Srikanth Srinivasan

Srikanth Srinivasan

Nonpartisan

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Tenure

2013 - Present

Years in position

11

Education

Bachelor's

Stanford University, 1989

Graduate

Stanford University, 1995

Law

Stanford University Law, 1995

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; }

Srikanth Srinivasan is the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He joined the court in 2013 after a nomination from President Barack Obama (D). Srinivasan succeeded Merrick Garland as the chief judge in 2020.

At the time of his nomination, he was the principal deputy solicitor general of the United States. Before that, he served as assistant to the solicitor general during the Bush administration and clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Early life and education

Born in Chandigarh, India, Srinivasan received his bachelor's degree, with honors, from Stanford University in 1989. He went on to attend law school at his alma mater, where he earned his J.D. and graduated with distinction in 1995. He received a joint MBA in 1995 from the Stanford Graduate School of Business.

Professional career

• 2013 - Present: Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
  • 2020 - Present: Chief judge
• 2011-2013: Principal deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice
• 2007-2011: Private practice, Washington, D.C.
• 2002-2007: Assistant to the solicitor general
• 1998-2002: Private practice, Washington, D.C.
• 1997-1998: Law clerk, Hon. Sandra Day O'Connor, Supreme Court of the United States
• 1996-1997: Bristow fellow, office of the solicitor general
• 1995-1996: Law clerk, Hon. Harvie Wilkinson, United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit

Judicial career

Possible Joe Biden nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court

On January 27, 2022, United States Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer officially announced he would retire at the start of the court's summer recess, which typically took place in late June or early July. NBC News had previously reported the retirement on January 26. On February 15, Biden announced he would nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson.

President Joe Biden (D) did not announce a list of nominees he was considering. During the retirement announcement, Biden said that: "The person I will nominate will be someone of extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity. And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court."

Srinivasan was mentioned by two or more media outlets as a possible nominee to fill Breyer's seat on the court. Click here to read more about the vacancy and nomination process.

Possible 2016 SCOTUS nominee

See also: Process to fill the vacated seat of Justice Antonin Scalia

Prior to President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, Srinivasan was mentioned as a possible nominee to replace former United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died on February 13, 2016.

Interview

On March 9, 2016, National Public Radio reported Srinivasan was interviewed by President Barack Obama as a candidate to succeed deceased Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court.

Finalist

On March 12, 2016, The Washington Post reported, per sources, that Srinivasan was one of three finalists for President Obama's nomination to succeed deceased Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. According to the Post's report, "Obama said this week that he wanted to make a decision quickly, and his announcement could come as early as next week."

On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court of the United States.

District of Columbia Circuit

Nomination Tracker
Nominee Information
Name: Srikanth Srinivasan
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Progress
Confirmed 346 days after nomination.
ANominated: June 11, 2012
AABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified
Questionnaire: Questionnaire
AHearing: April 10, 2013
QFRs: QFRs (Hover over QFRs to read more)
AReported: May 16, 2013
AConfirmed: May 23, 2013
AVote: 97-0
AReturned: January 2, 2013

Srinivasan was first nominated on June 11, 2012, by President Barack Obama to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated by Raymond Randolph. Obama commented on the nomination, stating:

“

Caitlin Halligan and Sri Srinivasan are dedicated public servants who will bring their tremendous experience, intellect, and integrity to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This important court is often called the Nation’s second-highest court, and it stands more than a quarter vacant. I remain deeply disappointed that a minority of the United States Senate blocked Ms. Halligan’s nomination last year and urge her reconsideration, especially given her broad bipartisan support from the legal and law enforcement communities. Mr. Srinivasan will be a trailblazer and, like Ms. Halligan, will serve the court with distinction and excellence.

”

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, for whom Srinivasan clerked from 1997 to 1998, commented on the nomination, stating, "It’s a wonderful choice. I’m sure he would be a good appellate court judge." She continued, "I just remember him as being a very skilled, intellectually gifted clerk. ... he’s been very serious in his work habits, and people have had an ample opportunity to see his work. I think he’s been steady and impressive."

The American Bar Association rated Srinivasan Unanimously Well Qualified for the nomination. Under provisions of Rule XXXI, paragraph six of the standing rules of the Senate, Srinivasan's nomination was returned to the president on January 3, 2013. President Obama resubmitted the nomination on January 4, 2013. Hearings on Srinivasan's nomination were held before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 10, 2013, and his nomination was reported by U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on May 16, 2013. Srinivasan was confirmed on a recorded 97-0 vote of the U.S. Senate on May 23, 2013, and he received his commission the next day.

President Obama commented on the confirmation, stating:

“

I’m pleased the Senate unanimously confirmed Sri Srinivasan to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Sri is a trailblazer who personifies the best of America. Born in Chandigarh, India, and raised in Lawrence, Kansas, Sri spent nearly two decades as an extraordinary litigator before serving as Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States. Now he will serve with distinction on the federal bench. Sri will in fact be the first South Asian American to serve as a circuit court judge in our history. While I applaud the Senate’s action, it’s important to remember that this confirmation is the first one to this important court in seven years. The three remaining vacancies must be filled, as well as other vacancies across the country.

”

Srinivasan succeeded Merrick Garland as chief judge of the court in 2020.

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.

ACA International v. Federal Communications Commission (2018)

On March 16, 2018, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its ruling in ACA International v. Federal Communications Commission, striking down a rule promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the types of equipment that can be used for making automated phone calls. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), enacted in 1991, granted the FCC the authority to interpret and enforce the law's restrictions against the use of certain kinds of automated dialing equipment. In 2015, the FCC issued an order that, among other things, classified devices capable of being transformed into automated dialing systems via the installation of apps as devices subject to the restrictions of the TCPA. Judge Srikanth Srinivasan wrote the following in the court's opinion: "The Commission’s understanding would appear to subject ordinary calls from any conventional smartphone to the Act’s coverage, an unreasonably expansive interpretation of the statute."

According to The Washington Post, Americans received a total of approximately 26.3 billion automated phone calls in 2018, a 46 percent increase over the total number of automated calls received in 2017. The increase can be attributed in part to the D.C. Circuit's ruling in ACA International v. Federal Communications Commission, which, in turning back the FCC's 2015 rule, expanded the types of equipment that could be used to make automated calls.

Defense of former Enron CEO (2010)

Srinivasan acted as Jeffrey Skilling's appellate counsel when Skilling appealed various convictions regarding his time as CEO of Enron. In 2006, Skilling was sentenced to 24 years in prison on 19 counts that included conspiracy, fraud, making false statements, and insider trading. Skilling appealed his convictions before the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in 2006, but his conviction was upheld by that court. Srinivasan appealed the conviction on Skilling's behalf before the Supreme Court of the United States in 2010, arguing that the trial had been unfair and the honest services statute, the anti-fraud clause on which part of Skilling's convictions were based, was unconstitutional. Srinivasan argued that there was a high likelihood of a biased jury since 80 percent of the potential jurors expressed negative opinions of Skilling, and the selection process was limited to five hours. He argued that the trial should have been moved to an alternate location, comparing the case to the Oklahoma City bombing case. That case was transferred to Denver for trial rather than remaining in the original jurisdiction area. Srinivasan also claimed that the honest services statute was unconstitutionally vague such that average citizens would not be able to discern what was prohibited and that the statute was overly broad in its scope.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Srinivasan's argument in 2010 that the honest services statute was unconstitutionally vague. The justices unanimously agreed that Skilling was not guilty of fraud under the honest services statute, but several wrote opinions regarding the proper scope of the statute. A majority of the court, however, rejected the claim that Skilling's trial was unfair. The case was remanded to the Fifth Circuit, which again upheld some of Skilling's criminal convictions. Skilling appealed again, but Srinivasan did not represent him as Srinivasan joined the U.S. Department of Justice in 2011. After another unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court in 2012, a federal judge reduced Skilling's sentence by about 10 years in 2013 on the condition that Skilling stop challenging his convictions and return about $42 million to victims of the fraud.

See also

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

External links

• Judge Srinivasan's biography from the Federal Judicial Center

Footnotes

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

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