Paul Brian Matey (born March 29, 1971) is an American jurist, lecturer, and attorney who serves as a U.S. Circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Prior to Matey's judicial service, he was a partner in the White Collar Criminal Defense and Litigation practice groups at the law firm of Lowenstein Sandler LLP. He was previously senior vice president, secretary, and general counsel at University Hospital in Newark, New Jersey, deputy chief counsel to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey.
Early life and education Matey was born in Edison, New Jersey and raised in Rahway, New Jersey. He graduated from St. Thomas Aquinas High School in 1989, earned his Bachelor of Arts from the University of Scranton in 1993, and his Juris Doctor, summa cum laude, from Seton Hall University School of Law in 2001, where he served as editor-in-chief of the Seton Hall Law Review."President Donald J. Trump Announces Twelfth Wave of Judicial Nominees, Twelfth Wave of United States Attorneys, and Sixth Wave of United States Marshals" White House, April 10, 2018
Legal career
After graduating from law school, Matey served as a law clerk to Judge John C. Lifland of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey from 2001 to 2002 and to Judge Robert Cowen of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 2002 to 2003. He spent two years as a litigation associate at the Washington, D.C., law firm Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, where he worked alongside Neil M. Gorsuch, future Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, who at the time was a partner at the firm. Matey then worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey, where he prosecuted matters including complex white-collar crimes, health care fraud, securities fraud, and child protection actions. He received the Director's Award for Superior Performance from the United States Department of Justice.
From 2010 to 2015, Matey served as senior counsel and then deputy chief counsel to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. He later served as senior vice president, secretary, and general counsel at University Hospital in Newark from 2015 until 2018, when he joined the law firm Lowenstein Sandler LLP as a partner in the firm's litigation, regulatory counseling, and white collar defense practices.
Federal judicial service
Nomination In 2017, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie recommended to the Trump Administration that Matey be nominated to a U.S. circuit judge seat. On April 10, 2018, President Donald Trump announced his intent to nominate Matey to serve as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He was nominated to the seat vacated by Judge Julio M. Fuentes, who assumed senior status on July 18, 2016."Twenty-Nine Nominations Sent to the Senate Today" White House, April 12, 2018 On April 12, 2018, his nomination was sent to the Senate. On November 13, 2018, a hearing on his nomination was held before the Senate Judiciary Committee. On January 3, 2019, his nomination was returned to the President under Rule XXXI, Paragraph 6 of the Standing Rules of the U.S. Senate. On January 23, 2019, President Trump announced his intent to renominate Matey for a federal judgeship."President Donald J. Trump Announces Intent to Nominate Judicial Nominees", White House, January 23, 2019 His nomination was sent to the Senate later that day."Nominations Sent to the Senate", White House, January 23, 2019 On February 7, 2019, his nomination was reported out of committee by a 12–10 vote. On March 11, 2019, the Senate invoked cloture on his nomination by a 50–44 vote. On March 12, 2019, his nomination was confirmed by a 54–45 vote. He received his judicial commission on March 18, 2019.
Notable opinions, cases, and jurisprudence Matey's jurisprudence is notable among federal judges for its embrace of the classical legal tradition and common good constitutionalism. His opinions reflect a focus on natural rights and natural law, and how they inform and undergird written rights. Matey's opinions have consistently emphasized the importance of natural rights such as self-defense and free speech, as well as natural law principles supporting the United States' inherent authority to control its borders.
Immigration and border control In Qatanani v. Attorney General, Matey dissented from the majority's holding that Mohammad Qatanani can become a lawful permanent resident, despite Qatanani's association with Hamas supporters and his calls for a "new intifada." Invoking Ancient Roman legal principles and Adrian Vermeule's Common Good Constitutionalism, Matey conceptualized the Immigration & Nationality Act as a "communal directive," as well as "the lawmaker's reasoned ordination for the common good expressed in text," and he explained that such "reasoned choice arise against, and from, the natural law, [so] we look to those principles to ascertain the meaning and will of the lawmaking body." Matey also cited natural law principles providing that "a sovereign has complete discretion to determine who it deems worthy to enter all parts of its political community." Therefore, he explained, "an alien's license to remain within our Nation is always a matter of grace, not right." He further urged that the First Amendment's use of the term "the people" is best understood to refer, not to unauthorized aliens, but "to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connections with this country to be considered part of that community." He also contended that "an individual has a right to the protection of government and its laws only by virtue of his allegiance."Qatanani v. Att'y Gen., No. 24-1849 (3d Cir. July 15, 2025) (Matey, J., dissenting) (pp. 37-75) (available at 241849p.pdf)
In Pino-Porras v. Attorney General, Matey dissented from a majority opinion remanding a case for a new hearing before an immigration judge to review an asylum officer's finding that the petitioner did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. The majority held that the immigration judge "abused her discretion by failing to give [the petitioner] a reasonable opportunity to have his counsel participate in the hearing." In dissent, Matey wrote that the petitioner "was not entitled to counsel" because "reasonable-fear hearings are not removal proceedings, leaving no basis for an allowance of counsel."Pino-Porras v. Att'y Gen., No. 22-3419 (3d Cir. June 25, 2025) (available at 22-3419-2025-06-25.pdf)
In Robles Corcuera v. Attorney General, Matey dissented from an order remanding an immigration matter to the Board of Immigration Appeals, explaining that "as an alien paroled into our Nation, the Fifth Amendment cannot ground [the petitioner's claims]. And even if [the petitioner] could invoke notions of due process, no violation occurred because Congress defined, and the Executive provided, the process thought due: an opportunity to retain counsel, not a guaranteed right to representation."Robles Corcuera v. Att'y Gen., No. 24-1963 (3d Cir. Oct. 15, 2025) (Matey, J., dissenting) (pp. 8-20) (available at 241963np.pdf)
In Carneiro v. Attorney General, Matey wrote separately to critique what he considers a near limitless meaning of "particular social group" which has led to a significant expansion in who qualifies as a refugee for purposes of admission into the United States. Analyzing the origin of the term, Matey concluded that "particular social group refers to prosecution by a foreign sovereign against a political minority based on political disagreements." The term was not "intended to open the immigration floodgates to everyone in the world who is oppressed."Carneiro v. Att'y Gen., No. 25-1060 (3d Cir. Nov. 25, 2025) (Matey, J., concurring) (pp. 8-17) (available at 251060np.pdf).
In Dodyuk v. Attorney General, Matey wrote an opinion holding that an immigration judge may consider an illegal alien's involvement in a stabbing in ruling on his adjustment of status, despite the criminal charging documents having been expunged.Dodyuk v. Att'y Gen., No. 21-3333 (3d Cir. Apr. 13, 2023) (available at USCOURTS-ca3-21-03333-0.pdf).
Executive branch appointments In United States v. Giraud, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a decision by a three-judge panel which did not include Matey, affirmed a lower court ruling disqualifying Alina Habba from serving as the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. In a subsequent en banc petition to have the case's appeal be heard by all the active judges of the court, the full Third Circuit declined to reconsider the panel's decision, but Matey voted to rehear the decision en banc.United States v. Giraud, No. 25-2635 (3d Cir.), Dkt. No. 86 (available at United States v. Julien Giraud, Jr., 25-2635 – CourtListener.com)
Religion In McDowell v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Matey dissented from the majority's holding affirming that Bayhealth did not discriminate against their employees by denying them COVID-19 vaccine exemptions. Matey's opinion criticized the mainstream conception of "religious liberty" as prioritizing "inwardness, solipsism, and absolute autonomy." Relying on the writings of Thomas Aquinas, Cicero, and James Madison, he argued that the embrace of absolute individual autonomy "does not follow the traditional understanding of religion which consists in offering service and ceremonial rites to a superior nature that men call divine." Matey also observed, relying on natural law theorist Hadley Arkes, that "[o]nly recently have courts broadened the definition of 'religion' to encompass more than formal doctrines of theology, a move that would push on eventually to a legal understanding of religion that was virtually indistinguishable from private beliefs of any kind." Matey concluded that such a "change in course, and its deviation from classical principles, deserves a deeper examination in a suitable case."McDowell v. Bayhealth Med. Ctr., No. 24-1157 (3d Cir. Nov. 15, 2024) (Matey, J., dissenting) (pp. 9-13) (available at 24-1157-2024-11-15.pdf).
In Clark v. Governor of New Jersey, Matey dissented from the majority's holding that the in-person religious gathering limits put into place but later relaxed by New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy did not present a justiciable controversy. Matey wrote that the governor and the state's attorney general appeared to "consider the First Amendment subordinate to their emergency powers." Matey criticized the majority for leaving New Jersey's residents in limbo, as they "still do not know whether the First Amendment protects their religious obligations and faith tenets, even though at the founding, the right to religious liberty was universally said to be an unalienable right." Matey called this a "chilling prospect" because New Jersey "treats religious exercise worse" than secular activities such as liquor shopping.Clark v. Governor of N.J., No. 21-2732 (3d Cir. Nov. 28, 2022) (Matey, J., dissenting) (pp. 29-39) (available at 21-2732-2022-11-28.pdf)
Second Amendment