ballotpedia.org

Scott Matheson (Utah)

From Ballotpedia

Scott Matheson

Image of Scott Matheson

United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit

Tenure

2010 - Present

Years in position

Education

Personal

Scott Milne Matheson, Jr. is a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. He joined the court in 2010 after being nominated by President President Barack Obama. Prior to his appointment, he was a faculty member at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, holding the Hugh B. Brown Presidential Endowed Chair.^[1]

Early life and education

A native of Salt Lake City, Utah, Matheson earned his A.B. in 1975 from Stanford University, his M.A. from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and his J.D. in 1980 from Yale Law School.^[2]

Personal life

Matheson is the son of former Utah Governor Scott Matheson Sr., and the brother of Utah State Representative Jim Matheson.^[3]

Professional career

2007: Chair of the Utah Mine Safety Commission
2004: Democratic candidate for Utah Governor
1998-2006: Dean of the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah
1993-1997: United States Attorney for the District of Utah
1989-1990: Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government
1988-1989: Deputy county attorney for Salt Lake County
1985-1998: Faculty, S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah
1981-1985: Associate, Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, D.C.^[2]^[3]

Judicial career

10th Circuit Court of Appeals

Nomination Tracker

Nominee Information
Name: Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
Progress
Confirmed 294 days after nomination.
Nominated: March 3, 2010
ABA Rating: Unanimously Qualified
Questionnaire: Questionnaire
Hearing: May 13, 2010
Hearing Transcript: Hearing Transcript
QFRs: QFRs (Hover over QFRs to read more)

Reported: June 10, 2010
Confirmed: December 22, 2010
Vote: Voice vote

Matheson was nominated for a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit by President Barack Obama on March 3, 2010. Matheson filled the seat vacated by Judge Michael McConnell, who retired from judicial service.^[4] The President called Matheson:

“

A distinguished candidate for the Tenth Circuit court. Both his legal and academic credentials are impressive and his commitment to judicial integrity is unwavering. I am honored to nominate this lifelong Utahn to the federal bench.^[2]^[5]

”

The American Bar Association rated Matheson Unanimously Qualified for the nomination.^[6] Hearings on Matheson's nomination were held before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on May 13, 2010, and his nomination was reported by U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on June 10, 2010. Matheson was confirmed on a voice vote of the U.S. Senate on December 22, 2010, and he received his commission on December 27, 2010.^[7]^[8]

Noteworthy cases

Oklahoma Sharia Law temporary injunction (2012)

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit (Awad v. Ziriax, et al, 10-6273)

On January 10, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals released an anticipated ruling. The decision by the panel of Judges Terrence O'Brien, Scott Matheson and Monroe McKay, upheld a previous ruling by Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange, out of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, that said Oklahoma's "Sharia Law" ballot measure was unconstitutional. Supported by 70% of the state's population in 2010, the amendment prohibited courts in the state from considering international or Sharia law in deciding cases.^[9]

The Tenth Circuit disagreed with the supporters of the amendment, who insisted that the measure was intended to disallow courts from considering any religious law in their proceedings. As a response, the opinion states, "That argument conflicts with the amendment's plain language, which mentions sharia law in two places."^[10]

Because the amendment was thought to discriminate against a specific religion, in this case, Islam, strict scrutiny was applied to judging its contents. Courts often utilize a higher level of scrutiny when it is concerned a minority is being unfairly treated.^[9]