Jeffrey Sutton is a topic that has generated great interest and debate in recent times. Its relevance impacts various areas of daily life, from politics to popular culture, including technology and science. As time progresses, Jeffrey Sutton has become a central point of discussion and analysis, with different perspectives and approaches that invite us to reflect on its importance and possible consequences. In this article, we will explore some of the most relevant dimensions of Jeffrey Sutton, as well as its influence on today's society.
Sutton was in private practice in Columbus at the law firm Jones Day from 1992 to 1995 and 1998 to 2003, serving as Solicitor General of Ohio from 1995 to 1998. He has also served as an adjunct professor of law at the Ohio State UniversityMoritz College of Law[3] since 1994 and more recently as a visiting lecturer at Harvard Law School.[4] He teaches state constitutional law, a subject in which he is particularly interested and about which he has written extensively.[5]
Federal judicial service
Sutton was first nominated by President George W. Bush on May 9, 2001, to a seat on the Sixth Circuit vacated by David A. Nelson, who assumed senior status on October 1, 1999. That nomination, made during the 107th United States Congress, never received a floor vote in the United States Senate. Sutton was not confirmed until almost two years later, on April 29, 2003, when the Senate of the 108th United States Congress confirmed him by a 52–41 vote.[6] He received his commission on May 5, 2003.[7] He became Chief Judge on May 1, 2021.[8]
Notable opinions
In 2007, Sutton dissented in part when the Sixth Circuit held that a police officer did not have qualified immunity for arresting a speaker for using foul language at a town meeting.[9] In June 2011, Sutton became the first judge appointed by a Republican to rule in favor of the health care mandate in President Barack Obama's Health Care law.[10]
In November 2014, Sutton authored the 2–1 opinion ruling upholding same-sex marriage bans in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee in the Sixth Circuit reversing six previous federal district court rulings. The ruling was the second federal court ruling and the only Federal Court of Appeals ruling[11] to uphold same-sex marriage bans after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor in June 2013. This ran counter to rulings by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 7th, 9th and 10th circuits, which then led the U.S. Supreme Court to grant writ of certiorari to review same-sex marriage bans when it previously declined to do so.[12][13] In Obergefell v. Hodges the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Sixth Circuit.
On December 17, 2021, in In re MCP No. 165, OSHA, Interim Final Rule: COVID-19 Vaccination & Testing, 20 F.4th 264 (6th Cir. 2021), Chief Judge Sutton dissented from the denial of initial hearing en banc. The case concerned a rule issued by the Secretary of Labor requiring “roughly 80 million workers to become vaccinated or face a weekly self-financed testing requirement and a daily masking requirement.” Chief Judge Sutton’s opinion argues that the Secretary of Labor lacks “authority to impose this vaccine-or-test mandate.”[14]
On April 12, 2022, in Arizona v. Biden (6th Cir. 2022), Judge Sutton wrote a concurrence suggesting that nationwide injunctions "seem to take the judicial power beyond its traditionally understood uses, permitting district courts to order the government to act or refrain from acting toward nonparties in the case."[15]
On July 8, 2023, Sutton temporarily halted a lower court injunction[16] on Tennessee's law banning gender affirming care for minors.[17][18][19][20][21] Sutton reasoned that there is no "deeply rooted" historical or traditional evidence that the treatment is allowed.[22][23] He did note that the current ruling allowing the ban on gender-affirming care to go into effect is temporary, saying, "We may be wrong."[24] He has currently set forth a tentative date of September 30, 2023 to have a final judgement on the matter.[25]
On July 12, 2024, in Gore v. Lee (6th Cir. 2024), Chief Judge Sutton authored a majority opinion that upheld a Tennessee law that “treats the sex listed on a birth certificate as a historical fact unchangeable by an individual’s transition to a different gender identity.” The opinion described biological sex as “a medical fact of birth collected by the State about everyone” and rejected arguments that the U.S. Constitution “require Tennessee to change the biological sex listed on the birth certificates of transgender individuals to match their gender identities.” Judge Helene White authored a dissenting opinion arguing that Tennessee impermissibly “classifies individuals based on the State’s generalizations of what it means to be truly male and female.”[26]
Feeder Judge
Since joining the bench, Judge Sutton has been one of the most prolific feeder judges, sending a number of his law clerks to the Supreme Court.[27]
Other
Sutton chaired the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules of the Judicial Conference of the United States from 2009 to 2012, and served on the committee beginning in 2005. He went on to chair the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure from 2012 to 2015.[28]
Garner, Bryan A., Bea, Carlos, Berch, Rebecca White, Gorsuch, Neil M., Hartz, Harris L., Hecht, Nathan L., Kavanaugh, Brett M., Kozinski, Alex, Lynch, Sandra L., Pryor Jr., William H., Reavley, Thomas M., Sutton, Jeffrey S., & Wood, Diane P. The Law of Judicial Precedent (Thomson Reuters, 2016). ISBN 9780314634207