Judges from the U.S. Court of International Trade who recently ruled against President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs have longstanding ties to the Democratic Party and liberal activism, raising questions about their impartiality.
The trio of judges—Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif, and Jane Restani—who delivered Wednesday’s ruling, which was temporarily halted by an appellate court on Thursday, all have personal and professional histories that align with progressive causes and candidates. Critics say their decision fits a pattern of judicial activism aimed at weakening Trump’s executive authority.
President Trump didn’t hold back in his reaction. Taking to Truth Social, he posted, “Where do these initial three Judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of ‘TRUMP?’ What other reason could it be?”
Judge Gary Katzmann, an Obama appointee since 2015, boasts a pedigree from Columbia, Oxford, and Yale Law School. He clerked for Stephen Breyer during Breyer’s time on the First Circuit and worked at Harvard Law School as both a researcher and lecturer. Despite being listed as an unaffiliated voter in Massachusetts, records show he voted in three Democratic primaries between 2014 and 2018.
In late 2021, Katzmann ruled against Trump’s move to raise tariffs on solar panel imports, stating that the president had clearly gone beyond his authority. He also upheld Massachusetts’ assault weapons ban as constitutional in a different case, and has participated in educational events organized by Discovering Justice, a progressive nonprofit advocating for systemic reforms. The group publicly declared, “It is abundantly clear to all of us that this justice system does not work for everyone.”
Though the other two judges are also aligned with Democratic politics, they were nominated by Republican presidents due to a legal cap on the number of judges from the same party on the trade court.
Judge Timothy Reif, named to the bench by President Trump in 2019, has an extensive record of contributions to Democratic campaigns, including Hillary Clinton in 2016 and both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. In total, Reif contributed $1,015 to Democratic entities over two decades, according to Federal Election Commission data.
An alumnus of Princeton and Columbia Law School, Reif has spent most of his career in public service. His roles have included stints at the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the House Ways and Means Committee. He’s also been a lecturer at institutions including Georgetown University and Princeton.
Reif’s Senate confirmation documents outline his political involvement going back to 1980, including volunteering for campaigns of prominent Democrats such as Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Barack Obama. One detail in his paperwork that drew attention was that he never registered for the selective service.
He also penned an article in 2016 criticizing what he saw as overreach by the World Trade Organization’s appellate body, indicating a concern with judicial overstepping—though critics say that stance didn’t extend to his own court.
Judge Jane Restani, first appointed by Ronald Reagan, earned her undergraduate degree from the University of California, Berkeley, a university known for its liberal leanings. During the recent case, she pressed Trump administration attorneys on whether the courts truly lacked the power to halt presidential declarations, even if they were “crazy.”
Restani has consistently ruled against Trump’s trade policies. In 2019, she joined a decision restricting his ability to raise steel tariffs on Turkey. And in 2018, she rejected a challenge to Trump’s use of Section 232 tariffs, dismissing claims that factoring in broader economic issues went beyond legal authority.
Although the initial ruling by the panel has been paused, the broader legal battle over the tariffs remains unresolved as the appeals court has yet to weigh in on the case’s substance.
{Matzav.com}
Oh my gosh, you should have warned us to sit down before we read this. What a shock. Judges being activist for the Democrats? Well who would have thunk it.