William Orrick III

Nomination Tracker
Nominee Information
	Name: William Orrick III
	Court: Northern District of California
Progress
	Confirmed 337 days after nomination.
	Nominated: June 12, 2012
	ABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified
	Questionnaire: Questionnaire
	Hearing: July 11, 2012
	QFRs: QFRs (Hover over QFRs to read more)
	Renom. QFRs: Renom. QFRs
	Reported: February 28, 2013 (August 2, 2012)
	Confirmed: May 15, 2013
	Vote: 56-41

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; }

William Orrick III is a federal judge on senior status with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. He joined the court in 2013 after a nomination by President Barack Obama (D). He assumed senior status on May 17, 2023.^[1]^[2]

Prior to joining the court, Orrick was the deputy assistant attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division.^[3]

Federal judicial nomination

Orrick was nominated on June 12, 2012, by Barack Obama to a seat vacated by Charles Breyer on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.^[3] Obama commented on the nomination of Orrick as well as Jon S. Tigar, stating, "I am honored to put forward these highly qualified candidates for the federal bench. They will be distinguished public servants and valuable additions to the United States District Court."^[4]

Orrick was rated Unanimously Well Qualified by the American Bar Association. His hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee took place on July 11, 2012. For more information on Orrick’s hearing, see his Committee Questionnaire, Questions for the Record, and Renomination Questions for the Record.^[5]

Orrick's nomination was returned to the president on January 3, 2013. The nomination was resubmitted on January 4, 2013.^[5]

On May 15, 2013, the United States Senate confirmed Orrick with a vote of 56-41.^[6]

Early life and education

Orrick graduated cum laude with a B.A. from Yale in 1976. He went on to attend Boston College Law School, earning his J.D. cum laude in 1979.^[4]

Professional career

2013-2023: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
- 2023-present: Senior judge
2010-2013: Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
2009-2010: Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division
1988-2009: Partner, Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP
1984-1988: Associate, Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP
1979-1984: Attorney, Georgia Legal Services Program ^[4]

Noteworthy cases

Sanctuary cities executive order (2017)

On January 31, 2017, the city of San Francisco, California, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the section of the executive order that ended federal funding for communities labeled as sanctuary jurisdictions. The complaint argued that the order violated the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by coercing local authorities into ending sanctuary policies and enforcing federal immigration law. The complaint contended that the city of San Francisco would lose $1.2 billion per year, or 13 percent of its budget, for city services if its federal funding were to end. The city also sought an affirmative declaration that it was in compliance with section 1373 of Title 8 of the United States Code. Section 1373 states that subject to other federal, state, or local laws, no federal, state, or local government entities may restrict the transfer of information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual with the federal government.^[7]^[8]

On February 3, 2017, the county of Santa Clara, California, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California also challenging the executive order's directive to withhold federal funding from jurisdictions with policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The complaint argued that the order unconstitutionally coerced states and localities to participate in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. According to the complaint, such withholding of funding would jeopardize the county's ability to provide health services, public safety, and education programs. As of April 2017, 35 other cities and counties had supported the lawsuit by filing amicus briefs.^[9]^[10]

On March 21, 2017, the city of Richmond, California, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the order. The complaint argued that the order violated the Tenth Amendment by coercing localities with the threat of terminating federal funding. The complaint also contended that the executive order was vague because it did not define the term sanctuary jurisdiction and that the order would disrupt the ability of local law enforcement to maintain public safety.^[11]

These three cases were consolidated into one by the court. On April 14, 2017, San Francisco and Santa Clara County filed a joint motion for a preliminary injunction that would halt the enforcement of the executive order. The joint motion challenged the executive order using the following arguments: ^[12]

The order violated separation of powers by controlling federal spending.
The order violated the Tenth Amendment by commandeering local jurisdictions.
The order violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment by being vague and standardless.
The order violated the due process clause by depriving localities of the opportunity to challenge the loss of federal funds.

The federal government responded by arguing that San Francisco and Santa Clara County did not have standing to sue because the executive order had not changed existing law and because the jurisdictions had not been labeled sanctuary jurisdictions by the administration.^[12]

On April 25, 2017, U.S. District Judge William Orrick III issued an order granting the injunction and blocking enforcement of the executive order. Orrick found that the counties were likely to succeed on their claims that 1) the order exceeded the executive branch's constitutional power by assuming spending powers reserved for Congress and 2) the order violated the Fifth and Tenth Amendments. "Given the nationwide scope of the Order, and its apparent constitutional flaws, a nationwide injunction is appropriate," Orrick wrote. The injunction specified that it did not prevent enforcement of current law surrounding federal grants and did not prohibit the federal government from developing guidelines for what constitutes a sanctuary jurisdiction.^[12]

On November 20, 2017, The Washington Post reported that Judge Orrick modified his order to a permanent injunction. Judge Orrick declared, "The defendants are permanently enjoined from enforcing Section 9(a) of the Executive Order against jurisdictions they deem as sanctuary jurisdictions. Because Section 9(a) is unconstitutional on its face, and not simply in its application to the plaintiffs here, a nationwide injunction against the defendants other than President Trump is appropriate. ... I concluded that the County of Santa Clara and the City and County of San Francisco had pre-enforcement standing to protect hundreds of millions of dollars of federal grants from the unconstitutionally broad sweep of the Executive Order."^[13]

In his order, Judge Orrick wrote, "The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Executive Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds. Further, the Tenth Amendment requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that they not be unduly coercive ... Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves.”^[14]

Gun store barred within 500 feet of a residential area (2013)

See also: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Teixeira, et al v. County of Alameda, et al, 12-cv-03288-WHO)

John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga, and Gary Gamaz were barred from opening a gun store within 500 feet of a residential area in Alameda County due to a county zoning law. They filed suit on June 25, 2012, claiming that their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms, to due process, and to equal protection had been infringed. Their suit was first dismissed by Judge Susan Illston, who stated that under the U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the zoning law was a “presumptively valid restriction.” The businessmen amended their complaint and refiled it; however, Judge Orrick later dismissed the case on September 9, 2013. Orrick wrote that they had failed to show that the county had denied their land use permit unfairly. Orrick also stated that he was “unaware of any authority stating or implying that the Second Amendment contemplates a right to ‘convenient access to a neighborhood gun store.’” The businessmen filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on October 23, 2013.^[12] ^[15]