posted 04-26-2017 04:45 PM                  

The judge who struck down a Trump administration crackdown on sanctuary cities is a hard-core Democrat activist whose life has been steeped in liberal politics since childhood.

Judge William Orrick III, 63, who on Tuesday blocked the administration from withholding federal funds from cities that don't cooperate with federal immigration officials, attended the landmark 1968 Democratic National Convention as a teen and more recently raised money for 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry.

“I will not let my personal views interfere with the administration of justice," Orrick assured lawmakers in 2013, when he was confirmed as a federal judge on the District of Northern California. "I have never let my political beliefs affect my legal judgment, and believe that politics have no place in the courtroom.”

On Tuesday, in a suit brought by San Francisco and Santa Clara, Calif., Orrick blocked President Trump's executive order withholding funding from sanctuary cities, saying the president lacked the authority to attach new conditions to federal spending.

But Orrick's latest ruling, which Trump blasted as a case of "judge shopping" in a Wednesday tweet, and a prior ruling granting Planned Parenthood an injunction barring the Center for Medical Progress from releasing damning undercover videotapes of the abortion provider's employees and contractors, have raised questions about his impartiality.

“He’s definitely one of the more openly liberal-leaning judges on the bench based on several rulings he’s made over the years," said one California lawyer who has argued cases before Orrick and requested anonymity. "Many of our [9th Circuit] judges are Democratic appointees, and with most of them you feel like you would get a fair shake.

"Judge Orrick is one of the ones I feel uncomfortable having a politically charged case in front of,” he added.

Orrick got one of his first tastes of hard-knuckle politics when he was just 15 years old. He went with his father, a delegate for Robert Kennedy, who had been assassinated two months before, to the riotous 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago.

“There was fighting going on inside” the convention, as well as outside, Orrick told the Recorder in a story about prominent left-wing bundlers in August 2004.

Orrick would go on to attend Yale and Boston College Law School.

At the time of the Recorder report, Orrick was a lawyer for a San Francisco firm with deep ties to Democratic politics. He had helped organize a nationwide effort dubbed "Lawyers for Kerry” and was credited with raising more than $1 million for Kerry in the San Francisco area alone.

When Kerry announced he would not seek his party’s nomination in January 2007, a core group of a dozen or so attorneys met at Orrick’s firm, San Francisco-based Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, and “effectively became 'Lawyers for Obama,'” according to the Recorder. The group “became this kind of built-in network of fundraisers,” attorney Thomas McInerney told the Recorder. Obama wasn’t even officially in the race yet.

As a bundler for Obama, Orrick raised at least $200,000 according to records obtained by the watchdog group Public Citizen. A bundler, according to Public Citizen, “plays an enormous role in determining the success of political campaigns and are apt to receive preferential treatment if their candidate wins.”

A few months after President Obama moved into the White House, Orrick told a reporter that he wanted a job in the new administration. “I contacted anybody I could think of to say: Let me serve.”

McInerney was quoted as saying, "He's not in it for glory. He's doing it because he really believes in Obama."

Orrick's first position was in the Civil Division of President Obama’s Department of Justice. Near the end of Obama's second term, he was appointed to his current post.

Other attorneys, also anonymously, have complained publicly about Orrick. One commenter on the blog The Robing Room called Orrick a “social justice activist for whom the rule of law is a quaint, malleable notion of no import.”

The Robing Room is a nationwide database of judges that contains 100,000 state and federal reviews of judges. “Posters are attorneys, litigants and court personnel,” said Robing Room Vice President Nicholas Kaizer, an attorney in New York.

“The comments reflect the judge’s bias,” said Kaizer, who acknowledged he has no professional experience with Orrick, but analyzed the comments for Fox News. “The general flavor reflects a judge that values form over substance, is results-oriented, and somebody that directs litigation to a preordained, predetermined outcome. And that reflects a judge that is not well regarded by counsel.”

Kaizer believes comments on his site paint an accurate picture of Orrick.

“If there’s one or two critical comments it’s anomalous, but we’re seeing 4 or 5 or more," he said. "I think you can draw conclusions that what each individual reviewer is saying is accurate and it’s buttressed by the other reviewers.”

While Orrick's latest decision may earn him more detractors, it will likely also prompt others to agree with an earlier assessment by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

“William Orrick will be an outstanding addition to the Northern District bench," Boxer said after recommending him for his current post. "He brings a depth of legal experience in both the public and private sectors.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/26/sanctuary-cit ies-fight-judge-who-blocked-trump-order-democrat-activist.html

posted 04-26-2017 04:59 PM                  

By Gregg Jarrett
·Published April 26, 2017 ·
Fox News

The federal judge who ruled against President Trump’s effort to withhold money from so-called sanctuary cities had no business presiding over the case.

The appearance of partiality should have been enough for Judge William Orrick to disqualify himself. His established record of political and personal bias demanded recusal. I’m betting he didn’t even consider it.

Orrick came into the case with glaring conflicts of interest.

First, he was an accomplished “bundler” for Barack Obama, raising over $200,000 and personally donating more than $30,000. Later, he was rewarded with a federal judgeship. So, his political favoritism is more conspicuous than it would be for your average federal judge.

Second, Orrick worked on key immigration cases for Obama’s Justice Department, overseeing the Office of Immigration Litigation. He worked on cases that dealt directly with federal pre-emption of local immigration laws -- the same subject matter over which he now presides.

Because of his potential conflicts, he promised during his confirmation hearing to recuse himself from “cases involving issues, policies or initiatives developed by the Obama administration” in which he was involved at the Department of Justice.

What were they? Well, for one, the Obama administration deliberately chose not to pursue sanctuary cities that were violating the 1996 federal law requiring them to cooperate with federal immigration agencies like ICE. Was he involved in that decision? Unclear. But the appearance is unsettling.

Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for federal judges states, “A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities”. It requires judges to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary”.

Statutory law is more specific. Under 28 USC 455, “A judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned.”

Further, he must recuse himself “where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party…”

So, under these governing standards, would a reasonable person question Orrick’s impartiality? I believe so.

Does he harbor a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, specifically President Trump, who vowed to reverse President Obama’s immigration policies on which Orrick worked? Probably.

Did he create the appearance of impropriety by presiding over the sanctuary cities case? Absolutely.

It should come as no surprise that Orrick has a history of opposing judicial recusal.

Two years ago, he blocked the release of videos exposing Planned Parenthood’s alleged involvement in abortion-related activity. He did not seem ethically bothered that his wife is considered a pro-abortion activist, as described in multiple publications including The Federalist.

Yet, Judge Orrick did not disqualify himself even though Title 28 demands disqualification in any case in which a judge’s spouse has “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding”. Again, it’s the appearance thing.

In another case, Orrick ruled that two judges did not have to recuse themselves from presiding over a case in which the judges themselves were named as defendants. Really? A judge gets to sit in judgment of himself when he’s sued?

One can reasonably conclude that in Orrick’s judicial universe, “recusal” doesn’t exist under any circumstances.

It should come as no surprise that Orrick ruled against President Trump in the sanctuary cities case. His predisposition can be seen in the opinion itself. He twisted the law to fit his own devices. It was the act of a judicial contortionist.

As I explained in a recent column, cities like San Francisco, that actively protect illegal immigrants, are breaking the law established by Congress 21 years ago. It prohibits local governments from obstructing federal officials in their enforcement of that law.

The president is legally permitted to withhold federal funds, as long as the money is related to immigration and law enforcement… which is precisely what the administration has warned.

If the case ever reaches the Supreme Court, President Trump stands an excellent chance of prevailing. Until then, he must tolerate activist judges who yearn to write laws instead of interpret them.

Along the way, the public’s confidence in a fair and impartial judiciary is being steadily eroded.