This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org

Sandbox: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:


Do not put <u>anything</u> on this page that you want to stick around.
Do not put <u>anything</u> on this page that you want to stick around.
====Selected rulings====
In ''[[American Meat Institute v. U.S. Department of Agriculture]]'' (2013), Jackson rejected the meat packing industry's request for a preliminary injunction to block a U.S. Department of Agriculture rule requiring them to identify animals' country of origin. Jackson found that the rule likely did not violate the First Amendment.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Abbott |first=Charles |date=September 11, 2013 |title=New U.S. meat label rule survives challenge by meat packers |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-meat-labeling-idUSBRE98A14U20130911 |url-status=live |access-date=May 20, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191002003455/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-meat-labeling-idUSBRE98A14U20130911 |archive-date=October 2, 2019}}</ref><ref>''American Meat Institute v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture'', 968 F.Supp.2d 38 (D.D.C. 2013).</ref>


===District Court===
In ''[[Depomed v. Department of Health and Human Services]]'' (2014), Jackson ruled that the Food and Drug Administration had violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it failed to grant pharmaceutical company Depomed market exclusivity for its orphan drug, Gralise. Jackson concluded that the Orphan Drug Act required to FDA to grant Gralise exclusivity.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kearn |first=Rebekah |date=September 12, 2014 |title=Orphan Drugmaker{{!}}Wins Exclusivity |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/orphan-drugmakerwins-exclusivity/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201025231033/https://www.courthousenews.com/orphan-drugmakerwins-exclusivity/ |archive-date=October 25, 2020 |access-date=September 20, 2020 |language=en-US}}</ref>
On September 20, 2012, Obama nominated Jackson to serve as a judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to the seat vacated by retiring Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr.<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 20, 2012 |title=President Obama Nominates Two to the United States District Courts |url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/20/president-obama-nominates-two-united-states-district-courts |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210411040310/https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/20/president-obama-nominates-two-united-states-district-courts |archive-date=April 11, 2021 |access-date=March 3, 2021 |website=[[whitehouse.gov]] |via=[[NARA|National Archives]]}}</ref> Jackson was introduced at her December 2012 confirmation hearing by Republican Paul Ryan, a relative through marriage, who said "Our politics may differ, but my praise for Ketanji's intellect, for her character, for her integrity, it is unequivocal."<ref name="nyt" /> On February 14, 2013, her nomination was reported to the full Senate by voice vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee.<ref>{{Cite web |date=January 3, 2013 |title=President Obama Re-nominates Thirty-Three to Federal Judgeships |url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/03/president-obama-re-nominates-thirty-three-federal-judgeships |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200407085130/https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/03/president-obama-re-nominates-thirty-three-federal-judgeships |archive-date=April 7, 2020 |access-date=March 3, 2021 |website=[[whitehouse.gov]] |via=[[NARA|National Archives]]}}</ref> She was confirmed by the full Senate by voice vote on March 22, 2013. She received her commission on March 26, 2013<ref name="fjc.gov" /> and was sworn in by Justice Breyer in May 2013.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Valencia |first=Milton J. |date=February 25, 2022 |title=Who is Ketanji Brown Jackson, Biden's pick for US Supreme Court? |work=The Boston Globe |url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/02/25/nation/who-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-bidens-nominee-us-supreme-court |accessdate=February 25, 2022}}</ref>  


During her time on the District Court, Jackson wrote multiple decisions adverse to the positions of the Trump administration. In her opinion ordering Trump's former White House counsel Donald McGahn to comply with a legislative subpoena, she wrote "presidents are not kings".<ref>{{Cite news |last=Marimow |first=Ann |date=June 14, 2021 |title=Senate confirms D.C. Circuit nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace Merrick Garland |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson-sentate-confirmation-vote/2021/06/14/14da742a-cd3a-11eb-8014-2f3926ca24d9_story.html |url-status=live |access-date=June 18, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210615125504/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson-sentate-confirmation-vote/2021/06/14/14da742a-cd3a-11eb-8014-2f3926ca24d9_story.html |archive-date=June 15, 2021}}</ref> Jackson handled a number of challenges to executive agency actions that raised questions of [[Administrative Law|administrative law]]. She also issued rulings in several cases that gained particular political attention.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Savage |first=Charlie |date=January 26, 2022 |title=Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is among the leading candidates to succeed Justice Breyer. |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/us/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court.html |url-status=live |access-date=February 1, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220201215753/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/us/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court.html |archive-date=February 1, 2022}}</ref>
In ''[[Pierce v. District of Columbia]]'' (2015), Jackson ruled that the D.C. Department of Corrections violated the rights of a deaf inmate under the Americans with Disabilities Act because jail officials failed to assess the inmate's need for accommodations when he first arrived at the jail.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Zapotosky |first=Matt |date=September 12, 2015 |title=Judge rules D.C. Corrections must pay damages in case of deaf inmate |language=en-US |work=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/judge-rules-dc-corrections-must-pay-damages-in-case-of-deaf-inmate/2015/09/12/34a9fda4-58bd-11e5-abe9-27d53f250b11_story.html |url-status=live |access-date=September 20, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210207153758/https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/judge-rules-dc-corrections-must-pay-damages-in-case-of-deaf-inmate/2015/09/12/34a9fda4-58bd-11e5-abe9-27d53f250b11_story.html |archive-date=February 7, 2021 |issn=0190-8286}}</ref>


''Bloomberg Law'' reported in spring 2021 that conservative activists were pointing to certain decisions by Jackson that had been reversed on appeal as a "potential blemish on her record".<ref name=":0" /> In 2019, Jackson ruled that provisions in three Trump executive orders conflicted with federal employee rights to collective bargaining. Her decision was reversed unanimously by the D.C. Circuit. Another 2019 decision, involving a challenge to a Department of Homeland Security decision to expand the agency's definition of which noncitizens could be deported, was also reversed by the D.C. Circuit. Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, defended Jackson's record, saying Jackson "has written nearly 600 opinions and been reversed [fewer] than twelve times".<ref name=":0">{{Cite news |last=Alder |first=Madison |date=April 28, 2021 |title=Circuit Pick Jackson's Reversals a Likely Target for GOP |language=en |work=news.bloomberglaw.com |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/circuit-pick-jacksons-reversals-a-likely-target-for-senate-gop |url-status=live |access-date=February 1, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220201203410/https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/circuit-pick-jacksons-reversals-a-likely-target-for-senate-gop |archive-date=February 1, 2022}}</ref>
In April and June 2018, Jackson presided over two cases challenging the Department of Health and Human Services' decision to terminate grants for teen pregnancy prevention programs two years early.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hansler |first=Jennifer |date=June 4, 2018 |title=HHS loses another court battle over teen pregnancy prevention grant funding |url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/02/politics/hhs-teen-pregnancy-program-dc-district-court/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201128143954/https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/02/politics/hhs-teen-pregnancy-program-dc-district-court/index.html |archive-date=November 28, 2020 |access-date=September 21, 2020 |website=CNN}}</ref> Jackson ruled that the decision to terminate the grants early, without any explanation for doing so, was arbitrary and capricious.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Barbash |first=Fred |last2=Paul |first2=Deanna |date=March 19, 2019 |title=The real reason the Trump administration is constantly losing in court |language=en-US |work=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-real-reason-president-trump-is-constantly-losing-in-court/2019/03/19/f5ffb056-33a8-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html |url-status=live |access-date=September 21, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200924110102/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-real-reason-president-trump-is-constantly-losing-in-court/2019/03/19/f5ffb056-33a8-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html |archive-date=September 24, 2020 |issn=0190-8286}}</ref>
 
In ''[[American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump]]'' (2018), Jackson invalidated provisions of three executive orders that would have limited the time federal employee labor union officials could spend with union members, the issues that unions could bargain over in negotiations, and the rights of disciplined workers to appeal disciplinary actions. Jackson concluded that the executive orders violated the right of federal employees to collectively bargain, as guaranteed by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Vazquez |first=Maegan |date=August 25, 2018 |title=Judge strikes down sections of Trump exec orders for federal workers in victory for unions |url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/25/politics/donald-trump-executive-orders-unions/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201019153652/https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/25/politics/donald-trump-executive-orders-unions/index.html |archive-date=October 19, 2020 |access-date=May 20, 2020 |website=[[CNN]]}}</ref> The D.C. Circuit vacated this ruling on jurisdictional grounds in 2019.<ref>''American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump'', 318 F.Supp.3d 370 (D.D.C. 2018), ''vacated'', 929 F.3d 748 (D.C. Cir. 2019).</ref>
 
In 2018, Jackson dismissed that 40 wrongful death and product liability lawsuits stemming from the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which had been combined into a single multidistrict litigation. Jackson held that under the doctrine of ''forum non conveniens'', the suits should be brought in Malaysia, not the United States. The D.C. Circuit affirmed this ruling in 2020.<ref>''In re Air Crash Over Southern Indian Ocean on March 8, 2014'', 352 F.Supp.3d 19 (D.D.C. 2018), ''aff'd'', 946 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 2020).</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Stempel |first=Jonathan |date=November 23, 2018 |title=U.S. judge dismisses litigation over missing Malaysia Airlines flight |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-malaysiaairlines-mh370-lawsuit-idUSKCN1NS25B |url-status=live |access-date=May 20, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201120180052/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-malaysiaairlines-mh370-lawsuit-idUSKCN1NS25B |archive-date=November 20, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=December 12, 2018 |title=Judge Dismisses US Lawsuits Filed Over Malaysia Airlines Disappearance |url=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/judge-dismisses-us-lawsuits-filed-101631778.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220129004837/https://finance.yahoo.com/news/judge-dismisses-us-lawsuits-filed-101631778.html |archive-date=January 29, 2022 |access-date=May 20, 2020 |website=[[Yahoo! Finance]] |language=en-US}}</ref>
 
In 2019, in ''Center for Biological Diversity v. McAleenan'', Jackson held that Congress had, through the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to hear non-constitutional challenges to the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security's decision to waive certain environmental requirements to facilitate construction of a [[Mexico–United States barrier|border wall]] on the United States and Mexico border.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Grzincic |first=Barbara |date=September 6, 2019 |title=IN BRIEF: Trump administration can waive enviro laws for border wall - judge |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/border-wall-waiver-lawsuit-idUSL2N25X00X |url-status=live |access-date=May 20, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190909091550/https://www.reuters.com/article/border-wall-waiver-lawsuit-idUSL2N25X00X |archive-date=September 9, 2019}}</ref>
 
In 2019, Jackson issued a preliminary injunction in ''Make The Road New York v. McAleenan'', blocking an agency rule that would have expanded "fast-track" deportations without immigration court hearings for undocumented immigrants.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Hsu |first=Spencer S. |date=September 28, 2019 |title=Judge bars Trump fast-track deportation policy, saying threat to legal migrants was not assessed |language=en |work=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/judge-bars-trump-fast-track-deportation-policy-saying-threat-to-legal-migrants-was-not-assessed/2019/09/28/cf3d237e-e1ed-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html |url-status=live |access-date=May 20, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200625033827/https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/judge-bars-trump-fast-track-deportation-policy-saying-threat-to-legal-migrants-was-not-assessed/2019/09/28/cf3d237e-e1ed-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html |archive-date=June 25, 2020}}</ref> Jackson found that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had violated the Administrative Procedure Act because its decision was arbitrary and capricious and the agency did not seek public comment before issuing the rule.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Gerstein |first=Josh |date=September 28, 2019 |title=Judge blocks Trump plan to expand fast-track deportations |work=Politico |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/28/judge-blocks-trump-fast-track-deportations-007717 |url-status=live |access-date=May 20, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200625181818/https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/28/judge-blocks-trump-fast-track-deportations-007717 |archive-date=June 25, 2020}}</ref>
 
In 2019, Jackson issued a ruling in ''Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn'' in which the House Committee on the Judiciary sued Don McGahn, former White House Counsel for the Trump administration, to compel him to comply with the subpoena to appear at a hearing on its [[Data_Visualizations/Impeachment|impeachment inquiry]] on issues of alleged obstruction of justice by the administration. McGahn declined to comply with the subpoena after U.S. President Donald Trump, relying on a legal theory of executive testimonial immunity, ordered McGahn not to testify. In a lengthy opinion, Jackson ruled in favor of the House Committee and held that senior-level presidential aides "who have been subpoenaed for testimony by an authorized committee of Congress must appear for testimony in response to that subpoena" even if the President orders them not to do so.<ref>{{Cite web |date=November 25, 2019 |title=Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, No. 19-cv-2379 (KBJ), Slip Op. at 116 |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191206055200/https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2019cv2379-46}}</ref> Jackson rejected the administration's assertion of executive testimonial immunity by holding that "with respect to senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist."<ref name="autogenerated1">{{Cite web |date=November 25, 2019 |title=Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, No. 19-cv-2379 (KBJ), Slip Op. at 115 |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191206055200/https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2019cv2379-46}}.</ref> According to Jackson, that conclusion was "inescapable precisely because compulsory appearance by dint of a subpoena is a legal construct, not a political one, and per the Constitution, no one is above the law."<ref name="autogenerated1" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomsen |first=Jacqueline |date=November 25, 2019 |title='No One Is Above the Law': Judge Says Donald McGahn Must Comply With House Subpoena for His Testimony |work=Law.com |url=https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/11/25/no-one-is-above-the-law-judge-says-donald-mcgahn-must-comply-with-house-subpoena-for-his-testimony/?slreturn=20191026004215 |url-status=live |access-date=November 26, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220129073944/https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/11/25/no-one-is-above-the-law-judge-says-donald-mcgahn-must-comply-with-house-subpoena-for-his-testimony/?slreturn=20191026004215 |archive-date=January 29, 2022}}.</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Samuelsohn |first=Darren |last2=Cheney |first2=Kyle |last3=Desiderio |first3=Andrew |date=November 25, 2019 |title=Don McGahn must testify about time as White House lawyer, judge rules |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/25/mueller-star-witness-must-testify-to-congress-judge-rules-073622 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191126213847/https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/25/mueller-star-witness-must-testify-to-congress-judge-rules-073622 |archive-date=November 26, 2019 |access-date=November 26, 2019 |website=Politico |language=en}}</ref> Jackson's use of the phrase "presidents are not kings" gained popular attention in subsequent media reporting on the ruling.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Durkee |first=Alison |date=November 25, 2019 |title='Presidents Are Not Kings': Federal Judge Destroys Trump's 'Absolute Immunity' Defense Against Impeachment |url=https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11/mcgahn-testify-subpoena-absolute-immunity-ruling |url-status=live |magazine=[[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]] |language=en |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200709001234/https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11/mcgahn-testify-subpoena-absolute-immunity-ruling |archive-date=July 9, 2020 |access-date=May 20, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Yaeger |first=Lynn |date=December 1, 2019 |title=The Week in Washington: 'Presidents Are Not Kings!' |url=https://www.vogue.com/article/the-week-in-washington-president-donald-trump-presidents-are-not-kings |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200924153809/https://www.vogue.com/article/the-week-in-washington-president-donald-trump-presidents-are-not-kings |archive-date=September 24, 2020 |access-date=May 20, 2020 |website=[[Vogue (magazine)|Vogue]] |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=November 26, 2019 |title=Judge tells Trump he's not a king – the President is not so sure |url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/politics/donald-trump-constitution-supreme-court-executive-power/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200520044051/https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/politics/donald-trump-constitution-supreme-court-executive-power/index.html |archive-date=May 20, 2020 |access-date=May 20, 2020 |website=[[CNN]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Reilly |first=Ryan J. |date=November 25, 2019 |title='Presidents Are Not Kings': Judge Orders Trump Lawyer McGahn To Testify Before Congress |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/don-mcgahn-testimony-ruling-trump-mueller-ukraine_n_5ddbf046e4b0d50f3293d9d7 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200513081224/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/don-mcgahn-testimony-ruling-trump-mueller-ukraine_n_5ddbf046e4b0d50f3293d9d7 |archive-date=May 13, 2020 |access-date=May 20, 2020 |website=[[Huffington Post]] |language=en}}</ref> In noting that Jackson took four months to resolve the case, including writing a 120 page opinion, ''The Washington Post'' wrote: "That slow pace contributed to helping Mr. Trump run out the clock on the congressional oversight effort before the 2020 election."<ref name="nyt" /> The ruling was appealed by the U.S. Department of Justice,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hsu |first=Spencer S. |date=November 28, 2019 |title=Appeals court stays ruling that former White House counsel Donald McGahn must comply with House subpoena |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/justice-department-asks-to-stay-court-ruling-that-former-white-house-counsel-donald-mcgahn-must-comply-with-house-subpoena-pending-appeal/2019/11/27/ddf2c708-112b-11ea-b0fc-62cc38411ebb_story.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191127194740/https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/justice-department-asks-to-stay-court-ruling-that-former-white-house-counsel-donald-mcgahn-must-comply-with-house-subpoena-pending-appeal/2019/11/27/ddf2c708-112b-11ea-b0fc-62cc38411ebb_story.html |archive-date=November 27, 2019 |access-date=November 27, 2019 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref> and the D.C. Circuit affirmed part of Jackson's decision nine months later in August 2020.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Appeals court rejects key argument against McGahn subpoena |language=en |work=Politico |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/07/appeals-court-rules-mcgahn-must-testify-392562 |url-status=live |access-date=February 1, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200807145405/https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/07/appeals-court-rules-mcgahn-must-testify-392562 |archive-date=August 7, 2020}}</ref> While the case remained pending, on June 4, 2021, McGahn testified behind closed doors under an agreement reached with the Biden administration.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Savage |first=Charlie |last2=Fandos |first2=Nicholas |date=June 4, 2021 |title=McGahn testifies about Trump's efforts to obstruct the Russia inquiry |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/04/us/politics/mcgahn-trump-russia-inquiry.html?name=undefined&region=BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT&block=storyline_reading_list_recirc&action=click&pgtype=Article&variant=1_reading_list |url-status=live |access-date=December 10, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211210045757/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/04/us/politics/mcgahn-trump-russia-inquiry.html?name=undefined&region=BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT&block=storyline_reading_list_recirc&action=click&pgtype=Article&variant=1_reading_list |archive-date=December 10, 2021}}</ref>

Revision as of 01:33, February 27, 2022

This is a test page where you can experiment with the wiki syntax.

Do not put anything on this page that you want to stick around.

Selected rulings

In American Meat Institute v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (2013), Jackson rejected the meat packing industry's request for a preliminary injunction to block a U.S. Department of Agriculture rule requiring them to identify animals' country of origin. Jackson found that the rule likely did not violate the First Amendment.[1][2]

In Depomed v. Department of Health and Human Services (2014), Jackson ruled that the Food and Drug Administration had violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it failed to grant pharmaceutical company Depomed market exclusivity for its orphan drug, Gralise. Jackson concluded that the Orphan Drug Act required to FDA to grant Gralise exclusivity.[3]

In Pierce v. District of Columbia (2015), Jackson ruled that the D.C. Department of Corrections violated the rights of a deaf inmate under the Americans with Disabilities Act because jail officials failed to assess the inmate's need for accommodations when he first arrived at the jail.[4]

In April and June 2018, Jackson presided over two cases challenging the Department of Health and Human Services' decision to terminate grants for teen pregnancy prevention programs two years early.[5] Jackson ruled that the decision to terminate the grants early, without any explanation for doing so, was arbitrary and capricious.[6]

In American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump (2018), Jackson invalidated provisions of three executive orders that would have limited the time federal employee labor union officials could spend with union members, the issues that unions could bargain over in negotiations, and the rights of disciplined workers to appeal disciplinary actions. Jackson concluded that the executive orders violated the right of federal employees to collectively bargain, as guaranteed by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.[7] The D.C. Circuit vacated this ruling on jurisdictional grounds in 2019.[8]

In 2018, Jackson dismissed that 40 wrongful death and product liability lawsuits stemming from the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which had been combined into a single multidistrict litigation. Jackson held that under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the suits should be brought in Malaysia, not the United States. The D.C. Circuit affirmed this ruling in 2020.[9][10][11]

In 2019, in Center for Biological Diversity v. McAleenan, Jackson held that Congress had, through the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to hear non-constitutional challenges to the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security's decision to waive certain environmental requirements to facilitate construction of a border wall on the United States and Mexico border.[12]

In 2019, Jackson issued a preliminary injunction in Make The Road New York v. McAleenan, blocking an agency rule that would have expanded "fast-track" deportations without immigration court hearings for undocumented immigrants.[13] Jackson found that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had violated the Administrative Procedure Act because its decision was arbitrary and capricious and the agency did not seek public comment before issuing the rule.[14]

In 2019, Jackson issued a ruling in Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn in which the House Committee on the Judiciary sued Don McGahn, former White House Counsel for the Trump administration, to compel him to comply with the subpoena to appear at a hearing on its impeachment inquiry on issues of alleged obstruction of justice by the administration. McGahn declined to comply with the subpoena after U.S. President Donald Trump, relying on a legal theory of executive testimonial immunity, ordered McGahn not to testify. In a lengthy opinion, Jackson ruled in favor of the House Committee and held that senior-level presidential aides "who have been subpoenaed for testimony by an authorized committee of Congress must appear for testimony in response to that subpoena" even if the President orders them not to do so.[15] Jackson rejected the administration's assertion of executive testimonial immunity by holding that "with respect to senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist."[16] According to Jackson, that conclusion was "inescapable precisely because compulsory appearance by dint of a subpoena is a legal construct, not a political one, and per the Constitution, no one is above the law."[16][17][18] Jackson's use of the phrase "presidents are not kings" gained popular attention in subsequent media reporting on the ruling.[19][20][21][22] In noting that Jackson took four months to resolve the case, including writing a 120 page opinion, The Washington Post wrote: "That slow pace contributed to helping Mr. Trump run out the clock on the congressional oversight effort before the 2020 election."[23] The ruling was appealed by the U.S. Department of Justice,[24] and the D.C. Circuit affirmed part of Jackson's decision nine months later in August 2020.[25] While the case remained pending, on June 4, 2021, McGahn testified behind closed doors under an agreement reached with the Biden administration.[26]

  1. Abbott, Charles New U.S. meat label rule survives challenge by meat packersReuters  (September 11, 2013)
  2. American Meat Institute v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 968 F.Supp.2d 38 (D.D.C. 2013).
  3. Kearn, Rebekah Orphan Drugmaker|Wins Exclusivity, (September 12, 2014)
  4. Zapotosky, Matt Judge rules D.C. Corrections must pay damages in case of deaf inmateThe Washington Post  (September 12, 2015)
  5. Hansler, Jennifer HHS loses another court battle over teen pregnancy prevention grant funding, (June 4, 2018)
  6. Barbash, Fred The real reason the Trump administration is constantly losing in courtThe Washington Post  (March 19, 2019)
  7. Vazquez, Maegan Judge strikes down sections of Trump exec orders for federal workers in victory for unions, (August 25, 2018)
  8. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, 318 F.Supp.3d 370 (D.D.C. 2018), vacated, 929 F.3d 748 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
  9. In re Air Crash Over Southern Indian Ocean on March 8, 2014, 352 F.Supp.3d 19 (D.D.C. 2018), aff'd, 946 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
  10. Stempel, Jonathan U.S. judge dismisses litigation over missing Malaysia Airlines flightReuters  (November 23, 2018)
  11. Judge Dismisses US Lawsuits Filed Over Malaysia Airlines Disappearance, (December 12, 2018)
  12. Grzincic, Barbara IN BRIEF: Trump administration can waive enviro laws for border wall - judgeReuters  (September 6, 2019)
  13. Hsu, Spencer S. Judge bars Trump fast-track deportation policy, saying threat to legal migrants was not assessedThe Washington Post  (September 28, 2019)
  14. Gerstein, Josh Judge blocks Trump plan to expand fast-track deportationsPolitico  (September 28, 2019)
  15. Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, No. 19-cv-2379 (KBJ), Slip Op. at 116, (November 25, 2019)
  16. 16.0 16.1 Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, No. 19-cv-2379 (KBJ), Slip Op. at 115, (November 25, 2019).
  17. Thomsen, Jacqueline 'No One Is Above the Law': Judge Says Donald McGahn Must Comply With House Subpoena for His TestimonyLaw.com  (November 25, 2019).
  18. Samuelsohn, Darren Don McGahn must testify about time as White House lawyer, judge rules, (November 25, 2019)
  19. Durkee, Alison 'Presidents Are Not Kings': Federal Judge Destroys Trump's 'Absolute Immunity' Defense Against Impeachment, (November 25, 2019)
  20. Yaeger, Lynn The Week in Washington: 'Presidents Are Not Kings!', (December 1, 2019)
  21. Judge tells Trump he's not a king – the President is not so sure, (November 26, 2019)
  22. Reilly, Ryan J. 'Presidents Are Not Kings': Judge Orders Trump Lawyer McGahn To Testify Before Congress, (November 25, 2019)
  23. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named nyt
  24. Hsu, Spencer S. Appeals court stays ruling that former White House counsel Donald McGahn must comply with House subpoena, The Washington Post (November 28, 2019)
  25.  Appeals court rejects key argument against McGahn subpoenaPolitico
  26. Savage, Charlie McGahn testifies about Trump's efforts to obstruct the Russia inquiryThe New York Times  (June 4, 2021)