Georgetown Judges from A(lbania) to Z(ipps)

Before they became judges, they were prosecutors, public defenders, professors and attorneys in private practice. They were appointed to the bench by governors and by presidents ranging from George W. Bush and Donald Trump to Barack Obama and Joe Biden. One was nominated to his seat by Trump and Biden. Two were sent to Georgetown Law in preparation for taking the bench in their own country, the United Arab Emirates. One left the home she had made in the United States to become a judge in her country, Albania.

The personal and professional backgrounds of the many Georgetown Law alumni who have taken the bench across the United States and the world – conservatively estimated at nearly 500 in 47 states, two territories and at least 15 countries – are unique in nearly every way.

But the judges share something too, something many of them trace back to their days on campus, long before they knew they would be making decisions about people’s lives and resolving complicated cases involving state, federal and constitutional law. What they have in common is a commitment to public service. And that commitment guides them – and fulfills them – as they pursue the difficult work of dispensing justice.

“Every day I feel like I’m upholding the rule of law – part of what has made this country the envy of the world,” says Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Thomas M. Hardiman, L’90. “I love being a small piece of that effort.”

After relocating to the United States to be with her parents, Holta Zaçaj, L’08, a former human rights lawyer, moved back to Albania to become a judge in the wake of judicial reforms the country completed as part of its process of joining the European Union. She was elected president of the country’s Constitutional Court in 2023 and also serves as president of the Conference of European Constitutional Courts.

“As a human rights lawyer, this is the maximum opportunity to make a difference – to contribute to a country that has shown such a great commitment to rule of law through its reforms,” she explains. “I still feel honored and privileged.”

The Hoya Pipeline

Before she went to law school, Connecticut Appellate Court Judge Nina F. Elgo, L’90, twice took an aptitude test that said she should become a judge. Before he joined the judiciary in the United Arab Emirates, 2013 LL.M. graduate Mohamed Almarzouqi’s father asked him why he wasn’t a judge. Others had friends and colleagues urge them to seek appointments to the bench. But none of the dozen jurists interviewed for this article actually planned to become a judge.

“At the end of my first clerkship, I thought, ‘I want to do that,’” Eastern District of Michigan Judge Jonathan J.C. Grey, L’07, remembers, laughing. “And I shared it with [my judge], and he was like, ‘Great. It’s like being struck by lightning.’ He told me to focus on enjoying my career, not the destination.”

Seth R. Aframe, L’99, who was confirmed to the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in May, agrees.

“You can’t plan to be a judge; that’s just a waste of energy,” he says. “Every judicial nomination is its own particular political package. What they’re looking for changes depending on the circumstances. I guess I fit what they were looking for at that time.”

Elgo says that, paradoxically, what qualifies her for the role is something she is not. “I think the best judges are those who are not judgmental, and I feel like that is probably one of my assets,” she says.

Still, many judges point to the role that mentors played in their decision to join the bench. And, for some Georgetown jurists, those mentors were other current or former Georgetown jurists. Sometimes the Georgetown connection continues down the line. Former District of Columbia Superior Court Chief Judge Anita Josey-Herring, L’87, clerked for Judge Herbert B. Dixon, L’73, who clerked for the late Judge H. Carl Moultrie, L’56, (Josey-Herring, the D.C. Superior Court’s first woman chief judge, sits in the courthouse named for Moultrie, who was the court’s first Black chief judge).

Josey-Herring says her experience with Dixon was part of the reason she decided to pursue a judgeship later in her career.

“He was very bright and always prepared on the bench,” she remembers. “I liked the way he controlled his courtroom, and I appreciated the time he took to speak with me about individual cases.”

Aframe spent four years clerking for First Circuit Judge Jeffrey R. Howard, L’81, and filled his mentor’s seat when Howard took senior status.

“Judge Howard is one of the most humble people I’ve ever met,” Aframe says. “He gives people the benefit of the doubt; he assumes any information he did not know would have put that person in a good light. I’ve tried to emulate all of those things.”

District of Columbia Court of Appeals Judge John P. Howard III, L’10, says Grey has been a mentor for him, and both men point to the influence of Adjunct Professor of Law David C. Simmons, L’84, former chief administrative law judge for the D.C. Commission on Human Rights. Simmons taught Howard in an employment discrimination class, and the next academic year Howard rearranged his schedule so that he could clerk for the judge on the commission during the day. In 2014, after just a few years in private practice, Howard was appointed to the commission himself.

“I first met Judge Simmons at a Meet-the-Black-Professors night that the [Black Law Students Association] hosts,” Howard remembers. “People said, ‘This guy is tough. He’s not going to cut you any slack. But no one is going to mentor you or care for you like he will.’”

Grey said Simmons was one of his first calls when he found out he had a clerkship interview a couple of years after graduating.

“I was scared, and he said, ‘You got an interview; no judge is going to waste their time interviewing someone [if they’re not qualified for the job],’” Grey remembered. “He has been a person that has encouraged me all along the way.”

Under Pressure

For judges at all levels, making decisions – or writing dissents as appellate judges – in high-profile or controversial cases is one of the most challenging parts of the job.

Josey-Herring, who recently took senior status after some 30 years on the bench, says she handled each case “as fairly as I humanly could.”

“I took an oath to treat all people with dignity and respect, and I’ve tried to do it straight based on the facts and the law,” she says. “Whether people ultimately disagreed with the result or not, I can rest well at night.”

Viewing their work as one part of a longer judicial process can help.

“I do my best; I write it as clearly as I can, and that’s it,” Aframe says. “They have options – en banc, the Supreme Court. That’s the system. To the extent I’ve woken up at night thinking about something, it’s not something I already did; it’s something I’m doing.”

Aframe and other appellate judges also have the benefit of a collective decision-making process.

“That can draw the process out and require more discussion, but, when it comes to that hard case, knowing that you’ve got two other judges there who have read everything and can lean on their unique experiences too and share the responsibility with you – it feels like you can get to a better decision,” J.P. Howard says. “It takes some of the pressure off.”

But the pressure is always present because, as almost every judge says, each case – no matter how big or small – is important to the people involved.

University of Baltimore Professor of Law Gregory Dolin, L’04, sat for two years as an associate justice on the Supreme Court of the Republic of Palau, an island country in the western Pacific Ocean, after applying for and being appointed to the role by the country’s president.

“In Palau, a lot of disputes are fairly minor by American standards – run-of-the-mill contract or property disputes,” he says. “But they are extraordinarily important to the people [on either side].”

Dolin says he always tried to “write for the litigants.”

“They deserve to know, in sufficiently clear detail, why they won or lost – and, if they lost, that they were listened to,” he says.

For a similar reason, Eastern District of Michigan Judge Terrence G. Berg, F’81, L’86, says he tries not to dismiss a case without a hearing.

“That’s not my preferred situation,” he says. “I want to make sure that the parties who bring their suits feel that they’re getting their day in court.”

For many trial judges, sentencing is the most difficult responsibility they have.

“You are [potentially] separating a person from their liberty,” Grey explains.

U.S. District of Arizona Judge Jennifer G. Zipps, L’90, agrees.

“You’ve got people’s lives and their families’ lives in your hands,” she says. “You want to make the best decision given the circumstances – one that allows for just punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation.”

A Polarizing Time

It seems impossible to talk about judges or judging in the United States today without acknowledging the extremely polarized political climate in the country. In 2007, after President George W. Bush nominated Hardiman, he was confirmed by the Senate 95-0. By contrast, when Aframe, a Biden nominee, was confirmed in May of this year, he received the support of only two Republican senators in a vote that was nonetheless hailed as “bipartisan.”

Rhetorical attacks on the judiciary from politicians have had real-world consequences for judges and the public alike. Threats against federal judges are way up – more than doubling in the last three years, according to the U.S. Marshals Service; meanwhile, trust in the judiciary is way down, with less than half of Americans holding “a great deal” or a “fair amount” of confidence in the courts (the judicial branch remains more trusted than the executive and legislative branches of government).

Apart from worrying about the safety of colleagues on the bench, “I definitely have a lot of concerns for the rule of law,” Elgo says.

Hardiman, who was on Trump’s short list for the U.S. Supreme Court during his first term, compared the federal judicial nomination and confirmation process to national security policies that have emerged by necessity in a nuclear-armed world.

“The benefit of mutual assured destruction is that nobody launches a weapon,” he says. “Confirmation battles are the inverse of that. Because the world is not going to blow up, the process is increasingly degraded over time by partisan sniping.”

As for remedies, a kind of informal and formal exposure therapy may be one option. Many judges point to their experience with jurors, who often express an increased respect for the judicial system after serving within it. Keeping in mind their ethical obligations, judges may have to more intentionally educate the public about their role, some judges say.

“I think the solution is to have more communication and more civics training and more discussion about the issues,” Zipps says, adding that she shared excerpts of one U.S. Supreme Court decision with a family member who didn’t understand how it was being applied. “Once you can explain how cases are decided and what [lawyers] have to prove or not prove, that builds more confidence in the courts. When you can point to actual text and have a conversation, that results in a deeper understanding and respect for the system.”

Aframe, who is involved in civics education efforts with young people in New Hampshire and as part of a new First Circuit civics project, agrees.

“Does the next generation of judges need to be more forward-leaning, talking to different groups of people to explain what we do and how we do it?” he asks. “That’s something I think about.”

For better or worse, Aframe says, judicial selection at the federal level is “a political process.” But that isn’t necessarily because of the people wearing the robes.

“Once you get the job, it’s a non-political job,” he says.

Grey agrees.

“When I am reading the decisions of other judges, I don’t look at who appointed them,” he says. “I am hopeful that individuals will continue to believe that judges want to reach the fairest conclusion, without regard to race, political party or any particular category.”

‘A Part of All That’

Although the alumni interviewed for this article didn’t know they would become judges when they were students at Georgetown, the school nonetheless prepared them for their work on the bench – in part because it prepared them for public service, period.

Most went to law school because they wanted to make an impact. They found the resources at Georgetown to do so. But more than any one class or externship or professor, they point to a collective sense of responsibility instilled in them at Georgetown that they have carried with them throughout their careers and onto the bench.

“Georgetown is a school with a commitment to service first – to be ‘men and women for others,’” says District of Columbia Court of Appeals Judge Howard. “That ethos and that spirit prepare you for public service, especially when you have to step out of the role of being an advocate.”

Josey-Herring agrees.

“I do think Georgetown really focuses on making society a better place for us all, and to some extent my career has mirrored those values,” she says. “My first-rate education at Georgetown Law Center gave me a solid education, was essential in the development of my critical thinking skills and enabled me to positively impact the legal profession.”

As rare as judgeships are, at Georgetown, lightning apparently can strike twice… and many more times at that. Josey-Herring counts two classmates, Alfred S. Irving, Jr., L’87, and Erik P. Christian, L’86, on the District of Columbia Superior Court. Grey is in the same building as Berg in the Eastern District of Michigan. Hardiman is one of four Georgetown Law Hoyas on the Third Circuit. Almarzouqi and his classmate Hossam Alyammahi serve on the same court in the United Arab Emirates. And that’s just scratching the surface.

There is also the reality that, as students studying at, as Hardiman puts it, “the best law school in the most important city in the world,” they could see – and learn from people in – the careers they were beginning to imagine. Grey and Howard saw their future in Simmons; Josey-Herring was drawn to something in the chambers of Dixon; Berg was a research assistant for the late Professor Father Robert F. Drinan, a former member of Congress. All that proximity made becoming a member of a co-equal branch of government a possibility.

“The kinds of classes I was taking and the kinds of people I was taking classes with – they’re of this world,” Aframe says. At Georgetown, “I put myself in the lane.”

Berg agrees.

“There’s a certain confidence that going to Georgetown gives you – the quality of the faculty and the students – but also the connections to public service and being in the capital,” he says. “You feel like you are part of all that. You feel that you fit into the bigger system. It all seems more reachable.”

Serving Alma Mater

Alumni judges on the Georgetown Law Board of Visitors: (Currently serving) The Hon. Virginia Hernandez Covington, L’80, The Hon. Zia Faruqui, C’01, L’04, The Hon. Anita Josey-Herring, L’87, The Hon. Timothy Kelly, L’97, The Hon. Patricia Seitz, L’73; (Emerita) The Hon. M. Margaret McKeown, L’75, H’05; (Former) The Hon. Thomas Ambro, C’71, L’75, The Hon. Arthur Gajarsa, L’67, H’12

Alumni judges on the Georgetown Law Alumni Board: (Currently serving) The Hon. John P. Howard III, L’10, The Hon. Joseph LaPlante, C’87, L’90, The Hon. Rodolfo Ruiz II, L’05

This story is the cover feature for the Fall 2024 issue of Georgetown Law Magazine.

Author Rebecca Beyer has written for the publications of many universities and law schools, including Yale Law School, Stanford Law School and Boston University School of Law.