College of Social and Behavioral Science. Judge McHugh received her B.A. magna cum laude in 1978 from the University of Utah and her J.D. in 1982 from the University of Utah College of Law, where she graduated Order of the Coif and served on the editorial board of the Utah Law Review. 

Since becoming a judge on the Utah Court of Appeals, Judge McHugh has handled more than 1,100 criminal and civil cases and issued 285 opinions.  Throughout her career, Judge McHugh has been actively involved in community service organizations, and participated in local and national bar activities.  For her work, Judge McHugh has received awards including the Christine M. Durham Woman Lawyer of the Year Award from Women Lawyers of Utah, and the Utah State Bar’s Dorathy Merrill Brothers Award for the Advancement of Women in the Legal Profession.

Blog posts on this issue May 17, 2013 6:08 PM EDTWeekly Wrap Up: “What Our Families Deserve”

Here’s a quick glimpse at what happened this week on WhiteHouse.gov.

May 17, 2013 5:50 PM EDTA Stronger and Sustainable Military for the 21st Century

The President and the Department of Defense are taking unprecedented steps to protect our environment, achieve significant cost savings, and give our military better energy options.

May 17, 2013 5:28 PM EDTComing Together to Stop Slavery

Today at the White House, we convened the 10th annual meeting of the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons.

view all related blog posts ul.related-content li.views-row img {float: left; padding: 5px 10px 0 0;}ul.related-content li.view-all {padding-bottom: 3em;} Stay ConnectedFacebookTwitterFlickrGoogle+YouTubeVimeoiTunesLinkedIn   Home The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Issues Civil Rights Defense Disabilities Economy Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Refinancing Rural Service Seniors & Social Security Snapshots Taxes Technology Urban Policy Veterans Violence Prevention Women The Administration President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Inside the White House Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows White House Internships Tours & Events Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job

View the original article here

Mike Lee’s speech: Bring back Judge Napolitano’s 'Freedom Watch'

Utah Sen. Mike Lee, like Kentucky’s Rand Paul and Texas’s Ted Cruz have added much to the discussion this past semester, but I would like to suggest they misunderstand their forum. As a business model, the Senate today should be looked at as a pirate ship where full and honest discussion is considered seditious and principled management models are eyed suspiciously as cloaking dissent.

In a speech to the Heritage Foundation on Monday, Lee said: “The single most important policy would be federalism,” which means making “as many decisions at the most local level as possible.”

This does indeed get to the crux of the matter, but you cannot get there from here. A hundred years of centralization cannot disappear overnight; it goes back further, to Jay’s Treaty in 1794 when Washington cast his lot with Alexander Hamilton and the New Yorkers in opposition to Jefferson, Madison, the South and western regions. The die was cast. But the end game of centralization came in 1913 with passage of the difficult-to-explain 17th Amendment, which fatally shifted focus from states to Wall Street in the election of senators. 

But this needs more discussion, more explanation, and I have heard Lee explain it perfectly on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s groundbreaking TV show “Freedom Watch,” which rose in a creative arc with the Pauls, Lee and Sarah Palin, and was suddenly pulled by its network a year before last President’s Day.

We need it back.

But the pull of empire is deeply embedded in American minds and hearts and has been here since the first moments. Possibly this jewel from The Life and Death of Sam Crow tells why: “Einstein said that any intelligent fool can make something bigger and more complex. But it takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to make something in the opposite direction.”

Perhaps there needs to be a different place for discussion outside of Washington and New York; something more central to America today as Washington was central to the colonies. Possibly Richard Nixon’s idea of a regional matrix for states should be reconsidered, an idea that did not fit the times or the contours of culture back then. The great ambassador George Kennan has advanced a similar suggestion with a model more suited to the fully developed regional cultures of America today.

But “getting big” is not necessarily in our DNA. It is in the model of the post-WWII power arc. Possibly senators cannot solve this, and it must be the work of governors. There needs to be a counterweight to the 17th amendment if states are to countervail the pull of Washington and New York. 

Virginia Del. Jim Lemunyon suggested a few years back a Constitutional Convention. And it may take that, but it is really the red states, the heartland states, that are left behind by the centralization of power. It is they that need to find their own center. Possibly a “super committee of governors” for the time being could meet to discuss — hopefully in some centralized location such as Louisville or Indianapolis — but first of all we need to bring back Judge Nap and “Freedom Watch.”

Because right now we are and have been heading hell-bent in the direction of China, a totalitarian matrix for 5,000 years, many of those centuries a slave state; or ancient Egypt, not a state at all, but a vast and timeless universe in the shifting sands of wandering hordes.

View Comments

View the original article here

Why The Judge Who Struck Down Digital First Sale In New York Isn’t Helping The Copyright Debate

For those of you who were hoping that we might figure out a sane way to resell digital content in the same way there’s a thriving secondary market for used books, CDs, and movies, seem about to be disappointed after a New York judge, in a sweeping decision, rejected the idea that files are objects in the same way that other means of delivering content are:

The company believed that the lawsuit that followed was one of “first impression” insofar as the plaintiff — Capitol Records — might wish to have it declared that the first-sale doctrine didn’t apply to digital goods. Supporting ReDigi’s side was Google, which unsuccessfully attempted to file an amicus brief. Other tech companies also had a stake; Amazon, for instance, has gained a patent on a market for “used” digital music and movie files.

The record industry wasn’t seeking a big declaration. In its own papers, the plaintiff only said that letting users buy and sell previously purchased tracks on iTunes amounted to a “clearinghouse for copyright infringement.”
Nevertheless, on Monday, U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan went swinging for the fences; unfortunately for ReDigi and those hoping for a vibrant e-market of used song files, the judge wound up completely rejecting the company’s position. He did so not only by turning to the law of copyright but also the law of physics, declaring the “impossibility” of what ReDigi was touting. “The first-sale defense,” he wrote, “does not cover this any more than it covered the sale of cassette recordings of vinyl records in a bygone era.”

This strikes me as a decision that goes against the interest of both consumers and content providers. If content providers want individuals to get on board with the idea that files are property, and that the transfer of them without compensation causes damage to creators, an important part of that idea is that files are distinct objects, rather than ephemera that can be copied at no loss to them from a production standpoint, or loss of their ability to sell other downloads. I also am not sure how Judge Sullivan’s understanding of physics transfer to cyberspace, but perhaps he’s never bumped up against the memory limits of an iPhone before. From a business standpoint, it would obviously be preferable to content companies if they were the only people who retained the right to sell those objects. But that’s an idea they had to surrender on with physical objects a long time ago, learning that it creates a more stable market and preserves product standards to let people resell objects they’ve purchased than to block the first sale doctrine and see illicit copies of textbooks, burned CDs, or bootlegged VHS and DVD copies of movies begin circulating among people who aren’t actually a market for those products in their new, unused form.

Digital resale, I’d think, actually represents an opportunity for content companies to get more of their money back from resale than the resale of physical objects. If resale can be brokered through the original venues that sold the tracks, movies, or books, those venues could write contracts with publishers, studios, and record labels that let artists and content companies get some money back from those resales, along with both the sellers and the venues. A stable and brokered secondary market is probably the only way to guarantee that people who sell files will really get them off their computers—I imagine iTunes could write its code such that if you resell a track through the service, then try to upload it to iTunes without paying for it again, the file would be disabled and you’d get a warning, in the same way Amazon could probably scrub all versions of a track you’ve resold from its cloud storage. Having both sides in the digital content debate acknowledge that files are objects could produce a kind of detente, in which content companies grant consumers some more rights to do what they want with the objects they’ve purchased in exchange for consumers’ acknowledging that if they’re getting money off resale, there is in fact value in individual copies of files.

View the original article here

Judge Bars Man From Saying ‘Bingo’ For Six Months After False Call Causes Chaos

In the Ohio Valley, where bingo night is serious business, false “bingo” calls can get you 90 days in the pokey.

Austin Whaley, an 18-year-old from Covington, Kentucky, learned this the hard way when he and several friends entered a local bingo hall and yelled “bingo” for comic effect. According to the Cincinnati Enquirer, “the crowd of mostly elderly women did not take kindly to Whaley’s bingo call.” The room filled with groans from those who’d thought they lost; upon realizing they’d been duped, “they started hooting and hollering and yelling and cussing.”

Park Hills Police Sgt. Richard Webster reported that Whaley’s antics “delayed the game by several minutes” and “caused alarm to patrons.” When Whaley refused to apologize after being caught, Whaley cited him for second-degree disorderly conduct.

“Just like you can’t run into a theater and yell ‘fire’ when it’s not on fire, you can’t run into a crowded bingo hall and yell ‘bingo’ when there isn’t one,” said Park Hills Police Sgt. Richard Webster, the officer who cited Whaley. [...]

“He seemed to think he could say whatever he wanted because it was a public building. I tried to explain that that’s not the case. Just because it’s a public building doesn’t give you the right to run into a theater and yell ‘fire.’ You can’t go into a ballpark and yell ‘out,’ because people could stop the game.”

When Whaley appeared in Kenton District Court last week, the judge ordered Whaley: “Do not say the word ‘bingo’ for six months.”

As comical as it may be, sentencing someone to not utter the word “bingo” is likely a violation of the First Amendment.

The 1919 Supreme Court case Schenck v. U.S. introduced the “clear and present danger” test, which allows punishment for speech that would knowingly cause a panic, such as shouting “fire” in a crowded theater (this test has also been largely superseded by more speech-protective decisions). But yelling “bingo” in a bingo hall hardly lives up to the standard. Nobody flees for their life when they think they’ve lost the whimsical game of chance.

Bingo players may consider Whaley a jerk, but even jerks have constitutional rights.

View the original article here

Obama Nominee Would Be First Openly Gay Federal Court of Appeals Judge

Since taking office, President Obama has quadrupled the number of openly gay judges on the federal bench — although this is as much a testament to America’s long legacy of discrimination as it is to Obama’s commitment to diversity. Prior to Obama’s presidency, there was one openly gay judge with a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. Today, there are four.

All four of these out judges, however, are district judges — the lowest ranking federal judges. To date, no openly gay lawyer has served as a federal appellate judge or as a Supreme Court justice. In his first term, President Obama nominated openly gay attorney Edward DuMont to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but DuMont eventually withdrew his nomination after 18 months of “one or more members of the [Senate Judiciary] Committee minority” obstructing his confirmation.

Yesterday, the President announced he would take another shot at placing an openly gay judge on this same court, nominating Department of Justice attorney Todd Hughes to fill a seat on the Federal Circuit.

It is certainly good news that the President wants to welcome an openly gay judge into the federal appellate bench, but it should be noted that the Federal Circuit is a specialty court that deals primarily with patents. Obama deserves praise for showing a greater commitment to diversity on the bench than any of his predecessors, but there are also many talented gay attorneys (or even some Obama-appointed district judges) who would make excellent court of appeals judges on courts of general jurisdiction.

In any event, the paucity of gay judges in this country gives the lie to a claim conservative superlawyer Paul Clement made to the Supreme Court in his brief defending the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act. Clement wrote that gay people should not have equal rights because they are too powerful.

View the original article here

Federal Judge Defies Sentencing Scheme That Treats Low-Level Drug Offenders Like Kingpins

A tough-on-crime prosecutor turned federal judge who last year blasted prosecutors’ abuse of draconian mandatory minimum sentences has now issued a damning judicial indictment of another aspect of the harsh U.S. drug sentencing scheme.

In an opinion declining to rely upon federal drug sentence guidelines, U.S. District Judge John Gleeson calls the guidelines for drug crimes “deeply and structurally flawed,” subjecting “low-level offenders” to “prison terms more suitable for a drug boss.”

Over twenty-five years of application experience have demonstrated the perverse outcomes generated by the Guidelines ranges for drug trafficking offenses. … [S]entencing judges have routinely departed from these Guidelines, which have never been the “heartlands” that the original Commission aspired to create. Despite these consistent departures, federal drug sentencing has contributed to the national crisis of mass incarceration.

Gleeson, who in 1992 led the team of prosecutors that sent John J. Gotti to life in prison, issued an opinion last May blasting federal mandatory minimum sentences for low-level drug offenders that “distort the sentencing process and mandate unjust sentences.” Under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, he lamented, “An addict who is paid $300 to stand at the entrance to a pier and watch for the police while a boatload of cocaine is offloaded” … “qualifies for kingpin treatment”. In this week’s opinion, he points out that even those who manage to escape mandatory minimum sentences don’t fare much better under the alternative federal sentencing scheme for drug crimes, the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

Defendant Ysidro Diaz, who was a “run-of-the-mill, low-level participant in a drug distribution offense,” narrowly escaped a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years because he satisfied all five requirements for “safety valve relief.” Instead, Gleeson was tasked with looking to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which recommended 8-10 years in prison, even though Diaz had no prior convictions.

While the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that judges could no longer be obligated to follow these guidelines, Gleeson points out that they have nonetheless contributed to exponential increases in sentence length and an accompanying spike in federal incarceration for drug crimes:

Perhaps the best indication that the Guidelines ranges for drug trafficking offenses are excessively severe is the dramatic impact they have had on the federal prison population despite the fact that judges so frequently sentence well below them. […]

In less than a decade, from 1985 to 1991, the length of federal drug trafficking sentences increased by over two-and-a-half times. Sentences for drug trafficking were “elevated above almost every serious crime except murder.” The increase in sentence length for drug offenders “was the single greatest contributor to growth in the federal prison population between 1998 and 2010.”

We must never lose sight of the fact that real people are at the receiving end of these sentences. Incarceration is often necessary, but the unnecessarily punitive extra months and years the drug trafficking offense guideline advises us to dish out matter: children grow up; loved ones drift away; employment opportunities fade; parents die.

Of course, it’s not just long sentences that have overwhelmed federal prisons with drug offenders. Criminalization of nonviolent drug offenses, and frequent prosecution of offenders are just as fundamental. But disproportionate punishment implicates fundamental due process principles and has even been found to violate the Eighth Amendment, which is probably why Gleeson is one of several federal judges who have been uncharacteristically vocal in pleading with both prosecutors and lawmakers for immediate sentencing reform.

(HT Sentencing Law and Policy)

View the original article here

Judge Faults Louisiana For Inadequate Voter Registration Efforts

A federal judge ruled this week that Louisiana violated federal voting law in not offering voter registration opportunities to applicants and recipients of public benefits programs such as food stamps, WIC and Medicaid. In yet another court affirmation of unfettered access to voting, U.S. District Court Judge Jane Triche Milazzo faulted the secretary of state for taking no action “to ensure that the State comply” with its obligations under the National Voter Registration Act, intended to facilitate voter registration opportunities for all citizens.

After an election cycle characterized by dogged efforts to make it more difficult to access the ballot, attorney Ron Wilson said the value of the decision “cannot be overstated” in giving “due meaning to the purpose behind the enactment of the NVRA, to make it easier, and not more difficult, for individuals to register to vote.”

View the original article here