raymond randolph hon d c
<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""></font></div><div style=""><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://thinkprogress.org/california-trump-states-adopting-vehicle-standards-6212b2031ce6/"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://thinkprogress.org/california-trump-states-adopting-vehicle-standards-6212b2031ce6/</font></a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>More and more states and automakers are uniting behind California in a nationwide debate over vehicle emissions standards, as tensions between the Golden State and President Donald Trump’s administration come to a head.</b></font></div><div class="postcontent" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 2.2rem; margin-bottom: 2em;"><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A growing coalition of states is supporting California’s efforts to demand cleaner and more efficient vehicles, at a time when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are seeking to halt standards despite objections from health and climate experts. Those states are now being joined by several major automakers, with others facing pressure from lawmakers.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Three weeks ago, California inked a deal with four major automakers, committing them to increasing both gas mileage and greenhouse gas emissions standards in exceedance of the Trump administration’s proposal. Now, others are under pressure to do the same.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Eight senior House Democrats <a href="https://seec-tonko.house.gov/press-release/seec-leaders-encourage-all-automakers-join-greenhouse-gas-pollution-standards-deal" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">wrote</a> to 14 other automakers on Thursday, encouraging them to sign on to the same deal California made with Ford, BMW, Honda, and Volkswagen.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Our districts and the country as a whole need the auto industry to help us address climate change, and in the near-term that means a serious commitment to greenhouse gas reduction through emission reduction from vehicles,”<b> wrote lawmakers led by Reps. Doris Matsui (D-CA) and Paul Tonko (D-NY), the latter of whom is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee.</b> Recipients included major automakers like Volvo, Chrysler, and Toyota.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That appeal echoes an earlier effort from 30 Senate Democrats, <a href="https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2019/08/06/senators-pressure-carmakers-join-ford-california-mileage-deal/1935115001/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">who last week similarly called on</a> automakers to join their peers in adhering to stricter standards.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“In the absence of an agreement between the Federal government and states, the California agreement is a commonsense framework that provides flexibility to the industry to meet tailpipe standards while also taking important steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save money on fuel for consumers,” that letter reads.</font></p><div class="related-contentwrapper" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 2rem;"><a href="https://thinkprogress.org/energy-innovation-cars-emissions-rollback-trump-california-canada-study-07bacd01710d/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border: none; display: flex;" /><div class="related-contentbody" style="box-sizing: inherit; width: 513px;"><a href="https://thinkprogress.org/energy-innovation-cars-emissions-rollback-trump-california-canada-study-07bacd01710d/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border: none; display: flex;" /><h3 class="related-contenttitle" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 2rem; margin: -7px 0px 0.5em;"><a href="https://thinkprogress.org/energy-innovation-cars-emissions-rollback-trump-california-canada-study-07bacd01710d/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border: none; display: flex;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">[Economic and environmental cost of Trump’s auto rollback could be staggering, new research shows</font></a></h3><p class="related-contentdek" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5rem; line-height: 1.2;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">The administration's war with California could cost the U.S. economy $400 billion by mid-century.]</font></p></div></div><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The deal the California Air Resources Board (CARB) struck with the four automakers would see the average fuel economy of fleets increase to 50 miles per gallon by 2026. </span>That commitment is less than Obama-era efforts, which would have seen 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, but it still marks a major break with the Trump administration.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Under the Clean Air Act, California has for decades been granted a waiver allowing the state to impose vehicle emissions standards exceeding those of the federal government. But the Trump administration has sought to undermine the state with its proposed Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule. The EPA and NHTSA are proposing freezing federal fuel economy standards at 2020 levels, a move environmental and public health experts have said would have swift repercussions. Data shows that air quality has improved significantly as a result of the stricter standards.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">California has aggressively sought to protect its standards, suing the federal government over the rollback. And automakers have an incentive to side with California. While the oil and gas industry has lobbied hard for easing emissions standards, many automakers have grown worried by the scope of the administration’s rollbacks. One serious concern has been the prospect of a split market, wherein the industry would have to meet different standards in different states. In June, 17 car companies <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/06/climate/trump-auto-emissions-rollback-letter.html?module=inline" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">wrote to Trump</a> and warned that weakening standards regardless could destabilize the industry.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Support from other states is also giving California a boost. Twelve states and Washington, D.C., were already committed to California’s standards prior to the Trump administration. But Colorado, an oil-rich state, recently joined that lineup, becoming a “Section 177 state” in a nod to the section of the Clean Air Act that allows for California’s stricter standards. New Mexico, another oil state, also has plans to re-join by the end of 2020; the state had initially joined but repealed the standards under Republican Gov. Susana Martinez. Arizona and Florida have similarly adopted and then repealed the standards.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Environmental groups have expressed optimism that other states may adopt California’s approach, especially amid growing concerns over the potential ramifications of the rollback. Research released last week by the environmental policy group Energy Innovation <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/energy-innovation-cars-emissions-rollback-trump-california-canada-study-07bacd01710d/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">found</a> that the Trump administration’s efforts could cost the U.S. economy $400 billion through 2050, in addition to increasing U.S. transport emissions up to 10% by 2035.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And with litigation underway, conversations about auto emissions and climate change are already proving contentious. The Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/a-federal-judge-in-dc-hit-reply-all-and-now-theres-a-formal-question-about-his-decorum/2019/08/15/551155b4-ba17-11e9-b3b4-2bb69e8c4e39_story.html" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">reported on Friday</a> that a federal judge who was set to hear the vehicle emissions case between the EPA and the consortium of 17 states led by California was replaced on that panel after he sent emails critical of climate science. The judge, A. Raymond Randolph, had complained in a reply-all email to a colleague about a seminar on climate change science for judges.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The jurisdiction assigned to you does not include saving the planet. A little hubris would be welcomed in many of your latest public displays,” Randolph wrote. “The supposedly science and stuff you are now sponsoring is nothing of the sort. Get out of this business and back into the business of judging, which is what you are being paid to do.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><b style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Randolph</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> has been replaced on the panel by Sri Srinivasan, a Barack Obama appointee.</span></b></font></p></div><footer class="posttags" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 2rem; margin-bottom: 2em; clear: both;"><span class="tags-list" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://thinkprogress.org/tag/air-pollution/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; font-weight: 600; text-transform: uppercase;">#AIR POLLUTION</a>,</span> <span style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://thinkprogress.org/tag/california/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; font-weight: 600; text-transform: uppercase;">#CALIFORNIA</a>,</span> <span style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://thinkprogress.org/tag/clean-air-act/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; font-weight: 600; text-transform: uppercase;">#CLEAN AIR ACT</a>,</span> <span style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://thinkprogress.org/tag/climate/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; font-weight: 600; text-transform: uppercase;">#CLIMATE</a>,</span> <span style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://thinkprogress.org/tag/judiciary/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; font-weight: 600; text-transform: uppercase;">#JUDICIARY</a>,</span> <span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><a href="https://thinkprogress.org/tag/politics/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; font-weight: 600; text-transform: uppercase;">#POLITICS</a></span></font></span></footer><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/08/how-one-judges-reply-all-attack-on-climate-science-cost-him-seat-on-climate-related-case/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.alternet.org/2019/08/how-one-judges-reply-all-attack-on-climate-science-cost-him-seat-on-climate-related-case/</font></a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">How one judge’s reply-all attack on climate science cost him seat on climate-related case</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Written by Daily Kos<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>August 19, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We all live in constant fear of the button. The one button that, if accidentally hit, can trigger a chain reaction of unending pain, unleashing impossible-to-contain horrors with the power to end life as we know it.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We’re talking, of course, about the “Reply All” button. (What, were you thinking of a different button?)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While plenty has been written about reply-all horror stories, and the ways to avoid them, it seems they are doomed to continue happening. Last Friday offered a particularly enjoyable example of this Kafka-meets-Seinfeld type situation – this one involving US federal judges!</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Judges often have to rule on issues that are highly technical, and require very specific understanding of issues beyond just the law. To address that need, among others, famed Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren recommended the creation of an independent research and education body to serve the federal court system, which Congress created in 1967. Since then, the Federal Judicial Center has offered continuing education services for judges, access to independent social scientists and research, and recommendations on how the judiciary can better function.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In light of the influx of climate change-related cases, the Federal Judicial Center apparently worked with The American Association for the Advancement of Science and The Environmental Law Institute to convene an event to provide judges with an overview of climate change science.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But as the Washington Post reported Friday, when U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan sent around the notice to an email list of 45 other federal judges, trouble began.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In response to the rather innocuous offer of scientific training,<b> Judge A. Raymond Randolph of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit went full Fox News, fatefully hitting the “reply all” button to ask why Sullivan was “subjecting our colleagues to this nonsense” and “supposedly science” material, and remind him that “the jurisdiction assigned to [Sullivan] does not include saving the planet.”</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In response, other judges rose to defend Sullivan and express concern about the “quite disturbing” and “accusatory” message Randolph sent, which ethics experts the Washington Post talked to suggested call into question Randolph’s ability to be impartial on climate-relevant cases.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is important: the Post pointed out that as of last Tuesday morning, Randolph was scheduled to be one of three judges to preside over the case challenging President Trump’s attempts to roll back the clean car standards. However, as of Tuesday evening, Randolph’s name had been replaced on the court calendar.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While both Randolph and the clerk declined to comment, the fact that someone skeptical, at best, to the scientific evidence justifying the need to reduce fossil fuel use is no longer judging a case about the issue means that for all the horrors of the reply-all, at least one good thing has come of it.</font></div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ballotpedia</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style=""><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Arthur Raymond Randolph</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> is an Article III federal judge on </span><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Senior_status" class="mw-redirect" title="Senior status" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">senior status</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> with the </span><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of_Columbia_Circuit" title="United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. He joined the court in 1990 after being</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> nominated by President <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_judges_nominated_by_George_H.W.Bush" title="Federal judges nominated by George H.W. Bush" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">George H.W. Bush</a>. He has served on <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Senior_status" class="mw-redirect" title="Senior status" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">senior status</a> since November 1, 2008</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">.</span><span id="cite_ref-FJC_Bio_1-0" class="reference" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#cite_note-FJC_Bio-1" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[1]</a></span></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Randolph ruled with the majority in a 2014 case striking down a Securities and Exchange Commission rule related to minerals mined in central Africa. Read more <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#Noteworthy_cases" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">below</a>.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Before joining the appeals court, Randolph <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#Professional_career" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">served</a> as special assistant attorney general for three states between 1983 and 1990.</font></p><h2 style="background-color: rgb(244, 244, 244); box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 10px; border-left: 5px solid rgb(50, 56, 61); padding: 10px;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Education" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Education</font></span></h2><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Born in Riverside, New Jersey, Randolph graduated from Drexel University with his B.A. in 1966, and later received a <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/J.D." class="mw-redirect" title="J.D." style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">J.D.</a> degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1969.<span id="cite_ref-FJC_Bio_1-1" class="reference" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#cite_note-FJC_Bio-1" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[1]</a></span></font></p><h2 style="background-color: rgb(244, 244, 244); box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 10px; border-left: 5px solid rgb(50, 56, 61); padding: 10px;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Professional_career" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Professional career</font></span></h2><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.3em 0px 0.6em 1.6em; padding: 0px;"><li style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">1986-1990:</span> Special assistant attorney general, State of <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Utah" title="Utah" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Utah</a></font></li><li style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">1985-1990:</span> Special assistant attorney general, State of <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/New_Mexico" title="New Mexico" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">New Mexico</a></font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">1983-1990:</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Special assistant attorney general, State of <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Montana" title="Montana" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">Montana</a></span></font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">1979-1980:</span> Special counsel, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Standards of Official Conduct</font></li><li style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">1977-1990:</span> Attorney in private practice, Washington, D.C.</font></li><li style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">1975-1977:</span> Deputy solicitor general, United States Department of Justice</font></li><li style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">1974-1978:</span> Adjunct professor of law, Georgetown University Law Center</font></li><li style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">1973-1975:</span> Attorney in private practice, Washington, D.C.</font></li><li style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">1970-1973:</span> Assistant to the solicitor general, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Department_of_Justice" class="mw-redirect" title="United States Department of Justice" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">United States Department of Justice</a></font></li><li style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">1969-1970:</span> Law clerk, Hon. Henry J. Friendly, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Second_Circuit" class="mw-redirect" title="Second Circuit" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Second Circuit</a><span id="cite_ref-FJC_Bio_1-2" class="reference" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#cite_note-FJC_Bio-1" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[1]</a></span></font></li></ul><h2 style="background-color: rgb(244, 244, 244); box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 10px; border-left: 5px solid rgb(50, 56, 61); padding: 10px;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Judicial_career" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Judicial career</font></span></h2><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On the recommendation of the at-large congressional delegation for the District of Columbia, Randolph was nominated to the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of_Columbia_Circuit" title="United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit</a> by President <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_judges_nominated_by_George_H.W.Bush" title="Federal judges nominated by George H.W. Bush" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">George H.W. Bush</a> on <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/C1990#May" class="mw-redirect" title="C1990" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">May 8, 1990</a>, to a seat vacated by <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Spottswood_Robinson" title="Spottswood Robinson" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Spottswood Robinson</a>. Randolph was confirmed by the unanimous consent of the U.S. Senate on <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/C1990#July" class="mw-redirect" title="C1990" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">July 13, 1990</a>, and received commission on <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/C1990#July" class="mw-redirect" title="C1990" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">July 16, 1990</a>.<span id="cite_ref-2" class="reference" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#cite_note-2" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[2]</a></span> Randolph assumed senior status on <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/C2008#November" class="mw-redirect" title="C2008" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">November 1, 2008</a>.<span id="cite_ref-FJC_Bio_1-3" class="reference" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#cite_note-FJC_Bio-1" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[1]</a></span></font></p><h2 style="background-color: rgb(244, 244, 244); box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 10px; border-left: 5px solid rgb(50, 56, 61); padding: 10px;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Noteworthy_cases" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Noteworthy_cases_coverage_at_Ballotpedia" title="Noteworthy cases coverage at Ballotpedia" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Noteworthy cases</font></a></span></h2><h3 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 5px;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Lawsuit_challenging_President_Trump.27s_civil_service_executive_orders.282018-2019.29" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lawsuit challenging President Trump's civil service executive orders (2018-2019)</font></span></h3><dl style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 20px;"><dd style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.42857; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-right: 0px;"><dl style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 20px;"><dd style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.42857; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-right: 0px;"><i style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">See also: <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Civil_Service_Reform_Act" title="Civil Service Reform Act" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Civil Service Reform Act</a>, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/E.O.13836" class="mw-redirect" title="E.O. 13836" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">E.O. 13836</a>, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/E.O.13837" class="mw-redirect" title="E.O. 13837" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">E.O. 13837</a>, and <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/E.O.13839" class="mw-redirect" title="E.O. 13839" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">E.O. 13839</a></font></i></dd></dl></dd></dl><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The following timeline identifies key events in a lawsuit brought by a group of</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> federal employee unions against President Trump's three civil service executive orders: </span><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Executive_Order_13837" class="mw-redirect" title="Executive Order 13837" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">Executive Order 13837</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, </span><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Executive_Order_13836" class="mw-redirect" title="Executive Order 13836" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">Executive Order 13836</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, and </span><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Executive_Order_13839" class="mw-redirect" title="Executive Order 13839" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">Executive Order 13839</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">.</span></font></p><h4 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 10px;"><span class="mw-headline" id="July_2019:D.C.Circuit_panel_reverses_district_court_ruling" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">July 2019: D.C. Circuit panel reverses district court ruling</font></span></h4><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A three-judge panel of the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of_Columbia_Circuit" title="United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit</a> on July 16, 2019, reversed and vacated the district court ruling. The judges (<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Thomas_Griffith" title="Thomas Griffith" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Thomas Griffith</a>, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Srikanth_Srinivasan" title="Srikanth Srinivasan" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Srikanth Srinivasan</a>, and <a class="mw-selflink selflink" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration: inherit; font-weight: bold;">Arthur Randolph</a>) held that the district court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the executive orders and that the plaintiffs should have brought the case before the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_Labor_Relations_Authority" title="Federal Labor Relations Authority" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Federal Labor Relations Authority</a> (FLRA) as required by the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Civil_Service_Reform_Act" title="Civil Service Reform Act" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute</a>.<span id="cite_ref-wash2_3-0" class="reference" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#cite_note-wash2-3" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[3]</a></span><span id="cite_ref-4" class="reference" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#cite_note-4" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[4]</a></span></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump administration officials on July 23, 2019, asked the D.C. Circuit to immediately lift the injunction blocking enforcement of the three civil service executive orders rather than wait for the customary 45-day grace period to expire. Plaintiffs have a 45-day grace period to file a request for the court to rehear the case. The court declined the administration's request on August 14, 2019.<span id="cite_ref-5" class="reference" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#cite_note-5" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[5]</a></span><span id="cite_ref-6" class="reference" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#cite_note-6" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[6]</a></span></font></p><h4 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 10px;"><span class="mw-headline" id="April_2019:D.C.Circuit_hears_oral_arguments_in_appeal" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">April 2019: D.C. Circuit hears oral arguments in appeal</font></span></h4><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of_Columbia_Circuit" title="United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit</a> heard oral arguments in the appeal on April 4, 2019. An attorney for the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/U.S.Department_of_Justice" title="U.S. Department of Justice" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">U.S. Department of Justice</a> (DOJ) argued that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction in the case and that the plaintiffs should have filed an unfair labor practices complaint with the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_Labor_Relations_Authority" title="Federal Labor Relations Authority" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Federal Labor Relations Authority</a> (FLRA) instead. An attorney representing the union groups countered that the FLRA lacks the authority to weigh in on governmentwide rules that are not subject to collective bargaining negotiations.<span id="cite_ref-7" class="reference" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#cite_note-7" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[7]</a></span><span id="cite_ref-8" class="reference" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#cite_note-8" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[8]</a></span></font></p><h4 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 10px;"><span class="mw-headline" id="November_2018:OPM_instructs_agencies_to_comply_with_effective_executive_order_provisions" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">November 2018: OPM instructs agencies to comply with effective executive order provisions</font></span></h4><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Office_of_Personnel_Management" class="mw-redirect" title="Office of Personnel Management" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Office of Personnel Management</a> (OPM) released a memo in November 2018 instructing federal agencies to comply with the provisions of the civil service executive orders that remained in effect, including guidelines related to employee discipline and the use of official union time.<span id="cite_ref-9" class="reference" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#cite_note-9" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[9]</a></span></font></p><h4 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 10px;"><span class="mw-headline" id="September_2018:DOJ_appeals_district_court_ruling" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">September 2018: DOJ appeals district court ruling</font></span></h4><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/U.S.Department_of_Justice" title="U.S. Department of Justice" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">DOJ</a> appealed the district court's ruling on September 25, 2018. The notice of appeal was filed with the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of_Columbia_Circuit" title="United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit</a>. Oral argument in the case was scheduled for April 4, 2019.<span id="cite_ref-10" class="reference" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#cite_note-10" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[10]</a></span><span id="cite_ref-11" class="reference" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#cite_note-11" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[11]</a></span></font></p><h4 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 10px;"><span class="mw-headline" id="August_2018:District_court_ruling_strikes_provisions_of_executive_orders" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">August 2018: District court ruling strikes provisions of executive orders</font></span></h4><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Judge <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Ketanji_Brown_Jackson" title="Ketanji Brown Jackson" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Ketanji Brown Jackson</a> of the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Columbia" title="United States District Court for the District of Columbia" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">United States District Court for the District of Columbia</a> struck down several provisions of President Trump's civil service executive orders in a ruling issued on August 25, 2018. The stricken provisions included components of the executive orders that Brown Jackson claimed conflict with federal statute, such as limitations on the amount of taxpayer-funded time that full-time federal employees can dedicate to union activities, a reduction in the amount of time that poor-performing employees can demonstrate improvement, and certain restrictions on workplace issues that federal agencies can negotiate with unions.<span id="cite_ref-wall_12-0" class="reference" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#cite_note-wall-12" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[12]</a></span><span id="cite_ref-gov_13-0" class="reference" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#cite_note-gov-13" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[13]</a></span></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/U.S.Department_of_Justice" title="U.S. Department of Justice" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">DOJ</a> representative responded to the ruling on August 25, stating that the DOJ was "reviewing the decision and considering our next steps." Then-OPM Director Jeff Pon issued a memo to all federal agencies on August 29 stating that OPM would comply with Jackson's order and encouraging compliance by other agencies. OPM also rescinded agency <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Guidance" class="mw-redirect" title="Guidance" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">guidance</a> related to the blocked provisions of the executive orders.<span id="cite_ref-wall_12-1" class="reference" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#cite_note-wall-12" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[12]</a></span><span id="cite_ref-14" class="reference" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#cite_note-14" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[14]</a></span></font></p><h4 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 10px;"><span class="mw-headline" id="May_2018:Unions_file_suit_against_civil_service_executive_orders" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">May 2018: Unions file suit against civil service executive orders</font></span></h4><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) filed a lawsuit against <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Executive_Order_13837" class="mw-redirect" title="Executive Order 13837" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Executive Order 13837</a> on May 30, 2018. The lawsuit claims that the order violates freedom of association protections under the First Amendment and alters sections of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute—Title VII of the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Civil_Service_Reform_Act" title="Civil Service Reform Act" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Civil Service Reform Act of 1978</a>—without congressional action.<span id="cite_ref-15" class="reference" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#cite_note-15" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[15]</a></span><span id="cite_ref-16" class="reference" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#cite_note-16" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[16]</a></span><span id="cite_ref-city_17-0" class="reference" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#cite_note-city-17" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[17]</a></span></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Ketanji_Brown_Jackson" title="Ketanji Brown Jackson" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Brown Jackson</a> consolidated AFGE's lawsuit with two other lawsuits challenging Trump's civil service executive orders (<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/E.O.13837" class="mw-redirect" title="E.O. 13837" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">E.O. 13837</a>, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/E.O.13836" class="mw-redirect" title="E.O. 13836" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">E.O. 13836</a>, and <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/E.O.13839" class="mw-redirect" title="E.O. 13839" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">E.O. 13839</a>) filed by the National Treasury Employees Union and a coalition of 13 smaller public sector unions. A hearing in the case took place on July 25, 2018.<span id="cite_ref-18" class="reference" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Randolph#cite_note-18" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[18]</a></span></font></p><div style="box-sizing: border-box;"><h3 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 5px;"><span class="mw-headline" id="D.C.Circuit_cannot_rule_on_filibuster_lawsuit_due_to_jurisdictional_issue.282014.29" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">D.C. Circuit cannot rule on filibuster lawsuit due to jurisdictional issue (2014)</font></span></h3><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">In April 2014, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit, comprised of Judges Randolph, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Karen_Henderson" title="Karen Henderson" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Karen Henderson</a> and <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Stephen_F.Williams" title="Stephen F. Williams" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Stephen F. Williams</a>, blocked a lawsuit filed by the advocacy group Common Cause having to do with Senate filibuster rules invoked as to the DREAM and DISCLOSE bills. The decision, written by Judge Randolph, noted that the advocacy group failed to sue the proper party, namely, the Senate itself, as it was the cause of the alleged injury in question. Judge Randolph further stated that the Senate was an "absent third party," and that the D.C. Circuit therefore lacked jurisdiction to rule on the case.</span></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Articles:</span><small style="box-sizing: border-box;" /></font></p><small style="box-sizing: border-box;"><small style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;" /></small><dl style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 20px;"><small style="box-sizing: border-box;"><small style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><small style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><small style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><small style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><dd style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.42857; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-right: 0px;"><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.3em 0px 0.6em 1.6em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a target="blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="external text" href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/filibuster-challenge-fails-in-court/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: url(" data:image="data:image" png="png" base64="base64" ivborw0kggoaaaansuheugaaaaoaaaakcayaaacnms="iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAoAAAAKCAYAAACNMs" aaaavkleqvr4xn3pgqkamqhduxfqtu7kttkpd5ra8ainfartq2irxfwt2qedafttj2fspioe1ecoleuowwjgzyab="AAAAVklEQVR4Xn3PgQkAMQhDUXfqTu7kTtkpd5RA8AInfArtQ2iRXFWT2QedAfttj2FsPIOE1eCOlEuoWWjgzYaB" ikegorxxhqb="IkeGOrxXhqB" ua9bfcm0lazuh="uA9Bfcm0lAZuh" yiead="YIeAD" caqsz4kcmuaaaaasuvork5cyii=") right center no-repeat; text-decoration-line: none; padding-right: 13px;" xmlns:data="data"><i style="box-sizing: border-box;">SCOTUSblog</i>, "Filibuster challenge fails in court," April 15, 2014</a></font></font></font></font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a target="blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="external text" href="http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/203577-dc-court-common-cause-hoist-with-its-own-petar-in-filibuster-case" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: url(" data:image="data:image" png="png" base64="base64" ivborw0kggoaaaansuheugaaaaoaaaakcayaaacnms="iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAoAAAAKCAYAAACNMs" aaaavkleqvr4xn3pgqkamqhduxfqtu7kttkpd5ra8ainfartq2irxfwt2qedafttj2fspioe1ecoleuowwjgzyab="AAAAVklEQVR4Xn3PgQkAMQhDUXfqTu7kTtkpd5RA8AInfArtQ2iRXFWT2QedAfttj2FsPIOE1eCOlEuoWWjgzYaB" ikegorxxhqb="IkeGOrxXhqB" ua9bfcm0lazuh="uA9Bfcm0lAZuh" yiead="YIeAD" caqsz4kcmuaaaaasuvork5cyii=") right center no-repeat; text-decoration-line: none; padding-right: 13px;" xmlns:data="data"><i style="box-sizing: border-box;">The Hill</i>, "D.C. Court: Common Cause 'hoist with its own petar' in filibuster case," April 15, 2014</a></li></ul></dd></small></small></small></small></small></dl><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><small style="box-sizing: border-box;" /></font></p><div style="box-sizing: border-box;"><h3 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 5px;"><small style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="mw-headline" id="D.C.Circuit_strikes_down.22conflict_minerals.22_rule_as_unconstitutional.282014.29" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">D.C. Circuit strikes down "conflict minerals" rule as unconstitutional (2014)</font></span></small></h3><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><small style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">On April 14, 2014, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit, comprised of Judges Randolph, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/David_Sentelle" title="David Sentelle" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">David Sentelle</a> and <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Srikanth_Srinivasan" title="Srikanth Srinivasan" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">Srikanth Srinivasan</a>, struck down a securities law concerning "conflict minerals" (i.e., minerals that were mined in central Africa), noting that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rule violated the First Amendment. In the opinion, Judge Randolph wrote that “[b]y compelling an issuer to confess blood on its hands, the statute interferes with that exercise of freedom of speech under the First Amendment.”</span></font></small></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><small style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Articles:</span><small style="box-sizing: border-box;" /></font></small></p><small style="box-sizing: border-box;"><small style="box-sizing: border-box;"><small style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;" /></small></small><dl style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 20px;"><small style="box-sizing: border-box;"><small style="box-sizing: border-box;"><small style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><small style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><small style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><small style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><dd style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.42857; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-right: 0px;"><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.3em 0px 0.6em 1.6em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a target="blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="external text" href="http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059997868" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: url(" data:image="data:image" png="png" base64="base64" ivborw0kggoaaaansuheugaaaaoaaaakcayaaacnms="iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAoAAAAKCAYAAACNMs" aaaavkleqvr4xn3pgqkamqhduxfqtu7kttkpd5ra8ainfartq2irxfwt2qedafttj2fspioe1ecoleuowwjgzyab="AAAAVklEQVR4Xn3PgQkAMQhDUXfqTu7kTtkpd5RA8AInfArtQ2iRXFWT2QedAfttj2FsPIOE1eCOlEuoWWjgzYaB" ikegorxxhqb="IkeGOrxXhqB" ua9bfcm0lazuh="uA9Bfcm0lAZuh" yiead="YIeAD" caqsz4kcmuaaaaasuvork5cyii=") right center no-repeat; text-decoration-line: none; padding-right: 13px;" xmlns:data="data"><i style="box-sizing: border-box;">E&E Publishing</i>, "Appeals court strikes down conflict minerals disclosure rule," April 14, 2014</a></font></font></font></font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a target="blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="external text" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/14/conflict-minerals_n_5149033.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: url(" data:image="data:image" png="png" base64="base64" ivborw0kggoaaaansuheugaaaaoaaaakcayaaacnms="iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAoAAAAKCAYAAACNMs" aaaavkleqvr4xn3pgqkamqhduxfqtu7kttkpd5ra8ainfartq2irxfwt2qedafttj2fspioe1ecoleuowwjgzyab="AAAAVklEQVR4Xn3PgQkAMQhDUXfqTu7kTtkpd5RA8AInfArtQ2iRXFWT2QedAfttj2FsPIOE1eCOlEuoWWjgzYaB" ikegorxxhqb="IkeGOrxXhqB" ua9bfcm0lazuh="uA9Bfcm0lAZuh" yiead="YIeAD" caqsz4kcmuaaaaasuvork5cyii=") right center no-repeat; text-decoration-line: none; padding-right: 13px;" xmlns:data="data"><i style="box-sizing: border-box;">Huffington Post</i>, "Conflict Minerals Disclosure Rule Struck Down By Appeals Court," April 14, 2014</a></li></ul></dd></small></small></small></small></small></small></dl><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><small style="box-sizing: border-box;" /></font></p><h2 style="background-color: rgb(244, 244, 244); box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 10px; border-left: 5px solid rgb(50, 56, 61); padding: 10px;"><small style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="mw-headline" id="See_also" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">See also</font></span></small></h2><ul style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.3em 0px 0.6em 1.6em; padding: 0px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><small style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of_Columbia_Circuit" title="United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit</font></a></small></li></ul><h2 style="background-color: rgb(244, 244, 244); box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 10px; border-left: 5px solid rgb(50, 56, 61); padding: 10px;"><small style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="mw-headline" id="External_links" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">External links</font></span></small></h2><ul style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.3em 0px 0.6em 1.6em; padding: 0px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><small style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a target="blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="external text" href="http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=1964&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: url(" data:image="data:image" png="png" base64="base64" ivborw0kggoaaaansuheugaaaaoaaaakcayaaacnms="iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAoAAAAKCAYAAACNMs" aaaavkleqvr4xn3pgqkamqhduxfqtu7kttkpd5ra8ainfartq2irxfwt2qedafttj2fspioe1ecoleuowwjgzyab="AAAAVklEQVR4Xn3PgQkAMQhDUXfqTu7kTtkpd5RA8AInfArtQ2iRXFWT2QedAfttj2FsPIOE1eCOlEuoWWjgzYaB" ikegorxxhqb="IkeGOrxXhqB" ua9bfcm0lazuh="uA9Bfcm0lAZuh" yiead="YIeAD" caqsz4kcmuaaaaasuvork5cyii=") right center no-repeat; text-decoration-line: none; padding-right: 13px;" xmlns:data="data"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><i style="box-sizing: border-box;">Federal Judicial Center</i>, "Biography of Arthur Raymond Randolph"</font></a></small></li><li /></ul></div></div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><small style="box-sizing: border-box;"><small style="box-sizing: border-box;"><small style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="">=</font></small></small></small></div>