Arthur Randolph

Arthur Randolph

Nonpartisan

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (senior status)

Tenure

2008 - Present

Years in position

16

Prior offices

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

---

Education

Bachelor's

Drexel University, 1966

Law

University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1969

Personal

Birthplace

New Jersey

Contact

Official website

float:right;
border:1px solid #FFB81F;
background-color: white;
width: 250px;
font-size: .9em;
margin-bottom:0px;

} .infobox p { margin-bottom: 0; } .widget-row { display: inline-block; width: 100%; margin-top: 1px; margin-bottom: 1px; } .widget-row.heading { font-size: 1.2em; } .widget-row.value-only { text-align: center; background-color: grey; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.value-only.white { background-color: #f9f9f9; } .widget-row.value-only.black { background-color: #f9f9f9; color: black; } .widget-row.Democratic { background-color: #003388; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.Republican { background-color: red; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.Independent, .widget-row.Nonpartisan, .widget-row.Constitution { background-color: grey; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.Libertarian { background-color: #f9d334; color: black; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.Green { background-color: green; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-key { width: 43%; display: inline-block; padding-left: 10px; vertical-align: top; font-weight: bold; } .widget-value { width: 57%; float: right; display: inline-block; padding-left: 10px; word-wrap: break-word; } .widget-img { width: 150px; display: block; margin: auto; } .clearfix { clear: both; }

Arthur Raymond Randolph is an Article III federal judge on senior status with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He joined the court in 1990 after being nominated by President George H.W. Bush. He has served on senior status since November 1, 2008.

Randolph ruled with the majority in a 2014 case striking down a Securities and Exchange Commission rule related to minerals mined in central Africa. Read more below.

Before joining the appeals court, Randolph served as special assistant attorney general for three states between 1983 and 1990.

Education

Born in Riverside, New Jersey, Randolph graduated from Drexel University with his B.A. in 1966, and later received a J.D. degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1969.

Professional career

• 1986-1990: Special assistant attorney general, State of Utah
• 1985-1990: Special assistant attorney general, State of New Mexico
• 1983-1990: Special assistant attorney general, State of Montana
• 1979-1980: Special counsel, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
• 1977-1990: Attorney in private practice, Washington, D.C.
• 1975-1977: Deputy solicitor general, United States Department of Justice
• 1974-1978: Adjunct professor of law, Georgetown University Law Center
• 1973-1975: Attorney in private practice, Washington, D.C.
• 1970-1973: Assistant to the solicitor general, United States Department of Justice
• 1969-1970: Law clerk, Hon. Henry J. Friendly, Second Circuit

Judicial career

On the recommendation of the at-large congressional delegation for the District of Columbia, Randolph was nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by President George H.W. Bush on May 8, 1990, to a seat vacated by Spottswood Robinson. Randolph was confirmed by the unanimous consent of the U.S. Senate on July 13, 1990, and received commission on July 16, 1990. Randolph assumed senior status on November 1, 2008.

Noteworthy cases

Legal challenges to President Trump's civil service executive orders (2018-2019)

See also: Civil Service Reform Act, E.O. 13836, E.O. 13837, and E.O. 13839

The following timeline identifies key events in a 2018-2019 lawsuit, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et. al. v. Trump, brought by a group of federal employee unions against President Donald Trump's (R) three civil service executive orders issued in May 2018: Executive Order 13837, Executive Order 13836, and Executive Order 13839.

October 2019: Injunction expires, agencies allowed to implement executive orders

The injunction blocking provisions of President Trump's three civil service executive orders expired on October 2, 2019. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on October 3 issued a mandate to implement its July 16 decision vacating the district court ruling and allowing federal agencies to fully implement the orders.

September 2019: D.C. Circuit declines rehearing request

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an order on September 25, 2019, declining to rehear American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et. al. v. Trump before the full court. The order did not provide a reason for the decision.

August 2019: Unions file for rehearing en banc before full D.C. Circuit

Federal employee unions challenging Trump's three civil service executive orders filed a petition on August 30, 2019, requesting a rehearing of American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et. al. v. Trump before the full United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit held in July that the court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the case because the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute requires labor practice complaints to be brought before the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA).

August 2019: SEIU files new lawsuit claiming civil service executive orders exceed president's constitutional authority

A chapter of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) representing U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs employees in Buffalo, New York, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York on August 13, 2019, arguing that President Trump's three civil service executive orders exceeded the president's constitutional authority and violated the Civil Service Reform Act. The union claimed that the district court had jurisdiction over the case in part because the FLRA had lacked a general counsel for almost two years—preventing the agency from hearing unfair labor practice complaints.

Because the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, the D.C. Circuit's July 2019 decision upholding the civil service executive orders was not controlling on the case.

July 2019: D.C. Circuit panel reverses district court ruling, holds district court lacked jurisdiction to issue injunction

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on July 16, 2019, reversed and vacated the district court ruling. Judges Thomas Griffith, Srikanth Srinivasan, and Arthur Randolph held that the district court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the executive orders and that the plaintiffs should have brought the case before the FLRA as required by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.

Trump administration officials on July 23, 2019, asked the D.C. Circuit to immediately lift the injunction blocking enforcement of the three civil service executive orders rather than wait for the 45-day grace period for rehearing requests to expire. The court denied the administration's request on August 14, 2019.

April 2019: D.C. Circuit hears oral arguments in appeal, DOJ claims district court lacked jurisdiction in case

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments in the appeal on April 4, 2019. An attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction in the case and that the plaintiffs should have filed an unfair labor practices complaint with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) instead. An attorney representing the union groups countered that the FLRA lacked the authority to weigh in on governmentwide rules that are not subject to collective bargaining negotiations.

November 2018: OPM instructs agencies to comply with effective executive order provisions

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) released a memo in November 2018 instructing federal agencies to comply with the provisions of the civil service executive orders that remained in effect, including guidelines related to employee discipline and the use of official union time.

September 2018: DOJ appeals district court ruling

The DOJ appealed the district court's ruling on September 25, 2018. The notice of appeal was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Oral argument in the case was scheduled for April 4, 2019.

August 2018: District court ruling strikes provisions of executive orders, cites conflict with federal statute

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia struck down several provisions of President Trump's civil service executive orders in a ruling issued on August 25, 2018. The stricken provisions included components of the executive orders that Brown Jackson claimed conflicted with federal statute, such as limitations on the amount of taxpayer-funded time that full-time federal employees can dedicate to union activities, a reduction in the amount of time that poor-performing employees can demonstrate improvement, and certain restrictions on workplace issues that federal agencies can negotiate with unions.

A DOJ representative responded to the ruling on August 25, stating that the DOJ was "reviewing the decision and considering our next steps." Then-OPM Director Jeff Pon issued a memo to all federal agencies on August 29 stating that the OPM would comply with Jackson's order and encouraging compliance by other agencies. The OPM also rescinded agency guidance related to the blocked provisions of the executive orders.

May 2018: Unions file suit against civil service executive orders, claim orders are unconstitutional and violate federal statute

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Executive Order 13837 on May 30, 2018. The lawsuit claimed that the order violates freedom of association protections under the First Amendment and alters sections of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute—Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978—without congressional action.

Brown Jackson consolidated AFGE's lawsuit with two other lawsuits challenging Trump's civil service executive orders (E.O. 13837, E.O. 13836, and E.O. 13839) filed by the National Treasury Employees Union and a coalition of 13 smaller public sector unions. A hearing in the case took place on July 25, 2018.

D.C. Circuit cannot rule on filibuster lawsuit due to jurisdictional issue (2014)

In April 2014, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit, comprised of Judges Randolph, Karen Henderson and Stephen F. Williams, blocked a lawsuit filed by the advocacy group Common Cause having to do with Senate filibuster rules invoked as to the DREAM and DISCLOSE bills. The decision, written by Judge Randolph, noted that the advocacy group failed to sue the proper party, namely, the Senate itself, as it was the cause of the alleged injury in question. Judge Randolph further stated that the Senate was an "absent third party," and that the D.C. Circuit therefore lacked jurisdiction to rule on the case.

Articles:

• SCOTUSblog, "Filibuster challenge fails in court," April 15, 2014
• The Hill, "D.C. Court: Common Cause 'hoist with its own petar' in filibuster case," April 15, 2014

D.C. Circuit strikes down "conflict minerals" rule as unconstitutional (2014)

On April 14, 2014, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit, comprised of Judges Randolph, David Sentelle and Srikanth Srinivasan, struck down a securities law concerning "conflict minerals" (i.e., minerals that were mined in central Africa), noting that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rule violated the First Amendment. In the opinion, Judge Randolph wrote that “[b]y compelling an issuer to confess blood on its hands, the statute interferes with that exercise of freedom of speech under the First Amendment.”

Articles:

• E&E Publishing, "Appeals court strikes down conflict minerals disclosure rule," April 14, 2014
• Huffington Post, "Conflict Minerals Disclosure Rule Struck Down By Appeals Court," April 14, 2014

See also

• United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

External links

• Federal Judicial Center, "Biography of Arthur Raymond Randolph"

Footnotes

Political offices
Preceded by: Spottswood Robinson	Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. 1990–2008	Succeeded by: Srikanth Srinivasan