Andrew Oldham’s record shows a tendency to stand in the way of everyday people vindicating their rights, support of far-right objectives, and a propensity to stand with corporations over the public.
View/download the report here.
Legal Experience
After graduating from Harvard Law in 2005, Andrew Oldham served as a law clerk to Judge David Sentelle on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2005 to 2006. He then worked as an attorney-advisor in the Office of Legal Counsel for the Department of Justice in 2006. He left that position in 2008 to clerk for Justice Alito on the U.S. Supreme Court from 2008 to 2009. Following his clerkship, he worked as an associate at Kellogg Hansen Tedd Figel & Frederick from 2009 to 2012. In 2012, he took a position as deputy solicitor general in the Texas Office of the Attorney General. In 2015, he became the deputy general counsel for the Texas Office of the Governor. He was then promoted to acting general counsel in 2017 and general counsel in 2018, where he served until his confirmation to the bench in 2018.
Since his nomination the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Oldham has authored a significant number of opinions across a range of topics. Of note are Oldham’s opinion in two qualified immunity cases, where his decisions provided protection to police officers after their egregious conduct. Oldham has also penned opinions that, while seemingly resting on legitimate interpretations of law, just advance far-right objectives.
- Salazar v. Molina – qualified immunity: Oldham authored a decision that overturned the district court’s finding that qualified immunity did not apply to a police officer who fired his taser at a suspect who was lying face-down on the ground. Although Salazar was lying on the ground with his arms above his head, Oldham concluded that because Salazar had previously led police on a car chase, an officer would be reasonable in believing that his surrender was “merely a ploy.” Oldham also notably penalized Salazar for relying on Fifth Circuit precedent instead of Supreme Court precedent, an inaccurate application of qualified immunity doctrine that poses difficulty for all those attempting to seek justice from law enforcement officers in the Fifth Circuit moving forward. This is not the only case where Oldham provided protection to police officers who grievously violated someone’s rights.
- Morrow v. Meachum – qualified immunity: Oldham authored an opinion that granted an officer qualified immunity after he performed a “rolling block,” a method of stopping a fleeing vehicle by slowing down in front of them mid-chase. In this case, the officer slowed from 100 miles to 50 miles within 6 seconds, and Austin Moon, who was fleeing chase, crashed into the back of the vehicle and was killed on impact. Oldham concluded that this technique did not violate clearly established law, such that every reasonable office would know it immediately. Oldham also disclaimed precedent from his own circuit that came to the opposite conclusion in reaching his decision to protect the officer.
- Texas v. Biden – immigration: Oldham wrote a majority decision that determined the suspension of the Migrant Protection Protocols, a controversial program that returned undocumented individuals to Mexico for the duration of their removal proceedings, was arbitrary and capricious and violated a major administrative act. Not only did Oldham dismiss the suspension because it failed to consider alternatives, but he also went so far as to say the suspension decision also violated the Immigration and Naturalization Act, going further than he needed to in order to reach his harmful conclusion.
Even before becoming a judge, Oldham repeatedly expressed a disdain for the administrative state and the federal government, taking actions that reflected these viewpoints. There is no reason to believe that Oldham will do anything but dig in if he is afforded the opportunity to sit on the highest court.