Hardiman was born in 1965 in Winchester,Massachusetts,and was raised in Waltham.[4][5] His father,Robert,owned and operated a taxicab and school transportation business and his mother,Judith (nee' Kohler),[6] was a homemaker and bookkeeper for the family business.[4][5][7]
As a teenager,Hardiman began working part-time as a taxi driver,which he continued to do throughout high school and college.[7][8] In 1983,he graduated from Waltham High School.[9]
Hardiman was appointed by President George W. Bush to be a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. He was nominated to a seat on April 9,2003,and was confirmed by a voice vote on October 22,2003.[13] He received his commission on October 27,2003 and took the bench on November 1,2003.[14] His service as a district court judge was terminated on April 5,2007 when he was elevated to the court of appeals.[14]
Court of appeals service
Hardiman was subsequently nominated to the Third Circuit by President Bush on January 9,2007,to fill a seat vacated by Judge Richard Lowell Nygaard,who assumed senior status in 2005.[14] Hardiman was confirmed by the Senate on March 15,2007 by a 95–0 vote.[15] He received his commission on April 2,2007.[14]
In Barkes v. First Correctional Medical,Inc. (2014),Hardiman dissented from a ruling that two Delaware prison officials could be sued for failing to provide adequate suicide prevention protocols after a mentally-ill inmate committed suicide. The Supreme Court agreed and unanimously reversed in Taylor v. Barkes.[17]
Capital punishment
Hardiman has generally voted in favor of the state and against inmates when he decided on cases that centered on capital punishment. Most of the cases that he has encountered involved disputes surrounding the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act,a 1996 US law limiting an inmates' ability to seek habeas corpus relief from their conviction. He often affirms his belief that the Act places a high standard on inmates that they usually cannot reach.[18][19] However,he joined the majority in favor of State of Delaware in Jackson III vs Danberg that was written by D. Michael Fisher,which warned Delaware that the decision “should in no way be construed as license for Delaware to stay the worrisome course it appears to have taken at times under its former protocol" and that "[t]he record before us reflects an occasional blitheness on Delaware's part that,while perhaps not unconstitutional,gives us great pause. We remind Delaware not only of its constitutional obligation to ensure that the implementation of its new protocol does not run afoul of the Eighth Amendment's proscription of cruel and unusual punishment,but also of its moral obligation to carry out executions with the degree of seriousness and respect that the state-administered termination of human life demands."[18][19][20]
Criminal sentencing
In United States v. Abbott (2009),Hardiman held that a defendant's mandatory minimum sentence is not affected by the imposition of another mandatory minimum for a different offense.[21] The Supreme Court affirmed the decision in 2010.
In United States v. Fisher (2007),Hardiman ruled that a judge could find facts to enhance a criminal sentence according to the preponderance of the evidence standard.[22]
Religious freedom
In Busch v. Marple Newtown School District (2008),Hardiman wrote a dissenting opinion in favor of parents who described themselves as Evangelical Christians and were barred from reading from the Bible during a kindergarten "show and tell" presentation. Hardiman wrote that "the school went too far in this case in limiting participation in ‘All About Me’week to nonreligious perspectives," which "plainly constituted" discrimination. Hardiman wrote that "the majority's desire to protect young children from potentially influential speech in the classroom is understandable," but that students cannot be barred from expressing "what is most important" about themselves.[23] However,in August 2019,Hardiman wrote a majority opinion overturning a lower court decision that required the removal of a Christian cross from the Lehigh County Seal because its inclusion served no secular purpose and a reasonable person would see the use of a religious symbol as endorsement of a religion by the government. Hardiman,however,argued that the plaintiffs did not show evidence of a specific intent to discriminate or disrespect other religious viewpoints when the cross and no other religious symbols had been added to the seal in 1944:"more than seven decades after its adoption,the seal has become a familiar,embedded feature of Lehigh County,attaining a broader meaning than any one of its many symbols." The other symbols,including a grain silo,were not controversial. When Commissioner Harry Hertzog designed and proposed adoption of the seal in 1944,he said that the cross signified "the God-fearing people which are the foundation of our county."[24][25]
In Groff v. Dejoy (2022),Hardiman wrote a dissenting opinion in favor of a postal worker who sued the U.S. Postal Service for failing to accommodate his religious observance of the Sabbath,as required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[26] Hardiman questioned a 1977 Supreme Court precedent interpreting Title VII not to require such accommodations when they would impose more than a "de minimis cost" on employers. The Supreme Court granted review and reversed in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito,rejecting the "de minimis" standard and remanding the case to the Third Circuit.
Gun rights
In United States vs. Barton (2011),Hardiman rejected a challenge to the federal law that bans felons from owning firearms.[27] However,in Binderup v. Attorney General (2016),he held that such a prohibition could cover only dangerous persons who are likely to use firearms for illicit purposes. He wrote that "the most cogent principle that can be drawn from traditional limitations on the right to keep and bear arms is that dangerous persons likely to use firearms for illicit purposes were not understood to be protected by the Second Amendment."[28]
In the 2013 case Drake v. Filko,Hardiman filed a dissenting opinion that argued that the New Jersey requirement for gun owners to show a "justifiable need" to carry a handgun was unconstitutional. Hardiman cited District of Columbia v. Heller and wrote that based on the Heller ruling,the Second Amendment "protects an inherent right to self-defense."[29][30]
In Range v. Attorney General (2023),Hardiman wrote the majority opinion for the en banc Third Circuit holding that the federal law barring firearm possession by felons was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to a man who had been convicted of making false statements to obtain food stamps.[31]
Free speech
In United States v. Stevens (2008),Hardiman voted to strike down a federal law that criminalized videos depicting animal cruelty.[32]
In Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle (2010),Hardiman ruled that a police officer had qualified immunity because there was no clearly-established First Amendment right to videotape police officers during traffic stops.[33]
In B.H. ex rel. Hawk v. Easton Area School District (2013),Hardiman dissented from the court's holding that a public school violated the First Amendment by banning middle-school students from wearing bracelets inscribed "I [love] boobies!" sold by a breast cancer awareness group.[34]
In Northeastern Pennsylvania Freethought Society v. County of Lackawanna Transit System,Hardiman struck down the application of a county provision barring religious speech on public buses because the policy was viewpoint discriminatory against religious organizations.
Immigration
In Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Attorney General (2010),Hardiman ruled in favor of a man from Honduras who was seeking asylum in the United States to avoid being recruited into a violent gang.[36]
In Di Li Li v. Attorney General (2015),Hardiman decided that the Board of Immigration Appeals had to reopen a case when an asylum seeker from China converted to Christianity and argued that "conditions have worsened over time" for Christians in China.[37]
In Cazun v. Attorney General (2017),Hardiman concurred in the judgment to explain that the Immigration and Nationality Act unambiguously forbids aliens subject to reinstated removal orders from applying for asylum and that the court should have held so without resorting to Chevron deference.[38]
LGBT issues
In Brian D. Prowel v. Wise Business Forms,INC.,Hardiman "wrote for the court in allowing a gender-stereotyping claim by a gay man who described himself as 'effeminate' to go forward,reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the company where the man worked,and which ultimately fired him."[39] Hardiman determined that Prowel's case could move forward because Prowel may argue that he faced discrimination for not conforming to the company's vision of gender norms.[40]
Commerce
In United States v. Pendleton (2011),a man who sexually molested a 15-year-old boy in Germany was convicted and sentenced in Delaware under the PROTECT Act of 2003. The defendant argued that the PROTECT Act was unconstitutional based on the Foreign Commerce Clause. Hardiman ruled that the PROTECT Act was valid because of an "express connection" to the channels of foreign commerce.[41]
As a student,Hardiman participated in an exchange program in Mexico,and he later volunteered with the Ayuda immigration legal aid office in Washington,D.C.,representing immigrants.[7]
Dennis Michael Fisher is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He also serves as the Distinguished Jurist in Residence at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. A former politician,Fisher has served as a state representative,state senator,and as Attorney General of Pennsylvania. He was the Republican nominee for Governor of Pennsylvania in 2002,losing to Ed Rendell.
Timothy Michael Tymkovich is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Harris L Hartz is an American jurist and lawyer who serves as a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Stephen Roy Reinhardt was a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,with chambers in Los Angeles,California. He was the last federal appeals court judge in active service to have been appointed to his position by President Jimmy Carter.
Jane Richards Roth is an American attorney and jurist serving as a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. She was previously a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Kent Amos Jordan is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He was previously a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware from 2002 to 2006.
Paul March Smith is an American attorney who has argued many important cases,most notably Lawrence v. Texas and has argued 21 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. In January 2017,he joined the faculty at Georgetown University Law Center,and also the Campaign Legal Center in Washington,D.C.,as Vice President of Litigation and Strategy. Until 2017,he was a partner at Jenner &Block's Washington,D.C.,office where he served as co-chair of the firm's Election Law and Redistricting practice.
Thomas Lee Ambro is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Scott Milne Matheson Jr. is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He has served on that court since 2010.
Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Robert James Cindrich is a former United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and a former federal judicial nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Timothy Belcher Dyk is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Amul Roger Thapar is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He is a former United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky. He was also President Trump's first Court of Appeals appointment and Trump's second judicial appointment after Justice Neil Gorsuch. Thapar was discussed as a candidate for the Supreme Court of the United States.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in South Carolina since a federal court order took effect on November 20,2014. Another court ruling on November 18 had ordered the state to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Following the 2014 ruling of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bostic v. Schaefer,which found Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional and set precedent on every state in the circuit,one judge accepted marriage license applications from same-sex couples until the South Carolina Supreme Court,in response to a request by the Attorney General,ordered him to stop. A federal district court ruled South Carolina's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on November 12,with implementation of that decision stayed until noon on November 20. The first same-sex wedding ceremony was held on November 19.
Stephanos Bibas is an American lawyer and jurist who serves as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Before his appointment to the bench,Bibas was a professor of law and criminology at the University of Pennsylvania Law School,where he also served as director of its Supreme Court clinic.
Allison Lynn Hartwell Eid is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. She previously served as an associate justice of the Colorado Supreme Court.
Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA),there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation. They include challenges by states against the ACA,reactions from legal experts with respect to its constitutionality,several federal court rulings on the ACA's constitutionality,the final ruling on the constitutionality of the legislation by the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius,and notable subsequent lawsuits challenging the ACA. The Supreme Court upheld ACA for a third time in a June 2021 decision.
Cornelia Thayer Livingston Pillard,known professionally as Nina Pillard,is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Before becoming a judge,Pillard was a tenured law professor at Georgetown University.
Peter v. NantKwest Inc.,589 U.S. ___ (2019),was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2019 term.
Bill Whelan (June 10, 2016). "Waltham High Retirees Reflect on Their Careers". Wicked Local Waltham [Mass.] Pittsford, NY: GateHouse Media. Retrieved February 1, 2017. Mentions his participation in Chess, in high school.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
