Consuelo Maria Callahan

Consuelo Maria Callahan

Nonpartisan

United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit

Tenure

2003 - Present

Years in position

22

Education

Bachelor's

Stanford University, 1972

Graduate

University of Virginia School of Law, 2004

Law

University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, 1975

Personal

Birthplace

Palo Alto, Calif.

Consuelo Maria Callahan (b. 1950) is a federal judge with the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco. She joined the court in 2003 after being nominated by President George W. Bush.

Early life and education

Born in Palo Alto, California, Callahan graduated from Stanford University with her bachelor's degree in 1972, from the University of the Pacific's McGeorge School of Law with her J.D. in 1975, and from the University of Virginia School of Law with her LL.M. in 2004.

Professional career

• 1996-2003: Associate justice, California Third District Court of Appeal
• 1992-1996: Judge, Superior Court of California, San Joaquin County
• 1986-1992: Commissioner, municipal court, Stockton, Calif.
• 1976-1986: Office of the District Attorney, San Joaquin County

• 1982-1986: Supervisory district attorney
• 1976-1982: Deputy district attorney

• 1975-1976: Deputy city attorney, Stockton, Calif.

Judicial career

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Nomination Tracker
Nominee Information
Name: Consuelo Maria Callahan
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
Progress
Confirmed 99 days after nomination.
ANominated: February 12, 2003
AABA Rating: Substantial Majority Well Qualified, Minority Qualified
Questionnaire:
AHearing: May 7, 2003
Hearing Transcript: Hearing Transcript
QFRs: (Hover over QFRs to read more)
AReported: May 8, 2003
AConfirmed: May 22, 2003
AVote: 99-0

Callahan was nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit by President George W. Bush on February 12, 2003, to a seat vacated by Judge Ferdinand Francis Fernandez. The American Bar Association rated Callahan Substantial Majority Well Qualified, Minority Qualified for the nomination. Hearings on Callahan's nomination were held before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on May 7, 2003, and her nomination was reported by U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) on May 8, 2003. Callahan was confirmed on a recorded 99-0 vote of the U.S. Senate on May 22, 2003, and she received her commission on May 28, 2003.

Noteworthy cases

Divided Ninth Circuit panel rules provision in immigration law is unconstitutionally vague

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (Sessions v. Dimaya, No. 11-71307)

On October 19, 2015, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). James Garcia Dimaya was convicted for burglary under a California law. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that this conviction constituted a categorical crime of violence as defined under federal law. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Johnson v. United States that the Armed Career Criminal Act's (ACCA) residual clause definition of a violent felony was unconstitutionally vague. That language and definition, Dimaya claimed, was of similar construction to the definition of crime of violence under federal law. Accordingly, on appeal, Dimaya argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson was controlling for crimes defined as crimes of violence under U.S. immigration law. A divided Ninth Circuit panel ruled for Dimaya.

Writing for herself in dissent, Judge Consuelo Callahan rejected the panel majority's view. She wrote, "Contrary to the majority’s perspective, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Johnson v. United States ... does not infect 18 U.S.C. § 16(b)—or other statutes—with unconstitutional vagueness. Rather, the Supreme Court carefully explained that the statute there in issue, a provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) ... is unconstitutionally vague for two specific reasons: the clause (1) 'leaves grave uncertainty about how to estimate the risk posed by a crime'; and (2) 'leaves uncertainty about how much risk it takes for a crime to qualify as a violent crime.' ... In contrast, §16(b), as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit, has neither of these shortcomings. The majority’s contrary conclusion fails to appreciate the purpose of § 16(b), elevates the Supreme Court’s reference to 'ordinary cases' from an example to a rule, and ignores the Court’s statement that it was not calling other statutes into question. ... Accordingly, I dissent."

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in this case during its October 2017 term.

For more, see Sessions v. Dimaya

See also

• United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
• California Third District Court of Appeal

External links

• Judge Callahan's biography from the Federal Judicial Center

Footnotes

Political offices
Preceded by -	United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit 2003-Present	Succeeded by -