41 Facts About Thomas Hardiman

Thomas Michael Hardiman was born on July 8,1965 and is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Thomas Hardiman maintains chambers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and was previously a United States district judge.

In 2017, Hardiman was a finalist to succeed Antonin Scalia as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, alongside the eventual nominee, Neil Gorsuch.

The next year, after Justice Anthony Kennedy had announced his retirement from the Supreme Court, Thomas Hardiman was considered to be a frontrunner to fill the vacant seat, though it was eventually filled by Brett Kavanaugh.

Thomas Hardiman was born in 1965 in Winchester, Massachusetts, and was raised in Waltham.

Thomas Hardiman's father, Robert, owned and operated a taxicab and school transportation business and his mother, Judith, was a homemaker and bookkeeper for the family business.

Thomas Hardiman was the first person in his family to graduate from college, receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Notre Dame on an academic scholarship and graduating with honors in 1987.

Thomas Hardiman then studied law at Georgetown University Law Center, where he served as an editor of the Georgetown Law Journal and made the semi-finals of the Robert J Beaudry Moot Court Competition, while working at law firms during the summers and academic terms to help pay his tuition.

Thomas Hardiman received a Juris Doctor with honors in 1990.

Thomas Hardiman's practice consisted mainly of civil and white-collar criminal litigation.

Thomas Hardiman was nominated to a seat on April 9,2003, and was confirmed by a voice vote on October 22,2003.

Thomas Hardiman received his commission on October 27,2003 and took the bench on November 1,2003.

Thomas Hardiman was 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.

In Florence v Board of Chosen Freeholders, Hardiman held that a jail policy of strip-searching everyone who is arrested does not violate the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures in the Fourth Amendment.

In Barkes v First Correctional Medical, Inc, 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.

Thomas Hardiman has generally voted in favor of the state and against inmates when he decided on cases that centered on capital punishment.

Thomas Hardiman often affirms his belief that the Act places a high standard on inmates that they usually cannot reach.

In two cases, Thomas Hardiman has ruled in favor of longer criminal sentences.

In United States v Abbott, Hardiman held that a defendant's mandatory minimum sentence is not affected by the imposition of another mandatory minimum for a different offense.

In United States v Fisher, Hardiman ruled that a judge could find facts to enhance a criminal sentence according to the preponderance of the evidence standard.

In Busch v Marple Newtown School District, 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.

Thomas 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.

Thomas 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.

However, in August 2019, Thomas 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.

In Groff v Dejoy, Hardiman wrote a dissenting opinion in favor of a postal worker who sued the US Postal Service for failing to accommodate his religious observance of the Sabbath, as required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Thomas 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.

In United States vs Barton, Thomas Hardiman rejected a challenge to the federal law that bans felons from owning firearms.

In Range v Attorney General, 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.

In United States v Stevens, Hardiman voted to strike down a federal law that criminalized videos depicting animal cruelty.

In Kelly v Borough of Carlisle, 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.

In Lodge No 5 of Fraternal Order of Police v City of Philadelphia, Hardiman struck down a city charter provision barring police officers from donating to their union's political action committee, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

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.

In Valdiviezo-Galdamez v Attorney General, 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.

In Di Li Li v Attorney General, 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.

In Cazun v Attorney General, 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.

Thomas Hardiman ruled that the PROTECT Act was valid because of an "express connection" to the channels of foreign commerce.

In 2018, Hardiman held for the en banc court in Rotkiske v Klemm that despite the decisions of the Fourth and the Ninth Circuits, the statute of limitations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act begins to run when a violation of the Act occurs, not when the violation is later discovered.

Since 2013, Thomas Hardiman has served as chair of the Committee on Information Technology of the Judicial Conference of the United States.

In 2010 Hardiman received the Georgetown University Law Center's Paul R Dean Award recognizing distinguished alumni.

Thomas Hardiman married Lori Thomas Hardiman, an attorney and real estate professional, in 1992.

Thomas Hardiman is a board member and former president of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Pittsburgh.