William J. Martinez
2023 - Present
2
William J. "Bill" Martinez is a federal judge on senior status with the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. He was nominated to this position by President Obama on February 24, 2010 and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate the following December 21, 2010. He received his commission that same day.[1][2] He assumed senior status on February 10, 2023.[1]
Gordon Gallagher was nominated by President Joe Biden (D) to replace Martinez on the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on September 6, 2022.
Biography
Early life and education
Martinez was born in Mexico and immigrated to the United States as a boy. He earned his B.S. degree in Environmental Engineering and his B.A. in political science from the University of Illinois. Martinez graduated from the University of Chicago Law School with his J.D. in 1980.[3][1][4]
Professional career
- 2010-2023: Judge, United States District Court for the District of Colorado
- 2023-present: Senior judge
- 2010-2023: Judge
- 1997-2010: Partner, McNamara, Roseman, Martínez and Kazmierski
- 1992-1996: Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Denver office)
- 1988-1992: Associate, Pendleton and Sabian (now Pendleton, Freidberg, Wilson & Hennessey)
- 1980-1987: Attorney, Legal Assistance Foundation in Chicago, Illinois[3][1][4]
Judicial career
District of Colorado
 |
| Nominee Information |
| Name: William J. Martinez |
| Court: District of Colorado |
| Progress |
| Confirmed 300 days after nomination. |
 Nominated: February 24, 2010
|
| ABA Rating: Unanimously Qualified
|
| Questionnaire: Questionnaire |
| Hearing: March 10, 2010
|
| QFRs: QFRs (Hover over QFRs to read more) |
| Reported: April 15, 2010
|
| Confirmed: December 21, 2010
|
| Vote: 58-37
|
Martinez was nominated for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado by President Obama on February 24, 2010. He was recommended to the President by Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet.[5] Obama called Martinez one "of our nation’s best and brightest".[3] Martinez received a rating of Unanimously Qualified from the American Bar Association.[6]
Martinez had a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 10, 2010. Ranking Republican Jeff Sessions questioned Martinez on his work with the ACLU of Colorado and asked for his stance on capitol punishment. Martinez responded:
| “ | that the U.S. Supreme Cout (sic) has ruled that capital punishment doesn’t violate the Eighth Amendment, except in narrow circumstances that have been carved out in recent years. So I think what is material and important is what my view would be as a sitting federal district judge, something that would be quite different from my views as a personal citizen or an advocate or litigant and member of the ACLU.[7][8] | ” |
You can find Martinez's Public Questionnaire Available Here and his Questions for the Record available here.
The Committee approved Martinez on April 15, 2010 with a 12-7 vote along party lines, with the Democrats favoring.[9] Martinez's nomination was confirmed by the full U.S. Senate on December 21, 2010.[2] He received his commission on December 21, 2010. He assumed senior status on February 10, 2023.[1]
Awards and associations
Awards
- Fellow, College of Labor and Employment Lawyers
- Bar Fellow, Colorado Bar Foundation
- Colorado Superior Lawyer in Employment & Labor Law
- 2008 and 2009: "The Top 50" of Colorado Super Lawyers
- Best Lawyers in America[4]
Associations
- 2009: Appointed member, Board of Directors of Colorado Legal Services
- 2009: Appointed member, Judicial Ethics Advisory Board
- Former Adjunct Professor, University of Denver College of Law
- Former Vice Chair and Member, Conduct of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
- Former board member and Officer, Faculty of Federal Advocates
- Former member, Legal Panel of the ACLU of Colorado
- Former board member, Colorado Hispanic Bar Association[3][4]
Noteworthy cases
Challenge to Colorado Amendment 71
Judge Martinez presided over the challenge to Colorado Amendment 71. Amendment 71 was approved by voters in 2016. It (1) required initiative petitioners to spread out signature gathering efforts across all of the state's 35 senate districts, making it more difficult to collect enough signatures to qualify a constitutional amendment for the ballot, and (2) imposed a 55 percent supermajority requirement for proposed constitutional amendments. Several groups challenged the amendment, arguing that it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The state moved to dismiss the lawsuit.
On February 14, 2018, Martinez denied the state's motion to dismiss. He also ordered the state to show cause by March 9, 2018, why he should not grant a permanent injunction to the plaintiffs. He concluded that the distribution requirement based on state Senate districts violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.[10]
Ortega, et al. v City of Denver (2013)
In February 2013, Judge Martinez ruled on the City of Denver's request for summary judgment in the civil case presented by Ana Alicia Ortega, Kelly Boren, Kristal Carillo and Sharelle C. Thomas. After engaging in an altercation, the plaintiffs brought suit against the city and county, including two officers who were accused of using excessive force. Asserting that no issue of fact exists, the defendants requested summary judgment of the charges. Judge Martinez granted summary judgment of the following allegations: claims for conspiracy, malicious prosecution, destruction and/or hiding of exculpatory evidence, manufacture of inculpatory evidence, First Amendment retaliation and race discrimination.[11] As of February 2013, charges of failure to train officers on proper use of force, failure to investigate and discipline prior instances of excessive force, tolerance of the Code of Silence, and false arrest/unlawful seizure were still pending.[12] Because of the nature of these claims, the plaintiffs also claimed municipal liability for the charges.
TABOR challenge (2012)
- See also: United States District Court for the District of Colorado (Kerr v. Hickenlooper, 11-cv-01350)
- See also: United States District Court for the District of Colorado (Kerr v. Hickenlooper, 11-cv-01350)
In July 2012, Judge Martinez released a ruling for a hearing on dismissal of the States of Colorado's TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights). A group of lawmakers are challenging TABOR, which requires statewide voter approval of tax increases that exceed an index created by combining inflation and population increases, claiming that a government's power to tax is granted by the United States Constitution. The government, acting as defendants and represented by Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, put forth that those bringing suit did not have standing and ultimately that this was a political question not to be determined by the courts.[13]
Judge Martinez ruled that the plaintiffs serving in the Colorado General Assembly did have standing to bring the lawsuit. Furthermore, Martinez found that the "claims are not barred by the political question doctrine."[14] There was one bright spot for the defendants, however; Judge Martinez dismissed the claim that TABOR violated the Amendment XIV, United States Constitution.[14]
The outcome of this case and the legality of TABOR are still pending, as the challenge goes to trial.[14]
Suspension of Department of Energy uranium mining continued (2011)
In February 2012, Judge Martinez refused to end the suspension of mining operations as part of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Uranium Lease Management Program. After a lawsuit was filed by the Colorado Environmental Coalition, the DOE asked the court to reconsider the suspension, which created a moratorium on mining leases in the wake of concern over an environmental assessment of the lands. Judge Martinez agreed with the plaintiffs, finding that the poorly conducted assessment violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.[15][16]
Though the original injunction disallowed the DOE from engaging in any action on the land, Judge Martinez amended that aspect to allow for the maintenance of land and for a new environmental assessment to be conducted.[17][15]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Federal Judicial Center biography
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Chicago Tribune, "New Colorado federal judge has Chicago roots," January 11, 2011
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 White House Press Release "President Obama Nominates Three for District Court Bench," February 24, 2010
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Per professional biography submitted via email on April 20, 2013
- ↑ Denver Business Journal "Martinez nominated for federal court bench," February 25, 2010
- ↑ Judicial Nomination Materials (dead link)
- ↑ Law Week Colorado "Judicial Nominee Martinez Gets Light Grilling From Senate Judiciary Committee," March 17, 2010
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ The Denver post "Senate panel approves nomination of Denver lawyer to federal post," April 16, 2010
- ↑ United States District Court for the District of Colorado, "Semple v. Williams" Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Order to Show Cause, February 14, 2018
- ↑ Link to Ortega v. Denver ruling
- ↑ Link to Ortega v. Denver ruling Pages 6-15
- ↑ Leagle.com, Kerr v. Hickenlooper, July 30, 2012
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 Denver Post, Federal judge allows legal challenge to TABOR to go forward," July 31, 2012
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 Law360.com, "Court Won't End Suspension of DOE Uranium Mining Program, February 28, 2012
- ↑ Endangered Species & Wetlands Report, "Uranium leasing program shut down in Colorado," October 21, 2011
- ↑ United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Colorado Environmental Coalition v. Office of Legacy Management and U.S. Department of Energy, October 18, 2011
| Political offices | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by Edward Nottingham |
United States District Court for the District of Colorado 2010-2023 |
Succeeded by Gordon Gallagher |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Nominated | |||
