U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
She is a federal judge on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. She joined the court in 1997 after being nominated by President Bill Clinton. Interestingly she was nominated on January 7, 1997, was confirmed by the United States Senate on March 20, 1997, and received commission on March 26, 1997, taking her oath of office on May 12, 1997. She worked as an attorney in DoJ from 1969-1972 and for the
2009 – Judge Kollar-Kotelly was the presiding judge in a case brought by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) against the author of a book titled Muslim Mafia during which she ruled against the author.
2009 – Judge Kollar-Kotelly ruled in a lawsuit where George Lardner, a Washington Post reporter, sued the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Pardon Attorney after being denied a Freedom of Information Act request to look at who applied for pardons when George W. Bush was President.
2009 – Judge Kollar-Kotelly ordered that a Kuwaiti-national detainee held at Guantanamo Bay be released after being held in prison for seven years. In a declassified opinion, the judge found that federal prosecutors did not have enough evidence to keep Fouad al-Rabiah detained for a long time period and especially for torture.
2002-2009 – She was the Presiding Judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
2006 – Washington Post article described her administration of the FISC, and in particular, what weight evidence taken from warrantless searches should be given to issuing subsequent search warrants for suspects of terrorism and espionage. A top Justice Department lawyer warned the presiding judge of a secret surveillance court that information overheard in President Bush’s eavesdropping program. She and the other judge expressed concern to senior officials that the president’s program, if ever made public and challenged in court, ran a significant risk of being declared unconstitutional, according to sources familiar with their actions. Yet the judges believed they did not have the authority to rule on the president’s power to order the eavesdropping, government sources said, and focused instead on protecting the integrity of the FISA process.
2007 – Kollar-Kotelly reversed George W. Bush on archive secrecy in a 38-page ruling, which said that the U.S. Archivist’s reliance on the executive order to delay release of the papers of former presidents is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with law.”
2008 – Kollar-Kotelly ruled that the Office of Administration was not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
2009 – Kollar-Kotelly presided over the Espionage Act case against Dr. Stephen Jin-Woo Kim after he told a reporter that North Korea would test its nuclear program. The case was controversial because it was one of a string of unprecedented uses of the Espionage Act against officials for speaking with journalists. In 2014 he was given a thirteen month prison term for his actions.
2016 – Judge Kollar-Kotelly denied a requested preliminary injunction against Washington, D.C.’s discretionary issue of concealed carry permits, thereby allowing DC police chief Cathy Lanier to continue denying concealed carry permits to law-abiding citizens in most cases.
2017 – Currently presiding over ACLU vs Trump. in which ACLU alleges that the defendants, President Donald Trump and the Vice President Michael Pence, are in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act by establishing the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity for the purpose of supporting the President’s “claim that he won the popular vote in the 2016 election. The suit asks that the records of the previous meetings of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity be made available to the public and that future meetings be open to the public.
Now that we know what have been a few of her significant cases, the question has to be asked about having a civilian federal judge rule on any military regulations or crimes.
A 2009 CRS document notes the following about Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction: The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is the system of rules that guide the military criminal process.
“Military courts, authorized by Article I of the U.S. Constitution, have jurisdiction over cases involving military service members, including, in some cases, retired service members. They have the power to convict for crimes defined in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), including both uniquely military offenses and crimes with equivalent definitions in civilian laws. With the exception of potential final review by the U.S. Supreme Court, these Article I courts handle review of military cases in an appellate system that rarely interacts with Article III courts. In general, the military justice system, including its system of appellate review, is separate and distinct from the civilian judicial system. Some constitutional safeguards and Supreme Court interpretations are inapplicable in military courts.”
In fact within those pages it is noted that a non-criminal case which had been appealed to outside court,ended up with the U.S. Supreme Court holding that the CAAF had exceeded its jurisdiction in granting injunctive relief because the relief did not involve review of a court-martial decision. The U.S. armed forces have a long history of self-regulation. The only Article III court holdings that bind military courts are those of the U.S. Supreme Court. However, military courts sometimes reject even Supreme Court precedents as inapplicable in the military context. Courts have recognized compelling justifications for a military justice system that is distinct from Article III courts. Equal Justice for United States Military Personnel Act of 2007 as far as I could see never got enacted which might have made a difference.
A 2011 CRS pdf also notes the same.
So given all that information above why is knowing who Judge Kollar-Kotelly and why important?
Judge Okays Lethal Injunction for Troops
Family Research Council
October 30, 2017
Tony Perkins Washington Update
Liberals didn’t mind when Barack Obama forced his radical social policies on our military, but they certainly don’t want President Trump rescinding them. So where do they turn? Unelected judges. That’s what happened earlier this afternoon, thanks to U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly who made the sweeping decision to keep the White House’s military transgender order from taking effect. Without the benefit of the administration’s data, military advisors, or intelligence reports, Kollar-Kotelly put herself in the position of setting a national security policy with very real consequences for our country.
As a result of her temporary injunction, the entire military will “revert to the status quo,” a dangerous environment where people like Chelsea (Bradley) Manning can serve openly, women can be forced to shower with biological men, and “pregnant males” can apply for maternity leave. Of course, the judge’s activism was celebrated by liberals, who don’t see the obvious problems of injecting Barack Obama’s social engineering back into a military that the world was finally starting to take seriously again.
For the Trump administration, which was already drafting regulations to turn the president’s July tweets into military policy, Kollar-Kotelly’s 76 pages of politically-correct talking points are a frustrating bump in the road to restoring readiness. Her agenda is obvious from the opening line to the last, where she has the audacity to claim that “a bare invocation of ‘national defense’ simply cannot defeat every motion for preliminary injunction that touches on the military. On the record before the Court, there is absolutely no support for the claim that the ongoing service of transgender people would have any negative effective on the military at all.”
There was certainly enough support among the Defense Department, top brass, and service members themselves — who know better than anyone what the effects would be and have been. But unfortunately, this is where judicial activism is leading us. The courts have moved beyond legislating on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage to openly usurping the constitutional authority of the executive branch. The president’s primary task is protecting Americans. Yet now we’ve seen the courts do everything from relax the president’s immigration policy to telling the commander-in-chief how to run the military. And without the barest form of accountability to the same people who elected Donald Trump.
If Colleen Kollar-Kotelly wants to lead the military, she should face the people and run for president. Until then, her court should leave the policymaking to the man best informed and empowered for the job.
So why in the “H@#@ is a federal DC judge involved in issuing anything about a military regulation or military operations?
Like the information in the 2009 and the 2011, non-military courts have had little or no interaction and the Supreme Court has pretty much upheld that.
I don’t know how such a regulation might be considered since it is under DoD purview not a federal judge purview. Unless someone can enlighten me further, this is absolutely ridiculous and dangerous that A FEDERAL court judge would have the moxy to go against the military in this way.
If that is the case then why didn’t the court intervene when Obama shut down military religious activities as a violation of the First Amendment? Why didn’t other things that occurred like the censorship of military training and operations which discussed radical Muslim extremists get acted upon as a national security breach by the courts?
Just as importantly why hasn’t DoD placed a military boot on her rear and told her to take a hike off a short pier?
The liberal judges are really beginning to piss me off. I agree get the civilian judges OUT OF NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES AND THE MILITARY. Where is Jeff Sessions on this blatant attempt to usurp military regulations and procedures?