Thomas Hardiman On Guns
Hardiman Issued Extreme Right-Wing Judicial Decisions On Guns
Hardiman Argued Against A New Jersey Law Requiring Those Applying For Handgun Permits To Justify The Need For A Gun
Hardiman Dissented In A Case That Upheld A New Jersey Prohibition On Carrying Handguns In Public. According to Reuters, “In a 2013 case, Thomas Hardiman, another federal appeals court judge, dissented when the majority on his court upheld a New Jersey law regulating the possession of handguns in public. Hardiman endorsed a broad reading of Second Amendment gun rights that would protect carrying weapons outside the home for self-defense.” [Reuters, 5/19/16]
- Hardiman Wrote In His Dissent That New Jersey’s Law Could Not Stand In The Face Of A Second Amendment Challenge, Even Though The Supreme Court Allowed The Majority Decision To Stand. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Hardiman wrote a 40-page dissent, arguing the high court and Justice Scalia described the 2nd Amendment as protecting a right to ‘self-defense.’ Because ‘the need for self-defense naturally exists outside and inside the home, I would hold the 2nd Amendment applies outside the home,’ he wrote in Drake vs. Filko. In passing its law, ‘New Jersey has decided that fewer handguns legally carried in public means less crime,’ he wrote. ‘It is obvious that the justifiable need requirement functions as a rationing system designed to limit the number of handguns carried in New Jersey,’ he said, but it cannot stand in the face of a 2nd Amendment challenge. The law survived an appeal to the Supreme Court, however. The justices without comment turned down a petition in 2014 asking them to review the 3rd Circuit’s decision.” [Los Angeles Times, 1/27/17]
- Hardiman: States Had “Considerable Latitude To Regulate The Exercise” To Minimize The Risk Of Second Amendment Rights But Could Not “Reduce The Danger By Curtailing The Right Itself.” According to Time, “‘Those who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment were undoubtedly aware that the right they were establishing carried a risk of misuse, and States have considerable latitude to regulate the exercise of the right in ways that will minimize that risk,’ Hardiman wrote in his dissent. ‘But States may not seek to reduce the danger by curtailing the right itself.’” [Time, 1/26/17]
Hardiman Ruled Against A Federal Firearm Ban For Felons
2016: Hardiman Ruled People Who Had Been Convicted Of Corruption Of A Minor And Carrying A Handgun Without A License, Respectively, Were Still Protected Under The Second Amendment Because They Were Not “Dangerous Persons.” According to SCOTUSblog, “Although he rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the general constitutionality of the federal law barring felons from possessing firearms, last year he concurred in a pair of challenges to the law by two men who had been convicted of corruption of a minor and carrying a handgun without a license, respectively. Hardiman agreed with the would-be gun owners that, at least as applied to them, the federal law violates the Constitution. He explained that ‘the threshold question in a Second Amendment challenge is one of scope: whether the Second Amendment protects the person, the weapon, or the activity in the first place. This,’ he continued, ‘requires an inquiry into ‘text and history.’’ Based on that inquiry, he concluded that ‘the most cogent principle that can be drawn from traditional limitations on the right to keep and bear arms is that dangerous persons likely to use firearms for illicit purposes were not understood to be protected by the Second Amendment’ – a category into which the individuals in this case, in his view, did not fall.” [SCOTUSblog, 1/23/17]
Hardiman Ruled That A Man Who Committed A Nonviolent Crime Could Not Be Legally Prevented From Owning A Firearm
As Part Of The Third Circuit Federal Appeals Court, Hardiman Ruled That A Man Who Committed A Nonviolent Crime Could Not Be Legally Prevented From Owning A Firearm. According to the New York Times, “A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that a man who committed a nonviolent crime cannot be legally prevented from owning a firearm — a potential setback to gun regulations spurred by a Supreme Court ruling last year that vastly expanded the right to bear arms. In an 11-to-4 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia overturned court decisions against Bryan Range, a Pennsylvania resident who had sued the state after being blocked from buying a shotgun over a conviction for lying on a benefits application in the 1990s. […] In a majority opinion, Judge Thomas M. Hardiman repeatedly cited the Supreme Court ruling last June, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, in which the majority established a new standard that dictated that gun laws conform to ‘historical tradition’ dating to the 18th and 19th centuries.” [New York Times, 6/6/23]
Hardiman’s Opinion Rejected The Idea That Only “Law-Abiding, Responsible Citizens” Could Own Guns. According to the New York Times, “‘In sum, we reject the government’s contention that only ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens’ are counted among ‘the people’ protected by the Second Amendment,’ wrote Judge Hardiman, a George W. Bush appointee who was on President Donald J. Trump’s short list to serve on the Supreme Court after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016.” [New York Times, 6/6/23]
Hardiman’s Ruling Stood Against The Supreme Court’s Writing In Heller, Which Ruled That Prohibitions On The Possession Of Firearms By Felons Could Remain In Place
In Heller, The U.S. Supreme Court Said “Nothing In Our Opinion Should Be Taken To Cast Doubt On The Longstanding Prohibitions On The Possession Of Firearms By Felons.” According to Reason, “‘Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons,’ the Supreme Court said in Heller.” [Reason, 6/7/23]
Hardiman Noted That Federal Laws Restricting Gun Rights Based On Criminal Convictions Were Passed More Than 170 Years After The Second Amendment’s Ratification. According to Reason, “‘Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons,’ the Supreme Court said in Heller. But Hardiman notes that federal laws restricting gun rights based on criminal convictions are of relatively recent vintage, and the earliest version, the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, ‘applied only to violent criminals.’ In 1961, Congress expanded the ban to cover nonviolent crimes punishable by more than a year in prison. ‘We are confident that a law passed in 1961—some 170 years after the Second Amendment’s ratification and nearly a century after the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification—falls well short of ‘longstanding’ for purposes of demarcating the scope of a constitutional right,’ Hardiman says.” [Reason, 6/7/23]
Thomas Hardiman On Criminal Justice
Hardiman Was Extreme On Judicial Issues Related To Criminal Justice
Hardiman Wrote In A Majority Decision That Jails Could Strip-Search Any Inmate
Hardiman Wrote In A Majority Opinion That Jails Could Strip-Search Inmates Regardless Of What They Were Arrested For And That Such Searches Did Not Violate The Fourth Amendment. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Hardiman also wrote an important opinion that upheld the power of jailers to strip-search all new inmates, even if they are being held briefly for failing to pay a fine and do not appear to pose a security risk. A class-action suit was brought on behalf of people who had been arrested and strip-searched in a county jail in New Jersey. They alleged these full-body exams amounted to ‘unreasonable searches’ in violation of the 4th Amendment. The lead plaintiff, Albert Florence, had been arrested and briefly jailed for not paying a fine that he had, in fact, paid. A district judge ruled for the plaintiffs, but Hardiman spoke for a 2-1 majority to throw out their claim.” [Los Angeles Times, 1/27/17]
- Hardiman: The Jail’s Interest In Preventing “Illegal Weapons And Drugs” From Getting Into The Facility Was “Vital To The Protection Of Inmates And Prison Personnel Alike.” According to the Los Angeles Times, “A district judge ruled for the plaintiffs, but Hardiman spoke for a 2-1 majority to throw out their claim. ‘We do not minimize the extreme intrusion on privacy associated with a strip-search by law enforcement officers,’ he said. However, the balance tips in favor of the county because the ‘prevention of the entry of illegal weapons and drugs is vital to the protection of inmates and prison personnel alike.’” [Los Angeles Times, 1/27/17]
Hardiman Opposed A Decision Holding Prison Guards Liable For An Inmate’s Suicide
Hardiman Wrote A Dissent Against A Federal Appeals Court Decision That Ruled Two Delaware Department Of Correction Officials Could Be Held Liable For The Failure Of A State Medical Contractor To Properly Screen Inmates For Mental Health Issues, Resulting In A Suicide Of A Prisoner. According to the News Journal, “A federal appeals court has ruled that two Delaware Department of Correction officials can be held responsible for the failure of a state medical contractor to properly screen inmates for mental health issues, leading to a suicide at the Howard R. Young Correctional Institution. ‘The court holds that two of the most senior executives in the Delaware prison system must stand trial in the suicide of Christopher Barkes,’ wrote Circuit Court Judge Thomas M. Hardiman, in a lengthy dissent, arguing the majority was wrong to allow the case against former Delaware Department of Correction Commissioner Stan Taylor and former warden Raphael Williams to go forward. The lawsuit was filed in 2006 by Karen Barkes and her children over the Nov. 14, 2004, suicide of her husband, Christopher, while in custody, less than 24 hours after he was locked up for a probation violation.” [News Journal, 9/15/14]
Hardiman Argued That The Correctional Officers Had To Display “Deliberate Indifference” And Be “Personally Involved With The Misfeasance” That Lead To The Prisoner’s Suicide In Order To Be Legally Responsible. According to the News Journal, “In his dissent, Hardiman argued that Taylor and Williams not only had to display ‘deliberate indifference,’ but also had to be personally involved with the ‘misfeasance’ to be held legally responsible. Culhane said that since a 2009 ruling – where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a supervisor could not be held liable just because they were a supervisor – the legal standard for liability had been unclear. This ruling clarifies that the standard is deliberate indifference by a supervisor – which in this case is ignoring prisoner’s rights, he said.” [News Journal, 9/15/14]
Hardiman Overturned A Stay Of Execution For A Man Who Claimed To Be Mentally Incompetent
Hardiman Lifted A Stay Of Execution For Shannon Johnson, Despite A U.S. District Judge’s Order Halting The Execution On Grounds The Defended May Not Have Been Mentally Stable. According to the News Journal, “However, legal maneuvering continued throughout Thursday night to prevent his execution. At press time around 10:45 p.m., Johnson’s fate was unclear after U.S. District Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet issued a stay. His ruling followed the Delaware federal defenders’ earlier request on behalf of Johnson’s sister. […] For much of the day leading up to that moment, it appeared doubtful the execution would proceed. A petition filed by the Delaware Federal Defender’s Office on behalf of Johnson’s sister, Lakeisha Ford, prompted Sleet on Wednesday to issue a stay of execution, saying he needed time to review the case. to digest the voluminous petition, which argued that Johnson is mentally incompetent, and that a state court review that determined he was competent was flawed. Prosecutors immediately appealed to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which lifted the stay just after 5 p.m. Thursday. The three judge panel wrote that the fact that Johnson himself joined in the appeal filed by prosecutors ‘speaks volumes about the case.’ ‘From the time of Johnson’s penalty phase to this very day, Johnson has consistently indicated his wish to proceed with his state-ordered execution,’ wrote Judge Thomas Hardiman on behalf of the panel. ‘[Johnson] has informed every court he has been before and every lawyer involved in his proceedings that he wishes to waive all further … challenges and proceed to execution,’ Hardiman wrote.” [News Journal, 4/20/12]
- Hardiman Opined That Johnson Had Consistently Informed The Court And Attorneys That He Wished To Waive Further Challenges And Undergo Execution. According to Gannett News Service, “The three judge panel, in a decision handed down just after 5 p.m. EDT, wrote that the fact that Shannon M. Johnson himself joined in the appeal filed by Delaware prosecutors seeking to lift the hold on the execution ‘speaks volumes about the case.’ ‘From the time of Johnson’s penalty phase to this very day, Johnson has consistently indicated his wish to proceed with his state-ordered execution,’ wrote Judge Thomas Hardiman on behalf of the panel. ‘(Johnson) has informed every court he has been before and every lawyer involved in his proceedings that he wishes to waive all further … challenges and proceed to execution,’ Hardiman wrote.” [Gannett News Service, 4/19/12]
- Hardiman’s Panel Dismissed A Claim By Johnson’s Sister That Johnson Was “Not Competent To Waive His Appeals Because Of Mental Illness And Low Intelligence.” According to Gannett News Service, “The petition filed by Johnson’s sister, Lakeisha Ford, through the Delaware Federal Defender’s Office late last week alleged that Johnson was not competent to waive his appeals because of mental illness and low intelligence. The panel dismissed that claim.” [Gannett News Service, 4/19/12]
Hardiman Denied An Inmate’s Argument That His Life Sentence Should Have Been Thrown Out Because His Lawyer Was Inadequate
Hardiman Wrote For A Three-Judge Panel Denying An Inmate’s Argument That His Life Sentence In State Court Should Have Been Thrown Out Because His Lawyer Was Constitutionally Inadequate. According to SCOTUSblog, “In March 2018, Hardiman wrote for a three-judge panel in denying a Pennsylvania inmate’s argument that his life sentence in state court should be thrown out because his lawyer had been constitutionally inadequate. The inmate, Andy Rivera Rodriguez, contended that his lawyer should not have agreed to waive his right to a jury trial because Rivera Rodriguez was intellectually disabled, with an IQ of 58, and therefore could not have been sentenced to death. The court of appeals rejected that argument, explaining that there was no ‘bright-line rule for determining’ whether a defendant is intellectually disabled, and so it would not have been clear to Rivera Rodriguez’s attorney that he was ineligible for the death penalty based just on his IQ.” [SCOTUSblog, 7/2/18]
Hardiman Wrote A Ruling That Strengthened Mandatory Minimum Sentences
Hardiman Wrote A Majority Opinion That Strengthened Mandatory Minimum Sentencing For Criminals. According to the Washington Post, “Hardiman is a U.S. Appeals Court judge for the Third Circuit and also a Bush appointee. He’s a Georgetown Law grad and has written two majority opinions that were reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court — one that strengthens mandatory minimum sentences for criminals and another that ruled a Pennsylvania jail’s policy of strip searching the people it arrests does not violate someone’s 4th Amendment right of unreasonable searches and seizures.” [Washington Post, 5/18/16]
Hardiman Effectively Ruled That There Was No Particular Standard That Had To Be Met In Order To Justify More Severe Sentencing Than What Was Laid Out In Government Sentencing Guidelines. According to New Jersey Lawyer, “In Fisher, a case from Delaware, Judge Thomas M. Hardiman said that after the recent sentencing decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court — in particular, United States v. Booker (2005) — a 1990 3rd Circuit ruling on fact-finding in sentencing by judges is no longer good law. The 1990 case, United States v. Kikumura, said the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard must yield to the stricter clear-and-convincing evidence standard when a judge considers sentencing enhancements that overshadow the sentence that would be imposed under the crime actually charged. Circuit courts are split on the viability of Kikumura after Booker, which held the sentencing guidelines are advisory, not mandatory.” [New Jersey Lawyer, 9/17/07]
- In Two Cases, The Third Circuit Court Ruled Against Defendants Arguing Against Sentencing Decisions That Far Surpassed The Timelines Established Under Federal Sentencing Guidelines. According to New Jersey Lawyer, “In two key constitutional rulings, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has come down squarely against defendants on sentencing issues. In United States v. Fisher, the appeals court said the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause does not require a judge find facts that support an enhancement of a sentence by a standard higher than preponderance of the evidence. And in United States v. Ausburn, the court said the due process clause was not violated by a judge’s failure to provide advance notice that he might sentence the defendant to more than double the top of the advisory range under the federal sentencing guidelines.” [New Jersey Lawyer, 9/17/07]
Hardiman Wrote A Law Journal Entry Encouraging Judges To Adhere To Lengthy Sentencing Guidelines
Hardiman Warned Of Legislative Intervention If Judges Did Not Apply Lengthy Sentencing Guidelines
Hardiman Wrote That Judges Should Adhere To Sentencing Guidelines, Including In Cases Of Crack/Powder Cocaine Disparities, In Order To Avoid Congressional Restrictions On Judicial Discretion. According to a Duquesne Law Review article by Thomas Hardiman and Richard Happner Jr., “Courts of appeals, in turn, will increasingly be required to review variances based on policy disagreements with various Guidelines. If such categorical variances become the norm, not only with respect to the crack/powder disparity, but across the Guidelines writ large, Congress might impose new, detailed statutory penalties that will leave district judges with even less discretion than they possessed in the mandatory Guidelines era. Whether Congress chooses to act in this regard might depend upon whether it deems the judiciary to be exercising prudent judgment as opposed to imposing its will on broad questions of crime and punishment.” [Duquesne Law Review, 1/1/12]
Judge Mark Bennet Criticized Hardiman’s Call To Adhere To Sentencing Guidelines
Bennet Criticized Hardiman’s Call To Tailor Sentencing Out Of Fears Of “Legislative Backlash,” Arguing That Adhering To The Guidelines Contributed To Unjust Mass Incarceration. According to a Rutgers Law Review article by Mark Bennet, “Ironically, or perhaps serendipitously, the author was the sentencing judge in both Spears and Pepper, where he was reversed a whopping 5 times by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (twice by an en banc court) before both defendants’ sentencing positions were vindicated by the U.S. Supreme Court. The article takes exception to two Third Circuit judges who have argued in law review articles that federal sentencing judges should be concerned about ‘legislative backlash’ if they sentence outside the now advisory guidelines. In the arc of the history of federal sentencing and its impact on mass incarceration, we are perched at a cresting point where the gravity of reason and our Nation’s experience with mass incarceration hopefully will pull towards greater justice in sentencing.” [Rutgers Law Review, 1/1/14]
Thomas Hardiman On Reproductive Rights
Hardiman Issued Extreme Right-Wing Judicial Decisions Related To Abortion And Birth Control
Hardiman Was Part Of A Panel That Ruled In Favor Of A Group Challenging The “Birth Control Mandate” In The Affordable Care Act
Hardiman Was Part Of A Panel That Ruled In Favor Of A Group Challenging The “Birth Control Mandate” In The Affordable Care Act. According to SCOTUSblog, “In April 2018, Hardiman was part of a three-judge panel that ruled in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor in their effort to intervene in litigation challenging regulations issued under the Affordable Care Act. The act contains what is sometimes called the ‘birth control mandate,’ which requires employers to provide their female employees with health insurance that includes access to certain forms of birth control. In 2013, the Obama administration issued regulations to accommodate religious nonprofits, like the Little Sisters, that objected to the mandate for religious reasons, but the Little Sisters challenged the accommodation, arguing that it too would entangle them in efforts to provide birth control.” [SCOTUSblog, 7/2/18]
Hardiman Joined An Opinion Vacating The Conviction Of An Anti-Abortion Protester
Hardiman Joined An Opinion Vacating The Conviction Of An Anti-Abortion Protester Who Was Arrested For Not Moving Away From The Sidewalk In Front Of The Liberty Bell Center In Philadelphia. According to SCOTUSblog, “Hardiman has not weighed in directly on issues relating to abortion. In United States v. Marcavage, though, he joined an opinion vacating the conviction of an anti-abortion protester who was arrested for refusing to move away from the sidewalk in front of the Liberty Bell Center in Philadelphia. The court agreed with the protester that the sidewalk is a public forum, subjecting the government’s efforts to restrict his speech to a more exacting standard of review. The panel declined to defer to the trial court’s finding that the content of Marcavage’s message played no role in his removal from the sidewalk.” [SCOTUSblog, 7/2/18]
Thomas Hardiman And Immigration
Hardiman Issued Extreme Right-Wing Judicial Decisions Related To Immigration
Hardiman Ruled That A Woman Who Gave Her Sister Refuge From A Guatemalan Gang Had To Be Deported
Hardiman’s Third Circuit Court Ruled That “A Woman Marked For Death By A Guatemalan Gang Can Stay In New Jersey, But The Sister Who Gave Her Refuge Will Be Deported.” According to the Daily News, “A court says a woman marked for death by a Guatemalan gang can stay in New Jersey, but the sister who gave her refuge will be deported. Silvia Moreno Garcia, 30, testified in her homeland against members of the vicious gang Valle del Sol, who were on trial for murdering an activist. Her turn on the stand put her in such danger the Guatemalan government enrolled her in witness protection and sent her to Mexico, court papers show. But it wasn’t enough: Garcia said she saw one of the killers in the Mexico City subway, and got threatening phone calls while there. So in 2005, she fled over the border – all the way to northern New Jersey, home of her older sister , Claudia Moreno Garcia. Before long, federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials flagged both women and moved to deport them. The sisters have been fighting to stay ever since, saying the gang will torture or kill them if they return to Guatemala.” [Daily News, 11/30/11]
Hardiman’s Panel Ruled A Guatemalan Woman Be Deported Despite Threats Posed By Guatemalan Gang Valle Del Sol. According to the Daily News, “On Monday, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled Silvia – but not Claudia – should stay . ‘Although the Guatemalan government displayed great willingness to protect Silvia before and after her testimony … this willingness sheds no light on Guatemala’s ability to protect her,’ wrote Judge Thomas Hardiman. ‘There is nothing in the record to suggest that Guatemala will be any better able to protect Silvia if she is returned there now.’ Hardiman said Claudia, 34, who lived in the U.S. for years before taking in her sister, has to go. ‘Unlike Silvia, Claudia’s interactions with Valle del Sol were quite limited,’ he wrote.” [Daily News, 11/30/11]
- Hardiman Ruled The Woman Could Not Sufficiently Prove The Danger She Faced From The Gang If She Returned To Guatemala. According to the Daily News, “The sisters’ lawyer, Rosa Soy, maintains that gang leaders threatened the entire family and that Claudia also faces danger. The sisters’ trouble with Valle del Sol began after a cousin married a gang honcho. The cousin allegedly made calls from Silvia’s home to help plot the assassination of a human rights activist. Guatemalan investigators traced the calls to Silvia, who agreed to help them and testified in court wearing a disguise and a bulletproof vest. The cousin, who was convicted and put in prison, found out that Silvia helped put her away. The sisters say the cousin is out to get them both, but Hardiman said only one of them can prove it.” [Daily News, 11/30/11]
Hardiman Ruled That Immigrants In The U.S. Under Temporary Protected Status Could Not Apply For Green Cards If They Had Entered The Country Illegally
The U.S. Supreme Court Ruled That Immigrants Allowed To Stay In The U.S. Under Temporary Protected Status Could Not Apply For Green Card Status If They Had Entered The Country Unlawfully. According to the New York Times, “The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday that immigrants allowed to stay in the United States temporarily for humanitarian reasons may not apply for green cards if they had entered the country unlawfully. The case, Sanchez v. Mayorkas, No. 20-315, could affect tens of thousands of immigrants. It was brought by Jose Sanchez and Sonia Gonzalez, natives of El Salvador who entered the United States unlawfully in the late 1990s.” [New York Times, 6/7/21]
On The Third Circuit Court Of Appeals, Hardiman Ruled That Immigrants In The United States Under Temporary Protected Status Could Not Apply For Green Cards If They Had Entered The Country Illegally. According to the New York Times, “The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, ruled against them, saying they were ineligible under a part of the immigration laws that requires applicants to have been ‘inspected and admitted’ into the United States. Temporary protected status, Judge Thomas M. Hardiman wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel, ‘does not constitute an admission.’ ‘As its name suggests,’ he wrote, ‘this protection is meant to be temporary.’” [New York Times, 6/7/21]
Thomas Hardiman And LGBTQ Rights
Hardiman Issued An Extreme Right-Wing Judicial Decision Related To LGBTQ Rights
Hardiman Wrote An Opinion That A Gay Man Fired Because Of His Employer’s Beliefs Could Not Sue For Discrimination Based On Religion
2008: Hardiman Wrote An Opinion That A Gay Man Could Not Say He Was Discriminated Against Because Of Religion Because His Employer’s Beliefs Were That “A Man Should Not Lay With Another Man.” According to Between the Lines, “Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, 50, 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals: In August 2009, Hardiman wrote an opinion for a three-judge panel, saying a gay man could not say he was discriminated against because of religion because his employer fired him because the employer’s religious beliefs were that ‘a man should not lay with another man.’ However, the Hardiman panel ruled that the gay employee’s claim that he was discriminated against ‘because of sex’ should have been submitted to a jury.” [Between the Lines, 5/26/16]
Thomas Hardiman And Freedom Of Speech
Hardiman Issued An Extreme Right-Wing Judicial Decision Related To Freedom Of Speech And The First Amendment
Hardiman Called An Airport Ban On Non-Commercial Ads “Reasonable”
Hardiman Dissented From A Decision That Philadelphia’s Ban On Non-Commercial Advertising In Airports Violated The First Amendment. According to SCOTUSblog, “And in NAACP v. City of Philadelphia, Hardiman dissented from a panel opinion holding that the city’s ban on non-commercial advertisements by private advertisers at the city’s airport violated the First Amendment.” [SCOTUSblog, 1/23/17]
- Hardiman: Ban Was A “Reasonable Attempt To Avoid Controversy At The Airport” And “Create A Comfortable Environment.” According to SCOTUSblog, “Hardiman characterized the ban as ‘a reasonable attempt to avoid controversy at the airport’ and thereby ‘create a comfortable environment’ there.” [SCOTUSblog, 1/23/17]
Thomas Hardiman And Public Housing
Hardiman Fought Against Public Housing
Hardiman Represented Residents Who Wanted To Keep Low-Income Residents From Moving Into Their Communities
1994: Hardiman Represented Residents Of Allegheny Commons East In Their Effort To Keep The Federal Department Of Housing And Urban Development From Allowing Very Low-Income Residents Into Their Community
1994: Hardiman Represented Residents Of Allegheny Commons East In Their Effort To Keep The Federal Department Of Housing And Urban Development From Allowing Very Low-Income Residents Into Their Community. According to the Pittsburgh City Paper, “Hardiman registered as a non-partisan voter in 1992, but went Republican in 1994. He began building a bipartisan political network that went far beyond his wife’s family. In 1994, at then-City Councilor Dan Onorato’s request, he represented the residents of Allegheny Commons East in their effort to keep the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development from allowing very low-income residents into their North Side community. (Onorato is now county controller and the Democratic candidate for county executive.)” [Pittsburgh City Paper, 7/2/03]
Hardiman: “[T]he Influx Of Public Housing Units Will Depress Property Values.” According to the Pittsburgh City Paper, “‘[T]he influx of public housing units will depress property values,’ Hardiman wrote in court filings. That would harm Edgewood’s tax base, he added. Hardiman’s pleadings dismissed out of hand the possibility of HUD making payments to Edgewood to make up for any damage to the tax base. ‘There is no adequate legal remedy because the damage will be ongoing and, as such, impossible to measure,’ he wrote. The only solution, Hardiman’s filings implied: Put the poor elsewhere. Edgewood lost the case, but political pressure compelled HUD to reduce the number of subsidized homes in the little borough from eight to three.” [Pittsburgh City Paper, 7/2/03]
1996: Hardiman Represented Edgewood Borough In A Case Against HUD’s Plan To Turn Eight Homes Into Subsidized Housing Because They Would “Depress Property Values”
1996: Hardiman Represented Edgewood Borough In A Case Against HUD’s Plan To Turn Eight Homes Into Subsidized Housing Because They Would “Depress Property Values.” According to the Pittsburgh City Paper, “In 1996, many Edgewood Borough residents and officials were in an uproar over a Department of Housing and Urban Development plan to buy eight houses and turn them into subsidized housing for low-income families. The eight houses were to be among 100 purchased countywide, as part of a settlement of a court case alleging a history of discriminatory racial segregation in public housing. Edgewood, though, wanted no part of the effort. The borough hired Hardiman, who was fresh from his successful fight against HUD at Allegheny Commons East. ‘[T]he influx of public housing units will depress property values,’ Hardiman wrote in court filings. That would harm Edgewood’s tax base, he added. Hardiman’s pleadings dismissed out of hand the possibility of HUD making payments to Edgewood to make up for any damage to the tax base. ‘There is no adequate legal remedy because the damage will be ongoing and, as such, impossible to measure,’ he wrote.” [Pittsburgh City Paper, 6/26/03]
- Hardiman Argued For Housing The Poor Elsewhere. According to the Pittsburgh City Paper, “The only solution, Hardiman’s filings implied: Put the poor elsewhere. Edgewood lost the case, but political pressure compelled HUD to reduce the number of subsidized homes in the little borough from eight to three.” [Pittsburgh City Paper, 6/26/03]
1998: Hardiman Represented The Housing Authority Of Pittsburgh In A Case Against A Woman Whose Section 8 Benefits Were Being Terminated
1998: Hardiman Represented The Housing Authority Of Pittsburgh In A Case Against A Woman Whose Section 8 Benefits Were Being Terminated. According to the Pittsburgh City Paper, “In August 1998, the two teenage sons saw a car sitting in a supermarket parking lot with the engine running, according to court filings. […] A month later, the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh notified Powell that it was terminating her Section 8 benefits, based on federal regulations allowing it to cut off the subsidy if a resident commits a violent crime in the ‘immediate vicinity’ of their home. […] It could have ended there. Instead, the Housing Authority hired Hardiman, who appealed Wettick’s decision.” [Pittsburgh City Paper, 6/26/03]
- Hardiman Arranged For The Housing Authority To Place Her Subsidy Into Escrow, Leading Her Landlord To Threaten Her With Eviction. According to the Pittsburgh City Paper, “At about the same time, court filings by Powell’s attorney allege, Hardiman’s office arranged for the Housing Authority to pay Powell’s subsidy into an escrow account, rather than to her landlord. That prompted her landlord to threaten her with eviction. In an angry court motion, Powell’s attorney accused the authority of ‘attempting to achieve & by deceitful and unlawful means, what it could not achieve on the merits: the eviction, and consequential homelessness, of Beverly Powell and her 10-year-old child.’” [Pittsburgh City Paper, 6/26/03]
Thomas Hardiman And Discrimination
Hardiman Helped Lead Organizations With Discriminatory Policies
HARDIMAN SERVED IN EXECUTIVE POSITIONS FOR BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF GREATER PITTSBURGH WHILE IT EMPLOYED DISCRIMINATORY VOLUNTEER POLICIES
2000 – 2018: Hardiman Served In Executive Positions For Big Brothers Big Sisters Of Greater Pittsburgh
2000: Hardiman Was Listed As President Of Big Brothers Big Sisters Of Greater Pittsburgh.
[ProPublica, Accessed 9/19/20]
2018: Hardiman Was Listed As A Board Member Of Big Brothers Big Sisters Of Greater Pittsburgh.
[ProPublica, Accessed 9/19/20]
2018: Pittsburgh Public School Board Raised Concerns That Big Brother Big Sisters Of Greater Pittsburgh’s Policies Could “Cater To The Bigotry” Of Parents
2018: Pittsburgh Public School Board Raised Concerns Big Brothers Big Sisters Of Greater Pittsburgh’s Policies Could “Cater To The Bigotry” Of Parents Who Do Not Want Their Child Paired With A Volunteer Of Certain Religious Or Sexual Orientations. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Pittsburgh asks prospective volunteers about things like their sexual orientation, their religion and their mental health, all in an effort, leaders say, to make the most impactful pairings possible when it comes to ‘bigs’ and their young ‘littles.’ […] At an agenda review meeting last week, school board member Moira Kaleida said she was concerned after hearing about the questions asked during the Big Brothers Big Sisters screening process that they could be discriminatory to potential volunteers or ‘cater to the bigotry’ of people who may not want their child to spend time with someone of a certain sexual orientation or who practices a certain religion. ‘I’m sorry, that is against our policy,’ she said this week. ‘That’s not what we do here.’” [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/19/18]
Big Brothers Big Sisters Of Greater Pittsburgh’s CEO Jan Glick Contended That Questions About A Volunteers Sexual Orientation And Religion Were Not Based On Discrimination, But Rather, Helping Match Volunteers With Compatible Children. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “Ms. Glick said all potential volunteers with Big Brothers Big Sisters go through an extensive, two-hour interview process after completing an application. They are asked about such things as religion and sexual orientation, but screeners tell the candidates in advance that they are not required to answer those personal questions and it in no way affects whether they are selected to become a mentor. The line of questioning is not new, but the organization could not immediately say Tuesday when the practice began. ‘It’s going to help us make good choices,’ Ms. Glick said. ‘I do understand the sensitivity around the questions, but I think it’s very important to understand the context in which they’re asked. That’s the key. All of this was taken out of context.’ In the past, she said, the organization has gotten requests from young people for mentors with certain qualities. For instance, a young boy who had recently come out as gay specifically requested a gay man to be his big brother and help guide him through that shared experience. ‘We do not discriminate,’ she said.” [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/19/18]
Big Brothers Big Sisters Of Greater Pittsburgh Revised Its Policies In Response To Pittsburgh Public Schools Concerns
Big Brothers And Big Sisters Revised Their Volunteer Screening Process After Pittsburgh Public Schools Expressed Concerns About Discrimination. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “The partnership between Pittsburgh Public Schools and the local chapter of Big Brothers Big Sisters remains intact, after the youth-mentoring organization promised to stop asking volunteers questions about such things as their sexual orientation and religion. The school board Monday approved an agenda item containing new contracts with community groups that provide student support services, bringing the number to more than 90, including Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Pittsburgh. At an agenda review meeting earlier this month, board member Moira Kaleida asked to pull the section about Big Brothers Big Sisters for further discussion after hearing that the organization asked potential mentors questions that she feared violated the district’s anti-discrimination policy. In response, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Pittsburgh has agreed to revise its screening process and application documents so questions pertaining to religion, sexual orientation and identity or mental health are removed ‘except as necessary to protect the health and welfare of the mentee,’ district solicitor Ira Weiss said. The organization confirmed the change in a letter to the district Monday.” [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/25/18]
2000: Big Brothers Big Sisters Of America Defended The Right Of Parents To Select Volunteers Based On Their Race, Religion, Or Sexual Orientation
2000: Big Brothers Big Sisters Of America President Judy Vrendenburgh Said Parents Could Choose Volunteers Based On Sexual Orientation, Religion, Or Race. According to the Indianapolis Star, “The national organization of Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, based in Philadelphia, has a policy that states sexual orientation of a volunteer is a parental decision. ‘We really respect a parent’s desire to decide who is appropriate for his or her child,’ said Judy Vrendenburgh, president of Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. She said a parent can pick a volunteer based on race or religion, too.” [Indianapolis Star, 4/20/00]
2002: Big Brothers Big Sisters Of America Adopted Mandatory Non-Discrimination Policies For Sexual Orientation Amidst Pushback From Right Wing Groups
2002: Big Brothers Big Sisters Of America Began Requiring Its Affiliates To Adhere To A Non-Discrimination Policy For Volunteers’ Sexual Orientation. According to the Associated Press, “Big Brothers Big Sisters of America has told its 490 local affiliates to give openly gay and lesbian volunteers an equal chance to serve as one-on-one mentors to children, incurring the wrath of several conservative groups. The 98-year-old youth organization – devoted to helping children from single-parent homes – says it is undaunted by the criticism, which includes calls for its corporate backers to halt donations. ‘We’re getting incredible, positive support for the action we took,’ the organization’s president, Judy Vredenburgh, said Thursday. Big Brothers Big Sisters, or BBBSA, has endorsed nondiscrimination principles for 25 years that cover sexual orientation, race, religion and ethnicity. Only last month, however, did the provision about sexual orientation become mandatory policy for all BBBSA affiliates, a few of which had been rejecting gay volunteers.” [Associated Press, 8/16/02]
The American Family Association And Focus On The Family Said The Mandatory Nondiscrimination Policies “Will Become A Magnet For Homosexuals Who Exploit Opportunities To Engage Young, Impressionable Children With Their Unhealthy Lifestyle.” According to the Associated Press, “Donald Wildmon, chairman of the American Family Association, contends that BBBSA ‘will become a magnet for homosexuals who exploit opportunities to engage young, impressionable children with their unhealthy lifestyle.’ His association’s Web site offers a form letter to be sent to BBBSA’s corporate supporters, asking that they suspend donations until BBBSA ‘repeals this dangerous and troubling policy.’ Another conservative group, Focus on the Family, said its founder, James Dobson, would delete favorable references to BBBSA in future editions of his recent book Bringing Up Boys. Focus on the Family’s psychologist-in-residence, Bill Maier, said BBBSA should realize that ‘matching fatherless boys, starving for attention, with homosexual men is reckless and irresponsible, not to mention a recipe for disaster.’” [Associated Press, 8/16/02]
- Big Brothers And Big Sisters Of America Touted Their Screening Process, Saying Out Of 220,000 Matches, They Received Fewer Than 10 Abuse Allegations Per Year. According to the Associated Press, “Like most large-scale youth programs, BBBSA has dealt with occasional sex abuse cases over the years. However, the organization says it has less than 10 abuse allegations per year in a program that currently matches 220,000 children with mentors. ‘We’re absolutely brilliant in screening out any inappropriate person,’ Vredenburgh said. ‘Our track record of protecting the child on the one hand, and positively influencing them on the other – we’re really proud of it.’” [Associated Press, 8/16/02]
Thomas Hardiman And Corporate Interests
Hardiman Supported Policies Favoring Corporate And Wealthy Interests
Hardiman Supported Restricting Discovery To Court Cases Involving Wealthy Interests
2018: Hardiman Reportedly Voiced Support For Trying Cases Worth Less Than $500,000 Without Discovery
2018: New Jersey Law Journal Editorial Board: Hardiman Reportedly Said If He Were Able, He Would “Probably Institute A New Federal Rule That Said All Cases With Less Than $500,000 Will Be Tried Without Any Discovery.” In an editorial New Jersey Law Journal wrote, “It is reported that at last month’s Federalist Society convention, Judge Thomas Hardiman of the Third Circuit gave his views on how to deal with the cost and delay of discovery. ‘If I were able to do something unilaterally,’ he is quoted, ‘I would probably institute a new federal rule that said all cases worth less than $500,000 will be tried without any discovery.’” [New Jersey Law Journal Editorial, 12/10/18]
The New Jersey Law Journal Editorial Board Slammed Hardiman’s Position On Discovery, Warning It Would Favor Wealthy Interests And Impair Cases Of Incalculable Value
New Jersey Law Journal’s Editorial Board Called Hardiman’s Position On Discovery “Outrageous,” Pointing To Cases Involving Unclear Wealth Value And Cases That Could Not Be Tried Without Discovery. In an editorial New Jersey Law Journal wrote, “If true, the statement is outrageous. No one will dispute that discovery can be expensive and burdensome. Nor can anyone dispute that it is fundamental to modern litigation. Not only does it eliminate what used to be called ‘trial by ambush.’ As a practical matter, it significantly reduces the number of civil cases that have to be tried at all, by eliminating issues of fact, preparing for summary judgment, and, in those cases where issues of fact remain, facilitating settlement by giving the parties a realistic sense of each other’s position. Eliminating it in all cases involving less than $500,000 would force to trial many federal question cases, for which there is no jurisdictional amount, involving rights that cannot be valued, or employment law cases where the value is less. Or, more likely, it would deter those cases from being brought at all by plaintiffs who need discovery—particularly document discovery—to prove their claims at trial.” [New Jersey Law Journal Editorial, 12/10/18]
The New Jersey Law Journal Editorial Board Argued Hardiman’s Position on Discovery Would “Confine Federal Civil Litigation To Disputes Between Wealthy Interests”
The New Jersey Law Journal Editorial Board Argued Hardiman’s Position on Discovery Would “Confine Federal Civil Litigation To Disputes Between Wealthy Interests.” In an editorial New Jersey Law Journal wrote, “In the light of experience, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) was amended in 2015 to restrict discovery to relevant matter ‘proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweigh its likely benefit.’ Courts have the authority to keep discovery costs in proportion to the interests at stake while still obtaining a just result. Using a high per se dollar threshold to deny discovery outright blatantly favors corporate, government, and other institutional defendants who would just as soon not have their internal workings made visible, and it would tend to confine federal civil litigation to disputes between wealthy interests.” [New Jersey Law Journal Editorial, 12/10/18]
New Jersey Law Journal Warned Hardiman’s Position Was Part Of A Judicial Movement To Protect Large Property Interests
New Jersey Law Journal Warned Hardiman’s Position Was Part Of A Judicial Movement To Protect Large Property Interests From “Distressing, Costly, And Sometimes Embarrassing Civil Litigation.” In an editorial New Jersey Law Journal wrote, “We would like to think Judge Hardiman’s proposal is a non-starter, but we cannot be sure. As things now stand, what the Federalist Society says today, the federal judiciary may well think tomorrow. Judge Hardiman’s wish is just one more example, alongside the use of the Federal Arbitration Act to enforce one-sided arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, of a judicial zeitgeist that large property interests should be protected from distressing, costly and sometimes embarrassing civil litigation. It is remarkable only for its bluntness and blatancy.” [New Jersey Law Journal Editorial, 12/10/18]
Thomas Hardiman And Climate Change
Hardiman Said Climate Change Was A Hoax
NPR: Hardiman Said Climate Change Was A Hoax
NPR: Hardiman Said Climate Change Was A Hoax. According to NPR, “For instance, he dissented from a decision that upheld New Jersey’s restrictive law on who may receive a permit to carry a gun. Hardiman’s one of those people everyone really likes, down to earth, smart, as one colleague put it a closet scholar. Several people noted that because of his many years as a trial lawyer and a trial judge, he has more experience trying cases than most of the other Supreme Court justices. Personally, he’s said to be very conservative or even in the view of some a little wacky. If you get him going, said one colleague, you’ll find out he thinks climate change is a hoax.” [NPR, 1/30/17]
Thomas Hardiman And Corruption
Hardiman Contributed To Republican Senators After Their Committee Interviewed Him
2003: Hardiman Contributed To $4,400 To Two Republican Senators’ Campaigns After Appearing Before Their Committee
2003: Hardiman Contributed To $4,400 To Two Republican Senators’ Campaigns – Specter And Santorum – After Their Committee Interviewed Him For A Judgeship Nomination. According to Salon, “When Sen. Patrick Leahy steps in as Judiciary Committee chairman next year — and he’s already talking tough, using that White House-dreaded word subpoena — one man who will likely have to face him is Judge Thomas M. Hardiman of Pennsylvania. Hardiman is a federal district court judge, appointed by President Bush in 2003, whom Bush has since nominated for a promotion to the nation’s second-highest bench. Leahy, along with Sen. Russ Feingold, is taking Hardiman to task for political contributions he made to key Republicans while he was under official consideration for his district judgeship, as revealed in October by Salon and the Center for Investigative Reporting, after a four-month investigation of Bush judges. Hardiman gave a combined $4,400 to Republican Sens. Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum (who lost his reelection bid in November) between the time Hardiman interviewed for his judgeship with the senators’ selection committee and when Bush nominated him.” [Salon, 12/15/06]