rao hon 2 neomi

bak txt 2 22

TRUMP JUDGE

no merri

CLARENCE CLERK List of law clerks for the tenth seat of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

stumbled on, pix of djt cutting red ribbon next to huge sack of docs/regs

PFAS? MERCURY?

HEADERS MAIN

stumbled on, pix of djt cutting red ribbon next to huge sack of docs/regs}:

GINNI? CLARENCE RIVKIN

ANDY OLDHAM SCOTUS SHORT LIST

FLYNN

API

CBG

html invitation only

---

neomi

---

-=-=

graves tru n: clerkship determines scotus pick sucessor

she had rao track www?

-=-=

~ PRESS SUPPR?

AN 9 26

President Donald Trump — who has vowed and so far successfully managed to ban critical news outlets like MS NOW, CNN and Politico from the White House — suffered a major legal blow in that anti-free press crusade.

"A federal appeals court ruling Tuesday on demonstrators’ access to the steps of the Capitol could bode poorly for President Donald Trump’s attempt to ban three media organizations from the White House," Politico's Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein wrote on Tuesday. "The majority opinion, written by Trump appointee Neomi Rao, concluded that the East Steps of the Capitol are a 'nonpublic forum' — just like most areas of the White House grounds, including the press facilities."

Cheney and Gerstein added, "While the government may impose restrictions on access to those nonpublic areas, the limits must be 'viewpoint neutral,' apply 'objective, workable standards' and not permit officials to exercise 'unbridled discretion over a forum’s use,' the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel concluded."

They continued, "'A regulation that grants the government arbitrary control over who may speak invites the suppression of disfavored viewpoints and undermines the First Amendment’s core protections,' wrote Rao, who was joined in the majority by Judge Karen Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee."

Trump, meanwhile, posted on Truth Social on Monday that he has imposed the bans explicitly because he dislikes how those outlets cover him.

"Fake News people and publications that only write negatively, and who violate our National Security by writing false and defamatory stories with unknown ‘sources,’ shouldn’t be allowed access to the most important Office anywhere in the World," Trump posted on his own social media platform.

In addition to trying to ban outlets that say things he does not like, Trump also recently launched his own 24/7 news network, Trump TV, which he describes as a live-streaming YouTube channel that includes "the Trump Administration's biggest moments all in one place."

Writing for The i Paper on Sunday, columnist James Ball argued that Trump is also trying to stimulate his own base in addition to stifling media critics.

"It is typical of Trump, when things aren’t going his way, to lash out," Ball argued. "Sometimes, this is savvy: Trump’s followers have historically liked it when he gets into a fight with the mainstream media, and at the moment they are far less enthusiastic about Trump than once they were. On paper, this could be an effort to pick a fight that would cheer up the MAGA base."

-=-=

AN 5 15 26

Law enforcement celebrates departure of embattled Trump official: 'It’s like Christmas' - Alternet.org

DOJ should look 'very carefully' at Blanche's role in Trump cases: Comey - Alternet.org

Trump's DOJ just opened the door to Dem retaliation - Alternet.org

President Donald Trump’s Justice Department (DOJ) is asking the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to allow it to take security clearances away from law firms that accept cases with which they disagree — even though that same precedent could empower future Democratic presidents to persecute Republican law firms.

“The DOJ returned to court Thursday and told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that President Donald Trump's executive orders to strip elite law firms of security clearances and tear up their government contracts must be revived, even if that means a Democrat eventually comes into power and deems MAGA lawyers enemies of the state,” reported Law and Crime on Thursday. “Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan, U.S. Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard and U.S. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao — two appointees of Barack Obama and a lone Donald Trump appointee, respectively — formed the three-judge panel in a case the DOJ was prepared to drop in March.”

Despite the judges previously seeming poised to throw out the case, prompting the government to withdraw it, Trump’s officials are arguing that they have a right to penalize law firms who criticize the president.

“In a bit of a preamble, the DOJ attorney claimed losses across the board boiled down to district court judges rushing to block ‘orders that they clearly didn't like the content of’ — effectively nullifying the president's unreviewable ‘security clearance determinations’ and restoring them without authority,” Law and Crime reported. It added that Judge Pillard then asked about whether their argument, if implemented, could boomerang against Republicans one day.

"So if an incoming president — let's say a Democrat — says, I think that any lawyer who represents a Republican, by virtue of that representation, even if the lawyer is him or herself a Democrat, I think that the representation of my enemies is a threat to national security. So any lawyer who represents a Republican immediately today has their security clearance revoked?" Pillard asked.

Attorney Abhishek Kambli, representing the government, answered Pillard’s question in the affirmative, saying that he believed impeachment, elections and congressional laws alone could strip the president of his right to penalize political opponents through their law firms.

"And your view is — the pardon power example is where you go — that this power over security clearances is so intrinsic that even … you could be race-based, and it could be race-based," and there would be no judicial review, Srivinasan asked. Kambli once again agreed.

"If a president said, I don't trust law firms that represent Catholics, law firms that represent African Americans, law firms that represent Asian Americans, and so just law firms that represent people in those three groups, they have to give me lists of their clients who are under control by people in those three groups, and we will deny security clearances to any lawyer in those firms. Political question? Nonjusticiable?" she asked.

"So Your Honor, yes, because of the threshold question before you even examine any of those facts," Kambli replied. Other attorneys speaking at the trial echoed Kambli’s views.

Earlier this month, Trump lost his appeal of a personal lawsuit he launched against former Secretary Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, the Democratic National Committee, the law firm Perkins Coie, LLC and others he blames for investigations into his connections to Russia.

U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks wrote in his ruling that Trump has a "pattern of abuse of the courts" by filing such lawsuits specifically for political purposes, saying this "undermines the rule of law" and "amounts to obstruction of justice."

"Here, we are confronted with a lawsuit that should never have been filed, which was completely frivolous, both factually and legally and which was brought in bad faith for an improper purpose," he added.

---

E AND E

Judges signal support for ‘forever chemicals’ Superfund rule

By Ellie Borst | 01/20/2026

A federal appellate court panel did not seem swayed by industry groups’ plea to toss EPA’s hazardous substance designations for two types of PFAS.

Judges appeared ready to back EPA’s decision to designate two “forever chemicals” as hazardous under the federal Superfund law, keeping polluters on the hook for cleanups.

During oral arguments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday, the three-judge panel weighed arguments that EPA didn’t do enough to consider the costs the rule would impose on businesses.

That rule, one of the few Biden-era rules the Trump administration has said it will defend, adds PFOA and PFOS — two of the most-studied chemicals in the PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, family — to its list of “hazardous substances” under the Superfund law.

“The only question before us is could they [EPA] permissibly designate these chemicals as hazardous. And, they look at the science, and you haven’t contested any of this,” said Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee.

EPA concluded exposure to PFOA and PFOS was linked to increased risk of various cancers, liver damage, birth defects, immunosuppression and many other serious adverse health impacts.

“It just seems like that’s a categorically rational decision on the threshold question whether to designate or not,” Katsas said.

Elbert Lin, partner at the firm Hunton Andrews Kurth representing a coalition of industry groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, presented the case regarding “an internal inconsistency in how you treat costs and benefits” pertaining to the rule.

EPA during the rulemaking process estimated polluters may pay upwards of $18 million “in additional cleanup expenditures” per year.

“The problem here is with the way EPA did its analysis,” Lin said. “The point is that the EPA has decided that $18 million of new costs will be treated solely as benefits. That is a big conceptual swing, no matter what that number is.”

Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee, contested that the number does matter.

“You have to show that it was going to make a difference, don’t you?” Millett asked. “It just seems to me you’re wanting a lot more in picking out those numbers.”

Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, also questioned Lin’s logic.

“I’m not exactly sure what you, even ideally, what you would like from this court,” Rao said.

“Our argument is that their interpretation of the statute is incorrect,” Lin said.

“What would we say the correct interpretation is?” Rao said. “Usually when you say that the agency has gotten it wrong, courts have some account of what the right interpretation is. I don’t see what that would be.”

That cost analysis was a factor EPA considered and “was not the central justification for the rule,” said Riley Walters, Justice Department counsel appearing on EPA’s behalf.

“We don’t think the court needs to decide whether EPA is required to consider cost,” Walters said, adding that the estimation analyses “were merely illustrative.”

It’s difficult to get an exact number because EPA calculates the price to clean up hazardous contamination on a site-by-site basis.

“The sort of precision they are looking for can’t be provided at this stage,” said Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, an Earthjustice attorney representing environmental advocacy groups in support of EPA’s rule. “When EPA lists a Superfund site, it has no idea how much the remediation of that site is going to cost. Here, we are stages before that. … This is a decision to add two substances to a list of some 800 hazardous substances.”

Millett said she thinks EPA has “dealt with the uncertainties and the complexities” in explaining its cost-benefit analysis approach.

“I don’t know what more we asked of them in this context,” Millett said.

---

https://www.lawdork.com/p/the-education-of-judge-gregory-katsas

---

law dork no lnx? many docs

The education of Judge Gregory Katsas

:{The latest in the CFPB litigation tells an important story of what one Trump appointee has seen over the past month

Chris Geidner

Apr 28, 2025

∙ Paid

For Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee from the president’s first term, a month on the motions panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit appears to have taught him an important lesson about President Donald Trump’s second term.

The Trump administration is not a collaborative force seeking to work with the other branches to carry out the mission of governing the nation. The Trump administration, as we have seen countless times in Trump’s first 100 days, is a destructive force seeking to exploit the weaknesses of the co-equal branches — and other institutions — to carry out their mission of taking over the nation on Trump’s behalf.

Katsas, who also worked in the White House Counsel’s Office during the first Trump administration, is learning that lesson in as direct a way as an appellate judge can do.

The D.C. Circuit’s “special panel”

On the D.C. Circuit, a “special panel” is appointed internally per court rules to address motions and other emergency matters before a new appeal is submitted to a merits panel. The circuit’s “practice and internal procedures” handbook tells us:

The special panel consists of judges who are assigned on a rotational basis throughout the year to consider and decide motions … and emergency matters …. The special panel members also are engaged in their regular merits sittings while they serve on the special panel. … The Court does not publish or disclose in advance the names of the judges on the special panel, nor does it notify counsel or the public of the date on which a particular motion will be considered. The panel does not hear oral argument on motions, except, very rarely, in emergency matters or for extraordinary cause.

The “special panel,” or motions panel, sits for roughly a month, and it appears to turn over at the beginning of each month. The D.C. Circuit currently has seven Democratic appointees and four Republican appointees — three of whom were appointed to the court by Trump.

All of which brings us to this month’s panel, which included two of the three Trump appointees — Katsas and Judge Neomi Rao. Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, is the third judge on the panel.

As with all court rulings, majority rules, so this was about as good of a panel as Trump could expect (especially given that the other two Republican appointees were on the March special panel). We have seen that play out, both in the Trump administration’s eagerness to go to the panel once we knew who it was and, to an extent, with their rulings.

But, as I began this post by saying, this month has a story to tell.

On April 2, in what, to my knowledge, was the first order of the new motions panel, Katsas, Pillard, and Rao set a briefing schedule — including the “very rare” oral argument — on the Justice Department’s request for a stay of U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s March 28 preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration’s efforts to destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The order, along with the underlying litigation, relates both to the CFPB leadership and the leadership of the non-department Department of Government Efficiency.

The next day, the panel granted a partial administrative stay, while it considered the request for a stay pending appeal, that left certain previously agreed upon restrictions in effect during that time:

On April 9, the panel heard arguments over the injunction, which stated:

At the arguments, Katsas asked the Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric McArthur how he could know whether 300 CFPB employees — tentatively to be retained after mass-firings under an initial plan — could carry out the agency’s required statutory duties. Later, Katsas also asked how the court could craft an order that would allow RIFs that would not “endanger the agency.”

Two days later, on April 11 — a Friday — the panel granted a partial stay of Jackson’s injunction, which left much of the order in effect, but — important to our discussion — limited paragraph 3 blocking the agency from carrying out any reduction-in-force, or RIF, to allow a RIF but requiring a “particularized assessment” determining that the employees being fired were “unnecessary to the performance of defendants’ statutory duties”:

On April 17, more than 1,400 CFPB employees received RIF notices. Only a little more than 200 employees were to be retained. That evening, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit went back to Jackson:

On Friday, April 18, Jackson held a hearing and temporarily blocked the firings — and planned CFPB systems access shut-off at 6 p.m. April 18 for those employees — until she could hold a hearing on whether the RIFs violated the preliminary injunction, as amended by the D.C. Circuit’s order. In the interim, she also ordered CFPB to turn over certain discovery about the RIFs to the plaintiffs.

That weekend, DOJ went back to the D.C. Circuit, with an emergency motion asking the panel “to enforce or clarify” the partial stay issued by the D.C. Circuit.

This time, the panel waited until Monday, April 21, to even order a response — and then set a briefing schedule that went through April 23, which started moving into the time when the CFPB would be needing to turn over evidence.

Then, despite days of intense briefing and evidence production in the district court — and a hearing before Jackson scheduled for Monday — the week came to a close with nothing from the D.C. Circuit.

Over the weekend, at the request of the parties, Jackson moved the hearing to Tuesday and Wednesday. Late on Sunday, April 27, the plaintiffs challenged the withholding of documents by the government under a claim of privilege. On Monday, DOJ alerted the D.C. Circuit of this before filing its response.

Then, on Monday afternoon, we got an order from the D.C. Circuit.

There had been important movement. In a key part, Pillard and Katsas modified the partial stay they had issued just 17 days earlier and put paragraph 3 of Jackson’s injunction back into effect.

Rao dissented, stating that the panel “bars the political leadership of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) from reducing its workforce in accordance with President Trump’s directives.”

Criticizing the plaintiffs for even going back to court after the RIF was issued rather than “wait[ing] to see if any harm materialized,“ Rao wrote that she would have found that even Jackson’s temporary pause on the RIF to give her time to decide if it was allowed under the injunction was “an abuse of discretion.”

In short, Rao would have let the 1,400-employee RIF go into effect.

But not Katsas.

Instead, as his month on the “special panel” nears its close, Katsas — Trump’s former White House lawyer — joined with Pillard to tell the agency that it had to stop with any RIFs at all until the D.C. Circuit can hear the appeal of the injunction in May.

Of course, this is not some sea-change, and Katsas is likely still to side with the administration on many matters.

But, over the course of the month, a cautionary tale has played out in front of him — and he responded by stepping in to assert the rule of law.

---

7 25 recent 3 judge panel fuckery

[Courthouse News Service

Trump-appointed judges restore White House ban on AP

The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that US District Judge Trevor McFadden's order striking down the ban should be stayed until an ultimate decision by the...

1 month ago](https://www.courthousenews.com/trump-appointed-judges-restore-white-house-ban-on-ap/)

[

Law Dork | Chris Geidner

The education of Judge Gregory Katsas

A month on the motions panel at the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit appears to have taught him an important lesson about President Donald Trump's second...

Apr 28, 2025](https://www.lawdork.com/p/the-education-of-judge-gregory-katsas)

[

The New York Times

Trump Can Restrict A.P. Journalists’ Access, Appeals Court Rules

By a 2-to-1 vote, a three-judge panel found that the president can bar the news outlet from small settings such as the Oval Office or Air...

1 month ago](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/06/us/politics/appeals-court-associated-press-trump.html)

[

Politico

Appeals court panel hears arguments on AP’s access to White House

A three-judge panel was skeptical of arguments that the administration is facing imminent harm.

Apr 17, 2025](https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/17/associated-press-white-house-access-00297937)

[

E&E News by POLITICO

DC Circuit selects judges for Biden power plant rule showdown

Judge Neomi Rao will join Obama-appointed Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and Judge Brad Garcia, a Biden pick, to hear oral arguments on the rule Dec. 6.

Nov 6, 2024](https://www.eenews.net/articles/dc-circuit-selects-judges-for-biden-power-plant-rule-showdown/)

[

The Washington Post

Appeals court muddies plan to send Voice of America staff back to work

The U.S.-funded news service, which has been in limbo as its leaders wage a court fight against the Trump administration,...

May 3, 2025](https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/2025/05/03/voice-of-america-voa-return-usagm/)

[

The Hill

Appeals court halts Boasberg’s contempt proceedings against Trump administration

A federal appeals court panel temporarily halted U.S. District Judge James Boasberg's contempt proceedings against the Trump administration...

Apr 18, 2025](https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5256814-appeals-court-boasberg-trump-contempt/)

[

Tucson Sentinel](https://www.tucsonsentinel.com/nationworld/report/042225_trans_military_ban/)

ggl 725

[Alliance for Justice

Neomi Rao

On November 14, 2018, President Trump nominated Neomi J. Rao to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals seat previously held by Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Feb 1, 2025](https://afj.org/nominee/neomi-rao-2/)

[

The News Minute

Telangana HC appoints ex-judge Naveen Rao to probe irregularities in HCA

The Telangana High Court appointed former judge P Naveen Rao as a one-man committee to investigate the alleged financial irregularities in...

2 days ago](https://www.thenewsminute.com/telangana/telangana-hc-appoints-ex-judge-naveen-rao-to-probe-irregularities-in-hca)

[

Courthouse News Service

Trump-appointed judges restore White House ban on AP

The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that US District Judge Trevor McFadden's order striking down the ban should be stayed until an ultimate decision by the...

1 month ago](https://www.courthousenews.com/trump-appointed-judges-restore-white-house-ban-on-ap/)

[

Politico](https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/06/associated-press-ban-trump-white-house-00393216)

---

https://www.americanoversight.org/ginni-thomas-republican-connections-raise-ethics-concerns-for-scotus

The activism of prominent conservative Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, has for years raised questions about partisan influence on the judicial system and ethics in the Supreme Court. American Oversight is actively investigating Ginni Thomas’ connections and influence in right-wing networks and their potential impact on Justice Thomas’ ethics decisions. Records we have obtained through public records requests reveal Ginni Thomas’ ties to the Trump administration as well as evidence of Justice Thomas’ contact with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

As detailed in a recent update, emails between Ginni Thomas and DeSantis, obtained by American Oversight and reported on by Politico, suggest that Justice Thomas may have been in regular contact with the Republican governor. On June 10, 2021, Ginni Thomas reached out to DeSantis’ scheduling office to invite him to speak to a “coalition” of “conservative patriots.” Thomas explained that the governor would know her because her “husband has been in contact with him … on various things of late.”

Ginni Thomas said the “cone of silence coalition” of “about 83 national leaders” was formerly known asGroundswelland included former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows among its attendees. The group, now called the Third Century Group (TC Group), was focused on “the greatest threats and opportunities to constitutional governance,” Thomas wrote in her email, “and admittedly we are weary about the GOP divisions, lack of courage and lack of leadership.” Thomas also wrote that the group met “through the help of [conservative organization] Judicial Watch.”

DeSantis was eventually scheduled to present during the group’s July 21 virtual meeting. According to an email from a vice president at the Heritage Foundation who was planning to introduce the governor at the meeting, DeSantis was invited to speak “about whatever is on his mind in terms of national politics” and the attendees were “very concerned about [critical race theory], election integrity and immigration.”

:{:{The Coalition Formerly Known as Groundswell}:

Formerly known as Groundswell, TC Group is a secretive right-wing strategy group led by Ginni Thomas and others, which has been bringing together conservative activists for nearly a decade. Members have included former Trump chief strategistStephen Bannon and former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton, among others. The network was well-connected to the Trump administration — in 2019, Thomas and others compiled lists of anti-Trump officials in executive agencies for the administration to dismiss and replace with Trump allies.}:

Public records obtained by American Oversight show the degree of access Thomas and her coalition had in the Trump administration. A calendar entry from March 5, 2020, showsRuss Vought, then the deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, was scheduled to have “Breakfast with Ginni Thomas.”

On Dec. 10, 2018, Thomas, on behalf of her lobbying firm Liberty Consulting,invited a Department of Health and Human Services official — likely Steven Wagner, the director of the Administration for Children and Families — to a “Conversation and Strategic Discussion” with conservative commentatorJordan Peterson. The invitation noted that the event would be “closed to press and off the record” and that “a primary goal of this meeting is to determine specific action steps/solutions for winning back the next generation.” The reception was hosted by Thomas along with conservative Christian activist Bill Dallas and the Heritage Foundation’s Bridgett Wagner. The list of participants included prominent conservatives.

On Aug. 22, 2018, Neomi Rao, then the administrator of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, was scheduled to have a “Groundswell Mtg.” It is not confirmed whether this is Ginni Thomas’ Groundswell. Early in her career, Rao served as a law clerk for Justice Thomas on the Supreme Court, and in 2019, she was appointed by Trump to serve as federal judge in Washington, D.C.

:{:{Thomas’ Activism Raises Judicial Ethics Questions}:

Ginni Thomas’ career as a prominent conservative activist, more heavily involved in politics than any other spouse of a Supreme Court justice in history, has for years raised concerns among legal experts who note that justices typically avoid even being seen as partisan. Through her activism, Ginni Thomas has taken stances on issues that have come before the Supreme Court, such as on abortion, gun rights, and the Affordable Care Act, and recently took on major role in challenging Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election. Justice Thomas’ repeated failure to recuse himself on multiple matters relevant to his wife’s advocacy, especially as the court hears increasingly politically polarized cases, has been the subject of scrutiny. }:

Recently, Ginni Thomas was among the conservatives who signed a letter criticizing the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. A month later, Justice Thomas was the only Supreme Court justice to support Trump’s request to block that committee from accessing White House records.

Ginni Thomas also played a role in challenging the 2020 election results as a leader of the conservative Council for National Policy (CNP), according to the New York Times. Following the November 2020 election, CNP directed its members to spread misinformation about the election and pressured Republican lawmakers in Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania to challenge the election results by awarding their states’ electoral votes to Trump. In a newsletter, CNP’s political advocacy arm advised, “There is historical, legal precedent for Congress to count a slate of electors different from that certified by the Governor of the state.” Fake electoral certificates submitted by Trump allies in swing states to Congress to dispute Biden’s victory were obtained by American Oversight last year.

American Oversight continues to investigate Ginni Thomas’ connections and influence. We have filed records requests seeking communications between Thomas and federal agencies during the Trump administration, and in January 2022, we submitted public records requests to attorneys generals and governors across the country for communications with both Ginni Thomas and Justice Thomas.

===

---

https://www.americanoversight.org/ginni-thomas-republican-connections-raise-ethics-concerns-for-scotus

:{:{The Coalition Formerly Known as Groundswell}:

Formerly known as Groundswell, TC Group is a secretive right-wing strategy group led by Ginni Thomas and others, which has been bringing together conservative activists for nearly a decade. Members have included former Trump chief strategist Stephen Bannon and former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton, among others. The network was well-connected to the Trump administration — in 2019, Thomas and others compiled lists of anti-Trump officials in executive agencies for the administration to dismiss and replace with Trump allies.}:

Public records obtained by American Oversight show the degree of access Thomas and her coalition had in the Trump administration. A calendar entry from March 5, 2020, shows Russ Vought, then the deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, was scheduled to have “Breakfast with Ginni Thomas.”

On Dec. 10, 2018, Thomas, on behalf of her lobbying firm Liberty Consulting, invited a Department of Health and Human Services official — likely Steven Wagner, the director of the Administration for Children and Families — to a “Conversation and Strategic Discussion” with conservative commentatorJordan Peterson. The invitation noted that the event would be “closed to press and off the record” and that “a primary goal of this meeting is to determine specific action steps/solutions for winning back the next generation.” The reception was hosted by Thomas along with conservative Christian activist Bill Dallas and the Heritage Foundation’s Bridgett Wagner. The list of participants included prominent conservatives.

On Aug. 22, 2018, Neomi Rao, then the administrator of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, was scheduled to have a “Groundswell Mtg.” It is not confirmed whether this is Ginni Thomas’ Groundswell. Early in her career, Rao served as a law clerk for Justice Thomas on the Supreme Court, and in 2019, she was appointed by Trump to serve as federal judge in Washington, D.C.

:{:{Thomas’ Activism Raises Judicial Ethics Questions}:

===

---

vox 3/20

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/11/21173437/trump-judge-neomi-rao-mueller-grand-jury-dc-circuit

federal appeals court ruled that the House Judiciary Committee must be allowed to see certain confidential documents relating to former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into potential Russian interference in the 2016 election — despite the Trump administration’s efforts to keep these documents secret.

That decision isn’t particularly surprising; indeed, it’s a pretty straightforward application of a federal procedural rule governing grand jury secrecy. The one thing that stands out about this decision is Judge Neomi Rao’s dissent.

Rao is both a former Trump White House official and a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. And her name is well-known to anyone who has followed President Trump’s efforts to avoid congressional oversight. Last fall, she wrote a widely mocked dissenting opinion that could have shut down much of Congress’s power to investigate the president altogether.

The case, which has the obnoxiously long title :{In re: Application of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, for an Order Authorizing the Release of Certain Grand Jury Materials:(style="box-sizing:border-box;vertical-align:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px"):}:, involves a fairly minor legal dispute about when grand jury materials can be shared with outside investigators. After Mueller filed his report, the Judiciary Committee sought various documents, including some redacted portions of the report, and “any underlying grand jury testimony and exhibits that relate directly to certain individuals and events described in the Mueller Report.”

As a general rule, grand jury materials are kept confidential. But the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sometimes allow such materials to be disclosed “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” Judge Judith Rogers, a Clinton appointee, wrote in a majority opinion that an impeachment trial counts as a judicial proceeding. And, thus, a House committee may potentially obtain grand jury materials if it seeks them as part of an impeachment inquiry. Her opinion was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee,

It is likely that the Trump administration will seek Supreme Court review of Tuesday’s decision, and that it will also seek a stay of the decision while the justices are considering what to do with the case.

Rao’s argument basically allows the Trump administration to run out the clock

Rao does not contest the majority’s broad claim that an impeachment trial is judicial in nature, or that a House committee conducting an impeachment inquiry may be allowed to see grand jury materials. But she argues that the House should be required to go back to the trial court and prove, once again, that it is actually seeking these particular materials as part of an impeachment inquiry. After all, she claims, impeachment is over.

“Much has happened since the district court authorized disclosure in October,” Rao writes, before briefly recounting the past impeachment proceedings against Trump. “If impeachment is no longer the primary purpose of the Committee’s application, the court could not authorize disclosure because the grand jury records would not be sought ‘preliminarily to or in connection with’ an impeachment trial or inquiry.”

The practical impact of Rao’s opinion would be that the House would have to go back to the trial court, most likely spend months convincing that court to issue a new order seeking the grand jury documents, and then wait even longer while this case proceeds on appeal. By the time the House is done litigating this case, Trump could very well be out of office and the case would be moot. So, while Rao’s dissent would not shut down this case entirely, it would delay it for so long that the case would likely become meaningless.

There are a few legal problems with Rao’s argument. One is that, as Rogers points out in the majority opinion, the House Judiciary Committee “has repeatedly stated that if the grand jury materials reveal new evidence of impeachable offenses, the Committee may recommend new articles of impeachment.” Nothing in the Constitution immunizes the president from a second impeachment proceeding if a first one ends in acquittal — at least if new evidence emerges suggesting that the president committed a different crime that was not the subject of the first impeachment trial.

Rao’s opinions place Congress in a trap

Additionally, Rao’s Grand Jury dissent appears to fit a pattern. Last October, her court handed down :{Trump v. Mazars USA:(style="box-sizing:border-box;vertical-align:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px"):}:, a case asking whether Trump can shield many of his financial records from congressional oversight (this case will be heard by the Supreme Court later this month).

As the majority opinion explained in Mazars, Congress has broad authority to conduct investigations so long as those investigations have a “valid legislative purpose,” which includes any investigation that touches on a matter “on which legislation could be had.” Judge David Tatel’s majority opinion held that the House may investigate Trump’s financial records because those records could reveal whether stricter presidential ethics laws are needed.

Rao, meanwhile, wrote a dissent arguing that the Constitution forbids Congress from investigating “illegal conduct by the President” unless that investigation takes place during an impeachment investigation.

As Tatel noted in the court’s majority opinion, “no case law supports the dissent.” Rather, the Supreme Court’s decisions establish that “Congress’s ‘authority ... to require pertinent disclosures in aid of its own constitutional power is not abridged’ merely ‘because the information sought to be elicited may also be of use’ in criminal prosecutions.”

Admittedly, the legal issues in Mazars and Grand Jury are rather distinct. Rao’s Mazar’s dissent argued that it is unconstitutional for Congress to investigate the president outside of an impeachment inquiry. Grand Jury, by contrast, deals with a much narrower question of who is allowed to see grand jury materials under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

But it’s hard not to see the trap Rao has built around Congress. Her Mazars opinion claims that Congress has only one path it can use to investigate President Trump. Then, when Congress traveled down the very same path that Rao identified in Mazars, Judge Rao invents a new limit — suggesting that Congress may only get one shot at an impeachment inquiry.

Moreover, as Tatel suggests in the Mazars majority opinion, Rao appears to have invented the constitutional limit she placed on congressional investigations out of thin air.

The Atlantic’s David Frum wrote that Rao’s Mazars dissent was “wild talk that would shut down almost all congressional investigations.” Maybe that’s the point — at least as long as Trump is in the White House.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neomi_Rao

Neomi Jehangir Rao (born March 22, 1973)^[1] is an American jurist and legal scholar who serves as a f**ederal appellate judge**on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. She was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2019,having served in the Trump Administration from 2017 to 2019 as Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.^[2]

Early life and education

Rao was born in Detroit, Michigan, to Zerin and Jehangir Narioshang Rao. Her parents were Parsi physicians from India who immigrated to the United States in 1972.^[3] She grew up in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, and attended Detroit Country Day School.^[4]

After graduating from high school in 1991,Rao studied ethics, politics & economics, and philosophy at Yale University, graduating in 1995 with a Bachelor of Arts cum laude. She was a reporter for The Weekly Standard from 1995 to 1996, then attended the University of Chicago Law School, where she was a comment editor on the University of Chicago Law Review and executive editor of a symposium issue of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. She graduated in 1999 with a Juris Doctor with highest honors and Order of the Coif membership.

Career

After law school, Rao clerked for Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from 1999 to 2000, then worked as counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee from 2000 to 2001. From 2001 to 2002, Rao was a law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court.^[5]

In 2002, Rao entered private practice in London with the British law firm Clifford Chance, where she practiced public international law and arbitration. From 2005 to 2006, during the presidency of George W. Bush, Rao was an associate with the White House Counsel.^[5] In 2006, she became a professor of law at the George Mason University School of Law (now Antonin Scalia Law School),^[5] where she received tenure in 2012. In 2015, she founded the Center for the Study of the Administrative State.^[6][5][7]

She is a member of the Administrative Conference of the United States and the governing council of theAmerican Bar Association's Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice, where she co-chairs the section's regulatory policy committee.^[2][8] She is a member of the Federalist Society.^[9]

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

On April 7, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Rao to become the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget. Former OIRA Administrator Susan Dudley, who served under President George W. Bush, described Rao as "an excellent choice to lead OIRA...In addition to a sharp legal mind, she brings an openness to different perspectives and an ability to manage the competing demands of regulatory policy."^[10]

Rao (far left) at a National Space Council meeting in 2018

Legal commentator and law professorJonathan H. Adlerwrote that "Trump's selection of Rao suggests the administration is serious about regulatory reform, not merely reducing high-profile regulatory burdens."^[2] Opposition to Rao came from groups such as the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), who said she has "led efforts to roll back fundamental environmental protections" and has "misuse[d] the regulatory review process for partisan political purposes."^[11] Rao was confirmed to the position by the United States Senate on July 10, 2017.^[12]

Federal judicial service

Nomination and confirmation

On November 13, 2018, Trump announced that he would nominate Rao to the vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit created by judge Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court.^[13] Her nomination was sent to the Senate later that day.^[14] On January 3, 2019, her nomination was returned to the president underRule XXXI, Paragraph 6, of the United States Senate. On January 23, 2019, Trump announced his intent to renominate Rao for a federal judgeship.^[15] Her nomination was sent to the Senate later that day.^[16]

Rao's nomination attracted some opposition due to some of her college writing on race, sexual assault, and feminism.^[17] In response, Rao publicly apologized for some of these writings.^[18] Rao was criticized by disability rights activists such as Rebecca Cokley for a 2011 blog post where she expressed opposition to bans on dwarf-tossing.^[19] A hearing on her nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee was held on February 5, 2019. Rao was asked by several Senators about her college writings, some of which they viewed as sexual assault victim blaming. Rao responded, "A victim of a horrible crime is not to blame and the person who commits those crimes should be held responsible."^[20]

Democrats expressed concern that rules Rao worked to repeal in her role as administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs could face legal challenges and wind up before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considered the second most powerful appeals court. Rao said she would "look carefully at the standards for recusal, consult with her colleagues and follow the precedent and practices of the D.C. Circuit."^[20]Republican Senator Josh Hawley questioned whether she was sufficiently socially conservative regarding abortion rights but ultimately voted for her confirmation.^[21] On February 28, 2019, her nomination was reported out of committee by a 12–10 party-line vote.^[22] On March 13, 2019, the Senate voted to confirm Rao by a 53–46 party-line vote. She received her judicial commission on March 18, 2019.

Notable opinions

In an October 11, 2019, opinion of a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Rao was the dissenter in a 2–1 ruling to affirm a district court ruling supporting a congressional subpoena for President Trump's records from the accounting firm Mazars.^[23] She wrote in her opinion that "allegations of illegal conduct against the president cannot be investigated by Congress except through impeachment."^[24]

Rao participated in the May 2020 appeal of Judge Emmet G. Sullivan's actions appointing amicus curiae in response to the Department of Justice moving to dismiss charges in **United States v. Flynn**. The Appeals Court initially ordered Judge Sullivan to file a response regarding the appeal within 10 days.^[25][26][27] On June 24, 2020, Rao wrote the 2–1 decision to dismiss the conviction of Flynn, joined by Judge Karen Henderson and with the dissent from Judge Robert Wilkins.^[28] Observers were surprised because Henderson had expressed skepticism over the government's position during the hearing.^[29] "I don't see why we don't observe regular order and allow him to rule," Henderson said.^[29] Flynn's lawyer, Sidney Powell, argued there was no longer any case or controversy, and the trial judge must dismiss the case against Flynn, at the request of the Trump Justice Department.

After vacating the Rao decision, the full court heard the case on August 11, with many of the judges expressing skepticism about upholding the ruling.^[30][31] On August 31, 2020, the appeals court en banc ruled 8–2 in favor of denying the writ of mandamus, and not reassigning the case to a different district court judge, and remanded the case to Sullivan, with Judge Rao writing in dissent, joined by Henderson.^[32][33]

Personal life

Rao is married to Alan Lefkowitz, a former law school classmate,^[34] with whom she has 2 children.^[35] After marrying her husband, Rao converted to Judaism, however she still identifies as a Zoroastrian.^[36][37][38]

References

^ Voruganti, Harsh (February 11, 2019). "Neomi Rao – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit". VettingRoom.org. Retrieved October 18, 2019.
^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a ^b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neomi_Rao#cite_ref-post_2-1) ^c(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neomi_Rao#cite_ref-post_2-2) Adler, Jonathan (April 7, 2017). "White House names Neomi Rao as next 'regulatory czar':{":(style="padding-right:0.2em"):}:. The Washington Post. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
^ "Neomi Rao To Lead OIRA In US". Parsi Times. Retrieved June 16, 2018.
^ "Alumni Class Notes" (PDF). Bee Hive, for Alumni, Friends and Family of Detroit Country Day School (Winter): 39. 2005. Retrieved November 15, 2017.
^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a ^b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neomi_Rao#cite_ref-Eder_of_NYT_5-1) ^c(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neomi_Rao#cite_ref-Eder_of_NYT_5-2) ^d(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neomi_Rao#cite_ref-Eder_of_NYT_5-3) Eder, Steve (July 9, 2017). "Neomi Rao, the Scholar Who Will Help Lead Trump's Regulatory Overhaul". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved November 15, 2017.
^ Mufson, Steven (April 20, 2017). "Pick for rules czar would hand more power to Trump". Washington Post. washingtonpost.com. Retrieved 10 July 2017.
^ Waddell, Melanie (April 11, 2017). "Scalia Law's Neomi Rao Picked for Trump Regulatory Chief". National Law Journal. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
^ "Indian-American Neomi Rao nominated as Trump's regulatory czar". Deccan Chronicle. April 8, 2017. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
^ McDonald, Laughlin; Dudley, Susan E. (April 12, 2017). "President nominates Neomi Rao to head OIRA". Retrieved October 17, 2018.
^ Devaney, Tim (April 7, 2017). "Trump nominates regulatory chief". The Hill. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
^ "Re: Oppose the judicial nomination of Neomi Rao to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit". League of Conservation Voters. Retrieved October 23, 2021.
^ Siegel, Josh (July 10, 2017). "Senate confirms Neomi Rao to lead White House office overseeing regulations". Washington Examiner. Retrieved August 9, 2017.
^ Gray, Noah (November 13, 2018). "Trump nominates Neomi Rao to replace Kavanaugh on DC Circuit". CNN. Retrieved November 13, 2018.
^ "Two Nominations Sent to the Senate". whitehouse.gov. Retrieved November 16, 2018 – via National Archives.
^ "President Donald J. Trump Announces Intent to Nominate Judicial Nominees". whitehouse.gov – via National Archives.
^ "Nominations Sent to the Senate". whitehouse.gov – via National Archives.
^ Cassesn Weiss, Debra (January 16, 2019). "DC Circuit nominee under fire for college writings on race, feminism, date rape". ABA Journal. Retrieved October 7, 2019.
^ Cassesn Weiss, Debra (February 12, 2019). "DC Circuit nominee Neomi Rao apologizes for controversial writings on sexual assault". ABA Journal. Retrieved October 7, 2019.
^ Nover, Scott (January 22, 2019). "How a Trump judicial nominee reignited the debate over dwarf tossing". Washington Post.
^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a ^b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neomi_Rao#cite_ref-hill_20-1) Homan, Timothy R. (February 5, 2019). "Trump's pick for Kavanaugh's old court seat grilled over date-rape comments". The Hill. Retrieved February 6, 2019.
^ Karni, Annie; Haberman, Maggie (February 26, 2019). "Senator Josh Hawley Raises Questions About Neomi Rao's Abortion Stance". The New York Times.
^ "Results of Executive Business Meeting – February 28, 2019, Senate Judiciary Committee" (PDF).
^ Shuham, Matt (October 11, 2019). "Appeals Court Upholds House Subpoena Of Trump Financial Records". Talking Points Memo. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
^ Liptak, Adam (November 18, 2019). "Chief Justice Gives Trump Temporary Reprieve in Financial Records Case". nytimes.com. Retrieved November 18, 2019.
^ "USCA ORDER as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN re: Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus" (PDF). D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. May 21, 2020.
^ "DC Circuit Court Of Appeals Order" (PDF). May 21, 2020.
^ "DC Circuit Court Of Appeals Opinions" (PDF). June 24, 2020.
^ Polantz, Katelyn and Marshall Cohen, "Appeals court orders judge to dismiss Michael Flynn case", CNN, June 24, 2020.
^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a ^b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neomi_Rao#cite_ref-eager_29-1) DC Circuit Didn't Sound Eager to Force Dismissal of Case Against Michael Flynn, National Law Journal, C. Ryan Barber, June 12, 2020. Retrieved August 3, 2020.
^ "Federal appeals court skeptical of Michael Flynn's effort to immediately dismiss criminal charge". POLITICO.
^ Wolfe, Jan (August 11, 2020). "Judges appear reluctant to immediately end case against Trump ex-aide Flynn". Reuters – via www.reuters.com.
^ "READ: Appeals court ruling in Michael Flynn case". CNN. Retrieved September 19, 2020.
^ Marimow, Ann E.; Hsu, Spencer S. "Michael Flynn case does not have to be immediately dismissed, appeals court rules". Retrieved September 19, 2020 – via www.washingtonpost.com.
^ "Neomi Rao, '99: Serving the Public from the Executive Branch to the Bench | University of Chicago Law School". www.law.uchicago.edu. Retrieved October 23, 2021.
^ "Hearing on the Nomination of Neomi Rao to be the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Neomi Rao" (PDF). United States Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. June 7, 2017. Retrieved November 15, 2017.
^ Kampeas, Ron (March 14, 2019). "Senate confirms Jewish nominee to DC court after abortion views hiccup". Jewish Standard. Retrieved July 31, 2019.
^ Johnson, Scott (February 7, 2019). "Booker's row with Rao". Power Line. Retrieved June 24, 2020.
^ "The Row over Rao". February 28, 2019.

Selected publications

Rao, Neomi (2013). "Three Concepts of Dignity in Constitutional Law". Notre Dame L. Rev. 86 (1): 183–271. Retrieved November 15, 2017.

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Neomi Rao.

Neomi Rao at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, a public domain publication of the Federal Judicial Center.
Neomi Rao at Ballotpedia
Biography at Scalia Law School
The deep industry ties of Trump's deregulation teams
Appearances on C-SPAN

Political offices	Political offices	Political offices
Preceded by Howard Shelanski	Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 2017–2019	Succeeded by Paul J. Ray
Legal offices	Legal offices	Legal offices
Preceded by Brett Kavanaugh	Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 2019–present	Incumbent

Political offices

Preceded by

Howard Shelanski

Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

2017–2019

Succeeded by

Paul J. Ray

Legal offices

Preceded by

Brett Kavanaugh

Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

2019–present

Incumbent

show

Judges of the United States courts of appeals

show

Authority control

Categories:

gg news 2 22

The New York Times

Supreme Court Seems Ready to Back Ted Cruz on Campaign Finance

Judge Neomi Rao, who ordinarily sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the ... effective speech requires spending money,” Judge Rao wrote,...

.1 month ago

Law360

DC Circ. Mulls CFPB Bid To Undo PayPal Fee Disclosure Win

U.S. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao seemed to agree, at least in part, that the EFTA does not foreclose the agency from adopting requirements for...

.1 week ago

Law360

DC Circ. Says DOI Didn't Have To Take Tribe's Land Into Trust

Judges Neomi Rao, Karen LeCraft Henderson and David B. Sentelle sat on the panel for the D.C. Circuit. The Sault Tribe is represented by...

.2 weeks ago

Law.com

Presidents Are Too Reliant on Executive Power, Judge Neomi ...

Neomi Rao testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearing to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of...

.Oct 1, 2021

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

Oppose the Confirmation of Neomi Rao to the US Court of ...

Ms. Rao currently serves as President Trump's Administrator of the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), where...

.Feb 8, 2019

no lnx

Oppose the Confirmation of Neomi Rao to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

COURTS NEWS, COURTS RESOURCES 02.1,19

View this letter as a PDF here.

Dear Senator:

On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200 national organizations committed to promoting and protecting the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States, I write in strong opposition to the confirmation of Neomi Rao to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Ms. Rao has espoused and advanced extreme ideological views since college. She has advocated against the rights of sexual assault victims, and it would be particularly disturbing to confirm her for the vacancy on the D.C. Circuit left by the Supreme Court confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, who was credibly accused of sexual assault. Ms. Rao currently serves as President Trump’s Administrator of the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), where she was confirmed in 2017 on a near party-line vote in the Senate. This office has been at the center of the Trump administration’s aggressive efforts to undermine vital public protections, and as its head, Ms. Rao has had a platform to put her extreme ideas into action. She has supported numerous policies that have rolled back civil and human rights advances for millions of Americans.[1] The Senate must reject her nomination.

Bias Against Sexual Assault Victims: As a college student, Ms. Rao made several alarming comments about date rape. She suggested that sexual assault victims were partly to blame for being assaulted, and that some women make false rape allegations to avoid accepting responsibility for their actions.

In an op-ed entitled “Shades of gray,” Ms. Rao complained about the “hysteria over date rape” and wrote that “a woman, like a man, decides when and how much to drink. And if she drinks to the point where she can no longer choose, well, getting to that point was part of her choice.”[2] She also asserted that “a good way to avoid a potential date rape is to stay reasonably sober.”[3]

In another op-ed, Ms. Rao belittled a student group called Consent that was set up to counsel victims of sexual assault. She wrote: “Consent bills itself as a counseling hotline for those who have been through unwanted sexual experiences. They have a definite ideology, however, which involves treating ‘survivors’ as victims.”[4]

She has written: “The language of ‘date rape’ is something constructed by white middle class academic feminists in prestigious northeastern universities, who fail to consider the extensive sexual ambiguity involved with relationships.”[5] She also wrote that “casual sex for women often leads to regret and a profound loss of self-esteem. This in turn can force women to run from their choices and actions…. when playing the modern dating game women have to understand and accept the consequences of their sexuality.”[6]

Rao praised right-wing commentator Camille Paglia, writing: “Camille Paglia’s view on date rape has often been criticized for its insensitivity because she seems to ‘blame the victim.’ Paglia, however, accurately describes the dangerous feminist idealism which teaches women that they are equal. Women believe falsely that they should be able to go anywhere with anyone.”[7]

Rao criticized the expulsion of a student, David Bialski, who was accused of rape. She wrote: “In this case, the accused faced a smear campaign which included posters, banners and hyperbolic editorials. In response to student outrage, the Executive Committee was more than happy to sit as judge, jury and executioner – expelling Bialski.”[8]

Although Ms. Rao expressed these troubling views years ago, she is currently implementing this dangerous agenda in the Trump administration as the OIRA Administrator. She has supported the effort of the Trump administration to propose new rules to roll back Title IX protections in the context of sexual harassment and sexual assault, and to limit schools’ responsibility for addressing such conduct.[9] Dozens of civil and human rights organizations, including ours, have urged the Trump administration to withdraw this proposed rollback of civil rights protections.[10] In addition, Ms. Rao has also helped block the issuance of guidance recommended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that would help combat sexual harassment in the workplace.[11]

Disparaging Views on Women’s Rights: Ms. Rao has also made disparaging remarks about feminism and women’s rights.

She attacked a campus group called the Women’s Center, which she called “Yale’s effort to placate women by institutionalizing their concerns.”[12] She added: “More than a dozen fiefdoms now exist ranging from Yalesbians to Women of Color for Reproductive Health. The proclamations of oppression emanating from the center have reached such levels of absurdity….”[13]

Rao also wrote: “Women should be able to realize themselves as human beings without identifying themselves as a marginalized group. True liberation cannot come from coddling and support sessions. The real world will simply not wait for women to come out of therapy.”[14]

Rao defended women who opted to have families rather than careers in extreme terms by writing that not all women can be reduced to the “Hillary Clinton bitch-model.”[15] In the same article, she stated that “women might shy away from feminism and its contemporary associations with radicalism and lesbianism.”[16]

In another op-ed, she wrote that “feminism has sold women the lie of fulfillment – the lie that we can have it all” and “When women ask for clean, rational, fair relations between the sexes, they betray their own instincts by subscribing to a horrible, masculine stupidity.”[17]

As the OIRA Administrator, Ms. Rao has taken steps to roll back protections for women in the workplace. She halted an EEOC rule that required large companies to disclose what they pay employees by sex, race, and ethnicity – a rule that was intended to remedy the unequal pay that remains rampant in the American workplace.[18] That decision has been challenged in court and Ms. Rao is a named defendant.

Troubling Views on Race: In her college writings, Ms. Rao made numerous insensitive comments about race and campus affinity groups. She demonstrated deep hostility to classmates who joined organizations that allowed them to interact with students from similar racial backgrounds and experiences.

Rao wrote that “multiculturalism fans the flames of minority resentment against everybody else, including other minorities” and “Martin Luther King Jr. dreamt that one day people would be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin. This dream has no meaning to the multiculturalists, who separate and classify everyone according to race, gender and sexual orientation. Those who reject their assigned categories are called names: So-called conforming blacks are called ‘oreos’ by members of their own community, conservatives become ‘fascists.’ Preaching tolerance, multiculturalists seldom practice it.”[19]

In an op-ed called “Power games,” Ms. Rao lashed out at the “political correctness” on campus and, in particular, identity-based student organizations. She complained about the “politics of identity, in which people separate themselves by race, gender, and ethnicity. Many people find the separation of identity disturbing and regressive…. Leaders of the politics of identity smile kindly and argue that the underprivileged (people of a non-white race and ethnicity) need separation from a hostile power structure.”[20]

Rao demonstrated contempt for two leading African-American public intellectuals of the 1990s, Henry Louis Gates and Cornel West, cynically suggesting that their writings were designed mainly for profit. She stated that “Race may be a hot, money-making issue” and “West and Gates both demonstrate the viability and vitality of one form of racial identity, at least when it comes to public adulation, speaking fees, and book advances.”[21]

In a book review, Ms. Rao praised the author’s skepticism of racial identity, writing that the author “speaks strongly against group rights and group thinking, which encourage a victim mentality. In a rare show of wisdom, he writes, ‘Perhaps it is time to stop thinking of blacks – and having them think of themselves – as a category. Let them rise or fall as individuals.’”[22]

She exhibited hostility to affirmative action, writing that “Yale has dedicated itself to a relatively firm meritocracy, which drops its standards only for a few minorities, some legacies and a football player here or there.”[23] In another piece, she complained that we live in “this age of affirmative action, women’s rights, special rights for the handicapped and welfare for the indigent and lazy…. In our new feel-good era, everybody is okay, and political and academic standards can adjust to accommodate anyone.”[24]

In an op-ed entitled “Speak no evil,” Ms. Rao discussed what she perceived as the lack of attention to an incident on campus in which an African-American student was injured during the hazing process at an African-American fraternity. She complained that “Racial politics make almost any opinion dangerous.”[25]

These types of comments are similar to those made by another Trump judicial nominee, Ryan Bounds, whose nomination to the Ninth Circuit was scuttled last year after Senator Tim Scott objected to their racial insensitivity. In a December 2018 letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, Senator Scott wrote that “we should stop bringing candidates with questionable track records on race before the full Senate for a vote.”[26] Ms. Rao is clearly such a candidate.

Ms. Rao’s efforts to diminish marginalized communities of color has continued throughout the years. In 2015, she criticized the Supreme Court’s decision that year in Texas Department of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project, an important victory for the use of disparate impact in proving housing discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. Ms. Rao accused the Supreme Court of misreading the intent of Congress in passing the Fair Housing Act and said the court had adopted “rule by talking points” over “a government ruled by laws.”[27] She wrote: “The judiciary has a duty to ‘say what the law is,’ not what some lawmakers hoped it would be.”[28] By contrast, this important decision was hailed by the civil rights community.[29]

As the OIRA Administrator, Ms. Rao has worked to undermine disparate impact protections at HUD. Disparate impact theory recognizes that unlawful discrimination can be identified through a policy’s unjustified effect and has been repeatedly validated by federal courts, as in the Texas Department of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project decision. Ms. Rao has initiated a process[30] to roll back disparate impact protections for communities of color that were implemented by the Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2015. This is part of a larger effort by the Trump administration to undermine disparate impact protections and perpetuate inequality and discrimination across the board.[31]

Hostility to LGBTQ Rights: Ms. Rao also expressed alarming and offensive views about LGBTQ equality.

Rao asserted that “[w]hen homosexuality is viewed as a correctable behavior, it can be judged as being immoral, unnatural, and contrary to religious doctrine.”[32] She also stated: “Because homosexuality, unlike gender and race, concerns a socially unacceptable activity, many gays have responded to the demands of normalcy in radical ways…. Homosexual activism in its most visible form engages mainstream society in a total cultural challenge. The ‘promotion of queer expression’ comes in the form of explicitly sexual printed material, as well as national rallies and marches.”[33]

Dismissing the historic march to equality by the LGBTQ community, Ms. Rao wrote: “Trendy political movements have only recently added sexuality to the standard checklist of traits requiring tolerance.”[34]

Rao ridiculed the Yale Bisexual, Gay, and Lesbian Co-op for “spreading myths about AIDS and ‘raising awareness’ about homophobia/heterosexism. If you didn’t know better, you’d think that Yale was the most difficult place in the world to be gay, rather than one of the easiest.”[35]

In one of her many screeds against multicultural awareness, Ms. Rao wrote: “The multiculturalists are not simply after political reform. Underneath their touchy-feely talk of tolerance, they seek to undermine American culture. They argue that culture, society and politics have been defined – and presumably defiled – by white, male heterosexuals hostile to their way of life. For example, homosexuals want to redefine marriage and parenthood; feminists in women’s studies programs want to replace so-called male rationality with more sensitive responses common to womyn.”[36]

In a 2013 law review article, Ms. Rao criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act because it permitted federal marriage benefits for opposite-sex couples that it denied for same-sex couples. She argued that politicians, rather than courts, should resolve such issues. She wrote: “The constitutional right at issue – some form of freestanding dignity of recognition – has little connection to our constitutional text or history and leaves important questions unanswered…. The dignity of recognition, no doubt pressing for individuals wishing to be recognized, is better left to the political process.”[37] As we have seen throughout our nation’s history, courts have played a critical role in safeguarding LGBTQ equality, but Ms. Rao rejects that history and would leave the protection of such rights in the hands of politicians.

As the OIRA Administrator, Ms. Rao is in the process of finalizing a new rule that would give a license to discriminate to health care providers who wish to deny medical services to LGBTQ patients, women seeking reproductive health care, and others based on the providers’ religious objections.[38] Ms. Rao is also involved in a process to roll back a rule implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act that created critical protections for LGBTQ patients.[39]

Offensive Views on Disability Rights: Ms. Rao has defended the cruel and degrading practice of “dwarf tossing,” a dangerous activity in which people compete in throwing people with dwarfism. Dwarf tossing is banned in several states due to the high risk of injury. In criticizing a French law that bans this practice, Ms. Rao wrote that this law “demonstrates how a substantive understanding of dignity can be used to coerce individuals by forcing upon them a particular understanding of dignity irrespective of their individual choices.”[40] Ms. Rao has advanced this argument in numerous articles she has written about how courts should resolve disputes involving competing definitions of human dignity.

Ms. Rao’s nomination is opposed by Little People of America, the largest organization representing individuals with dwarfism. They recently wrote a letter to the Senate stating: “We vehemently disagree with Ms. Rao’s view that banning dwarf tossing negates [an] individual’s dignity. A ban on dwarf tossing event[s] significantly reduces the risk of inevitable bodily harm to the person being tossed. We strongly support our community in having individual choice in every aspect of their lives and we advocate for equal employment opportunities so that our community need not be constrained to earning a living by being the recipient of a dehumanizing and injurious activity.”[41]

In opposing Ms. Rao’s nomination, disability rights advocate Rebecca Cokley has powerfully noted: “Dwarf tossing legalizes the treatment of people with my disability as less-than people. As objects. As footballs, if you like…. To me, dwarf tossing is a hate crime. It is an activity that specifically targets a marginalized community because we are marginalized. There is no way you can look at this sort of activity as ‘sport’ instead of assault.”[42]

At OIRA, Ms. Rao has helped implement federal rules to roll back disability rights. For example, a recent rule significantly weakens the protections in the Affordable Care Act for persons with disabilities and chronic medical conditions by incentivizing states to reduce what insurers are required to cover within the ten categories of essential health benefits (including mental health).[43]

Anti-Environmental Views: In college writings, Ms. Rao expressed deep-seated skepticism about environmental protection.

Rao criticized the “dangerous orthodoxy” of a campus environmental organization, stating: “The three major environmental bogeymen, the greenhouse effect, the depleting ozone layer, and the dangers of acid rain, are all cited in [the organization’s] manual though all three theories have come under serious scientific attack.”[44] She also attacked campus environmentalists who “accept issues such as global warming as truth with no reference to the prevailing scientific doubts.”[45]

She also asserted: “After leaving college many student activists – eco-warriors among them – immediately gravitate to Washington, where they can pursue their ideas for forcing Americans to live up to their standards of environmental purity.The scary part is that, despite their college educations, they seem perfectly comfortable discarding scientific evidence and common sense in their crusade to ‘save’ the Earth.”[46]

In an op-ed dripping with sarcasm, she wrote: “When was the last time you hugged a tree? If you don’t remember, you obviously haven’t been on a college campus recently.”[47] She wrote of the “eco-insanity on college campuses” and declared: “I finally resigned myself to sorting my newspapers, aluminum cans and plastic containers – not because the greenies have convinced me this will save the environment, but because recycling is university policy (not to mention Connecticut state law).”[48]

Ms. Rao has brought this anti-environmental mindset to OIRA. She has supported the weakening of public protections against mercurypollution, a troubling decision because high mercury levels have been proven to cause brain damage to infants and young children.[49] She has also supported a proposal torepeal the Clean Power Plan, a major environmental protection effort aimed at combating climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from power generators.[50] The D.C. Circuit resolves many significant environmental disputes, and the addition of Ms. Rao to that court would have a devastating impact on our clean air and water.

Hostile to Women’s Reproductive Freedom: Ms. Rao holds anti-choice views and has advanced them at OIRA. In a 2011 article about how courts treat issues of human dignity, Ms. Rao embraced anti-choice rhetoric, writing: “In Casey, the plurality focused on the inherent dignity of a woman’s freedom to choose an abortion, but minimized the competing inherent dignity of the fetus to life.”[51] In a 1998 article, she criticized Roe v. Wade and said “the Court uses esteemed philosophers to legitimize a controversial perspective. By contrast, there were many persuasive legal arguments against recognizing a constitutional right to abortion.”[52]

At OIRA, she has put her ideology into practice and worked to roll back critical reproductive health care protections. Under a new rule advanced by Ms. Rao, employers who were previously required to provide contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act can now refuse to provide such coverage for nearly any reason just by claiming an objection to contraception.[53] In addition, when OIRA considered a proposed rule that would significantly restructure the federal Title X family planning program (which serves more than four million people a year) and make it impossible for many current providers to participate, it failed to undertake a full analysis of the rule’s economic impact on families and instead only offered a conclusory statement that it would not negatively impact family well-being, despite extensive data to the contrary.[54]

Extreme Views on Role of Government: As the director and founder of the Koch Foundation-funded Center for the Study of the Administrative State at Antonin Scalia Law School, Ms. Rao has advocated a number of controversial positions that would hinder the ability of federal agencies to provide critical legal protections for people. In a publication for thefar-right Heritage Foundation, she complained that the United States has “a regulatory state that often operates with minimal congressional guidance, inconsistent presidential direction, and deferential judicial review.”[55]

In other words, Ms. Rao believes in weakening agencies by limiting their ability to carry out congressional mandates to protect people. Putting her in charge of the White House office that oversees the implementation of federal regulations is truly letting the fox guard the henhouse, a dynamic that has sadly occurred in agency after agency during the Trump administration. Ms. Rao has also advanced troubling views on presidential power, arguing that presidents “must have the ability to remove all executive branch officers at will”[56] and “after removal from office, a President may be criminally liable for his actions.”[57] In light of the ongoing Mueller investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, it is easy to see why President Trump would want someone with these beliefs sitting on the court that might be asked to adjudicate such issues.

Ideological Affiliations: Ms. Rao has been a member of the Federalist Society since 1996, her first year of law school, and, according to her Senate questionnaire, she has given 32 speeches to the Federalist Society over the past decade. This out-of-the-mainstream legal organization represents a sliver of America’s legal profession – just four percent – yet more than 80 percent of President Trump’s circuit court nominees, and a significant number of his district court nominees, have been Federalist Society members.

Ms. Rao served as president of her law school Federalist Society chapter, and she has been deeply involved in this organization ever since. She has served on the Federalist Society executive committee for its Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group and its International & National Security Practice Group, and as a member of the Federalist SocietyRegulatory Process Group, Article I Project, and Faculty Division. Ms. Rao’s zeal for this right-wing organization is so strong that she actually listed her Federalist Society participation as an example of her pro bono work in response to question 25 on her Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, which asks nominees to list work they have undertaken “in serving the disadvantaged.” If confirmed, Ms. Rao would bring a clear bias and far-right ideological agenda to the bench, and she would not serve as an objective and fair-minded arbiter.

For the foregoing reasons, The Leadership Conference urges you to oppose the confirmation of Neomi Rao to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Thank you for your consideration of our views. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact Mike Zubrensky, Chief Counsel, at (202) 466-3311.

Sincerely,

Vanita Gupta

President & CEO

NPR

Neomi Rao, Picked For D.C. Circuit Court, Faces Scrutiny ...

Neomi Rao currently leads the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a position that's been described as the Trump administration's...

.Feb 5, 2019

Vox

Judge Neomi Rao has an aggressive plan to block House oversight of Trump

Rao is both a former Trump White House official and a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. And her name is well-known to...

.Mar 11, 2020

Vox

The Michael Flynn court ruling by Judge Neomi Rao is astonishingly bad

Neomi Rao. Trump-appointed Judge Neomi Rao during her 2019 confirmation hearing. Zach Gibson/Getty Images. Judge Neomi Rao's opinion in In re:...

.Jun 24, 2020

The Washington Post

Former White House official Neomi Rao formally sworn in as ...

Former White House official Neomi Rao was formally sworn in Friday as the newest judge on the federal appeals court in Washington in a...

.Sep 13, 2019

CNN

Senate confirms Neomi Rao, controversial judicial nominee, to fill Brett Kavanaugh's former seat

The Senate voted Wednesday to confirm Neomi Rao, a judicial nominee who faced intense opposition over her writings in college,...

.Mar 13, 2019

duck 2 22

Neomi Rao - Wikipedia

Search domain en.wikipedia.orghttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Neomi_Rao

Neomi Rao From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Neomi Jehangir Rao (born March 22, 1973) is an American jurist and legal scholar who serves as a federal appellate judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

U.S. Court of Appeals - D.C. Circuit - Neomi Rao

Search domain cadc.uscourts.govhttps://www.cadc.uscourts.gov › internet › home.nsf › content › VL+-+Judges+-+NJR

NEOMI RAO (202) 216-7340 Judge Rao was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in March 2019. She graduated from Yale College in 1995 and the University of Chicago Law School in 1999.

Neomi Rao - Ballotpedia

Search domain ballotpedia.orghttps://ballotpedia.org › Neomi_Rao

Neomi Rao is a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. President Donald Trump (R) nominated Rao on November 13, 2018, to fill the vacancy on the court created by Brett Kavanaugh 's confirmation to serve on the United States Supreme Court.

Neomi Rao | Constitutional Accountability Center

Search domain theusconstitution.orghttps://www.theusconstitution.org › nominations › neomi-rao

Neomi Rao U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit i On November 14, 2018, President Donald Trump nominated Neomi J. Rao to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to fill the seat vacated by Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Videos