U.S. Senator Andy Kim is seeking volunteers to apply for a newly established Federal Nominating Commission to inform him as he provides advice and consent to the President on potential nominees for judicial and executive vacancies. The deadline to apply is March 13.
The Commission is charged with identifying highly qualified individuals as finalists for nominations to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; U.S. Marshal; and U.S. Attorney. Senator Kim is seeking qualified applicants who bring geographic diversity throughout New Jersey, diverse viewpoints, backgrounds, and experiences to these positions.
Interested applicants can submit a statement of interest and resume, and respond to a brief questionnaire on the application link here. Applications must be submitted by Friday, March 13 at 5 p.m. E.T. For any questions, email [email protected].
Supreme Court Seeks Comments on Evidence Rule Recommendation
The Supreme Court’s midcycle report from the 2025-2027 Committee on the Rules of Evidence declined to amend New Jersey Rule of Evidence 702 regarding testimony by experts to align with the model federal rule of evidence. The Court is seeking comments on the report and recommendation, which is due by April.
The Committee received a referral from the New Jersey Defense Association (NJDA) requesting that N.J.R.E. 702 be amended to “clarify existing law regarding the admissibility of expert testimony and the gatekeeping role of trial judges to prevent unreliable expert testimony from reaching juries.” The NJDA noted that the federal rule was amended “to fix widespread misapplication of the Rule by courts.”
The Committee declined to recommend an amendment because it disputed that the trial courts misunderstood or struggled to exercise their gatekeeping authority to determine the admissibility of expert evidence under N.J.R.E. 702 and to the extent there was such an ongoing issue, members of the Committee disagreed whether a rule amendment was necessary to address this point.
Following robust deliberation on the issue, the Committee voted 16 to 5 against amending N.J.R.E. 702 to the federal rule.
“That said, given the extent of the internal discussions engaged in by the Committee, and because this is a relatively new and/or evolving area of the law, the Committee believes all members of the bar, including trial and appellate judges and practitioners, would benefit from additional training on how to interpret and apply N.J.R.E. 702,” said the Committee in its report.
For a full copy of the report, click here. Comments on the report and recommendation may be submitted in writing to [email protected] or by mailing them to:
Acting Administrative Director Michael J. Blee
Administrative Office of the Courts
Attn: Evidence Rules Committee Report on NJRE 702
Hughes Justice Complex; P.O. Box 037
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0037
Legislative Intent at Center of Arguments on Child Sexual Abuse Act
The New Jersey Supreme Court was asked to consider whether recent amendments to the Child Sexual Abuse Act (CSAA) expanding passive abuser liability apply to lawsuits filed after the effective date of the amendments, but which concern alleged conduct that occurred before that date. Arguing for amicus New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA) in J.H. v. Warren Hills Board of Education, NJSBA Treasurer Craig J. Hubert told the Court it should look at the overall legislative intent in enacting sweeping amendments to the CSAA and harmonize the section at issue to effectuate that intent. In a brief drafted by Hubert and NJSBA Trustee Thomas Manzo, the NJSBA argued the Legislature’s main objective in advancing the amendments was to provide a path for civil legal recourse for those victims who were prevented from pursuing civil remedies before. Hubert argued the expanded liability for passive abusers was part of that scheme and should apply to past abuse consistent with other parts of the amendments; otherwise, similarly situated victims could face disparate results, depending upon when and where their abuse occurred. Advocates for the school district, as well as the state Attorney General, argued that the plain language of the amendments and the legislative history lead to a different conclusion – that the Legislature intended for the expanded passive abuse liability to be applied prospectively only. The Court’s decision is pending.