katsas, gregory dis-hon

---

no merri

DC CIRCUIT W/ RAO

just rule w rao 7 25

---

---

EANDE

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.

---

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.

---

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/clarence-thomas-trump/593596/

no lnx

The Clarence Thomas Effect

The notoriously quiet Supreme Court justice has had a far-reaching influence on the personnel of the Trump administration, which may be his most lasting legacy.

By Emma Green

JULY 10, 2019

Clarence Thomas is the longest-serving justice currently sitting on the Supreme Court. For much of his tenure, court watchers and critics have dismissed his jurisprudence as largely irrelevant, demoting him to the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s judicial sidekick. In the public imagination, he is most remembered for his worst moment. Last fall’s confirmation hearings for Justice Brett Kavanaugh resurrected the debate over Anita Hill, the woman who famously accused Thomas of sexual harassment during his 1991 confirmation hearings.

And yet, during his time on the Court, Thomas has written prolifically and introduced ideas that have gradually gained influence among other justices. Of all the Supreme Court justices, Thomas takes an approach to the law that is arguably the purest embodiment of the conservative judicial philosophies known astextualism, which holds that the plain meaning of the text of a law is all that matters in judicial interpretation, and originalism, which holds that the Constitution should be interpreted only as its authors intended.

The most significant part of Thomas’s legacy, however, may take shape long after he has stopped writing opinions.Personnel is policy. Thomas’s vast network, more than that of any other justice, has defined President Donald Trump’s administration and the federal judiciary Trump has built. Through his clerks and mentees, the notoriously silent justice may end up with an outsize voice in the legal system for years to come.

Numbers are the first evidence of the sizable Thomas effect. He has had more of his former clerks nominated to federal judgeships under Trump than any other justice, past or present: 10, compared with Anthony Kennedy’s seven and Scalia’s five. Roughly one-fifth of Thomas’s former clerks either are in the Trump administration or have been nominated to the federal bench by the president. The clerks whom Thomas trained, has mentored, and actively stays in touch with are taking up lifetime appointments, and on the whole, they are quite young: Allison Jones Rushing, who now sits on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, is just in her mid-30s.

[Read: Conservative women are leading the defense of Kavanaugh]

These relatively small numbers offer insight into the broad influence Thomas has had on the Trump-era legal establishment. Even clerks who aren’t in formal positions of public service have gained prominence under Trump: Laura Ingraham, the conservative commentator who clerked for Thomas during his early years on the bench, has hosted one of the top-rated programs on Fox News since October 2017 and is an outspoken supporter of the president. Another former clerk, Carrie Severino, the chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network, has been one of the most vocal advocates for Trump’s judicial nominees, including Kavanaugh.

The Thomas effect started taking shape early on in the Trump administration. As Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern noted as early as mid-2017, when the pattern was still nascent, “Everywhere you turn in Trumpland, you’ll find a slew of Thomas’ former clerks in high places.” In part, this effect may have been driven by the people making the hires. Gregory Katsas, who clerked for Thomason the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court, joined the Trump administration right after the inauguration as a deputy assistant to the president and deputy counsel. Later, when Katsas was nominated to his own judgeship on the D.C. Circuit Court, he told U.S. senators that he had been involved in “interviewing and recommending candidates for various executive and judicial appointments.”

At least three other people who have worked in Trump’s White House counsel’s office are also former Thomas clerks: John Eisenberg, David Morrell, and Kate Todd. When the Trump administration released its list of potential Supreme Court nominees in November 2017, four former Thomas clerks were included: Thomas Lee, Margaret Ryan, David Stras, and Allison Eid.

Any new administration has a huge number of positions to fill across the executive branch. When Trump took office, he also faced significant judicial vacancies—142 empty seats, according to data from the American Bar Association. By comparison, when Barack Obama took office in 2008, there were only 53 federal judicial vacancies. These jobs are filled like any other: through personal networks and recommendations. Under Trump, the most influential source of potential candidates for these vacancies has been the Federalist Society,a professional network for conservative and libertarian lawyers. “It happens that a lot of the people in the White House counsel’s office are Federalist Society members, and as a result of having been Federalist Society members, they have their own set of contacts,” said John Malcolm, who works on judicial issues at the Heritage Foundation and is chairman of the Federalist Society’s criminal-law practice group. The organization’s executive vice president, Leonard Leo, has had an influential role in advising the Trump administration on possible nominees.

Although stories about the Federalist Society often focus on the intellectual role and legacy of the late Justice Scalia, who was an early faculty adviser to the group at the University of Chicago, Thomas is a central figure in the Federalist Society universe.William Eskridge, a law professor at Yale known for his work on LGBTQ legal issues, told me the Federalist Society is “a social circle. It’s a professional circle. It’s a circle that gives [the justices] law clerks. It’s a circle that gives them positive publicity.” And, he added, “Thomas is at the center of that.”

[Read: The Supreme Court hands a victory to the pro-life movement]

Scalia famously described himself as a “fainthearted originalist,” although he later repudiated that label. By contrast, Thomas’s originalism has been “unflinching,” as one conservative law professor wrote in a recent column for The New York Times.Scalia himself told a Thomas biographer that Thomas does not believe in the legal principle of generally following settled precedent. “Among Federalist Society members, he probably would be their No. 1 favorite justice of anyone on the Court,” Severino told me. “As wonderful as Justice Scalia is, Thomas is someone who has inspired a lot of young lawyers.”

The Thomas effect may be due to more than just the power of networks, however. Thomas has been on the Supreme Court bench since 1991, and his clerks are entering their professional peaks during a Republican administration. Several former clerks told me Thomas goes out of his way to stay in touch with his clerks and cultivate their careers; they have monthly lunches and regularly get together for intergenerational reunions. Each year, Thomas takes his clerks on a field trip to the site of the deadliest battle in the Civil War. “I want them to go to Gettysburgand to think about … the price that was paid for this country to exist,” he said in an interview with the appeals-court judge Diane Sykes at a Federalist Society event in 2013. “I love my law clerks,” Thomas added. “These kids are my family.”

Thomas’s clerks tend to fit a particular profile. They come from all over the country, including law schools outside the Ivy League, which makes them particularly suitable candidates for federal judgeships. “Judges have to have ties to the local area typically,” said Saikrishna Prakash, a former Thomas clerk and professor of law at the University of Virginia. “The Thomas clerks, because they come from more regions in the country, and certainly go to law schools all over the country, are more apt to go outside of the I-95 corridor.” After their clerkships, these lawyers often go into public service, taking up positions in U.S. attorneys’ offices or as professors, which means they don’t mind the pay cut that often comes with a move to the federal bench. (A federal district-court judge can expect to make slightly more than $200,000 a year; by comparison, partners at top-tier law firms can earn multimillion-dollar salaries.)And, like Thomas, they tend to be very conservative, committed originalists and textualists. As Eskridge put it, they are true believers.

The Trump administration’s most marked achievement in terms of shifting the federal judiciary has come through Circuit Courts of Appeals.Trump has far outpaced his recent predecessors, with 42 confirmed appointments to these courts over the past two and a half years; by comparison, Obama had gotten less than half as many appeals-court judges confirmed by this point in his first term. These seats are where Thomas clerks will have the most influence—and are outpacing the former clerks for conservative justices. Former Thomas clerks have now been confirmed to the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, along with two judges confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals—Katsas and Neomi Rao, the former head of Trump’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The D.C. Circuit is particularly influential, because it is responsible for reviewing the actions of federal agencies; in recent years, it has issued important decisions on topics ranging from Obamacare to gun rights.

Thomas is famously silent during oral arguments. But as a writer, he has been prolific:He wrote the most concurrences, dissents, and opinions of any justice during each of the past five terms, according to data from SCOTUSblog. Over time, his work has significantly shifted the window of acceptable legal opinions on various issues, said John Yoo, a former Thomas clerk and law professor at UC Berkeley who is best known for his work on the George W. Bush administration’s torture memos. “When I clerked for him, he published some opinions I thought were really radical, and the legal profession would never be interested,” Yoo told me. “Now those opinions are heavily debated in law schools and are very influential.” He specifically mentioned Thomas’s concurrence in a 1995 case on affirmative action, Adarand v. Peña, and another concurrence in a case on the Constitution’s commerce clause, United States v. Lopez.

On the Court, Thomas’s purist approach may cost him the ability to convince his fellow justices on controversial cases. “He’s less of a traditional politician,” Yoo told me. “I think he’s more interested in saying, ‘This is the correct view of the Constitution,’ rather than assembling five votes. And that’s a trade-off.” Thomas’s views often come out in dissents or concurrences, offered solo or joined by just one or two other justices.“He has not, until recently, written any of the blockbuster majority opinions,” Yoo said, “because to do that, you have to horse-trade to get votes.” (Notable majority opinions by Thomas include a 2001 case concerning the rights of a religious student group, Good News Club v. Milford Central School, and a 2018 First Amendment case involving a crisis-pregnancy center, NIFLA v. Becerra.)

This is all the more reason the rise of Thomas’s former clerks is important. His approach to controversial legal questions—generally opposing affirmative action, favoring limited power for federal agencies, defending gun rights, and more—has been developed and popularized over his decades on the bench, and will be carried forward by a new generation of judges. He openly defies what he sees as bad precedent—just last month, Thomas wrote in a concurrence that “the Constitution itself is silent on abortion.”

[Adam Cohen: Clarence Thomas knows nothing of my work]

Other conservative justices’ clerks have had a significant footprint in the Trump administration. Two of former Justice Anthony Kennedy’s clerks, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, now sit on the Supreme Court. Trump’s secretary of health and human services, Alex Azar, and his solicitor general, Noel Francisco, both clerked for Scalia, as did the White House counselor Emmet Flood and the recently confirmed Seventh Circuit judge, Amy Coney Barrett, who is widely thought to be on Trump’s short list for any potential future Supreme Court slots.

Thomas’s influence, however, is particularly broad, reaching from the Department of Justice to the White House to the federal bench. Thomas is now 71 years old. If he follows the path of his colleagues Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who are both in their 80s, he could easily have a decade or more to go on the Supreme Court. His greatest legacy, however, may be in the intellectual seeds he has planted in the generation of lawyers who came up studying his work.

Olivia Paschal contributed reporting to this article.

Emma Green is a former staff writer at ​The Atlantic.

---

---

ref martens

a dozen lawyers from Jones Day are headed to new jobs in the Trump administration that range from White House counsel to special assistant to the secretary of agriculture.

Jones Day announced the moves in a press release, and several publications picked up the story, including Above the Law, the National Law Journal (sub. req.) and the Wall Street Journal Law Blog.

One appointment—that of Donald McGahnto serve as White House counsel—was previously announced. Also working in the White House are Bill McGinley (deputy assistant to the president and cabinet secretary),Greg Katsas (deputy counsel to the president), David Morrell (associate counsel to the president), James Burnham (senior associate counsel to the president), Annie Donaldson (special counsel to the president and chief of staff to the White House counsel).

Jones Day lawyers working in the Justice Department include Noel Francisco (principal deputy solicitor general), John Gore (deputy assistant attorney general, civil rights division), Chad Readler (principal deputy assistant attorney general, civil division), and Michael Murray (counsel to the deputy attorney general).

Rounding out the list are James Uthmeier (special adviser to the Secretary of Commerce) and Stephen Vaden (special assistant to the Secretary of Agriculture).

A 13th lawyer, Kaytlin Roholt, will serve as special counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

---

---

fluff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_G._Katsas

gregory George Katsas (born August 6,1964) is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.^[1]

• Early life and career
• 2Federal judicial service
• 3Memberships
• 4Awards
• 5See also
• 6References
• 7External links

Early life and career

Katsas was born in 1964 in Boston, Massachusetts, to Greek immigrant parents.^[2]

He earned an Bachelor of Arts cum laude from Princeton University and a Juris Doctor cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was executive editor of theHarvard Law Revie***w* and an editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.^[3][4][5]

Katas served as a law clerk to Judge Edward R. Becker of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1989 to 1990. He then clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas of the United States Supreme Court from 1990 to 1991.^[6][5]

He was an associate and partner at Jones Dayfrom 1992 until 2001 and from 2009 until 2016,^[6] where he specialized in civil and appellate litigation.^[7] He argued more than 75 appeals, including three cases in the U.S. Supreme Court.^[5]

From 2001 to 2009, he served in various positions within the United States Department of Justice, including Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division and Acting Associate Attorney General.^[5]

Federal judicial service

On September 7, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Katsas to serve as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to the seat vacated by Judge Janice Rogers Brown, who retired on August 31, 2017.^[8][9] On October 17, 2017, a hearing on his nomination was held before the Senate Judiciary Committee.^[10] On November 9, 2017, his nomination was reported out of committee by an 11–9 roll call vote.^[11][12] On November 27, 2017, the United States Senate voted to invoke cloture by a party line vote of 52–48.^[13] On November 28, 2017, by a party line vote except for John Neely Kennedy R-LA and Joe Manchin D-WV, with Bob Corker and John McCain absent, the Senate voted to confirm Katsas by a vote of 50–48.^[14] He received his judicial commission on December 8, 2017.

In 2017, Katsas recused himself from matters regarding the Mueller's probe on which he personally worked, but said he would consider the facts of a case before making a decision.^[15]

On September 9, 2020, President Trump included him on a list of his potential nominees to the Supreme Court.^[16]

On July 6, 2021, Judge Katsas gave the tie-breaking 2-1 vote that overturned the FDA's ban on GEDs used predominantly by the Judge Rotenberg Center on disabled patients in Canton, MA.^[17]

Memberships

He is a member of the Federalist Society,^[18] and also a member of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers.^[6]

Awards

In 2009, he was awarded the Edmund Randolph award for outstanding service, the highest award bestowed by the U.S. Department of Justice.^[6]

See also

• Biography portal

• List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 10)
• Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates

References

1. ^ Karuppur, Abhiram (March 7, 2017). "Katsas '86 named Deputy Counsel and Deputy Assistant to President Trump". Daily Princetonian. Retrieved November 18, 2017.
2. ^ Profile of Gregory Katsas. VettingRoom.com. Retrieved November 17, 2017.
3. ^ "About". Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. March 24, 2009. Retrieved April 3, 2018.
4. ^ United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees: Gregory George Katsas
5. ^ :{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/Gregory_G.Katsas#cite_ref-whitehouse_5-1) ^c(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_G.Katsas#cite_ref-whitehouse_5-2) ^d(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_G._Katsas#cite_ref-whitehouse_5-3) "President Donald J. Trump Announces Seventh Wave of Judicial Candidates". whitehouse.gov. September 7, 2017. Retrieved September 8, 2017 – via National Archives.  This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
6. ^ :{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/Gregory_G.Katsas#cite_ref-benchmemos_6-1) ^c(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_G.Katsas#cite_ref-benchmemos_6-2) ^d(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_G._Katsas#cite_ref-benchmemos_6-3) Severino, Carrie (September 7, 2017). "Who is Gregory Katsas?". National Review. Retrieved November 18, 2017.
7. ^ "Gregory Katsas to rejoin Jones Day". Jones Day. October 2009. Retrieved November 18, 2017.
8. ^ "Eight Nominations Sent to the Senate Today". whitehouse.gov. September 7, 2017. Retrieved September 8, 2017 – via National Archives.
9. ^ Marimow, Ann E. (September 7, 2017). "Trump taps White House legal adviser to serve on high-profile D.C. Circuit". Washington Post. Retrieved November 18, 2017.
10. ^ United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary: Nominations for October 17, 2017
11. ^ Results of Executive Business Meeting – November 9, 2017, Senate Judiciary Committee
12. ^ Schneier, Cogan (November 7, 2017). "More Than 200 Civil Rights Groups Oppose DC Circuit Nominee Greg Katsas". Law.com. Retrieved November 18, 2017.
13. ^ U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 115th Congress - 1st Session United States Senate Vote Summary: Vote Number 282, United States Senate, November 27, 2017
14. ^ U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 115th Congress - 1st Session United States Senate Vote Summary: Vote Number 283, United States Senate, November 28, 2017. Retrieved April 2, 2020.
15. ^ Allan Smith (October 18, 2017). "One of Trump's top judicial nominees got grilled on Capitol Hill over his involvement with Mueller's Russia probe". BusinessInsider.com. Retrieved December 17, 2018.
16. ^ "Remarks by President Trump on Judicial Appointments"
17. ^ Pierson, Brendan (July 7, 2021). "D.C. Circuit overturns FDA ban on shock device for disabled students". Reuters.
18. ^ "Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees" (PDF). judiciary.senate.gov. Retrieved June 30, 2018.

External links

• Gregory G. Katsas at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, a public domain publication of the Federal Judicial Center.
• Biography at U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
• Gregory G. Katsas at Ballotpedia
• Appearances at the U.S. Supreme Court from the Oyez Project
• Appearances on C-SPAN
• Articles about Greg Katsas. AbovetheLaw.com.

Categories: 

• 1964 births
• Living people
• 20th-century American lawyers
• 21st-century American lawyers
• 21st-century American judges
• American people of Greek descent
• Federalist Society members
• George W. Bush administration personnel
• Harvard Law School alumni
• Jones Day alumni
• Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
• Law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States
• Lawyers from Washington, D.C.
• People from Boston
• Princeton University alumni
• **Trump administration personnel**
• United States Assistant Attorneys General for the Civil Division
• United States Associate Attorneys General
• United States court of appeals judges appointed by Donald Trump
• Washington, D.C. Republicans