Thomas Ambro

Nomination Tracker
Nominee Information
	Name: Thomas L. Ambro
	Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit
Progress
	Confirmed 135 days after nomination.
	Nominated: September 28, 1999
	ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Well Qualified, Minority Qualified
	Questionnaire:
	Hearing: November 10, 1999
	QFRs: (Hover over QFRs to read more)
	Reported: November 17, 1999
	Confirmed: February 10, 2000
	Vote: 96-2

Thomas L. Ambro is a federal judge on senior status with the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. He joined the court in 2000 after being nominated by President Bill Clinton (D). He assumed senior status on February 6, 2023. Tamika Montgomery-Reeves was nominated by President Joe Biden (D) to replace Ambro on the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit on July 11, 2022.^[1]

Biography

Early life and education

A native of Cambridge, Ohio, Ambro graduated from Georgetown University with his bachelor's degree in 1971 and from Georgetown University Law Center with his J.D. in 1975.^[1]

Professional career

2000-present: United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit
- 2023-present: Senior judge
- 2000-2023: Judge
1976-2000: Private practice, Wilmington, Del.
1975-1976: Law clerk, Hon. Daniel Herrmann, Delaware Supreme Court^[1]

Judicial career

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Ambro was nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit by President Bill Clinton on September 28, 1999, to a seat vacated by Walter Stapleton. The American Bar Association rated Ambro Substantial Majority Well Qualified, Minority Qualified for the nomination.^[2] Hearings on Ambro's nomination were held before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on November 10, 1999, and his nomination was reported by U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) on November 17, 1999. Ambro was confirmed on a recorded 96-2 vote of the U.S. Senate on February 10, 2000, and he received his commission on February 16, 2000. ^[1]^[3]

Ambro assumed senior status on February 6, 2023.^[1]

Noteworthy cases

Dismissal of suit over mandatory retirement age for PA judges affirmed (2014)

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit (Lerner, at al v. Corbett, et al, 13-4184)

On April 29, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit composed of Judges Ambro, Kent Jordan, and Senior Judge Jane Roth, upheld a decision rendered by Judge John E. Jones, III of the Middle District of Pennsylvania to dismiss a suit brought by group of Pennsylvania judges challenging the state's retirement age law.^[4]

In the underlying case, the plaintiff judges alleged that their forced retirement at the age of 70 was based on preconceived notions of senior citizens’ deteriorating cognitive abilities, relying heavily on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Judge Jones found those arguments "unconvincing," further noting that the plaintiffs did not have a due process claim as they did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in continued judicial employment.^[4]

In an opinion written by Judge Ambro, the plaintiff judges' claims were again rebuked, with Ambro stating that their Fourteenth Amendment rights had not been violated. Judge Ambro further noted that the plaintiffs' claims that opinions reached in the United States v. Windsor and Shelby County v. Holder cases before the Supreme Court of the United States served as intervening authority failed as a matter of law, as controlling precedent already existed.^[4]

Judges agree that non-fiction book about known affair isn't defamatory (2014)

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit (Crecenz v. Penguin Group, Inc.; Capuzzo, 13-1242)

On March 26, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit, composed of Judges Ambro, Michael Fisher, and Thomas Hardiman, ruled that a non-fiction book was not defamatory even though it addressed a married woman's affair with her boss.^[5]

In the underlying case, Penguin Group published a book written by Michael Capuzzo called "The Murder Room: The Heirs of Sherlock Holmes Gather to Solve the World's Most Perplexing Cold Cases," in August 2010. The book recounted the work of the Vidocq Society, a Philadelphia-based forensic group, and its founding member, Frank Bender. Bender's assistant, Joan Crecenz, filed a lawsuit in 2011, alleging that she was defamed and suffered false light invasion of privacy as a result of Capuzzo's "reckless casting" of her as one of her boss's "girlfriends." During the course of the litigation, however, additional facts were disclosed concerning Crecenz's sexual relationship with Bender, and Judge Noel Hillman of the District of New Jersey awarded summary judgment to Penguin Group and Capuzzo.^[5]

Crecenz appealed to the Third Circuit which affirmed the ruling. Judge Hardiman, on behalf of the majority, wrote:^[5]

“

[W]e agree with the District Court that is appropriate because Capuzzo possessed overwhelming evidence of a sexual relationship between Bender and Crescenz, and because Crescenz has failed to refute that evidence. Even if a jury could credit Crescenz’s testimony and find the allegations of a sexual relationship false, no reasonable jury could find that Capuzzo was negligent in ascertaining the truth of his statements. Accordingly, the District Court did not err in granting to Capuzzo on Crescenz’s defamation claim.^[6]

”

Carl Lewis and NJ Senator candidate residency requirements (2011)

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit (Frederick Carlton Lewis, v. Kim Guadagno, Secretary of State, et al., 11-cv-3401)

Judge Ambro was a member of a special panel of judges, along with Judges Anthony Scirica and Thomas Vanaskie, that determined whether or not Olympic runner and New Jersey Senate candidate Carl Lewis would be allowed to remain on the ballot after being removed by Lieutenant Governor Kim Guadagno over a residency dispute. Guadagno removed Lewis from the ballot saying that he failed to satisfy the four-year residency requirement.^[7] Initially, a decision in Lewis' favor was made, and the court ordered his name be put back on the ballot. Judge Scirica dissented from that decision. The defendants appealed, and ultimately the three judges ruled that Lewis' name may be left off the ballot because he did not show that the State officials had treated him unequally with regard to the residency requirement.^[8]