Michael D. Hawkins

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Michael Hawkins
Image of Michael Hawkins

Nonpartisan

United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (senior status)
Tenure

2010 - Present

Years in position

14

Prior offices
United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit

Bildung

Bachelor's

Arizona State University, 1967

Absolvent

University of Virginia School of Law, 1998

Law

Arizona State University Law School, 1970

Personal
Birthplace
Winslow, Ariz.


Michael Daly Hawkins is a federal judge on senior status with the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. He joined the court in 1994 after being nominated by President Bill Clinton. He assumed senior status on February 12, 2010.[1]

Early life and education

Born in Winslow, Arizona, Hawkins graduated from Arizona State University with his bachelor's degree in 1967, from Arizona State University College of Law with his J.D. in 1970, and from the University of Virginia School of Law with his LL.M. in 1998.[1]

Military service

Hawkins served as a special court martial military judge from 1970 until 1973.[1]

Professional career

Federal judicial career

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Nomination Tracker
Fedbadgesmall.png
Nominee Information
Name: Michael Daly Hawkins
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
Progress
Confirmed 63 days after nomination.
ApprovedANominated: July 13, 1994
ApprovedAABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified
Questionnaire:
ApprovedAHearing: August 11, 1994
QFRs: (Hover over QFRs to read more)
ApprovedAReported: August 25, 1994 
ApprovedAConfirmed: September 14, 1994
ApprovedAVote: Voice vote

Hawkins was nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit by President Bill Clinton on July 13, 1994, to a seat vacated by Thomas Tang. The American Bar Association rated Hawkins Unanimously Well Qualified for the nomination.[2] Hearings on Hawkins' nomination were held before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on August 11, 1994, and his nomination was reported by then-U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) on August 25, 1994. Hawkins was confirmed on a voice vote of the U.S. Senate on September 14, 1994, and he received his commission the next day. Hawkins assumed senior status on the court on February 12, 2010.[1][3] He was succeeded in this position by Judge Mary Murguia.

Noteworthy cases

Voter-approved ballot measure banning high-capacity magazines is upheld by Ninth Circuit (2015)

In 2000, the state of California banned the sale and manufacture of high-capacity gun magazines out of concern for public safety. The town of Sunnyvale, California, however, has now banned the possession of gun magazines that contain more than 10 bullets. The ban results from a voter-approved ballot measure. The National Rifle Association (NRA) filed suit against the town, requesting that a judge prevent its enforcement. The NRA argued that the law would impact a citizen’s ability to arm and protect him or herself, a right granted by the Second Amendment. In March 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte refused to issue an order preventing enforcement of the law. Citizens in Sunnyvale had until March 6, 2014, to turn over high-capacity magazines or remove them from the city limits.

An appeal of Judge Whyte’s decision went to the Ninth Circuit, and, on March 4, 2015, a three-judge panel consisting of Michael D. Hawkins, Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Barbara Lynn (sitting by designation) affirmed Judge Whyte’s ruling. The court, citing the United States Supreme Court case from 2008 ‘’District of Columbia v. Heller’’, said that while a citizen has a right to bear arms in self-protection, some limits to that right are permissible. The court then declared Sunnyvale’s law constitutional.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs said they intend to file an appeal, either to the U.S. Supreme Court or to the Ninth Circuit, seeking reconsideration.

Articles:

City and officer liable for tasing man (2013)

Don Blondin heard a commotion outside his home and went to investigate. He found his neighbor, Jack, on the ground being shot with a taser gun by police officers. The officers were attempting to stop Jack from taking his own life, but Blondin did not know this. He asked the officers what they were doing and, in return, was told to back up. One officer, Sergeant Jeff Shelton, pointed his taser at Blondin and again told him to back up. Witnesses said Blondin appeared to be frozen in fear. When he did not move, Shelton warned Blondin he would be tased; before he finished the statement, however, Shelton fired the gun. Blondin was hit with the dart and incapacitated. Shelton warned Blondin’s wife, who had said nothing, that she was next. Blondin was then arrested and charged with obstructing a police officer. That case was dropped by the district attorney.

The Blondin’s sued the city of Snohomish and Shelton individually for unlawful arrest, the use of excessive force and a common law doctrine called outrage, wherein a spouse can recover damages for seeing her husband in extreme pain at the hands of someone else. The defendants were granted summary judgment by a federal district court Judge Robert Lasnik, including granting Shelton qualified immunity. Judge Lasnik’s ruling was appealed by the Blondins. A Ninth Circuit panel consisting of Judges Michael D. Hawkins, Jacqueline Nguyen and James Selna (sitting by designation), found that there was no evidence Blondin was resisting the officers or attempting to stop their actions; he was inquiring what they were doing to his neighbor. As a result, the city and Shelton were liable for tasing of Blondin that evening.

Judge Nguyen, however, dissented from the majority opinion, written by Judge Hawkins. Judge Nguyen felt that Blondin was interjecting himself into a police matter, and the officers were reacting to several issues at one time. She wrote that the majority did not consider the gravity of the situation at the time Blondin was tased and, as a result, discounts Shelton’s use of reasonable judgment in a situation with exigent circumstances.

Articles:

Proposition 8 appeal (2011-2012)
See also: United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (Perry v. Brown, Appeal No. 11-16577)

On December 8, 2011, the Ninth Circuit heard arguments from Proposition 8 supporters asking for Northern District Chief Judge James Ware's decision against them and vacate former Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling on the proposition's constitutionality. Proposition supporters are arguing that Judge Walker was biased against them at trial because he was involved in a same-sex relationship at the time. The panel hearing the appeal consists of Judges Michael D. Hawkins, Stephen Reinhardt and Randy Smith.[4]

For the full story, see Proposition 8 supporters ask appeals court to overturn ruling.

Update: On Tuesday, February 7, 2011, a three judge appellate panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit issued its ruling in Perry v. Brown, which upheld the rulings by district court judges Vaughn Walker and James Ware which overturned California's Proposition 8 which blocked same sex marriage in the state. The panel, consisting of Judges Michael D. Hawkins, Stephen Reinhardt and Randy Smith, stated that “Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California." The court ruled that the same-sex marriage ban violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The ruling states:

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted... Under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status...

In effect, the court concluded that, because domestic partnerships had already established equal rights for same-sex couples, the measure only served to deny these relationships the designation of "marriage." This, according to the court, was not a legitimate purpose for treating these couples differently under the law. The panel was split in its decision with Judge Randy Smith concurring in part and dissenting in part. The panel upheld both the decisions of Chief Judge Ware as well as Senior Judge Walker, whose original decision has been challenged on the grounds that Walker had an undisclosed long term relationship with another man at the time of the case. The ruling clears the way for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the subject next year.[5] For expansive coverage of the ballot measure and ensuing legal controversy, please see: California Proposition 8, the "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" Initiative (2008).

In a separate ruling, on Thursday, the same panel refused to release the videos from the original trial. The panel held that Walker “promised the litigants that the conditions under which the recording was maintained would not change—that there was no possibility that the recording would be broadcast to the public in the future.” Because of this, the judges determined that, “[t]he integrity of our judicial system depends in no small part on the ability of litigants and members of the public to rely on a judge’s word. The record compels the finding that the trial judge’s representations to the parties were solemn commitments,” and that the video's should not be released.[6]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Federal Judicial Center, "Biographical directory of federal judges," accessed July 13, 2016
  2. ↑ American Bar Association, "Ratings of Article III judicial nominees, 103rd Congress," accessed July 13, 2016
  3. ↑ United States Congress, "PN 1567 - Michael D. Hawkins — The Judiciary," accessed July 13, 2016
  4. ↑ Los Angeles Times "Appeals court asked to decide if gay judge could be fair on Prop. 8 case," December 8, 2011
  5. ↑ LA Times Blog, "Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules" 2/7/2012
  6. ↑ Dallas Voice, "Court won’t release videos from Prop 8 trial," February 3, 2012



Arizona courts

Federal courts:

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: District of Arizona • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: District of Arizona

State courts:

Arizona Supreme Court • Arizona Court of Appeals • Arizona Superior Court • Arizona Justice Courts • Arizona Municipal Courts

State resources:

Courts in Arizona • Arizona judicial elections • Judicial selection in Arizona

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Michael_D._Hawkins&oldid=9799673"