Todd Hughes

Todd Hughes

Nonpartisan

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Tenure

2013 - Present

Years in position

11

Education

Bachelor's

Harvard University, 1989

Graduate

Duke University, 1992

Law

Duke University School of Law, 1992

Personal

Birthplace

Delaware, Ohio

Todd Hughes is an Article III judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On February 7, 2013, President Barack Obama nominated Hughes to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to fill the vacancy left by William Bryson. On September 24, 2013, the Senate confirmed Hughes' nomination. Upon his confirmation, Hughes became the first openly gay federal appeals judge.

Early life and education

An Ohio native, Hughes earned his A.B. from Harvard University in 1989. He went on to earn his J.D. from Duke University in 1992. He earned a joint Master's degree in English from Duke University that same year.

Professional career

• 1994-2013: Commercial litigation branch, United States Department of Justice

• 2007-2013: Deputy director
• 1999-2007: Assistant director
• 1994-1999: Trial attorney

• 1992-1994: Law clerk, Hon. Robert Krupansky, United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
• 1992: Instructor, The Princeton Review

Judicial career

Federal Circuit

Nomination Tracker
Nominee Information
Name: Todd Hughes
Court: Federal Circuit
Progress
Confirmed 229 days after nomination.
ANominated: February 7, 2013
AABA Rating: Unanimously Qualified
Questionnaire: Questionnaire
AHearing: June 19, 2013
QFRs: QFRs (Hover over QFRs to read more)
AReported: July 18, 2013
AConfirmed: September 24, 2013
AVote: 98-0

On February 7, 2013, President Obama nominated Hughes to a post on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, filling the spot vacated by William Bryson upon his retirement.

Hughes was rated Unanimously Qualified by the American Bar Association. Hearings on Hughes' nomination were held before the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 19, 2013, and his nomination was reported by U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on July 18, 2013. The U.S. Senate confirmed Hughes on September 24, 2013, on a 98-0 vote, and Hughes received his commission the same day.

Hughes' confirmation made him the first openly gay judge to sit on a federal appeals court. Michael Cole-Schwartz, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, had this to say about the confirmation:

“

Judge Hughes is an eminently qualified nominee who will happen to shatter a barrier as the first openly gay federal appellate court judge... It’s a testament to how far we have come as a country that his sexual orientation is irrelevant to his ability to serve on our nation’s courts.

”

Approach to the law

When asked at his nomination hearing about his judicial philosophy, Hughes responded:

“	If I am confirmed, my judicial philosophy would be that the role of a judge is to determine what the law is, relying on applicable constitutional provisions, statutes, judicial precedents, and other legal authorities, and to apply it to the facts of the case in a neutral, even-handed and equitable manner. A judge should be respectful of the parties and fully understand all details of the case and the litigants' positions.	”
—Todd Hughes

Noteworthy cases

Federal Circuit raises standard to remove federal employees (2021)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 11, 2021, set a new bar for firing federal agency employees in the case Santos v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

The court found that NASA failed to provide justification for placing its employee, Fernando Santos, on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). An agency generally issues a PIP as a signal to a poor-performing employee before initiating disciplinary action.

The three-judge panel (Judges Kathleen M. O'Malley, William Bryson, and Todd Hughes) ruled that federal law requires agencies to justify the issuance of a PIP when a fired employee challenges a PIP-based removal. Prior to the court’s decision, agencies had not been required to justify the use of a PIP.

“Allowing a PIP to serve as the pre-removal notice required by Section 4303 is not the same as allowing the mere fact of a PIP to create a presumption that the pre-PIP conduct was actually unacceptable,” wrote Judge O’Malley in the opinion. “Thus, we hold that, once an agency chooses to impose a post-PIP termination, it must prove by substantial evidence that the employee’s unacceptable performance ‘continued’—i.e., it was unacceptable before the PIP and remained so during the PIP.”

The judges remanded the case to the Merit Systems Protection Board for further proceedings.

SCOTUS vacates Federal Circuit over use of laches in patent infringement lawsuits (2017)

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Baby Quality Products)

On March 21, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment of an en banc panel of the Federal Circuit. Judge Todd Hughes issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in the case.

In certain circumstances, if a plaintiff waits too long to file a claim, a defendant can use what is known as a laches defense. Generally, a laches defense is used to show that a plaintiff has waited an unreasonable amount of time to file a claim and that this delay is prejudicial toward the defendant. In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Petrella v. MGM that laches cannot be used as a defense against copyright infringement claims if those claims were filed within the statutory period permitting such challenges. The Federal Circuit, while conforming to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Petrella for copyright cases, allows laches as a defense against timely filed patent infringement claims based on the circuit court's 1992 ruling in Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co. The statutory period of patent infringement cases is six years while the statutory period for copyright infringement cases is three years.

In the dissenting portion of his opinion, Judge Todd Hughes disagreed with his fellow panelists that the court's precedent in Aukerman survived the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Petrella. He wrote, "The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned this court not to create special rules for patent cases. In light of the Supreme Court’s clear, consistent, and longstanding position on the unavailability of laches to bar damages claims filed within a statutory limitations period, we should not do so here."

Writing for a seven-justice majority, Justice Samuel Alito vacated the circuit court's decision. In his opinion for the court, Justice Alito said, "Although the relevant statutory provisions in Petrella and this case are worded differently, Petrella’s reasoning easily fits the provision at issue here. As noted, the statute in Petrella precludes a civil action for copyright infringement 'unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.' ... We saw in this language a congressional judgment that a claim filed within three years of accrual cannot be dismissed on timeliness grounds. ... The same reasoning applies in this case. Section 286 of the Patent Act provides: 'Except as otherwise provided bylaw, no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action.' By the logic of Petrella, we infer that this provision represents a judgment by Congress that a patentee may recover damages for any infringement committed within six years of the filing of the claim."

See also

• United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

External links

• "President Obama Nominates Two to Serve on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit" 2/7/2013
• Judge Hughes' biography on the Federal Circuit website

Footnotes

Political offices
Preceded by -	United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2013-Present	Succeeded by -

Federal judges nominated by Barack Obama
Nominated	Federal judges nominated by Barack Obama