It is 6 a.m. in the Eastern Time Zone and, apart from those long days surrounding the summer solstice, still dark outside. United States District Judge Nancy Garlock Edmunds is awakened by her attentive spouse and begins the ritual she has followed for the past 17 years: She takes 
her morning dose of synthetic dopamine and tries to shake off the stiffness that has crept into her body overnight. Then it is off to the gym seven days per week, where she spends 30–45 minutes walking briskly on a treadmill or elliptical, followed 30 minutes twice per week of resistance training with a personal trainer.
Edmunds was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 2010, when she was 63. The same discipline that she applied to her studies growing up has allowed her to continue her work on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for the last 34 years, half of which followed her diagnosis. Judge Edmunds has announced her retirement effective March 31, 2026.
THE EARLY YEARS
Judge Edmunds was born in Detroit on July 10, 1947. Her family moved to Southfield when Judge Edmunds was in junior high school. Her father, Joseph Garlock, was a WWII Navy veteran and a pharmacist who owned Garlock Drugs in Pontiac for 25 years. After he sold the business in 1982, he continued to work as a pharmacist for another 25 years until he was “laid off” in 2007 at the age of 87.
Judge Edmunds’ mother, Phyllis Sandelman Garlock, taught gym at the Detroit Public Schools for a few years and then turned her attention to managing the family finances, including investments. She and Joseph lived until their late nineties and were married for 75 years.
AN IMPRESSIVE RESUME
Edmunds graduated from Southfield High School in 1965 at the top of her class. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree (cum laude) from Cornell University in 1969 and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. Edmunds next attended the University of Chicago, from which she received a Master of Arts in Teaching in 1971.
Edmunds graduated first in her class from Wayne State University Law School in 1976, receiving her Juris Doctor degree summa cum laude. She also served as Editor-in-Chief of the Wayne Law Review. Her husband, William Edmunds, was a law school classmate who finished second in his and Nancy's class.
Following her graduation from the University of Chicago, Edmunds taught middle school English at the Plymouth-Canton Community Schools. After graduating from law school, she served as law clerk to United States District Judge Ralph M. Freeman. In 1978, Edmunds joined Dykema Gossett’s Commercial Litigation Section, becoming a partner in 1984. Over the course of her 14 years in private practice, she litigated a number of complex cases in both state and federal courts.
On September 11, 1991, Edmunds was nominated by President George H. W. Bush to a seat vacated by Richard F. Suhrheinrich on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. She was confirmed by the United States Senate on February 6, 1992, and received her commission on February 10, 1992. Judge Edmunds assumed senior status on August 1, 2012.
JUDGE EDMUNDS’ BAR AND COMMUNITY SERVICE
Edmunds served from 1983 until 1991 on the faculty and board of the Federal Advocacy Institute and from 1989 until 1992 and from 1995 until 2000 on the Executive Board of the Federal Bar Association, Eastern District of Michigan.
She served as Chair of the United States Courts Committee of the State Bar of Michigan from 1990–1991, and in 1990 as Commissioner of the 21st Century Commission on the Courts. In 1990, she also served as Program Chair of the Federal Bar Association’s Bench/Bar Conference. From 1993 until 1998, Judge Edmunds served on the Board of Trustees for the Historical Society on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. She served from 1994 until 2000 as a member of the National Judicial Conference’s Committee on Defender Services.
In terms of community service, Edmunds served from 1990 until 1997 on the Board of Trustees of Temple Beth El and from 1999 until 2004 on the Board of Governors of Cranbrook/Kingswood Schools. From 1999 until 2011, she also served as Chair of the Michigan Members/Stratford Shakespearean Festival of America; and from 2002 until 2006 on the Committee of Visitors of Wayne Law School. Judge Edmunds also served from 2006 until 2007 on the Board of Trustees of the Jewish Community Relations Council.
EDMUNDS’S SIGNIFICANT OPINIONS
During her time on the bench, Edmunds has defied categorization. The one constant in her opinions and decision-making has been careful attention to detail. She approaches each case that comes before her with an open mind and takes her time to make sure that she is reaching a result consistent with the relevant facts and the governing law.
IN RE CARDIZEM CD ANTITRUST LITIGATION,1
Edmunds presided over a multidistrict antitrust litigation that arose from an agreement between the defendants, Hoescht Marion Roussel, Inc., the manufacturer of the prescription drug Cardizem CD; and Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a potential manufacturer of a generic version of that drug. The agreement provided that Andrx would refrain from marketing its generic version of the drug even after it had received FDA approval in exchange for quarterly payments of $10 million. Plaintiffs were direct and indirect purchasers of the drug challenging the agreement as a violation of federal and state antitrust laws. During the early stages of the litigation, Judge Edmunds denied the Defendants’ motions to dismiss2 and granted the plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment, finding that the Defendants had committed a per se violation of the antitrust laws.3 Two questions were certified for interlocutory appeal to the Sixth Circuit, which found that Judge Edmunds had properly resolved both questions in reaching her decisions.4 After a settlement was reached, Judge Edmunds granted motions for approval of class action settlement and motions for attorney fees.5
UNITED STATES V. DETROIT HIGHWAYMEN MOTORCYCLE CLUB6
After an extensive jury trial on alleged violations of federal racketeering laws and other federal laws involving violent acts, firearms, controlled substances and stolen property by members of the Highwaymen Motorcycle Club that resulted in a guilty verdict, Judge Edmunds ruled that Defendants’ Rule 29 motions for acquittal and Rule 33 motions for new trial were not warranted.7
UNITED STATES V. ABDULMUTALLAB (UNDERWEAR BOMBER)8
In one criminal case, the indictment charged that on December 25, 2009, the defendant flew aboard Northwest Delta Flight 253 from Amsterdam, the Netherlands, to Detroit Metropolitan Airport in Romulus, Michigan, carrying a concealed explosive device in his underwear, was acting on behalf of the designated terrorist organization al Qaeda, that his intent in carrying the explosive device was to cause the plane to crash and kill everyone aboard, and that minutes before landing in Detroit, the defendant detonated the explosive which did not function as intended but instead ignited a fire that caused burns to himself and damage to the aircraft. Judge Edmunds ruled as follows:
1. Because the United States Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between presumed and actual prejudice for pretrial publicity, prejudice cannot be presumed in this matter, and because the extensive jury questionnaire and follow-up individual voir dire fashioned by the Court will probe each prospective juror’s exposure to any pretrial publicity, a change of venue is not warranted. 2011 WL 4343851 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 14, 2011).
2. The defendant’s statements to federal agents at the hospital where he was being treated for burn injuries were voluntary, and the circumstances present at the time of this questioning fall within the public safety exception to Miranda recognized by the United States Supreme Court in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984).9
UNITED STATES V. KILPATRICK, ET AL.10
In 2012, various pretrial motions were decided by Judge Edmunds with regard to the upcoming criminal trial of the City of Detroit’s former mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick; his father, Bernard Kilpatrick; contractor Bobby Ferguson; and the former head of the City’s Water & Sewerage Department, Victor Mercado, including the following:
1. Decision granting the government’s motion in limine for a pretrial determination of the authenticity of text message exchanges between and among Defendants;11
2. Decision addressing Defendants’ motion in opposition to empaneling an anonymous jury;12
3. Decision denying Defendant Bobby Ferguson’s motion to dismiss certain counts for failing to state an offense for aiding and abetting Defendant Kwame Kilpatrick’s crime of taking a bribe in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666(a);13
4. Decision denying Defendant Bobby Ferguson’s motion seeking to exclude the government’s “color of official right” theory from its prosecution of certain criminal counts in the indictment;14
5. Decision denying Defendant Mercado’s motion for severance of his trial from the other Defendants;15
6. Decision addressing a potential conflict of interest raised by Defendant Kwame Kilpatrick.16
In 2013, following a lengthy jury trial that included charges alleging a RICO conspiracy, multiple counts of extortion under the Hobbs Act, bribery, mail and wire fraud, and false submission of federal tax returns, the jury found Defendant Kwame Kilpatrick guilty on 24 of 30 counts, including the RICO conspiracy; Defendant Bobby Ferguson guilty on 9 of 11 counts, including the RICO conspiracy; and Bernard Kilpatrick guilty on 1 of 4 counts. Several post-verdict decisions were issued, including the following:
1. Decision denying Defendant Kwame Kilpatrick’s motion to be released on bond pending sentencing;17
2. Decision denying Defendants Kwame Kilpatrick’s, Bobby Ferguson’s, and Bernard Kilpatrick’s motions for judgments of acquittal;18 and
3. Decision denying Defendants Kwame Kilpatrick’s and Bobby Ferguson’s motions for a new trial.19
CONCLUSION
Those of us who have practiced in the federal court in Detroit over the last four decades are fortunate that Nancy Edmunds was among the judges to whom our cases were assigned. She never sought the spotlight but instead allowed her intellect, work ethic, and judicial temperament to distinguish her. Her colleagues on the bench and members of the Bar will miss her wise counsel and erudite opinions.