Press Release
Maria Lanahan
Trump 2.0
Nominated to the Eastern District of Missouri
On May 6, 2025, President Trump nominated Maria Lanahan to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
View/download the factsheet here.
Biography
Lanahan earned her B.S. from Gonzaga University in 2009, and her J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School in 2013.
Legal Experience
After graduating from law school, Lanahan held several internships and legal roles: she served as a Senatorial Intern for the U.S. Senate in 2007, a Victim Assistant at the Washington County District Attorney’s Office in 2008, and a Congressional Intern and Fellow at the U.S. House of Representatives in 2009. She later served as a legal intern for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2011, and as a Summer Associate at K&L Gates in 2012.
She served as a law clerk for Justice Zahra of the Michigan Supreme Court from 2013 to 2014. From 2014 to 2018, she worked as an Associate Attorney at Thompson Coburn LLP. She was Senior Manager and Counsel for Litigation at Charter Communications from 2018 to 2020. From 2020 to 2021, she clerked for Judge Raymond Gruender on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
She currently serves as the Missouri Principal Deputy Solicitor General.
Public Health
- Sued the Biden administration for its implementation of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate on federal contractors and subcontractors. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on October 29, 2021. Missouri v. Biden, No. 4:21CV1300-JSD, 2024 WL 2381910, at *1 (E.D. Mo. May 23, 2024)
Immigration
- Joined litigation challenging an interim final rule by the DOJ and DHS that changed the way applications for asylum were considered and decided after a determination of credible fear was made. Most significantly the Asylum IFR dispensed with the adversarial process in the adjudication of asylum claims and vested authority to decide asylum claims in asylum officers rather than immigration judges. Arizona v. Garland, 730 F. Supp. 3d 258, 264 (W.D. La. 2024)
- Joined states who brought action against DHS for the implementation of a parole program for nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezeuala. Texas v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 722 F. Supp. 3d 688 (S.D. Tex. 2024), reconsideration denied sub nom. State of Texas v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 6:23-CV-00007, 2024 WL 2888758 (S.D. Tex. May 28, 2024)
Voting Rights
- Argued against voters who were challenging the Missouri Senate’s redistricting plan that violated “community preservation and equal population requirements” set forth in the Missouri Constitution. Both of these communities comprised large populations of voters of color. Faatz v. Ashcroft, 685 S.W.3d 388, 415 (Mo. 2024), reh’g denied (Apr. 2, 2024)
Gender and Reproductive Justice
- Lanaham argued to overturn a ruling in favor of a female inmate who brought a § 1983 action against Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections and other state officials, alleging deliberate indifference to her safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment arising from allegations that director did not do enough in response to her complaint of sexual assault by a guard. Dean v. Bearden, 79 F.4th 986 (8th Cir. 2023)
- Joined suit against the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other defendants. Plaintiffs challenge several FDA actions related to the approval of the chemical abortion drugs mifepristone and misoprostol. All. for Hippocratic Med. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., No. 2:22-CV-223-Z, 2023 WL 11840559, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2023)
Economic Justice
- Argued against nonprofit corporations who challenged a rule promulgated by the Missouri Office of Administration that changed the definition of employee association. This change in definition infringed on the corporation members rights to organize and to bargain collectively, freedoms of speech and association, and equal protection. Missouri Corr. Officers Ass’n, Inc. v. Missouri Off. of Admin., 662 S.W.3d 26 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022)
- Argued against unions representing state employees whose collective bargaining rights were infringed on by rules and regulations created by the State. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Emps., AFL-CIO, Council 61 v. State, 653 S.W.3d 111 (Mo. 2022)