Tanya S. Chutkan
2014 - Present
10
Tanya S. Chutkan is a federal judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. She joined the court in 2014 after a nomination from President Barack Obama.[1][2]
Early life and education
A native of Kingston, Jamaica, Chutkan earned her bachelor's degree from the George Washington University in 1983 and her J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania School of Law in 1987.[1][2]
Professional career
- 2014-Present: Judge, United States District Court for the District of Columbia
- 2002-2014: Private practice, Washington, D.C.
- 1991-2002: Attorney, Public Defender Service, District of Columbia
- 1987-1991: Private practice, Washington, D.C.[2]
Judicial career
District of Columbia
 |
| Nominee Information |
| Name: Tanya S. Chutkan |
| Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Progress |
| Confirmed 167 days after nomination. |
| Questionnaire: Questionnaire |
| QFRs: QFRs (Hover over QFRs to read more) |
Chutkan was nominated on December 19, 2013, to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by President Barack Obama to a new seat created by 104 Stat. 5089. On Chutkan's and other nominations, President Obama said:
| “ | I am honored to put forward these highly qualified candidates for the federal bench... They will be distinguished public servants and valuable additions to the United States District Courts. | ” |
| —President Barack Obama, [1] | ||
The American Bar Association rated Chutkan Unanimously Qualified for the nomination.[4]
Pursuant to Rule XXXI, paragraph six of the standing rules of the Senate, Chutkan's nomination was returned to the president on January 3, 2014. President Obama resubmitted the nomination on January 6, 2014. Hearings on Chutkan's nomination were held before the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 25, 2014, and her nomination was reported by U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on March 27, 2014. Chutkan was confirmed on a recorded 95-0 vote of the U.S. Senate on June 4, 2014, and she received her commission the next day.[2][5][6][7]
Noteworthy cases
Presiding judge in federal prosecution of Donald Trump (2023-2024)
A federal grand jury charged former President Donald Trump (R) with four criminal counts related to the certification of the 2020 presidential election in August 2023. Trump pleaded not guilty.[8] Judge Tanya S. Chutkan oversaw the proceedings.[9]
Special counsel Jack Smith moved to dismiss the case without prejudice on November 25, 2024. The U.S. Constitution prohibits the criminal prosecution of a sitting president, and Donald Trump (R) won the 2024 presidential election on November 5. In his filing, Smith wrote "That prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind."[10]
In July 2024, the Supreme Court ruled on Trump's claim of presidential immunity in the case, saying in a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts that presidents have absolute immunity for core constitutional powers and no immunity for unofficial actions. The case was remanded to a lower court to determine which charges in the indictment could proceed.[11] Smith released a superseding indictment on August 27, 2024, which maintained the same charges against Trump with an adjusted presentation to adhere to the Supreme Court's ruling.[12]
The original indictment was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. It included the following charges alleged against Trump:
- conspiracy to defraud the United States "by using dishonesty, fraud and deceit to obstruct the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election;"
- conspiracy to obstruct the certification of the electoral vote on January 6, 2021;
- obstruction of the certification of the electoral vote on January 6, 2021; and
- conspiracy "to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate one or more persons in the free exercise and enjoyment of" the right to vote and have one's vote counted.[13]
In November 2022, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith to investigate whether any individual or entity "unlawfully interfered with the transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021."[14] Before this appointment, Smith served as a chief prosecutor for the special court in The Hague, Netherlands, where he investigated war crimes in Kosovo.[15]
Judge Chutkan issues two injunctions against federal executions (2019-2020)
On November 20, 2019, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan issued an injunction that prevented four federal executions from taking place as scheduled in December. The executions would have been the first federal executions carried out since 2003.[16] Chutkan said in the ruling that the executions would prevent those convicted from challenging lethal injection in court.[17] The Justice Department appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court. On December 6, 2019, the Supreme Court declined to lift Chutkan's injunction, sending the case back to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for consideration.[18] In April 2020, the appellate court lifted Chutkan's injunction.[19]
Daniel Lewis Lee, one of the four inmates originally set to be executed in December, was scheduled to receive lethal injection on July 13. That day, Judge Chutkan issued another injunction to halt the execution, ruling that lethal injection by pentobarbital constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" and thus violates the Eighth Amendment.[16][20] The Justice Department appealed the ruling immediately to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which upheld Chutkan's ruling.[20] The Justice Department then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to overturn the ruling and allow Lee's execution to proceed.[21]
Judge Chutkan overturns Federal Election Commission restrictions on committee use of candidate names (2019)
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan issued an order overturning an FEC regulation which limited how political committees could use the names of candidates in their campaign materials. Her March 21, 2019, decision held that the regulation violated the First Amendment because it was a restriction on speech that was not narrowly tailored to promote a compelling government interest.[22]
The regulation in question, known as the PAC Name Prohibition, was issued in 1992. It prevented political action committees (PACs) not affiliated with a particular candidate's campaign from using that candidate's name in any name under which the committee conducted political activities, such as in the name of a website or fundraising drive, unless the committee was unambiguously opposed to the candidate in question. A separate rule which was not impacted by the ruling prohibits PACs themselves from being named after candidates.[22]
The plaintiff, Pursuing America's Greatness, was a PAC which supported Mike Huckabee's (R) 2016 presidential campaign. It issued the legal challenge after being ordered by the FEC to take down a website and Facebook page titled, "I Like Mike Huckabee".[23]
In granting the group's motion for summary judgment, Judge Chutkan ruled that the regulation was a content-based restriction of speech and therefore would need to stand up to strict legal scrutiny. This meant that the government would need to demonstrate a compelling need for the regulation and provide evidence that a less stringent regulation would not suffice. She found that the government's desire to prohibit PACs from misrepresenting themselves as supporting a candidate they do not was a compelling need. However, she also found that the FEC had not demonstrated that a more narrow regulation would not suffice.[22][24]
Judge Chutkan restores Obama-era compensation reporting requirements blocked by Trump administration (2019)
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan set aside a decision to delay and review an Obama-era requirement that employers submit pay data along with other employee information. Her March 4, 2019, decision held that the Trump administration’s delay was illegal because it violated the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).[25]
Since 1966, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has required employers with over 100 employees to submit an annual report with information about employees’ sex, race and ethnicity, sorted by job category. In September 2016, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved an EEOC request to add earnings and hours worked to the reporting requirements.[25]
In September 2017, OMB directed the EEOC to announce a stay for the effective date of the pay data collection requirements for the duration of an OMB analysis. OMB said that it was reviewing the new data collection forms under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which aims to minimize the burdens of information requests from federal agencies. The National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) sued saying that OMB had violated both the PRA and the APA when it issued a stay for the pay data collection requirements.[25]
Judge Chutkan ruled that OMB’s action staying EEOC’s collection of pay data failed the APA’s arbitrary-or-capricious test. The test comes from Section 706 of the APA and requires judges to invalidate agency actions if the agency fails to consider all relevant factors or gives an explanation for its actions that is implausible or that runs counter to evidence. She said that OMB’s decision to issue the stay “totally lacked the reasoned explanation that the APA requires.” Judge Chutkan rejected the government’s request for Auer deference, which requires courts to yield to agency interpretations of their own ambiguous regulations. She said that courts do not defer to an agency’s unsupported suppositions.[25]
Federal officials must allow two teenage immigrants held in detention facilities to obtain abortions
On December 18, 2017, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan issued a temporary restraining order that barred federal officials from preventing two 17-year-old immigrants from leaving federal detention facilities to visit abortion clinics. Officials from the Health and Human Services Department had previously stopped the women from leaving, in accordance with the Trump administration's recently issued rule for them to avoid “any action that facilitates” abortion without written “approval from the director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement.” The director, E. Scott Lloyd, had refused to grant that approval. In response, the administration said it would allow one of the women, who was 22 weeks pregnant, to leave the facility and obtain an abortion. They then asked the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court to issue a two week stay on Chutkan's order for the other woman, who was only about 10 weeks pregnant. Officials requested the stay to allow them to find a private sponsor to whom they could release the woman.[26]
District judge issues temporary restraining order in abortion case (2017)
On October 18, 2017, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan issued a temporary restraining order requiring the government to make or permit accommodations for an unaccompanied minor, Jane Doe, to receive counseling and undergo an abortion procedure on or before October 21, 2017. Jane Doe, an undocumented immigrant minor, was in U.S. custody at the time of the order. The government argued that "undocumented minors do not have a constitutional right to an elective abortion in federal custody, unless it is a medical emergency, and also said immigrants here illegally have 'minimal' protections in this country." Judge Chutkan rejected that position and ordered the government to make or permit accommodations for Jane Doe to terminate her pregnancy. The judge further stated that failure to comply with her order could lead to the government being held in contempt of court.
The government appealed Judge Chutkan's decision to the D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit issued a judicial stay of a portion of Judge Chutkan's order. Arguments before the D.C. Circuit were held on October 20, 2017. Later that day, the circuit court vacated a portion of Judge Chutkan’s stay and ordered Judge Chutkan to give the Department of Health and Human Services until October 31, 2017, to find Jane Doe a sponsor and to release Jane Doe to the sponsor. On October 24, 2017, the circuit panel's decision was vacated by an order of the full D.C. Circuit sitting en banc. The circuit court order reinstated Judge Chutkan's order in the case. The circuit vote divided by the party of the nominating president. Six judges appointed by Democratic presidents voted to reinstate Judge Chutkan's order and three judges appointed by Republican presidents voted to maintain the circuit panel's decision to halt Judge Chutkan's order. Judge Cornelia T. L. Pillard, an Obama appointee, did not participate in the court's decision. The government appealed the D.C. Circuit's en banc decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.[27][28][29][30][31]
- The D.C. Circuit en banc ruling:
- The D.C. Circuit panel ruling:
- Judge Chutkan's order:
See also
- United States District Court for the District of Columbia
- United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 The White House, "President Obama Nominates Eight to Serve on the United States District Courts," December 19, 2013
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Federal Judicial Center, "Biography of Judge Tanya Sue Chutkan," accessed May 10, 2017
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ American Bar Association, "Ratings of Article III judicial nominees, 113th Congress," accessed December 26, 2013
- ↑ United States Congress, "PN 1042 — Tanya S. Chutkan — The Judiciary," accessed May 10, 2017
- ↑ United States Congress, "PN 1227 — Tanya S. Chutkan — The Judiciary," accessed May 10, 2017
- ↑ American Bar Association, "Ratings of Article III judicial nominees, 113th Congress," accessed May 10, 2017
- ↑ NBC News, "Trump indictment live updates: Effort to overturn 2020 election at center of charges," August 3, 2023
- ↑ NBC News, "Trump indictment live updates: Effort to overturn 2020 election at center of charges," August 3, 2023
- ↑ CourtListener, "Government's Motion to Dismiss," accessed November 25, 2024
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Announcement of opinions for Monday, July 1," July 1, 2024
- ↑ ABC News, "Trump charged in superseding indictment in election interference case following SCOTUS ruling," August 27, 2024
- ↑ United States District Court for the District of Columbia, "Indictment," accessed August 1, 2023
- ↑ Department of Justice, "Appointment of a Special Counsel," November 18, 2022
- ↑ CNN, " Who is Jack Smith, the special counsel behind the Trump classified documents indictment?" June 9, 2023
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 New York Times, "Supreme Court, 5-4, Lifts Block on Federal Execution," July 13, 2020
- ↑ New York Times, "Judge Blocks Scheduled Executions of Federal Death Row Inmates," November 21, 2019
- ↑ Reuters, "U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to resume federal executions," December 7, 2019
- ↑ UPI, "Appeals court lifts injunction on federal executions," April 7, 2020
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 IndyStar, "Federal executions resumed in Terre Haute after 17 years. Here's what you should know," July 22, 2020
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al. v. Daniel Lewis Lee, et al. on application for stay or vacatur," July 14, 2020
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 United States District Court for the District of Columbia, "Pursuing America's Greatness v. Federal Election Commission," March 21, 2019
- ↑ Federal Election Commission, "Pursuing America's Greatness v. FEC (Appeals court)," August 9, 2016
- ↑ National Public Radio, "Federal Court Ruling May Open The Door To More 'Scam PACs'," March 21, 2019
- ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 25.3 Bloomberg Law, "National Women's Law Center, et. al. v. Office of Management and Budget, et al.," accessed March 19, 2019
- ↑ LA Times, Judge tells Trump officials to allow two 17-year-old immigrants to obtain abortions; government concedes in one case, accessed December 19, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "U.S. judge orders Trump administration to allow abortion for undocumented teen," October 18, 2017
- ↑ U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Rochelle Garza, as guardian ad litem to unaccompanied minor J.D., on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Eric D. Hargan et al., October 18, 2017
- ↑ U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Rochelle Garza, as guardian ad litem to unaccompanied minor J.D., on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Eric D. Hargan et al., October 20, 2017
- ↑ U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Rochelle Garza, as guardian ad litem to unaccompanied minor J.D., on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Eric D. Hargan et al., October 24, 2017
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Eric Hargan et al. v. Rochelle Garza, as guardian ad litem to unaccompanied minor J.D., accessed November 3, 2017
| Political offices | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by - |
United States District Court for the District of Columbia 2014-Present |
Succeeded by - |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Nominated | |||
 |
This page is part of Ballotpedia:District of Columbia, a project dedicated to articles related to Washington, D.C.. |