U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson, a Trump administration appointee who bucked the president’s conservative base by blocking a Tennessee law that restricts mail-in voting, had an announcement to make before wrapping up his decision: it had nothing to do with politics. The declaration dropped as lower-court judges, like Richardson, face greater scrutiny over their perceived ideological purity. Richardson even took the step of addressing potential critics in his opinion. Richardson ruled in favor of expanding the ability of first-time voters in this reliably Republican-leaning state to cast mail-in ballots this election. But first, the lifetime-appointed judge said, he had to “address head-on the proverbial elephant in the room,” declaring his own impartiality in the case. In his Sept. 9 ruling, Richardson wrote that he was “not concerned about how his decisions could aid one side or the other on the political front.” The judge from Tennessee’s Middle District also said his personal opinions on election laws have “simply no bearing” on the constitutional claims brought before his bench. For months, President Donald Trump claimed without proof that there could be widespread voter fraud in November, even as officials in states that have relied on mail-in ballots cited little evidence of such. Nominated in 2017, Richardson wrote he could forgive someone with a “cynical view” that voting-rights lawsuits amount to “really just politics by other means” — particularly in a presidential election year. Even before the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg refocused public attention on the judiciary, Richardson’s pointed message highlighted a charged atmosphere nationwide: Judges are coming under intense scrutiny for their every action — through the lens of politics. It’s a spotlight even Trump has encouraged by stating he expects his selection of “conservative judges” to result in rulings supported by his base. “I think it’s very unusual to make it so explicit that this decision had nothing to do with the judge’s predispositions,” said Brian Fitzpatrick, a Vanderbilt University law professor. “That is something that normally should go without saying.” Trump’s assurances about his judicial picks have resonated with some of his supporters. Some cite it as justification for backing the president, even if they dislike his tone or other policies. But as Fitzpatrick noted, those who sift and weigh a judge’s decisions often overlook the fact that judges must act within the tight confines of law and jurisprudence and “don’t have unfettered discretion like politicians think they do.” Yet when those jurists, who are sworn to impartial justice, make decisions that don’t align with party politics, criticism has flowed freely at times — even from others in the co-equal branches of government including Trump himself. U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts has previously warned that political polarization is skewing how people view the judicial branch, adding that the justices are “not just another part of the political process.” Roberts, who was picked by President George W. Bush, has endured GOP anger over decisions — including recent decisions on immigration and pandemic restrictions on church gatherings. And one of Richardson’s colleagues in Nashville, another Trump appointee, took a political pounding from conservatives over an abortion ruling in July. U.S. District Judge William “Chip” Campbell blocked an effort by Tennessee Republicans to bar abortions as early as six weeks into pregnancy. The backlash became the stuff of […]

The post Trump-Appointed Judges Under An Election-Year Political Lens appeared first on The Yeshiva World.