Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Margaret Ryan

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Margaret Ryan
Image of Margaret Ryan
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (senior status)
Tenure
Present officeholder
Prior offices
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Education

Bachelor's

Knox College

Law

University of Notre Dame Law School


Margaret Ryan is an Article I federal judge serving on the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. She joined the court on December 20, 2006, following a nomination from President George W. Bush (R).[1]

Liam Hardy was nominated by President Donald Trump (R) to replace Ryan on the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

Ryan was included on President Donald Trump’s (R) June 2018 list of 25 potential Supreme Court nominees to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the court. Trump first released such a list during his 2016 presidential campaign and stated, “This list is definitive and I will choose only from it in picking future Justices of the United States Supreme Court.”[2][3]

Early life and education

A native of Chicago, Illinois, Ryan earned her bachelor's degree cum laude from Knox College in 1985 and her J.D. summa cum laude from Notre Dame Law School in 1995. During a portion of her legal studies, she was a member of the Notre Dame Law Review. Judge Ryan also holds an honorary doctor of laws degree (LL.D.) from Pace University.[4]

Military career

A biography of Judge Ryan from Pace University described her military career:[4]

Ryan served on active duty for the United States Marine Corps from 1987 to 1999. She served in units within the second and third Marine Expeditionary Forces as a staff officer, company commander, platoon commander, and operations officer. Her tours included deployments to the Philippines during a coup attempt and to Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield and Desert Storm. She then served as a judge advocate general (JAG), and as a trial counsel and chief trial counsel in Okinawa, Japan, and Quantico, Virginia. Ryan was then selected by General Charles C. Krulak, commandant of the Marine Corps, to serve as his aide de camp. For her service, Ryan was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medals, and the Navy Marine Corps Achievement Medal. [5]

Professional career

Judicial career

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Nomination Tracker
Fedbadgesmall.png
Nominee Information
Name: Margaret Ryan
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Progress
Confirmed 24 days after nomination.
ApprovedANominated: November 15, 2006
DefeatedAABA Rating:
Questionnaire:
ApprovedAHearing: December 4, 2006
QFRs: (Hover over QFRs to read more)
ApprovedAReported: December 5, 2006 
ApprovedAConfirmed: December 9, 2006
ApprovedAVote: Voice


Ryan was nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces by President George W. Bush (R) on November 15, 2006.[6] Hearings on Ryan's nomination were held in the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services on December 4, 2006. Ryan's nomination was reported by U.S. Senator John Warner (D-Va.), on December 5, 2006. Ryan was confirmed by the full United States Senate by a voice vote on December 9, 2006.[7] Ryan's term expired on July 31, 2021.[1] As of February 14, 2022, she was serving as a senior judge on the court.

Possible Donald Trump nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court

See also: Supreme Court vacancy, 2020
See also: Possible nominees to replace Anthony Kennedy on the United States Supreme Court
See also: Process to fill the vacated seat of Justice Antonin Scalia

2020

On September 18, 2020, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, leaving a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The following day, President Donald Trump (R) said he would nominate a woman to replace Ginsburg.[8] On September 26, 2020, President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy.[9]

Ryan was among the women President Trump had previously identified as a potential Supreme Court nominee before nominating Amy Coney Barrett. President Trump released four lists of potential U.S. Supreme Court nominees; two in 2016, one in 2017, and one in 2020. Click here for more information on the vacancy and nomination process.

2018

Ryan was listed by President Donald Trump (R) as a potential Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy announced he would retire from the court effective July 31, 2018.[10] Trump ultimately chose Brett Kavanaugh as the nominee. Click here to learn more.

2017

On November 17, 2017, Ryan was included in a third list of individuals from which President Donald Trump would choose to fill vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court.

A White House statement announcing the nominees stated,[11]

One year ago, President Donald J. Trump was elected to restore the rule of law and to Make the Judiciary Great Again. Following the successful confirmation of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States and the nomination of more than seventy Federal judges—including five individuals from his Supreme Court list—President Trump today announced that he is refreshing his Supreme Court list with five additional judges. President Trump will choose a nominee for a future Supreme Court vacancy, should one arise, from this updated list of 25 individuals. The President remains deeply committed to identifying and selecting outstanding jurists in the mold of Justice Gorsuch. These additions, like those on the original list released more than a year ago, were selected with input from respected conservative leaders.[5]

Noteworthy cases

First Amendment protections clarified for UCMJ speech violations (2008)

See also: Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (U.S. v. Wilcox, Nos. 05-0159)

On July 15, 2008, Judge Margaret Ryan delivered the opinion of the court in the case of U.S. v. Wilcox. In the case, a former private first-class in the U.S. Army, Jeremy Wilcox, appealed a conviction for a violation of Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Article 134 provides for a court-martial for military personnel for "all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty."[12]

Wilcox was accused of violating Article 134 in 2000 for allegedly advocating anti-government and disloyal sentiments on the internet while identifying himself as a U.S. paratrooper and for allegedly advocating racial intolerance and racist views on the internet. This conduct was considered to be prejudicial to good order and discipline, in violation of Article 134. At trial, the government introduced testimony from an Army Criminal Investigative Division (CID) agent who communicated with Wilcox online, however "no evidence was introduced as to either the actual or potential adverse impact of Appellant’s online profile or statements on good order and discipline or to the actual or potential discredit to the armed forces."[13]

In her opinion for the court, Judge Ryan stated that Wilcox's speech was protected under the First Amendment and that the government's evidence was insufficient to substantiate the Article 134 charges against Wilcox. Ryan wrote,[13]

for any offense charged under Article 134, UCMJ, clauses 1 or 2, the government must prove: (1) that the accused did a certain act, and (2) that the act was, under the circumstances, to the prejudice of good order and discipline or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. ... In the context of the First Amendment, in order to meet the second element for conduct charged under a 'prejudice of good order and discipline' theory, we have required that the prosecution show a 'reasonably direct and palpable' connection between an appellant’s statements and the military mission. ... This Court has not directly addressed the connection needed between an appellant’s statements and the military mission in the context of speech alleged to be 'service discrediting.' We note that the Government has cited no case in which this Court has upheld a conviction in a contested case based upon a violation of Article 134, UCMJ, for service discrediting speech solely because the speech would be offensive to many or most. We conclude that a direct and palpable connection between speech and the military mission or military environment is also required for an Article 134, UCMJ, offense charged under a service discrediting theory.[5]

Under the standard announced by Judge Ryan, for a service member charged under Article 134 for speech discrediting the military to be punished, the government must demonstrate a direct and palpable connection between the speech and the military's mission or environment. Here, Judge Ryan said that such a connection was absent and reversed Wilcox's Article 134 conviction.

See also

External links

Footnotes

Political offices
Preceded by:
H.F. Gierke
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
2006–2020
Succeeded by:
Liam Hardy