Career Timeline of Susan Illston: Major Achievements and Milestones

Share: FB Share X Share Reddit Share Reddit Share
Susan Illston

Discover the career path of Susan Illston, from the first major opportunity to industry-changing achievements.

Susan Yvonne Illston is a senior United States district judge for the Northern District of California. Nominated by President Bill Clinton, she was confirmed by the Senate in 1995. Illston assumed senior status in 2013, marking a transition in her judicial service.

9 hours ago : Judge Blocks Trump's Mass Layoffs: A Temporary Pause to Government Overhaul Plans.

Judge Susan Illston temporarily blocked Trump's plans for mass layoffs and program closures in government agencies. The ruling halts the sweeping government overhaul, providing a temporary pause. The judge sided with plaintiffs who argued the move was unlawful.

1933: Securities Act

In June 2023, the United States Supreme Court reviewed the case of Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani and held that liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 attaches only when a buyer can trace the shares he has purchased to a false or misleading registration statement.

1973: Stanford Law School Graduation and Private Practice

In 1973, Susan Illston received a Juris Doctor from Stanford Law School and began working in private practice at Cotchett, Illston & Pitre.

January 23, 1995: Nomination by President Clinton

On January 23, 1995, Susan Illston was nominated by President Bill Clinton to serve as a United States District Judge.

May 25, 1995: Confirmation by the Senate

On May 25, 1995, Susan Illston was confirmed by the Senate and received her commission the following day.

1995: End of Private Practice

In 1995, Susan Illston ended her private practice at Cotchett, Illston & Pitre.

1995: Nomination and Confirmation to District Court

In 1995, Susan Illston was nominated by President Bill Clinton and confirmed by the Senate to serve as a United States District Judge for the Northern District of California.

1999: DiLoreto v. Downey Unified School District Board of Education Decision

In 1999, Illston wrote the panel decision in DiLoreto v. Downey Unified School District Board of Education, which ruled that a public high school's athletic fence used for commercial advertising was a nonpublic forum where religious messages could be excluded without violating the First Amendment.

2000: Certiorari Denied in DiLoreto Case

In 2000, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case of DiLoreto v. Downey Unified School District Board of Education, upholding Illston's decision.

February 2004: Ruling on 321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc.

In February 2004, Illston ruled that 321 Studios' software, designed to allow users to make backup copies of DVDs by circumventing copy protection, was illegal under federal law and issued an injunction to stop its sale, in the case of 321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc.

August 2006: Sentencing of Patrick Arnold

In August 2006, Illston sentenced Patrick Arnold, a chemist who developed an undetectable performance-enhancing drug for BALCO, to three months in prison.

March 2009: Presided Over Barry Bonds Perjury Case

In March 2009, Illston presided over a perjury case involving Barry Bonds.

April 2009: Ruled on Free Speech Infringement Case

In April 2009, Illston ruled that two students threatened with suspension by the College of Alameda could sue the school for free speech infringement.

October 2009: Ruling in Favor of Environmental Groups

In October 2009, Illston ruled in favor of environmental groups against the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over an expansion of off-roading trails in California's Mojave Desert, citing violations of regulations regarding air quality, soils, plant communities, and endangered species.

2011: Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC v. George Hotz, et al.

In 2011, Illston presided over Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC v. George Hotz, et al., granting Sony permission to track information about those who had viewed a YouTube video about jailbreaking the Sony PlayStation 3.

March 15, 2013: Ruling on National Security Letter (NSL)

On March 15, 2013, Judge Illston granted a motion to set aside a National Security Letter (NSL), ruling that the NSL's nondisclosure and judicial review provisions suffer from significant Constitutional infirmities.

July 1, 2013: Took Senior Status

On July 1, 2013, Susan Illston took senior status.

2013: Assumed Senior Status

In 2013, Susan Illston assumed senior status as a United States District Judge for the Northern District of California.

April 2020: Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action Against Slack Technologies

In April 2020, Illston issued an order denying Slack Technologies’ motion to dismiss a securities class action complaint against it following a direct listing by the company, though this order was ultimately overturned by the US Supreme Court.

June 2023: Supreme Court Decision in Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani

In June 2023, the United States Supreme Court reviewed the case of Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani and held that liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 attaches only when a buyer can trace the shares he has purchased to a false or misleading registration statement.

August 2024: Motion to Unseal Shareholder List of X Holdings Corp. Granted

On 20 August 2024, Illston granted a motion to unseal a list of shareholders of X Holdings Corp. (which owns Twitter since the acquisition by Elon Musk). The unsealed document was published to the court's website.

October 16, 2024: Illston's Decision on BLM's 2019 OHV Route Network

On October 16, 2024, Judge Illston issued a decision stating that "the Court concludes that the BLM’s 2019 OHV route network does not comply [with] the minimization criteria because the record does not affirmatively demonstrate how the BLM designated OHV routes with the objective of minimizing impacts on the desert tortoise, the Lane Mountain milk-vetch, and other resources, and because the BLM improperly relied on optional, post-designation 'mitigation' measures to satisfy its obligation to designate OHV routes that complied with the regulatory criteria."

2025: Case Remanded to Ninth Circuit

In 2025, the case was remanded to the Ninth Circuit, which held that because the plaintiff previously conceded that he could not make the required showing that the securities that he purchased were traceable to the particular registration statement alleged to be false or misleading, all of his claims failed, and the court consequently reversed and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint in full and with prejudice.