Paul Brian Matey

Paul Brian Matey (born March 29, 1971) is a United States circuit judge on the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump and confirmed to the bench in 2019, he has served as an active member of the federal appellate judiciary since that time. Prior to his judicial service, Matey built a career that combined private practice, government litigation, and executive counsel work, including roles as an Assistant United States Attorney, senior legal adviser to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and partner at a prominent New Jersey law firm.

Early life and legal career

Matey was born in Edison, New Jersey, and grew up in the neighboring community of Rahway. He completed his secondary education at St. Thomas Aquinas High School, graduating in 1989. Pursuing higher education in the state, he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Scranton in 1993. He then attended Seton Hall University School of Law, where he graduated summa cum laude in 2001 and served as editor‑in‑chief of the Seton Hall Law Review.

Following law school, Matey entered the federal judiciary as a clerk for Judge John C. Lifland of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (2001–2002). He subsequently clerked for Judge Robert Cowen on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (2002–2003), gaining early exposure to appellate practice.

Matey’s first post‑clerkship position was as a litigation associate at Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick in Washington, D.C., where he worked for two years alongside Neil M. Gorsuch, who later joined the United States Supreme Court. He then returned to New Jersey to serve as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of New Jersey. In that capacity he prosecuted a range of matters, including complex white‑collar offenses, health‑care fraud, securities violations, and child‑protection cases. The Department of Justice recognized his performance with the Director’s Award for Superior Performance.

From 2010 to 2015 Matey served in the executive branch of New Jersey state government, first as senior counsel and later as deputy chief counsel to Governor Chris Christie. His responsibilities included providing legal advice on a broad array of policy initiatives and overseeing litigation involving the governor’s office. After leaving the Christie administration, he entered the health‑care sector as senior vice president, secretary, and general counsel for University Hospital in Newark, a role he held from 2015 until 2018.

In early 2018 Matey joined Lowenstein Sandler LLP, a major New Jersey firm, as a partner. At Lowenstein Sandler he focused on white‑collar criminal defense, complex litigation, and regulatory counseling, contributing to the firm’s White Collar Criminal Defense and Litigation practice groups.

Federal appellate service

Matey’s path to the federal bench began with a recommendation from Governor Christie in 2017 that the Trump administration consider him for an opening on the Third Circuit. President Donald J. Trump announced his intent to nominate Matey on April 10, 2018, designating him to fill the seat vacated by Judge Julio M. Fuentes, who had taken senior status in July 2016. The formal nomination was transmitted to the Senate on April 12, 2018.

The United States Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Matey’s nomination on November 13, 2018. After the committee’s consideration, his initial nomination was returned to the President under Senate rules on January 3, 2019. The President renominated him on January 23, 2019, and the revised nomination again proceeded to the Judiciary Committee. On February 7, 2019 the committee reported Matey’s nomination favorably by a vote of 12–10.

The full Senate considered the nomination in March 2019. Cloture was invoked on March 11 with a vote of 50–44, limiting further debate. The following day, March 12, the Senate confirmed Matey by a vote of 54–45. He received his judicial commission on March 18, 2019 and has served continuously as an active circuit judge since that date.

During his tenure on the Third Circuit, Judge Matey has participated in panels addressing a wide spectrum of federal law, ranging from criminal procedure to administrative regulation. While specific case counts are not enumerated here, his opinions have contributed to the development of jurisprudence within the circuit’s jurisdiction, which includes Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands.

Jurisprudence and legacy

Judge Matey’s written opinions reflect an orientation toward classical legal theory and a framework often described as “common‑good constitutionalism.” This perspective emphasizes the role of natural rights and natural law in interpreting statutory text and constitutional provisions. In his judicial reasoning, Matey has repeatedly highlighted principles such as self‑defense, free speech, and the sovereign authority of the United States to regulate its borders.

His approach to immigration cases illustrates this doctrinal stance. In a dissenting opinion in *Qatanani v. Attorney General*, Matey argued that the Immigration and Nationality Act should be understood as a “communal directive” rooted in natural‑law concepts, asserting that admission of non‑citizens is a matter of governmental grace rather than an inherent right. He further suggested that references to “the people” in the First Amendment pertain primarily to members of the national community, not to unauthorized aliens.

A second notable dissent appeared in *Pino‑Porras v. Attorney General*, where Matey contended that asylum seekers are not entitled to counsel during reasonable‑fear hearings because such proceedings do not constitute removal actions. His reasoning underscored a view that procedural protections should be calibrated to the statutory context and the underlying purpose of immigration enforcement.

Beyond these specific dissents, observers have noted that Judge Matey’s jurisprudence consistently integrates natural‑law reasoning with textual analysis, seeking to align contemporary legal questions with enduring philosophical principles. While his opinions have sometimes generated discussion regarding their methodological foundations, they contribute to an ongoing dialogue within the federal judiciary about the balance between originalist interpretation and broader conceptions of the common good.

As a relatively recent appointee, Judge Matey’s long‑term impact on the Third Circuit will continue to evolve through the cases he adjudicates and the legal doctrines he helps shape. His background—spanning prosecutorial work, executive counsel, private practice, and academic involvement as a lecturer—provides a multifaceted perspective that informs his contributions to federal appellate jurisprudence.