Michael Boudin, ‘an appellate judge's judge,' who wrote key DOMA ruling, dies at 85
Yet he and the other two judges did just that when they ruled that the law's denial of federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples was unconstitutional. Many legal observers — from conservatives and liberals to activists who supported or opposed LGBTQ rights — saw that DOMA ruling as a significant signpost along the road toward the
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Advertisement
'He was extraordinarily brilliant and history will count him as one of the most significant judges of his era,' said
Respected in the federal judiciary and beyond, Mr. Boudin 'was an appellate judge's judge,' said
Mr. Boudin 'was a sound, intelligent, and thoughtful judge,' said
They had been friends since college, when Mr. Boudin was president of the Harvard Law Review and Breyer served under him as articles editor. Even in that realm, Mr. Boudin's intellect and expansive reading habits were notable, Breyer recalled.
Advertisement
'I tend to think he read every great book written in English,' Breyer said.
Before becoming a federal judge, Mr. Boudin served in the Reagan administration as a deputy assistant US attorney general in the Justice Department's antitrust division.
President George H.W. Bush nominated him in 1990 to serve as a US District Court judge in the District of Columbia. Mr. Boudin was never entirely comfortable in that job, and
Mr. Boudin announced plans to leave that judicial appointment and move to Cambridge, and then
Though he returned to Boston after serving in one Republican president's administration and being nominated by another to two judgeships, Mr. Boudin's family background was distant from GOP politics.
'He was for me a perfect parent — wise and devoted and considerate and charming — and I told him so,' Mr. Boudin said at a memorial service after Leonard died in 1989.
Mr. Boudin's only sibling, his younger sister, Kathy Boudin, was part of the militant Weather Underground. She served 22 years in prison for her role as an unarmed decoy in the 1981 robbery of a Brink's armored truck, during which other robbers shot and killed two police officers and a security guard.
Advertisement
The narrative of a conservative attorney-turned-judge from a liberal family proved irresistible to many reporters who wrote about Mr. Boudin over the years. But his friends said he was careful to rarely grant interviews and to never let his own political beliefs become part of the public conversation.
'This was a judge's judge, a really powerful mind, always looking for the right answer,' said
'You wouldn't be able to characterize him as conservative or liberal,' Levi said. 'He didn't fit into any of these labels because he such a seeker of the truth.'
Mr. Boudin's 'decisions were always guided by the law and constitutional requirements, and not at all by political points of view,' Lynch said.
Born in Manhattan, N.Y., on Nov. 29, 1939, Michael Boudin was the only son of Leonard Boudin and
Mr. Boudin received a bachelor's degree from Harvard College in 1961 and graduated from Harvard Law School in 1964.
He clerked for
Friendly was an especially important mentor, whose lessons Mr. Boudin revisited in 'Judge Henry Friendly and the Craft of Judging,' a 2010 University of Pennsylvania Law Review essay.
Advertisement
For example, Mr. Boudin wrote, Friendly knew 'that an appeal might well have a life after the judgment was handed down.'
Many judges assign clerks to write early drafts of decisions, or parts of them. Like Friendly, Mr. Boudin was known for writing his own first drafts and opinions.
He wrote in the essay that in complex cases, 'the choices spread out like a maze of tracks in a great railroad terminal. As the forks appear, the seasoned judge who is close to the case is more likely than the clerk to understand the realistic options and select the best route to an outcome.'
'There were times you almost felt superfluous because he was so good,' said David Friedman, who clerked for Mr. Boudin and is now
'In terms of the law,' Friedman said, 'it felt like he already knew all there was to know.'
Away from the bench, Mr. Boudin was known for his competitive approach to even a casual game of tennis and for his love of his cats. The last three were Julia, Chloe, and Nougat.
Over the years, he would bring his cats into his judge's chambers. Once during a meal with colleagues, the swirl of topics turned to the projected end of the universe, when all life would vanish.
'The problem,' Mr. Boudin deadpanned with sincerity, 'is that then there would be no cats.'
A memorial gathering will be planned for Mr. Boudin. In addition to his wife, and her three daughters from before they married, he leaves a nephew,
Advertisement
'What a profoundly impactful and brilliant and respected jurist he was,' Chesa said.
To his friends among other jurists, Mr. Boudin's devotion to the law seemed matched by his unending desire to keep learning by reading book after book.
'One passion was as an appellate judge, but the other was trying to understand this complex world in which we find ourselves, the human condition, how we make sense of it all,' Marshall said. 'He had a broad inquiring mind. That, to me, was Michael.'
Bryan Marquard can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
25 minutes ago
Senators prep for a weekend of work to meet Trump's deadline for passing his tax and spending cuts
WASHINGTON -- The Senate is expected to grind through a rare weekend session as Republicans race to pass President Donald Trump's package of tax breaks and spending cuts by his July Fourth deadline. Republicans are using their majorities in Congress to push aside Democratic opposition, but they have run into a series of political and policy setbacks. Not all GOP lawmakers are on board with proposals to reduce spending on Medicaid, food stamps and other programs as a way to help cover the cost of extending some $3.8 trillion in Trump tax breaks. The 940-page bill was released shortly before midnight Friday. Senators were expected to take a procedural vote Saturday to begin debate on the legislation, but the timing was uncertain and there is a long path ahead, with at least 10 hours of debate time and an all-night voting session on countless amendments. Senate passage could be days away, and the bill would need to return to the House for a final round of votes before it could reach the White House. 'It's evolving,' said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., as he prepared to close up the chamber late Friday. The weekend session could be a make-or-break moment for Trump's party, which has invested much of its political capital on his signature domestic policy plan. Trump is pushing Congress to wrap it up, even as he sometimes gives mixed signals, allowing for more time. At recent events at the White House, including Friday, Trump has admonished the 'grandstanders' among GOP holdouts to fall in line. 'We can get it done,' Trump said in a social media post. 'It will be a wonderful Celebration for our Country.' The legislation is an ambitious but complicated series of GOP priorities. At its core, it would make permanent many of the tax breaks from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire by year's end if Congress fails to act, resulting in a potential tax increase on Americans. The bill would add new breaks, including no taxes on tips, and commit $350 billion to national security, including for Trump's mass deportation agenda. But the spending cuts that Republicans are relying on to offset the lost tax revenues are causing dissent within the GOP ranks. Some lawmakers say the cuts go too far, particularly for people receiving health care through Medicaid. Meanwhile, conservatives, worried about the nation's debt, are pushing for steeper cuts. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he is concerned about the fundamentals of the package and will not support the procedural motion to begin debate. 'I'm voting no on the motion to proceed,' he said. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., pushing for deeper cuts, said he needed to see the final legislative text. The release of that draft had been delayed as the Senate parliamentarian reviewed the bill to ensure it complied with the chamber's strict 'Byrd Rule,' named for the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, It largely bars policy matters from inclusion in budget bills unless a provision can get 60 votes to overcome objections. That would be a tall order in a Senate with a 53-47 GOP edge and Democrats unified against Trump's bill. Republicans suffered a series of setbacks after several proposals were determined to be out of compliance by the chief arbiter of the Senate's rules. One plan would have shifted some food stamp costs from the federal government to the states; a second would have gutted the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But over the past days, Republicans have quickly revised those proposals and reinstated them. The final text includes a proposal for cuts to a Medicaid provider tax that had run into parliamentary objections and opposition from several senators worried about the fate of rural hospitals. The new version extends the start date for those cuts and establishes a $25 billion fund to aid rural hospitals and providers. Most states impose the provider tax as a way to boost federal Medicaid reimbursements. Some Republicans argue that is a scam and should be abolished. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that under the House-passed version of the bill, some 10.9 million more people would go without health care and at least 3 million fewer would qualify for food aid. The CBO has not yet publicly assessed the Senate draft, which proposes steeper reductions. Top income-earners would see about a $12,000 tax cut under the House bill, while the poorest Americans would face a $1,600 tax increase, the CBO said. One unresolved issue remains the so-called SALT provision, a deduction for state and local taxes that has been a top priority of lawmakers from New York and other high-tax states. The cap is now $10,000. The White House and House Republicans had narrowed in on a plan for a $40,000 cap, but for five years instead of 10. Republican senators says that's too generous. At least one House GOP holdout, Rep. Nick LaLota of New York, said he cannot support the compromise. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Republicans are rushing to finish the bill before the public fully knows what's in it. 'There's no good reason for Republicans to chase a silly deadline,' Schumer said. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who sent his colleagues home for the weekend with plans to be on call to return to Washington, said they are 'very close' to finishing up. 'We would still like to meet that July Fourth, self-imposed deadline,' said Johnson, R-La. With the narrow Republicans majorities in the House and Senate, leaders need almost every lawmaker on board to ensure passage. Johnson and Thune have stayed close to the White House, relying on Trump to pressure holdout lawmakers.
The Hill
30 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senators prep for a weekend of work to meet Trump's deadline for passing his tax and spending cuts
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate is expected to grind through a rare weekend session as Republicans race to pass President Donald Trump's package of tax breaks and spending cuts by his July Fourth deadline. Republicans are using their majorities in Congress to push aside Democratic opposition, but they have run into a series of political and policy setbacks. Not all GOP lawmakers are on board with proposals to reduce spending on Medicaid, food stamps and other programs as a way to help cover the cost of extending some $3.8 trillion in Trump tax breaks. The 940-page bill was released shortly before midnight Friday. Senators were expected to take a procedural vote Saturday to begin debate on the legislation, but the timing was uncertain and there is a long path ahead, with at least 10 hours of debate time and an all-night voting session on countless amendments. Senate passage could be days away, and the bill would need to return to the House for a final round of votes before it could reach the White House. 'It's evolving,' said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., as he prepared to close up the chamber late Friday. The weekend session could be a make-or-break moment for Trump's party, which has invested much of its political capital on his signature domestic policy plan. Trump is pushing Congress to wrap it up, even as he sometimes gives mixed signals, allowing for more time. At recent events at the White House, including Friday, Trump has admonished the 'grandstanders' among GOP holdouts to fall in line. 'We can get it done,' Trump said in a social media post. 'It will be a wonderful Celebration for our Country.' The legislation is an ambitious but complicated series of GOP priorities. At its core, it would make permanent many of the tax breaks from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire by year's end if Congress fails to act, resulting in a potential tax increase on Americans. The bill would add new breaks, including no taxes on tips, and commit $350 billion to national security, including for Trump's mass deportation agenda. But the spending cuts that Republicans are relying on to offset the lost tax revenues are causing dissent within the GOP ranks. Some lawmakers say the cuts go too far, particularly for people receiving health care through Medicaid. Meanwhile, conservatives, worried about the nation's debt, are pushing for steeper cuts. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he is concerned about the fundamentals of the package and will not support the procedural motion to begin debate. 'I'm voting no on the motion to proceed,' he said. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., pushing for deeper cuts, said he needed to see the final legislative text. The release of that draft had been delayed as the Senate parliamentarian reviewed the bill to ensure it complied with the chamber's strict 'Byrd Rule,' named for the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, It largely bars policy matters from inclusion in budget bills unless a provision can get 60 votes to overcome objections. That would be a tall order in a Senate with a 53-47 GOP edge and Democrats unified against Trump's bill. Republicans suffered a series of setbacks after several proposals were determined to be out of compliance by the chief arbiter of the Senate's rules. One plan would have shifted some food stamp costs from the federal government to the states; a second would have gutted the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But over the past days, Republicans have quickly revised those proposals and reinstated them. The final text includes a proposal for cuts to a Medicaid provider tax that had run into parliamentary objections and opposition from several senators worried about the fate of rural hospitals. The new version extends the start date for those cuts and establishes a $25 billion fund to aid rural hospitals and providers. Most states impose the provider tax as a way to boost federal Medicaid reimbursements. Some Republicans argue that is a scam and should be abolished. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that under the House-passed version of the bill, some 10.9 million more people would go without health care and at least 3 million fewer would qualify for food aid. The CBO has not yet publicly assessed the Senate draft, which proposes steeper reductions. Top income-earners would see about a $12,000 tax cut under the House bill, while the poorest Americans would face a $1,600 tax increase, the CBO said. One unresolved issue remains the so-called SALT provision, a deduction for state and local taxes that has been a top priority of lawmakers from New York and other high-tax states. The cap is now $10,000. The White House and House Republicans had narrowed in on a plan for a $40,000 cap, but for five years instead of 10. Republican senators says that's too generous. At least one House GOP holdout, Rep. Nick LaLota of New York, said he cannot support the compromise. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Republicans are rushing to finish the bill before the public fully knows what's in it. 'There's no good reason for Republicans to chase a silly deadline,' Schumer said. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who sent his colleagues home for the weekend with plans to be on call to return to Washington, said they are 'very close' to finishing up. 'We would still like to meet that July Fourth, self-imposed deadline,' said Johnson, R-La. With the narrow Republicans majorities in the House and Senate, leaders need almost every lawmaker on board to ensure passage. Johnson and Thune have stayed close to the White House, relying on Trump to pressure holdout lawmakers. ___ Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.
The Hill
40 minutes ago
- The Hill
Sotomayor says public education is doomed without mandatory gay and trans story hour
The end is nigh. That seems to be the message this week from the three liberal justices at the Supreme Court when faced with the nightmarish prospect of parents being able to remove their young children from mandatory classes on gay, lesbian and transgender material. The decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor was a roaring victory for parents in public schools. The Montgomery County, Md. school system fought to require the reading of 13 'LGBTQ+-inclusive' texts in the English and Language Arts curriculum for kids from pre-K through 12th grade. That covers children just 5-11 years old. The children are required to read or listen to stories like 'Prince & Knight' about two male knights who marry each other, and 'Love Violet' about two young girls falling in love. Another, 'Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,' discusses a biological girl who begins a transition to being a boy. Teachers were informed that this was mandatory reading, which must be assigned, and that families would not be allowed to opt out. The guidelines for teachers made clear that students had to be corrected if they expressed errant or opposing views of gender. If a child questions how someone born a boy could become a girl, teachers were encouraged to correct the child and declare, 'That comment is hurtful!' Even if a student merely asks, 'What's transgender?,' teachers are expected to say, 'When we're born, people make a guess about our gender and label us 'boy' or 'girl' based on our body parts. Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong.' Teachers were specifically told to '[d]isrupt' thinking or values opposing transgender views. Many families sought to opt out of these lessons. The school allows for such opt-outs for a variety of reasons, but the Board ruled out withdrawals for these lessons. Ironically, it noted that so many families were upset and objecting that it would be burdensome to allow so many kids to withdraw. The Montgomery County school system is one of the most diverse in the nation. And Christian, Muslim, and other families objected to the mandatory program as undermining their religious and moral values. The majority on the Supreme Court ruled that, as with other opt-outs, Montgomery County must allow parents to withdraw their children from these lessons. The response from liberal groups was outrage. Liberal sites declared 'another victory for right-wing culture warriors,' even though the public overwhelmingly supported these parents. However, the most overwrought language came not from liberal advocates but liberal justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor declared that there 'will be chaos for this nation's public schools' and both education and children will 'suffer' if parents are allowed to opt their children out of these lessons. She also worried about the 'chilling effect' of the ruling, which would make schools more hesitant to offer such classes in the future. It was a particularly curious concern, since parents would like teachers to focus more on core subjects and show greater restraint in pursuing social agendas. The majority pushed back against 'the deliberately blinkered view' of the three liberal justices on dismissing the objections of so many families to these lessons. Nevertheless, even though such material was only recently added and made mandatory, the liberal justices declared that 'the damage to America's public education system will be profound' and 'threatens the very essence of public education.' The truth is that this decision could actually save public education in the U.S. Previously, during oral argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had shocked many when she dismissed the objections of parents, stating that they could simply remove their children from public schools. It was a callous response to many families who do not have the means to pay for private or parochial schools. Yet, it is a view previously expressed by many Democratic politicians and school officials. State Rep. Lee Snodgrass (D-Wis.) once insisted: 'If parents want to 'have a say' in their child's education, they should homeschool or pay for private school tuition out of their family budget.' Iowa school board member Rachel Wall said: 'The purpose of a public ed is to not teach kids what the parents want. It is to teach them what society needs them to know. The client is not the parent, but the community.' These parents still harbor the apparently misguided notion that these remain their children. Today, many are indeed following Jackson's advice and leaving public schools. The opposition of public-sector unions and many Democratic politicians to school vouchers is precisely because families are fleeing the failing public school systems. Once they are no longer captive to the system, they opt for private schools that offer a greater focus on basic educational subjects and less emphasis on social activism. Our public schools are imploding. Some are lowering standards to achieve 'equity' and graduating students without proficiency skills. Families are objecting to the priority given to political and social agendas to make their kids better people when they lack of math, science, and other skills needed to compete in an increasingly competitive marketplace. This decision may well save public schools from themselves by encouraging a return to core educational priorities. It may offer some cover for more moderate school officials to push back against such demands for mandatory readings to young children. What the majority calls 'the deliberately blinkered view' of the dissent could just as well describe the delusional position of public school boards and unions. Schools are facing rising debt and severe declines in enrollment, yet unions in states like Illinois are demanding even more staff increases and larger expenditures. The liberal justices are right about one thing: This is a fight over 'the essence of public education.' However, it is the parents, not the educators (or these justices) who are trying to restore public education to meet the demands for a diverse nation. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the best-selling author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.'
