Blocked by Rubio, Scott for federal judge, Coral Gables attorney is appointed as magistrate
When South Florida lawyer Detra Shaw-Wilder was nominated last year as a federal judge, her career appeared to be reaching new heights.
But her nomination by a Democratic president withered away as Florida's two Republican senators blocked it amid a divisive presidential election campaign.
Shaw-Wilder, however, survived the setback and will soon be joining the federal bench as a magistrate judge in the Southern District of Florida. The region's federal district court judges appointed her in early May to fill a vacancy this summer. There are 18 federal magistrate judges, who oversee bond hearings, arraignments and pre-trial criminal and civil matters, among other duties.
Shaw-Wilder, 55, a longtime partner with the prominent Coral Gables law firm, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, declined to comment on Wednesday. But one of her benefactors, U.S. Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami, praised her work as a trial attorney and her dedication to the community and legal profession.
In a statement, Wilson said Shaw-Wilder's appointment as a magistrate judge 'represents a meaningful step toward increasing diversity within our courts. ... And I know little Black girls in our community will start to see themselves reflected in Detra Shaw-Wilder.'
As a Black woman, Detra Shaw-Wilder was seen as a worthy successor to the late Marcia Cooke, a pioneering Black judge on the federal bench in South Florida. A Miami native, Shaw-Wilder was even recommended for the high-profile federal judgeship by a judicial nominating committee handpicked by Florida's senior Republican senator, Marco Rubio.
READ MORE: A prominent Black lawyer in Coral Gables nominated as federal judge in South Florida
Rubio, Scott block her bid to be federal judge
But Shaw-Wilder's once-promising nomination eventually encountered opposition from Rubio and Florida's other GOP senator, Rick Scott, who refused to support her before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the months leading up to the November 2024 presidential election.
Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law school professor and expert on federal judicial nominations, said the timing of Shaw-Wilder's confirmation in the Senate could not have been worse because of the bitter battle between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump.
'She didn't get there in time,' Tobias said. 'The election did her in.'
Last September, Scott's office said he was blocking Shaw-Wilder's nomination in the U.S. Senate because he believed the Biden administration did not properly consult with him before formally announcing her appointment in March of last year.
READ MORE: Florida's GOP senators hold up Biden's nomination of top lawyer for federal judge
Rubio, despite his judicial nominating committee recommending her as a federal judge, continued to side with Scott.
Both senators have the authority to block any nomination for the federal district court in Florida by withholding a so-called blue slip that would allow the process to go forward in the Senate. Critics said their blocking Shaw-Wilder's nomination was to spite President Joe Biden.
Her South Florida supporters said it was a shame that Shaw-Wilder, who came from humble beginnings to reach the top of her profession as a civil litigator, faced such a political blockade to her Senate confirmation as a federal judge.
UM law school graduate, partner in Gables firm
Shaw-Wilder grew up in Miami Gardens, graduated from Hialeah-Miami Lakes Senior High, and received her bachelor's degree from the University of Florida and her law degree from the University of Miami School of Law, before joining Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton in 1994. She became a partner in 2002 and later served as managing partner of the firm. She is currently its general counsel.
More than 100 retired judges, lawyers, business executives and community leaders wrote letters to Sens. Rubio and Scott, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the White House, praising Shaw-Wilder as Biden's pick for the federal bench in South Florida, including more than 30 past presidents of the Cuban American Bar Association.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ohio Senate passes budget giving Browns $600 million, tax cut to wealthy, more public school money
Ohio Senate President Rob McColley, R-Napoleon. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original article.) The Ohio Senate has passed a $60 billion state biennial operating budget, which includes a tax cut for the wealthy, some increased public education funding, and $600 million in funding to the Cleveland Browns for their new stadium. The total budget is expected to be around $200 billion once federal dollars come in. Ohio House Bill 96 was voted on mainly along party lines, 23-10. State Sen. Bill Blessing, R-Colerain Township, joined the Democrats to vote no. The senators increased the amount of money going to public schools from the Ohio House's proposal. The Senate budget gives public schools about $100 million more than the House. Although they follow most of the Ohio House's proposed budget, which only gives schools about $226 million of an increase for school funding, the Senate changed the funding 'guarantee' amount. Right now, some districts have guarantees that a portion of their funding will not be reduced, even if their enrollment goes down This $100 million added back would only go to high-performing or 'improving' districts. However, to be fully funded based on statistics from the Fair School Funding Plan (FSFP) from 2021, schools would need an additional $666-800 million, compared to the $226 million given by the House. Still, the Senate's version is closer to the FSFP than the House's. 'We're following the funding scheme that was put together in the first place,' Senate Finance Chair Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland, said. 'Our bill is the closest way to get there.' They also raised the House proposal's cap on districts' rainy day funds to 50%, instead of 30%. This would mean that the schools would have to refund anything above that back to the taxpayer to provide property tax relief. 'The priority is not, obviously, in fully funding education, investing in our children and our future,' Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood, said. The Senate's budget proposal still includes $600 million for a new Cleveland Browns stadium in Brook Park. However, the funding structure differs from what the Browns proposed and what the House approved earlier this year. The House proposed borrowing $600 million by issuing bonds and repaying the debt, with interest, over 25 years, at a cost of about $1 billion. The Senate is proposing a $600 million grant for the stadium using unclaimed funds. That's other people's money that the state is holding, from things like forgotten bank accounts, rent, or utility deposits or uncashed insurance policies. The Ohio Department of Commerce's website states the state is sitting on $4.8 billion in unclaimed funds. Asked about the possibility of Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine vetoing that provision, Cirino noted that DeWine said publicly he did not like the debt arrangement of the House for the $600 million. DeWine himself had proposed raising gambling taxes. 'I'm pretty confident and feel good that the governor and the House will look at our approach to it,' Cirino said. Ohio Democratic lawmakers remain staunchly opposed to the project. 'If they could find that money for the Browns and their stadium's move to Brook Park, why didn't they decide to use those funds for the schools?' Antonio asked. The budget also includes a 2.75% flat income tax. There are three income tax brackets in Ohio. Those making up to $26,000 do not need to pay state income tax. Ohioans earning between $26,000 and $100,000 pay a tax of 2.75%. Those making more than $100,000 have to pay 3.5%. State data reveals that this flat tax could result in a loss of about $1.1 billion in the General Revenue Fund. 'The dollars that we're foregoing in the flat tax are already incorporated into our overall spending,' Cirino said. Funding for schools, Medicaid, libraries, lead abatement, food banks, and child care face funding decreases from the current status or from the governor's budget. Asked about these cuts these cuts to social services for lower-income people while giving a tax cut to the state's highest earners, Cirino said Republicans think it's going to be good for the economy. 'It's going to be good for attracting people,' Cirino responded. Antonio disagreed. 'It's a gift to the wealthiest among us on the backs of the poorest and lowest-income and middle-class folks in the state of Ohio,' she said. Senate Republicans propose giving $20,000 to top high school students to encourage them to stay in the state for their higher education. The Governor's Merit Scholarship was passed in the House budget. Already existing, the House language would extend the proposal that gives the top 5% of each graduating high school class $5,000 a year to attend a public or private school in Ohio. But the Senate version reduces the scholarship to the top 2% of students. The money would also have strings attached. The scholarship recipients would be required to reside in Ohio for three years after graduation. There would be an 'expectation' that the money would be returned if they leave within the three years. Now, the Senate and House leaders will enter a conference committee, a closed-door negotiation period to create a final budget. Once a decision is made, both chambers must pass the combined bill. If it passes through both sides, it will be sent to Gov. Mike DeWine for review. In the past, he issued dozens of line-item vetoes on operating budgets. Line-item vetoing is the ability for the governor to pick and choose which policies within a larger piece of legislation get to stay or must go. The deadline for the budget to be passed is July 1. Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on X and Facebook. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
San Francisco Chronicle
33 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Iowa governor rejects GOP bill to increase regulations of Summit's carbon dioxide pipeline
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds on Wednesday rejected a bill that could have introduced more complications for a massive carbon-capture pipeline project routed across several Midwestern states, issuing a rare veto in the Republican-controlled statehouse. The legislation was designed by Iowa House Republicans to increase regulations of Summit Carbon Solutions' estimated $8.9 billion, 2,500-mile (4,023-kilometer) project that cuts across Iowa and already has an approved permit in the state. But the bill provoked loud opposition from members of Iowa's powerful ethanol industry, which argued the project is essential for Iowa's agricultural dominance, for farmers and for construction jobs. And it exposed a rift within the party over how to protect property rights. 'While I shared the bill's goal of protecting landowners, good policy should draw clear, careful lines. This bill doesn't,' said Reynolds, a Republican, in the explanation of her veto. 'It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets.' Despite her veto, Reynolds said she was 'committed to working with the legislature to strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting, and respect private property.' Iowa state Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, a Republican who supported the bill in the House, said Wednesday that her commitment is too little, too late. 'If she was willing to work with us on this, where in the world has she been the last three years?' Kaufmann said. 'She is clearly not siding with the constitutional rights of landowners but rather she's siding with special interests.' Summit has said it has invested nearly $175 million to enter into voluntary agreements with landowners in Iowa and more than $1 billion on the project overall. In a statement, Summit thanked the governor for a thoughtful review of the bill and said their goal is to proceed with voluntary agreements with landowners. Even with the relief from Reynolds' veto, Summit will likely have to readjust plans after South Dakota's governor signed a ban on the use of eminent domain — the government seizure of private property with compensation — to acquire land for carbon dioxide pipelines. Summit's permit application was also rejected in South Dakota. The project has permit approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota but faces various court challenges. The Iowa bill would have prohibited the renewal of permits for a carbon dioxide pipeline, limited the use of such a pipeline to 25 years and significantly increased the insurance coverage requirements for the pipeline company. Those provisions would likely have made it less financially feasible for a company to build a carbon dioxide pipeline. 'We look forward to continued discussions with state leaders as we advance this important project,' Summit said Wednesday. 'At a time when farmers are facing increasing pressures, this project opens the door to new markets and helps strengthen America's energy dominance for the long term.' Rift in Republican-controlled statehouse Republican House Speaker Pat Grassley said after Reynolds' veto that he would pursue a special session to vote on an override, saying in a statement that the veto 'is a major setback for Iowa.' The Iowa Constitution states that a request for special session from two-thirds of both chambers, or the governor, can bring lawmakers back to Des Moines. Two-thirds of both chambers would need to vote for an override for the bill to become law without the governor's approval. 'We will not stop fighting and stand firm on our commitment until landowners' in Iowa are protected against Eminent Domain for private gain,' Grassley said. Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver suggested that would be unlikely in his chamber. Thirteen Republican senators had joined with 14 Democrats in voting in favor of the bill, but 21 Republicans and one Democrat voted against it. 'Based on the votes on that bill in the Iowa Senate, a significant majority of our caucus supports a better policy to protect landowner rights. I expect that majority of our caucus would not be interested in any attempt to override her veto,' he said. As the legislative session wound down, a dozen Republican senators insisted their leaders bring the House-approved bill to the floor for a vote after several years of inaction. The stalemate ended in a long and divisive debate among the Iowa Senate's Republican supermajority, with senators openly criticizing one another and exposing the closed-door discussions that got them there. Summit's project and its critics The Summit pipeline was proposed to carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. By lowering carbon emissions from the plants, the pipeline would lower their carbon intensity scores and make them more competitive in the renewable fuels market. The project would also allow ethanol producers and Summit to tap into federal tax credits. The pipeline's many critics have for years begged lawmakers for action. They accuse Summit of stepping on their property rights and downplaying the safety risks of building the pipeline alongside family homes, near schools and across ranches. Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press reviewed hundreds of cases that reveal the great legal lengths the company went to to get the project built. In South Dakota, in particular, a slew of eminent domain legal actions to obtain land sparked a groundswell of opposition that was closely watched by lawmakers in Iowa as well. A group of landowners released a statement Wednesday calling the veto a slap in the face. 'Big money, greed & self interest won the day,' said Jan Norris, a landowner in southwest Iowa whose neighbor is in the pipeline's route. 'Our property rights are for sale to the highest bidder.'
San Francisco Chronicle
33 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Families file suit challenging Arkansas law that requires Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Seven Arkansas families filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging an upcoming state requirement that public school classrooms have posted copies of the Ten Commandments, saying the new law will violate their constitutional rights. The federal lawsuit challenges a measure Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed into law earlier this year, similar to a requirement enacted by Louisiana and one that Texas' governor has said he'll sign. The Arkansas law takes effect in August and requires the Ten Commandments to be prominently displayed in public school classrooms and libraries. 'Permanently posting the Ten Commandments in every classroom and library — rendering them unavoidable — unconstitutionally pressures students into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state's favored religious scripture,' the lawsuit said. The suit was filed on behalf of the families by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The lawsuit names four school districts in northwest Arkansas — Fayetteville, Bentonville, Siloam Springs and Springdale — as defendants. A spokesperson for Fayetteville schools said the district would not comment on pending litigation, while the other three districts did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Attorney General Tim Griffin said his office was reviewing the lawsuit and considering options. Attorneys for the families, who are Jewish, Unitarian Universalist or nonreligious, said they planned to ask the federal judge in Fayetteville for a preliminary injunction blocking the law's enforcement. The attorneys say the law violates longstanding Supreme Court precedent and the families' First Amendment rights. 'By imposing a Christian-centric translation of the Ten Commandments on our children for nearly every hour of every day of their public-school education, this law will infringe on our rights as parents and create an unwelcoming and religiously coercive school environment for our children," Samantha Stinson, one of the plaintiffs, said in a news release. Louisiana was the first state to enact such a requirement, and a federal judge blocked the measure before it was to take effect Jan 1. Proponents of Louisiana's law say that ruling only applies to the five school boards listed in the suit, but The Associated Press is unaware of any posters being displayed in schools as the litigation continues.
