Patricia Millett is the judicial equivalent of avocado toast, trendy among certain circles but maybe lacking the substance some of us are looking for. Appointed by President Barack Obama to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2013, she has since been hailed as a favorite among progressive thinkers in America. In the heart of Washington, D.C., where many political games are played, Millett has found herself in a role where her decisions have far-reaching implications on national policy and law.
Why all the buzz about her? The answer is plain and simple: Millett has frequently been on the side of expanding federal powers and interpreting the Constitution in rather...creative ways. Her meteoric rise can be attributed to her long tenure in law covering the Supreme Court litigations for decades, working in both private practice and in the office of the Solicitor General. She boasts a resume filled with over 30 arguments before the Supreme Court. But let's not get too starry-eyed here.
You could say that Patricia Millett is the judicial torchbearer for those who look to dismantle traditional values. Why? Because her body of work is emblematic of a justice system that favors policy over precedence. In one of her more eyebrow-raising positions, she argued in favor of upholding a myriad of the Environmental Protection Agency’s stringent regulations. Regulations so binding that critics argue they cripple businesses and infringe on states' rights.
Her voting record on the D.C. Circuit has made it clear that Millett rarely misses an opportunity to expand the powers of federal government agencies. In cases regarding labor unions, she's been unwavering in her support, siding with hefty regulations and union demands. To anyone keeping track of the overreach of government power, these actions recall a bigger debate on the separation of powers and federal vs. state rights.
Millett was also part of the three-judge panel that disputed the Trump administration’s attempt to strip federal funding from cities defying immigration enforcement policies. When judicial restraint is an option, Millett appears to consistently choose activism. Her rulings often align with the narrative that the federal government knows best, a storyline conservatives are all too familiar—and frustrated—with.
When Patricia Millett entered the scene, the D.C. Circuit was already known for its liberal slant, and her involvement only greased the wheel. She's joined the ranks of judges who prefer to expand interpretations of standing law. Some might call her savvy, but we can call it something else—progressive judicial activism. No surprise she has been rumored to be on the shortlist for a future Supreme Court nomination.
And let’s not forget Millett’s role in arguably controversial social issues. In any case involving reproductive rights, let's say Millett has not exactly been a wallflower in echoing the pro-choice sentiment. Her decisions demonstrate a recognition of rights not explicitly mentioned in our nation’s founding document, such as privacy.
Her work has added fuel to an already heated debate about the role of judiciary in modern America. In a democratic system that was built on checks and balances, one might wonder how far is too far when courts push legislative boundaries.
If Millett's role in the judiciary tells us one thing, it's that judicial strategy is as much about choosing cases as it is about ruling them. Her long tenure and influence could indeed shape the legal landscape in ways conservatives find disturbing. As the courts continue to be battlegrounds for policy decisions, Millett will likely stay in the spotlight for years to come. Her career is a critical study in how ideological beliefs can permeate judicial decisions and influence everything from business regulations to individual rights.
For those of us who value limited government, traditional values, and adherence to the Constitution as a fixed document and not a living, breathing one, Patricia Millett's presence serves as a cautionary tale. The more power that’s handed to unelected judges, the more we stray from what the Framers had intended. Those tuning into the state of American judiciary should keep their eyes peeled—not just for what Millett will say next, but how her decisions will define future policy battles.
How fitting that in the land where liberty was born, Patricia Millett may very well be a symbol of just how slippery the slope can become when judges decide they know best.