Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Brett Talley

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 14:19, 6 August 2021 by Maintenance script (contribs) (Inventory category installation for: Former_Federal_court_nominees)
Jump to: navigation, search
Brett J. Talley
Image of Brett J. Talley

Nonpartisan

Education

Bachelor's

University of Alabama, 2004

Law

Harvard Law School, 2007


Brett Joseph Talley is a deputy assistant attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice. On September 7, 2017, Talley was nominated to a seat on the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama by President Donald Trump (R).[1][2][3] On December 13, 2017, the White House announced that it would not move forward with Talley's nomination.[4]

Education

Talley earned his bachelor's degree, summa cum laude, from the University of Alabama in 2004 as a Phi Beta Kappa graduate. He earned his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 2007. During a period of his legal studies, Talley served as articles editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.[1][5]

Professional career

Federal judicial nomination

See also: Federal judges nominated by Donald Trump

Middle District of Alabama

Nomination Tracker
Fedbadgesmall.png
Nominee Information
Name: Brett Joseph Talley
Court: United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
Progress
Withdrawn 118 days after nomination.
ApprovedANominated: September 7, 2017
ApprovedAABA Rating: Unanimously Not Qualified
Questionnaire: Questionnaire
ApprovedAHearing: October 17, 2017
QFRs: (Hover over QFRs to read more)
ApprovedAReported: November 9, 2017 
DefeatedAConfirmed:
DefeatedAWithdrawn: January 3, 2018

Talley was nominated by President Donald Trump (R) on September 7, 2017, to a seat on the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama vacated by Mark Fuller. The American Bar Association rated Talley Unanimously Not Qualified for the nomination. Hearings on Talley's nomination were held before the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 17, 2017, and his nomination was reported by U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on November 9, 2017.[1][2][6] On December 13, 2017, the White House announced that it would not move forward with Talley's nomination.[4]

Regarding the ABA's rating that Talley was not qualified for the nomination, the ABA released a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and to the committee's ranking member, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), with a brief explanation of the rating. That letter is presented here:[7]

Reaction to Talley's ABA rating

Senator Luther Strange (R-Ala.), who introduced Talley at Talley's confirmation hearing on October 17, 2017, issued a statement on November 13, 2017, indicating his support for Talley. The statement read,[8]

“

Confirming Brett Talley as district judge will mark only the latest chapter in his distinguished career of public service. As my Deputy Solicitor General in Alabama, he applied his reverence for the Constitution and the rule of law to crucial cases, arguing multiple times before 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and building a reputation for professionalism. Brett Talley’s record reflects a nominee well-equipped to serve on the federal bench, and he has my full confidence and endorsement.[9]

”

Disclosure of wife's career

On November 13, 2017, The New York Times reported that Talley failed to disclose a potential conflict of interest on his Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, which was submitted to the committee in September. Talley did not disclose that his wife, Ann Donaldson, was chief of staff to Don McGahn, who is President Trump's White House counsel. The questionnaire required Talley to "identify the family members or other persons, parties, categories of litigation, and financial arrangements that are likely to present potential conflicts-of-interest."[10]

Talley did not identify any individual by name when answering the question. He wrote,[11]

“

If confirmed, I will recuse in any litigation where I have ever played a role. I will also recuse in any case that was handled by the Solicitor General's Office during my time with the Alabama Attorney General. I will evaluate any other real or potential conflict, or relationships that could give rise to the appearance of conflict, on a case by case basis and determine appropriate action with the advice of parties and their counsel, including recusal where necessary.[9]

”

Responses to the ABA's ratings

See also: ABA ratings during the Trump administration

The ABA's assessment in 2017 that some of President Trump's judicial nominees were not qualified for their positions prompted responses from senators and from various media outlets. Below is a sampling of the reactions from various public officials and media outlets.

Support for the ABA's role in nominations

In an editorial published on November 14, 2017, the editorial board of The Los Angeles Times argued that the ABA should not be removed from the process and that the president should re-engage with the ABA on nominations. "The ABA isn't infallible, but it has a record of evaluating prospective judges in a fair and bipartisan way. Evaluators from its Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary conduct confidential interviews with people who worked with prospective nominees and then rate the candidates on the basis of experience, integrity and temperament. If it has a bias, it is in favor of litigators," the editorial stated.[12]

Democratic senators maintained that the ABA was a neutral evaluator.[13] Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) stated, "I think most people understand what's going on here. They are really picking people for the lifetime appointments on the federal bench who have questionable backgrounds and questionable experience."[13] Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.) argued that the ABA's rating was "the one legally-oriented counsel that we get," while Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) argued that it was "deeply regrettable that some members of the Senate are suggesting that it’s a partisan organization."[13]

Criticism of the ABA's role

The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial published on November 14, 2017, argued that ABA ratings should be disregarded entirely during the review process. The editorial stated, "If Republicans are serious about getting President Trump’s judicial nominees confirmed, they will have to rid themselves of the fiction of a politically neutral American Bar Association. The outfit’s recent antics provide ample reason to remove it from Senate vetting."[14] A report in The New York Times indicated that the administration was "considering advising future nominees not to submit to interviews by the association or sign confidentiality waivers that provide its evaluators access to disciplinary records."[12]

Following the ABA's not qualified ratings, Republicans criticized the ABA's process, arguing that it was partisan and should not be considered a neutral evaluator. Senator Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) stated on the Senate floor, "We should completely dispel with the fiction that the American Bar Association is a fair and impartial arbiter of facts. This is a sad reality, but it is the reality."[15][16] Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) argued that the ABA "has demonstrated over past decades repeatedly partisan interests and ideological interests," while Senator Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) argued that the ABA was "blatantly political. Often. Not always."[13]

ABA testimony, November 15, 2017

In a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on November 15, 2017, Pamela Bresnahan, the chair of the ABA's standing committee on the federal judiciary, was invited to testify about the Grasz nomination specifically and the ABA review process generally. Bresnahan provided a supplemental statement to the committee as a portion of her committee testimony. This statement was an additional response to the ABA's October 30, 2017, statement attending the ABA's not qualified rating of Grasz's nomination. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who chaired the committee meeting on behalf of the Senate Judiciary Committee chair, Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), indicated after Bresnahan's testimony that the record would be kept open for one week in order for senators to present questions for the record that the ABA would be afforded an opportunity to answer.

The following day, Senator Grassley chaired an executive business meeting of the Judiciary Committee. Grassley, in prepared remarks, acknowledged that he would have more to say on specific nominees rated not qualified by the ABA at a later date, but stated, "Of course, the ABA doesn’t share the names of those who said this because they claim it allows for the interviewees to be more candid about a nominee. This certainly may be true. But it’s also true that there is another particular danger in giving too much power to testimony that comes from folks who know they won’t ever be held accountable for their words or accusations."[17]

For more on Talley's ABA rating, see ABA ratings during the Trump administration

Nomination not moving forward

On December 13, 2017, the White House announced that it would not move forward with Talley's nomination.[4] On December 12, 2017, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley had urged the administration to withdraw Talley's nomination.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many Grassley expressed concern about Talley's failure to disclose his wife's position within the administration and about statements Talley had made in blog posts.[18]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 The White House, "President Donald J. Trump announces seventh wave of judicial candidates," September 7, 2017
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 United States Congress, "PN 993 — Brett Joseph Talley — The Judiciary," accessed September 9, 2017
  3. ↑ The White House, "Nine nominations sent to the Senate today," September 7, 2017
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 NPR, "White House: Nomination of Alabama Lawyer Brett Talley 'Will Not Be Moving Forward'," December 13, 2017
  5. ↑ American Bar Association, "Ratings of Article III and Article IV judicial nominees, 115th Congress," accessed November 8, 2017
  6. ↑ American Bar Association, "Letter to the Honorable Charles E. Grassley and the Honorable Dianne Feinstein re: Nomination of Brett Joseph Talley to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama," November 7, 2017
  7. ↑ Senator Luther Strange, "Strange issues statement on nomination of Brett Talley," November 13, 2017
  8. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  9. ↑ The New York Times, "Trump judicial pick did not disclose he is married to a White House lawyer," November 13, 2017
  10. ↑ https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/talley-sjq Senate Judiciary Committee, "Questionnaire for judicial nominees - Brett Joseph Talley," accessed November 13, 2017]
  11. ↑ 12.0 12.1 The Los Angeles Times, "Trump is dangerously cutting corners in his quest to remake the Judiciary," November 14, 2017
  12. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 Politico, "Republicans step up defense of ‘not qualified’ judicial nominees," December 10, 2017
  13. ↑ The White House, "WSJ Editorial Board: "Ruling Out the ABA on Judges," November 14, 2017
  14. ↑ U.S. News & World Report, "Senate OKs 2 Lawyers ABA Says Are ‘Not Qualified’," November 9, 2017
  15. ↑ YouTube, "Ben Sasse takes apart the ABA's smear campaign against Steve Grasz," November 2, 2017
  16. ↑ Senate Judiciary Committee, "Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley," November 16, 2017
  17. ↑ Reuters, "Senator Grassley expresses reservations on two Trump judge nominees," December 12, 2017
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Brett_Talley&oldid=8438764"