logo
Bruce M. Selya, Federal Judge Known for Polysyllabic Prose, Dies at 90

Bruce M. Selya, Federal Judge Known for Polysyllabic Prose, Dies at 90

New York Times21-03-2025

Bruce M. Selya, a federal judge who issued more than 1,800 opinions and was celebrated (and occasionally chided) for a sesquipedalian writing style — that is, his use of long words that sent readers scrambling for a dictionary — died on Feb. 22 in Providence, R.I. He was 90.
His family announced his death.
A Republican who was active in electoral politics before President Ronald Reagan nominated him to the bench in 1982, Judge Selya issued opinions that did not conform to a predictable conservative ideology.
Last year, he was part of a court panel that upheld Rhode Island's ban on high-capacity gun magazines, having continued to work as a senior judge on the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston until his death.
In 1998, he struck down the use of racial preferences in student admissions to Boston Latin School in the first ruling from an appeals court that restricted affirmative action in public schools, a long-sought goal of conservatives.
On the other hand, he sided with a liberal understanding of the separation of church and state when he ruled in 2021 that Boston could bar a Christian group from flying a religious flag at a ceremony outside City Hall.
The United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed Judge Selya, saying that the free-speech rights of the religious group prevailed.
The U.S. District Court of Rhode Island, where Judge Selya began his career on the bench, called him 'one of the most widely quoted jurists in America.'
His best-known law clerk in his 38 years as an appellate judge was Ketanji Brown Jackson, the future Supreme Court associate justice nominated by President Joseph R. Biden Jr. In a memoir, she described Judge Selya as 'a brilliant, meticulous and scholarly practitioner of the law.'
In his 22 years as a corporate lawyer before joining the bench, Judge Selya bemoaned the sleep-inducing prose of typical legal opinions. He vowed to enliven his own writing with original vocabulary and colorful figures of speech.
He became known for obscure word choices — some extremely so. He preferred perscrutation rather than a simpler synonym, scrutiny; inconcinnate (unsuitable); and rodomontade (boastful talk).
The National Law Journal in 2008 published a guide to 'Selyaisms,' compiling some of his favorite recondite words and phrases, to aid lawyers making their way through his opinions. The list included asseverate (declare), crapulous (unrestrained in drinking) and sockdolager (a decisive blow).
The judge was also a punster. In a case involving the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, he wrote in his ruling that 'a lingerie manufacturer made a slip,' that 'plaintiffs' own filings place them in the tightest of corsets' and that the union had 'played pantywaist.'
To some critics, such writing was needlessly opaque, even sophomoric. Bryan A. Garner, the editor in chief of Black's Law Dictionary, once compared the judge to Holofernes, the pedantic schoolmaster who spouts Latinisms in Shakespeare's 'Love's Labor's Lost.'
'Many of his words are not in most dictionaries and have been obsolete for a long time,' Mr. Garner told The New York Times in a 1992 article about the judge's literary style. 'To say 'perscrutation' instead of 'examination' is ludicrous.'
The judge did not accept the reprimand. 'There are no such things as obscure words; there are just words that are temporarily abandoned,' he told The Boston Globe in 2006. 'It's part of my responsibility to resuscitate them.'
Juan R. Torruella, a fellow appellate judge on the First Circuit, told The Globe that he admired and sometimes repeated Judge Selya's unique vocabulary. 'One of his favorite words, 'struthious,' I like very much,' he said. 'If people have to look it up, that's OK. It makes them think about his decisions.'
struthious, adj., designating or of an ostrich or ostrichlike bird
Bruce Marshall Selya was born on May 27, 1934, in Providence to Herman Selya, a chemical engineer, and Betty (Brier) Selya.
He attended Classical High School in Providence and went on to Harvard, earning an A.B. from Harvard University in 1955 and a Bachelor of Laws degree from Harvard Law School in 1958.
He practiced corporate and real estate law from 1960 to 1982 in Providence, where he was active in state Republican politics. He ran unsuccessfully for attorney general in 1964 and was a longtime fund-raiser and kitchen-cabinet adviser to John H. Chafee, a governor and four-term U.S. senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. Selya managed Mr. Chafee's first Senate race in 1976, and in an act of political patronage Mr. Chafee urged President Reagan to nominate him to the federal bench. He became the first Jewish federal judge to serve in Rhode Island, according to Jack Reed, the U.S. senator from that state.
Judge Selya was with the district court from 1982 to 1986, when Mr. Reagan named him to the First Circuit appeals court, which oversees much of New England as well as Puerto Rico.
He is survived by his wife, Cindy (Anzevino) Selya; his daughters, Dawn Selya and Lori Ann Young; his sister, Susan Jane Rosen; six grandchildren; and two great-granddaughters. A previous marriage, to Ellen Barnes, ended in divorce.
In 2005, Judge Selya was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which takes a second look at denials of government requests for wiretaps in national security cases.
He issued an opinion in 2008 that telecommunication companies must comply with government requests to eavesdrop on certain phone calls and emails of Americans suspected of being spies or terrorists.
Judge Selya stepped back from a full workload on the First Circuit appellate court in 2006, assuming senior status. But he continued to hear cases.
He told The Providence Journal in 2022 that he worked a five-day week from 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. His eyesight had diminished, so his staff read documents to him. 'It doesn't stop me,' he said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

After vowing ‘90 deals in 90 days,' the White House's rhetoric runs into reality
After vowing ‘90 deals in 90 days,' the White House's rhetoric runs into reality

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

After vowing ‘90 deals in 90 days,' the White House's rhetoric runs into reality

Donald Trump clearly wants the public to believe he recently struck a trade deal with China. The president did not actually reach such an agreement, but he's leaned into his fictional narrative with great enthusiasm lately. Last Thursday, for example, the Republican published an item to his social media platform, noting that he'd spoken to Chinese President Xi Jinping about 'the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, Trade Deal.' Soon after, during an Oval Office event, he again touted the same 'trade deal.' A day later, Trump posted a follow-up item, announcing the members of a delegation who would travel to London to meet with Chinese officials about 'the Trade Deal.' The bad news is that the 'trade deal' in question does not exist, no matter how many times the American president pretends otherwise. The good news is that administration officials will actually have some discussions with their Chinese counterparts. NBC News reported: Senior U.S. and Chinese officials will meet in London on Monday in an effort to de-escalate the bitter trade dispute between the world's two biggest economies that has roiled the global economy, with China's restrictions on critical minerals high on the agenda. About a month ago, Trump announced what he characterized as a 'deal' with China, but the closer one looked at the details, the more the truth came into focus. Georgetown University professor Abraham Newman wrote a great piece for MSNBC that explained, "While the U.S. did avoid a major economic calamity, this is not a deal. The U.S. blinked. ... Far from some diplomatic coup, the U.S. climb down reflects the economic risks of maintaining such high tariffs.' The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal came to the same conclusion, noting, '[T]he China deal is more surrender than Trump victory.' Complicating matters, while the White House and Beijing reached a tentative agreement that paused the two countries' tit-for-tat tariffs, both countries have since accused each other of violating the agreement. All of which brings to mind Peter Navarro, the White House's top trade adviser, who boasted in April, 'We're going to run 90 deals in 90 days.' Navarro added that such a plan 'is possible' in part because 'the boss is going to be the chief negotiator.' Roughly two months later, the grand total currently stands at zero. Generous observers might be inclined to give Trump credit for striking a deal with the U.K., but as The Washington Post's Dana Milbank summarized in his latest column, that deal is really more of a 'vaguely phrased framework with Britain that still hasn't been made public.' What's more, a new Politico report added that a month after the agreement was announced, the U.S.-U.K. duties 'remain in place' and 'there is still no clear timeline for when they'll lift.' Or to put it another way, two-thirds of the way into the '90 deals in 90 days' vow, the White House appears to be 90 deals short. Undeterred, Navarro returned to Fox Business late last week, where he was asked when the public should expect to see some breakthroughs. 'We will have deals,' Navarro said. 'It takes time. Usually, it takes months and years. In this administration, it's gonna take more like days.' On average, the typical timeframe for a U.S. trade deal is roughly 30 months. That didn't deter Navarro from pushing the '90 deals in 90 days' talking point in April, and it apparently didn't stop him from claiming again last week that Team Trump will produce amazing results in a matter of days. The White House's top trade adviser should be going out of his way right now to lower expectations after already having set an impossibly high bar. For reasons unknown, Navarro is doing the opposite, setting up the Trump administration for additional failure. This article was originally published on

Trump Continues Inflaming L.A. Protests: ‘BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!'
Trump Continues Inflaming L.A. Protests: ‘BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!'

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump Continues Inflaming L.A. Protests: ‘BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!'

President Donald Trump called for the military to be deployed against anti-Immigrations and Customs Enforcements (ICE) protests in Los Angeles, California. The protests, which began in response to ICE raids at various workplaces on Friday, escalated over the weekend after Trump ordered the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops into the city over the objections of Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom, both Democrats. 'Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!' Trump wrote early Monday morning on Truth Social. In another post, the president called for law enforcement to 'ARREST THE PEOPLE IN FACE MASKS, NOW!' U.S. Northern Command issued a statement on Sunday indicating that 'approximately 500 Marines from 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines at Twentynine Palms, California, are in a prepared to deploy status should they be necessary to augment and support the DoD's protection of federal property and personnel efforts.' The call from the president to deploy the military against U.S. citizens — a power that hasn't been invoked by a president since the 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles — would be a serious escalation of federal involvement in what local authorities say remains a manageable, if in sporadic instances violent, outbreak of public protest. Some Republican lawmakers and Trump administration officials have indicated their support for the deployment of military personnel to California. On Sunday night, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) shared a screenshot of a controversial opinion piece he wrote in 2020 calling for the military to be deployed against Black Lives Matter protests. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote on social media Sunday night that 'if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert.' The president and his administration have targeted Los Angeles and several other so-called 'sanctuary cities' — cities and other state or local jurisdictions that limit its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement — as sites to conduct highly publicized ICE raids on immigrant communities. While the administration claims that they are focusing enforcement actions on criminals, Acting ICE Director Tom Homan admitted on Monday that ICE has been sweeping up migrants who just so happened to be at the location of one of their targets, including mothers, high school students, and migrants arriving to immigration court for scheduled hearings. As the administration's enforcement actions grow in intensity, and stray from the bounds of legality, Trump and his allies have claimed protests against their increasingly authoritarian tactics are effectively an illegal impediment to federal operations. 'A once great American City, Los Angeles, has been invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals. Now violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking our Federal Agents to try and stop our deportation operations,' Trump wrote on Sunday in a post that bears little resemblance to what is actually happening in the city. 'Order will be restored, the Illegals will be expelled, and Los Angeles will be set free.' In a Sunday press conference, Mayor Bass said that 'what we're seeing in Los Angeles is chaos that has been provoked by the administration.' 'When you're at Home Depot and workplaces, when you tear parents and children apart, and when you run armored caravans to our streets you cause fear and you cause panic and deploying federalized troops is a dangerous escalation,' Bass said. 'We need to be real about this, this is about another agenda, it's not about public safety.' Bass added that the city remained committed to protecting the First Amendment rights of protesters, but that those legal protections 'do not give you the right to be violent to create chaos are to be violent to create chaos are to vandalize property.' Governor Newsom formally requested on Sunday that Trump revoke his federalization of the National Guard and withdraw them from the city. 'In dynamic and fluid situations such as the one in Los Angeles, State and local authorities are the most appropriate ones to evaluate the need for resources to safeguard life and property. Indeed, the decision to deploy the National Guard, without appropriate training or orders, risks seriously escalating the situation,' he wrote. 'There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation,' Newsom added. More from Rolling Stone Finneas Says He Was Tear-Gassed During 'Very Peaceful' ICE Protest in L.A. ABC News Suspends Journalist for Calling Stephen Miller and Trump 'World-Class Haters' Republicans Say They're Cool With Trump Deploying Troops Against Protesters Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence

Jan. 6 attack gets in the way of Republican talking points on ICE protests
Jan. 6 attack gets in the way of Republican talking points on ICE protests

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Jan. 6 attack gets in the way of Republican talking points on ICE protests

Reflecting on the recent protests in Los Angeles, Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin told CNN that he considered it 'absolutely insane' to see protesters 'carrying a foreign flag.' When 'State of the Union' host Dana Bash reminded the Oklahoma senator that carrying a flag 'is not illegal,' Mullin quickly interjected, 'A foreign flag while you're attacking law enforcement, it's pretty bad.' Of course, during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Americans also saw foreign flags and rioters attacking law enforcement, and much of the Republican Party now treats those violent criminals as victims and heroes. A day before Mullin's on-air comments, U.S. Customs and Border Protection used its social media platform to issue a statement that read, 'Let this be clear: Anyone who assaults or impedes a federal law enforcement officer or agent in the performance of their duties will be arrested and swiftly prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Attack a cop, and life long consequences will follow!' That certainly seemed like an uncontroversial sentiment, except, again, Jan. 6 rioters assaulted and impeded law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties. And while they were arrested and prosecuted, and it appeared that many of them might face serious consequences, Trump returned to the White House and started handing out pardons — including to those who were convicted of violent assaults. And then there was FBI Director Kash Patel, who published a related online item of his own over the weekend: 'Hit a cop, you're going to jail ... doesn't matter where you came from, how you got here, or what movement speaks to you.' Not only did the president who appointed Patel come to the opposite conclusion when handing out Jan. 6 pardons, but the comment also brought to mind this Mother Jones report published after Patel's Senate confirmation hearing earlier this year. [Patel] hailed January 6 rioters convicted of violence against police officers as 'political prisoners.' ... Several Democrats pressed Patel on his work with the J6 Prison Choir, a group of January 6 rioters who recorded a version of the national anthem mashed up with Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The song became a mainstay at Trump's campaign rallies. Patel told Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) that he promoted the song to raise money for the families of January 6 attackers. To be sure, 'Hit a cop, you're going to jail' seemed like an undebatable point. The trouble is, in the Trump administration, it's a maxim that comes with some important fine print: 'Hit a cop, you're going to jail, unless the president likes the reason you hit a cop, in which case you're getting a pardon.' This article was originally published on

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store