Federal Judge Bruce Selya, widely respected R.I. jurist known for his vocabulary, dies at 90
Reed described Judge Selya as 'a man of great wisdom, integrity, modesty, wit, and high ethical standards.'
Get Rhode Map
A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State.
Enter Email
Sign Up
RI has lost a legal legend, Judge Bruce Selya, 90, whose outstanding contributions to the community & people of RI go well beyond his four decades of remarkable service on the federal bench.
— Senator Jack Reed (@SenJackReed)
'As a judge, Bruce Selya was nationally renowned and respected and set a high bar that many others in his profession admire and aspire to reach,' Reed said. 'As a man, he will be remembered for his exemplary devotion to the law and uplifting others, particularly those in his beloved hometown of Providence.'
In her new memoir, US Supreme Court Justice
'A bespectacled man then in his mid-60s with graying swept-back hair, he had an old-world courtliness about him, and an erudite way of expressing himself that extended to his decisions,' she wrote.
Judge Selya — once dubbed the '
Jackson recalled that Judge Selya would insert 'arcane terms' into draft opinions, sending her and other clerks 'scurrying for Old English dictionaries.' She recalled learning words such as asseverate (to declare or affirm a thing), gallimaufry (a confusing hodgepodge of elements, legal or otherwise), and velivolant (being in full sail). She also recalled Selya pausing to consider whether to insert a comma in an opinion.
Advertisement
'He prided himself on opinions that would be flawless in their grammar, reasoning, distinctive use of language, and presentation,' Jackson wrote, calling Selya 'brilliant, meticulous, and scholarly.'
She said she emerged from the clerkship not only with an expanded vocabulary but with a higher 'level of fastidiousness in drafting opinions.'
Judge Selya, who
Professor Michael J. Yelnosky, former dean of the Roger Williams University School of Law, described Selya as 'a Rhode Island institution.'
'Just a giant,' Yelnosky said. 'I think it's fair to call him the greatest jurist in Rhode Island history. He had a real national reputation. This is not just a Rhode Island guy.'
He said Selya was well-respected by his colleagues on the First US Circuit Court of Appeals and had friends on the US Supreme Court.
'He was well-regarded both for the intellectual quality of his work and his rhetorical flourishes,' Yelnosky said. 'And just as gracious and generous as a human being could be.'
Born and raised in Providence, Judge Selya received an undergraduate degree from Harvard University in 1955 and a law degree from Harvard Law School in 1958. He served as law clerk to Judge Edward W. Day of the US District Court for the District of Rhode Island from 1958 to 1960. He worked in private practice in Providence from 1960 to 1982, and served as a judge on the Lincoln, R.I., Probate Court from 1965 to 1972.
Advertisement
In 1982, he was nominated to US District Court by President Ronald Reagan and he was elevated to the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in 1986. In 2000, US Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist appointed Selya to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, a position Judge Selya held until 2004.
In 2005, US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts appointed Judge Selya to the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, and in 2008 he was appointed to the chief judgeship of the Court of Review.
Judge Selya contributed his time and talents to many community causes and public service endeavors. He taught law school students and received honorary degrees from Bryant University, Roger Williams University, and Brandeis University.
In 2017, the Roger Williams University School of Law dedicated the
In 2023, the City of Providence designated Fulton Street as Judge Selya Way.
Information on funeral and memorial services were not immediately available.
Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
Appellate judges question Trump's authority to impose tariffs without Congress
Brett Schumate, the attorney representing the Trump administration, acknowledged in the 99-minute hearing 'no president has ever read IEEPA this way' but contended it was nonetheless lawful. The 1977 law, signed by President Jimmy Carter, allows the president to seize assets and block transactions during a national emergency. It was first used during the Iran hostage crisis and has since been invoked for a range of global unrest, from the 9/11 attacks to the Syrian civil war. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump says the country's trade deficit is so serious that it likewise qualifies for the law's protection. Advertisement In sharp exchanges with Schumate, appellate judges questioned that contention, asking whether the law extended to tariffs at all and, if so, whether the levies matched the threat the administration identified. 'If the president says there's a problem with our military readiness,' Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore posited, 'and he puts a 20 percent tax on coffee, that doesn't seem to necessarily deal with (it).' Schumate said Congress' passage of IEEPA gave the president 'broad and flexible' power to respond to an emergency, but that 'the president is not asking for unbounded authority.' Advertisement But an attorney for the plaintiffs, Neal Katyal, characterized Trump's maneuver as a 'breathtaking' power grab that amounted to saying 'the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants so long as he declares an emergency.' No ruling was issued from the bench. Regardless of what decision the judges' deliberations bring, the case is widely expected to reach the US Supreme Court. Trump weighed in on the case on his Truth Social platform, posting: 'To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today. If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE 'DEAD,' WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' In filings in the case, the Trump administration insists that 'a national emergency exists' necessitating its trade policy. A three-judge panel of the The issue now rests with the appeals judges. The challenge strikes at just one batch of import taxes from an administration that has unleashed a bevy of them and could be poised to unveil more on Friday. The case centers on Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs of April 2 that imposed new levies on nearly every country. But it doesn't cover other tariffs, including those on Advertisement The case is one of at least seven lawsuits charging that Trump overstepped his authority through the use of tariffs on other nations. The plaintiffs include 12 US states and five businesses, including a wine importer, a company selling pipes and plumbing goods, and a maker of fishing gear. The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to impose taxes — including tariffs — but over decades lawmakers have ceded power over trade policy to the White House. Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average US tariff to more than 18 percent, the highest rate since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. The attorney general for one of the states suing Trump sounded confident after the hearing, arguing that the judges 'didn't buy' the Trump administration's arguments. 'You would definitely rather be in our shoes going forward,' Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said. Rayfield said that Trump's tariffs — which are paid by importers in the United States who often try to pass along the higher costs to their customers — amount to one of the largest tax increases in American history. 'This was done all by one human being sitting in the Oval Office,' he said.
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
Appeals court rejects Boston Marathon bomber's bid to remove judge from his case
The two-page judgment said the appeals court 'carefully reviewed' Tsarnaev's petition, which points to two panel discussions and a podcast in which O'Toole 'discussed various aspects of organizing complex jury trials and the problems associated with social media in that context.' The appeals court concluded that O'Toole should continue to preside over the case.. Tsarnaev, 32,cq gone before the US Supreme Court. In March 2024, the appeals court ordered O'Toole to investigate defense claims that two jurors were biased and should have been stricken from the panel. If he finds they were, then Tsarnaev is entitled to a new trial over whether he should be sentenced to life in prison or death, according to the appeals court. Advertisement The appeals court found O'Toole erred by denying a defense request Advertisement During jury selection, one juror said she had not commented about the case, but the defense found she had tweeted or retweeted 22 times about the bombings, including a retweet calling Tsarnaev a 'piece of garbage,' according to court filings. Another juror said none of his Facebook friends had commented on the trial, yet one friend had urged him to 'play the part' so he could get on the jury and send Tsarnaev 'to jail where he will be taken care of.' O'Toole was ordered to investigate potential juror bias and hold a new sentencing trial for Tsarnaev if he concludes that either of the jurors should have been stricken from the panel. Earlier this year, O'Toole denied a defense request to recuse himself from the case, prompting the latest appeal. The inquiry related to the two jurors has been shrouded in secrecy. Last year, O'Toole ordered all filings submitted under seal, citing concerns about the jurors' privacy and protecting the integrity of the high-stakes proceedings, though he later released some of them. Tsarnaev admitted during his trial in federal court in Boston that he placed a bomb in a backpack in front of the Forum restaurant on Boylston Street that killed Martin Evidence showed his older brother, a few blocks away that killed Advertisement The jury that heard Tsarnaev's trial recommended death, rejecting claims that the then 19-year-old was not responsible because of the influence of his brother. In 2020, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Shelley Murphy can be reached at
Washington Post
a day ago
- Washington Post
Trump's tariffs face major legal challenge in appellate court
President Donald Trump's cornerstone economic policy heads to a federal appellate court on Thursday, challenged by a group of small businesses and states arguing that no emergency exists to allow the administration to skip legal steps to impose tariffs on foreign goods around the world. The Court of International Trade sided with the businesses in May, ruling that most of Trump's tariffs are illegal, because the law he used does not allow the president to 'impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world.' But the government quickly appealed the ruling, which has been put on hold as the issue proceeds in court. If the small businesses are successful in throwing out Trump's tariffs, it would mean many of the president's most prominent economic efforts from his second term so far would be moot. Some tariffs would not be affected by the ruling, such as those on steel and aluminum, but the widespread 'Liberation Day' tariffs on most countries would be halted. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in D.C. will hear oral arguments on Thursday, but a decision could be weeks away. The case will likely ultimately end up at the U.S. Supreme Court, and the battle could drag on for months in the legal system. 'The longer this goes on, the bigger the potential impact for importers as they continue to pay tariffs,' said Justin Angotti, an associate focused on international trade at law firm Reed Smith. Meanwhile, Trump continues to announce deal frameworks with U.S. trading partners, including with the European Union this week after months of contentious negotiations. The two agreed to a 15 percent tariff rate on most E.U. goods entering the country. Tariffs are taxes that U.S. importers pay, and those costs are often passed on to the businesses and consumers who buy the goods. As a result, many view such tariffs as taxes on end users. Economists have predicted that tariffs will raise costs for average Americans, although so far they haven't significantly raised inflation. Experts say the full effects of the taxes will not be felt for months. The case centers on a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, which Trump used to impose many of the tariffs. The plaintiffs argue that the president overstepped his authority by using IEEPA to underpin the tariffs, stating in court filings that the law is intended for emergencies to deal with threats, and is a 'sanctions and embargo law, not a blank check for the President to rewrite tariff schedules.' 'He's drawing his power from a place where it doesn't even exist,' said Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, the nonprofit public-interest litigation firm representing the small businesses. But the Trump administration has argued that the law is appropriate for the levies, pointing to several issues it says constitute emergencies. 'President Trump has found that America's exploding trade deficit, the implications of that deficit for our economy and national security, and a fentanyl importation crisis that has claimed thousands of American lives constitute national emergencies,' the Justice Department wrote in a court filing. Analysts at investment bank Piper Sandler wrote in a note last week that it believes the Supreme Court is 'highly unlikely' to rule in Trump's favor. 'Making a deal with another country has no bearing on the legality of Trump's tariffs. If Trump does not have the authority to impose tariffs he is claiming, it doesn't matter whether he makes a deal with Japan or anyone else,' they wrote. 'Congress has not given him authority to strike these deals and has not approved them — nor will it approve them.' The Trump administration could possibly turn to other legal mechanisms in place to impose tariffs if this approach is thrown out. 'The Administration is legally and fairly using tariff powers that have been granted to the executive branch by the Constitution and Congress to level the playing field for American workers and safeguard our national security,' White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. Tariff rates have fluctuated wildly this year, as the White House imposed rates as high as 145 percent on China in particular, then lowered most rates to about 10 percent temporarily. The uncertainty has caused backlogs in the global supply chain, and put stress on some business owners struggling to plan their finances amid the changing policies. Higher rates on trading partners' goods are supposed to take effect Friday for dozens of countries that have not reached an agreement with the U.S. That deadline has been pushed back multiple times, and it could be extended again.
