DOCSLIB.ORG

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Case: 07-4036 Document: 19 Filed: 07/02/2009 Pages: 31 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 07-4036 CAROL A. GLASER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WOUND CARE CONSULTANTS, INCORPORATED, MELISSA E. MILLER, and DR. STEVEN MILLER, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 05 C 573—Larry J. McKinney, Judge. ARGUED APRIL 15, 2008—DECIDED JULY 2, 2009 Before CUDAHY, KANNE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges. SYKES, Circuit Judge. Carol Glaser received medical treatment from Wound Care Consultants and was later contacted by an attorney who told her that Wound Care might have improperly billed Medicaid for her treat- ment. She filed this qui tam action under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3730, seeking recovery as a relator for money the government paid as a result of Case: 07-4036 Document: 19 Filed: 07/02/2009 Pages: 31 2 No. 07-4036 alleged false or fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid claims submitted by Wound Care. But the government was already aware of the possible improprieties in Wound Care’s billing practices and had commenced an investigation more than four months before Glaser filed her lawsuit. Accordingly, the district court dis- missed Glaser’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4), which blocks jurisdiction if the FCA action is “based upon” a “public disclosure” of the alleged fraudulent conduct “unless . the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.” Glaser appealed. The threshold jurisdictional question in this case requires us to determine whether Glaser’s lawsuit is “based upon” a “public disclosure” of Wound Care’s alleged fraudulent billing practices. We take this opportu- nity to revisit our prior interpretation of the phrase “based upon” in § 3730(e)(4)(A). In United States v. Bank of Farmington, we held that an FCA lawsuit is “based upon” a public disclosure and therefore subject to the jurisdictional bar of § 3730(e)(4) when the lawsuit “de- pends essentially upon publicly disclosed information and is actually derived from such information.” 166 F.3d 853, 864 (7th Cir. 1999). Although we reaffirmed the Bank of Farmington holding in United States ex rel. Fowler v. Caremark RX, L.L.C., we acknowledged that it is the minority interpretation. 496 F.3d 730, 738 (7th Cir. 2007). To date, eight other circuits have read the phrase “based upon” in § 3730(e)(4)(A) more broadly, holding that an FCA lawsuit is “based upon” a public disclosure when the relator’s complaint describes allega- Case: 07-4036 Document: 19 Filed: 07/02/2009 Pages: 31 No. 07-4036 3 tions or transactions that are substantially similar to those already in the public domain. We now conclude that the majority interpretation of the phrase “based upon” in the FCA’s jurisdictional bar—which we acknowledged in Caremark was sup- ported by “powerful arguments,” 496 F.3d at 738—is the better one. The approach we adopted in Bank of Farmington is problematic because it essentially eliminates the “original source” exception to the public- disclosure bar and therefore upsets the balance struck in § 3730(e)(4) between two competing policy goals: blocking opportunistic lawsuits filed by plaintiffs seeking to capitalize on information already in the public domain and encouraging lawsuits by relators who have firsthand knowledge of fraud against the government. When an FCA relator’s allegations are substantially similar to information about an alleged fraud that is already publicly disclosed, the statute permits the relator to avoid the jurisdictional bar only if he has “direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based” and “voluntarily provided the information to the Government before filing” a qui tam action. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(B). Yet under Bank of Farmington’s understanding of when an FCA lawsuit is “based upon” publicly disclosed information, the original-source exception serves no purpose. That is, if the jurisdictional bar kicks in only if the allegations in the relator’s lawsuit are actually derived from a public disclosure, there is no point in asking whether Case: 07-4036 Document: 19 Filed: 07/02/2009 Pages: 31 4 No. 07-4036 the relator was an original source of the informa- tion—he cannot be. Under our present approach, the entire original-source inquiry—asking whether the relator had “direct and independent knowledge” of the informa- tion and “voluntarily provided” it to the government—is superfluous. Accordingly, we overrule the interpretation adopted in Bank of Farmington and Caremark and hold that an FCA relator’s complaint is “based upon” publicly disclosed allegations or transactions when the allega- tions in the relator’s complaint are substantially similar to allegations already in the public domain.1 Applying this standard to Glaser’s case, we affirm the district court’s application of the jurisdictional bar. Allega- tions that Wound Care was improperly billing Medicare and Medicaid for services performed by physician’s assistants were publicly disclosed in early 2005 when the government notified Wound Care that it was investi- gating these billing practices. Glaser’s complaint is based on this publicly disclosed information in that her allegations of fraudulent billing are substantially similar to those the government had already lodged against Wound Care in its investigation. Glaser cannot show she is an original source of the allegations in her complaint because she learned about Wound Care’s alleged fraudu- lent billing from her attorney and then asserted the 1 Because this decision overrules prior decisions of this court, pursuant to Circuit Rule 40(e), we have circulated it among all judges in regular active service. No judge has requested to hear the case en banc. Circuit Judge John Daniel Tinder did not participate in the consideration of this case. Case: 07-4036 Document: 19 Filed: 07/02/2009 Pages: 31 No. 07-4036 5 attorney-client privilege to avoid divulging how her attorney learned of this information. The district court properly dismissed Glaser’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. I. Background Both Medicare and Medicaid comprehensively regulate how health-care providers may obtain reimbursement for services provided by physician’s assistants. There are some differences in the regulatory framework for each program, reflecting the fact that Medicare is administered at the federal level by the Department of Health and Human Services and is applied uniformly throughout every state while Medicaid programs are administered at the state level according to rules each state promul- gates. We can simplify our analysis in this case by assuming that the general rule under these programs is that physician’s assistants must bill Medicare and Medicaid at a lower rate for the work they do than if the same work had been performed by a doctor. How- ever, a health-care provider may use a doctor’s identifica- tion number to bill Medicare and Medicaid for services performed by a physician’s assistant—and thus obtain reimbursement at the doctor’s rate—if the assistant ren- dered services “incident to” the services of a physician. Most relevant for purposes of this case, an assistant’s services are “incident to” a physician’s services only if the doctor directly supervises the assistant’s performance. Dr. Steven Miller and Melissa Miller own Wound Care Consultants, which, as its name indicates, provides wound- Case: 07-4036 Document: 19 Filed: 07/02/2009 Pages: 31 6 No. 07-4036 care services. In January 2005, nearly four months before this lawsuit was filed, a medical-review nurse with the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) contacted Wound Care to discuss billing irregularities that had been identified in a routine agency audit. According to a March 2005 letter from CMS,2 Wound Care allowed an advanced registered nurse practitioner to use Dr. Miller’s identification number to bill Medicare at a higher rate—therefore repre- senting that the nurse practitioner’s services were “incident to” the services of a physician—even though Dr. Miller did not supervise the nurse practitioner’s activity. CMS eventually expanded its audit to review all Medicare claims submitted using Dr. Miller’s iden- tification number. From March 2005 to December 2006, CMS periodically sent letters asking Wound Care to repay funds it received at the higher doctor’s rate rather than at the lower assistant’s rate. Wound Care claims it repaid everything CMS asked it to. The relator in this case, Carol Glaser, is a Medicaid recipient with post-polio syndrome, respiratory failure, and arthritis. As a result of her conditions, Glaser had numerous wounds that required treatment. Beginning in 2002, Glaser obtained wound-care services from Wound 2 Technically, the letter was sent by AdminaStar Federal (which has since changed its name to National Government Services). But because AdminaStar contracted with CMS to administer the Medicare program, a responsibility that includes identi- fying and addressing billing errors, we refer to AdminaStar’s investigation as a CMS investigation. Case: 07-4036 Document: 19 Filed: 07/02/2009 Pages: 31 No. 07-4036 7 Care on at least 12 occasions, and she says each treatment was provided by a physician’s assistant. Glaser never saw how Wound Care billed Medicaid, and she remained oblivious to Wound Care’s billing practices in general until her attorney in this case, Mary Lapointe, contacted her.3 We have no idea how Lapointe learned of Wound Care’s billing practices because both Glaser and Lapointe have invoked the attorney-client privilege to avoid revealing Lapointe’s source. We do know that these conversa- tions inspired Glaser to file this suit against Wound Care under the FCA in April 2005.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604
    Case: 12-1903 Document: 25 Filed: 11/20/2012 Pages: 2 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted November 19, 2012* Decided November 20, 2012 Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge No. 12‐1903 LAURA A. JENNINGS, Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff‐Appellant, Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. v. No. 1:11‐cv‐1457‐SEB‐DML LEON E. PANETTA, Defendant‐Appellee. Sarah Evans Barker, Judge. O R D E R Laura Jennings, a former employee of the U.S. Department of Defense, appeals the grant of summary judgment against her in this Title VII suit on grounds that she failed to exhaust administrative remedies. We affirm. *After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). Case: 12-1903 Document: 25 Filed: 11/20/2012 Pages: 2 No. 12‐1903 Page 2 Jennings was a contract representative with DOD’s Defense Finance and Accounting Service in Indianapolis until being fired during her probationary period in late 2010. She brought an Equal Employment Opportunity administrative claim, alleging retaliation in connection with her discharge. The Office of Equal Opportunity Programs issued a final agency decision, finding that her claim was untimely because she hadn’t contacted the EEO counselor within 45 days of her discharge, 29 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Law Review Volume 47 2014 Number 4
    Indiana Law Review Volume 47 2014 Number 4 SURVEY BE ADVISED: SWEAT THE SMALL STUFF JUSTICE MARK S. MASSA* A couple of decades ago, one of the best-selling books of the era was a little paperback self-help volume scarcely thicker than a Sunday Missal. Entitled Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff . and It’s All Small Stuff,1 it was readily found on coffee tables and powder room vanities, providing transient readers with easily digestible bite-sized morsels of advice on how to keep little things from driving them crazy, one two-page chapter at a time. It was good guidance for life, but perhaps not for practicing lawyers. Indeed, recent decisions by Indiana appellate courts seem to send the opposite message: “Better Sweat the Small Stuff . Because It Can Turn Out to Be Big Stuff.” As I have been given the honor of introducing this year’s Survey Issue of the Indiana Law Review—a collection of legal scholarship by practitioners offering practical advice—this is the most obvious and practical observation that I can offer after two years on the appellate bench. Coming from a practice background that was mostly criminal, it has been sobering to see how often access to civil justice is denied, or at least delayed, by a failure to sweat the small stuff. Imagine a person injured in a slip and fall denied her day in court because the postage on the envelope containing her lawsuit was seventeen cents short when it arrived at the clerk’s office.2 Or an injured motorist’s case bounced because the check with the filing fee was two dollars light.3 How about a medical malpractice * Justice Mark S.
    [Show full text]
  • TRIBUTE to JUDGE JOHN DANIEL TINDER I Had the Distinct Privilege
    TRIBUTE TO JUDGE JOHN DANIEL TINDER DANIEL E. PULLIAM* I had the distinct privilege, along with more than forty other attorneys, of serving as a law clerk for Circuit Judge John Daniel Tinder. I lacked any particular awareness of Judge Tinder before his nomination to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which was announced just weeks before I started law school.1 Since then, I have learned through personal interactions, news articles, discussions with others, and of course, legal research, of the respect and loyalty Judge Tinder holds for the institution of the law. I. BEFORE THE ROBES Judge Tinder’s experience in the practice of law began in varied circumstances—as he started as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, later served as a public defender in the Marion Superior Court, and then became the Chief Trial Deputy in the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office.2 In these roles, Judge Tinder took all manner of cases to favorable jury verdicts, including high-profile murder and rape cases.3 As his career progressed, Judge Tinder was often compared to his father, “Honest” John G. Tinder.4 Perhaps through his father’s experience as Marion County Prosecutor from 1955-58, Judge Tinder learned the importance of the law as a foundation for society. So vigorous was John G. Tinder’s prosecution of corruption, a sniper was once found in a haystack near the family home in an apparent assassination attempt.5 The Indianapolis Times named him Man of the Year in 1958 for battling corruption6 and he led a commission to reform the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office.7 The early years of Judge Tinder’s career found him teaching trial advocacy at the Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis, including when he was being considered for, and ultimately appointed to, the position of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Release
    PRESS RELEASE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA Laura A. Briggs, Clerk 46 East Ohio Street Room 105 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Formal investiture ceremony today for United States District Judge James R. Sweeney II INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana (November 11, 2018): The Honorable Jane E. Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, announced that a formal swearing-in ceremony for United States District Judge James R. Sweeney II will be held today, Friday, November 16, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. at the Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse in Indianapolis, Indiana. Chief Judge Magnus-Stinson will preside over the en banc ceremony in the William E. Steckler Ceremonial Courtroom (courtroom 202). With the support of Senators Joe Donnelly and Todd Young, President Trump nominated Judge Sweeney for the position on November 1, 2017, to the seat created by Judge Sarah Evans Barker’s assumption of senior status in 2014. The Senate unanimously confirmed Judge Sweeney on August 28, 2018. Judge Sweeney’s caseload is drawn from the Indianapolis and Terre Haute divisions and, in addition to drawing newly assigned cases, he has been reassigned cases from other judges. Prior to his appointment as District Judge, Judge Sweeney was a partner in the Indianapolis office of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, focusing on intellectual property matters, as well as serving as co-chair of the firm’s Federal Contracting, Procurement and National Security Practice Group. He was also a member of the Global Services Practice Group and the Internet and Technology Law Practice Group.
    [Show full text]
  • Visitors' Guide to the Birch Bayh Federal Building United States
    Welcome to the U. S. Court House Visitors’ Guide to the Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Court House United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana 1 2 Welcome to the U. S. Court House Welcome to the Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Court House. This building has been home to the court for over one hundred years. Adorned with marble and mosaics, statues and friezes, and exquisitely detailed paintings, this imposing structure has provided a fitting background for the many important legal decisions handed down by the judges and juries in the district. Joined by our colleagues at the General Services Administration, which owns and manages the building, the court is proud to share a bit of its history and tradition with you, and we hope that you enjoy your visit. Photo: Timothy Yates Timothy Photo: The Judges of the Court Circuit Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges John Daniel Tinder William G. Hussmann, Jr. James K. Coachys, Chief Judge David F. Hamilton Tim A. Baker Frank J. Otte District Judges Debra McVicker Lynch Basil H. Lorch III Richard L. Young , Chief Judge Mark J. Dinsmore Robyn L. Moberly Sarah Evans Barker Denise K. LaRue James M. Carr Larry J. McKinney Michael G. Naville William T. Lawrence Craig M. McKee Jane E. Magnus-Stinson Tanya Walton Pratt 3 History of the District Court in Indiana For nearly two centuries, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana and its predecessors have been called upon to resolve the most significant legal, political, and social problems of the day.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States Government Manual 2008/2009
    The United States Government Manual 2008/2009 Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:56 Sep 04, 2008 Jkt 214669 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6996 Sfmt 6996 M:\GOVMAN\214669CX\MAN08.000 APPS10 PsN: MAN08 dkrause on GSDDPC44 with DEFAULT Revised June 1, 2008 Raymond A. Mosley, Director of the Federal Register. Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the United States. On the cover: 100 years of celebrating the Grand Canyon as a national monument. As one of the most majestic sites in the world, the Grand Canyon (Canyon), located in Grand Canyon, Arizona, overwhelms the imagination with its magnitude and captivating beauty. Its dimensions are immense and its grandeur timeless, measuring 1 mile deep, up to 18 miles wide, and 277 river miles long. Many scientists conclude that the gorge of the Grand Canyon was shaped by the Colorado River in Arizona and parts of Nevada over a period of more than 6 million years. The Canyon is dubbed one of the natural wonders of the world largely because of its splendid natural features. It boasts exotic plant life, ancient pueblos, stunning multi-colored rocks, colorful waters, and magnificent waterfalls. Also, vast species of mammals, reptiles and amphibians, fish, and birds exist at the Canyon, many threatened or endangered but protected under the Endangered Species Act. President Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed Grand Canyon National Monument (Monument) on January 11, 1908, to protect the Canyon from uncontrolled development. The Monument was managed by the U.S. Forest Service until 1919 when it was proclaimed a national park and management transferred to the National Park Service.
    [Show full text]
  • Part II), by Steven J
    December 2011 Featured In This Issue Memorial for the Honorable Terence T. Evans, Circuit Judge United States Court of Appeals The for the Seventh Circuit, By Diane S. Sykes The An Interview with Judge John D. Tinder, By Brian J. Paul Professionalism in Opinion Writing, By Justice Thomas E. Hoffman CirCircuitcuit Great Expectations Meet Painful Realities (Part II), By Steven J. Harper The Global Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Contract Obligations, By Charles E. Harris, II and Courtney L. Anderson George Cotsirilos: in Memoriam, By Judge Charles P. Kocoras RiderT HE J OURNALOFTHE S EVENTH Ventriloquism in Depositions: The Continuing Problem of Lawyers Conferring with Rider C IRCUIT B AR A SSOCIATION Witnesses During Questioning, By Jeffrey Cole C IRCUIT B AR A SSOCIATION Politics and the English Language, By George Orwell L e g a c i e s The Circuit Rider In This Issue Letter from the President . 1 and 34 Memorial for the Honorable Terence T. Evans, Circuit Judge United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, By Diane S. Sykes . 2-7 An Interview with Judge John D. Tinder, Introduction By Brian J. Paul . .8-14 Professionalism in Opinion Writing, By Justice Thomas E. Hoffman . .15-20 The Global Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Contract Obligations By Charles E. Harris, II and Courtney L. Anderson . .21-25 Great Expectations Meet Painful Realities (Part II), By Steven J. Harper . 26-32 George Cotsirilos: in Memoriam, By Judge Charles P. Kocoras . .33-34 Ventriloquism in Depositions: The Continuing Problem of Lawyers Conferring with Witnesses During Questioning, By Jeffrey Cole .
    [Show full text]
  • Tribute to Judge John Daniel Tinder
    TRIBUTE TO JUDGE JOHN DANIEL TINDER DANIEL E. PULLIAM* I had the distinct privilege, along with more than forty other attorneys, of serving as a law clerk for Circuit Judge John Daniel Tinder. I lacked any particular awareness of Judge Tinder before his nomination to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which was announced just weeks before I started law school.1 Since then, I have learned through personal interactions, news articles, discussions with others, and of course, legal research, of the respect and loyalty Judge Tinder holds for the institution of the law. I. BEFORE THE ROBES Judge Tinder’s experience in the practice of law began in varied circumstances—as he started as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, later served as a public defender in the Marion Superior Court, and then became the Chief Trial Deputy in the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office.2 In these roles, Judge Tinder took all manner of cases to favorable jury verdicts, including high-profile murder and rape cases.3 As his career progressed, Judge Tinder was often compared to his father, “Honest” John G. Tinder.4 Perhaps through his father’s experience as Marion County Prosecutor from 1955-58, Judge Tinder learned the importance of the law as a foundation for society. So vigorous was John G. Tinder’s prosecution of corruption, a sniper was once found in a haystack near the family home in an apparent assassination attempt.5 The Indianapolis Times named him Man of the Year in 1958 for battling corruption6 and he led a commission to reform the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office.7 The early years of Judge Tinder’s career found him teaching trial advocacy at the Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis, including when he was being considered for, and ultimately appointed to, the position of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Circuit Circuit Rider
    November 2017 Featured In This Issue Milton Shadur: The Consummate Judge, By Hon. Robert Gettleman Mandatory Initial Discovery: Just, Speedy, and Inexpensive or Nasty, Brutish, and Short?, By Daniel R. Fine Operation Greylord: Corruption in the Cook County Courts, By Terrence Hake TheThe Who, Me, Unreasonable? Establishing “Reasonableness” of Defense Counsel Fees in Insurance Coverage Litigation in the 7th Circuit, By Jesse Bair Supreme Court Limits Use of Settlements to Skip Priority Creditors in Bankruptcy, By David Christian When Unpopular Opinions Meet Politics: Three Milwaukee Federal Judges Who Faced Impeachment CirCircuitcuit Investigations, By Barbara Fritschel Book Review, By Joseph Ferguson, PUBLIC CORRUPTION AND THE LAW: Cases and Materials, by David H. Hoffman and Juliet S. Sorensen TRIBUTES: Judge John W. Darrah, By Jim Dvorak RiderRiderT HE J OURNALOFTHE S EVENTH Judge Larry J. McKinney, By Hon. Tim A. Baker C IRCUITIRCUIT B AR A SSOCIATION Judge Denise K. LaRue, By Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt T h e T i m e s T h e y Are aCh a n g i n ’ The Circuit Rider In This Issue Letter from the President . 1 Judge Richard A. Posner Announcement . 2 Milton Shadur: The Consummate Judge, By Hon. Robert Gettleman . 3-8 Mandatory Initial Discovery: Just, Speedy, and Inexpensive or Nasty, Brutish, and Short?, By Daniel R. Fine . 9-12 Operation Greylord: Corruption in the Cook County Courts, By Terrence Hake . 13-17 Who, Me, Unreasonable? Establishing “Reasonableness” of Defense Counsel Fees in Insurance Coverage Litigation in the 7th Circuit, By Jesse Bair . 18-22 Supreme Court Limits Use of Settlements to Skip Priority Creditors in Bankruptcy, By David Christian .
    [Show full text]
  • The Historical Society of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Inc
    The Historical Society of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Inc. ONE INDIANA SQUARE, SUITE 2800 ★ ATTN. C. DANIEL MOTSINGER ★ INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46204 (317) 229-3729 www.insd.uscourts.gov/court-historical-society Board of Directors Hon. Sarah Evans Barker U.S. District Court Never-Ending Stories: Michael A. Blickman Gerrymandering and Redistricting, plus Ice Miller LLP “Judges Unleashed:” Candid Observations from the (Retired) Bench Laura A. Briggs U. S. District Court Eleventh Annual Court History and Continuing Legal Education Symposium set for October 25, A. Scott Chinn 2018 Faegre Baker & Daniels LLP INDIANAPOLIS (September 4, 2018) — The 11th Annual Court History and Continuing Legal C. Daniel Motsinger Krieg DeVault LLP Education Symposium will be presented on Thursday, October 25, 2018, at the Birch Bayh Federal Building and U.S. Court House, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. The program will be Officers held in the William E. Steckler Ceremonial Courtroom (Courtroom 202). Organized by the Michael A. Blickman President Historical Society of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, and sponsored by the Court, this three-hour Continuing Legal Education event (approval pending) will be held from C. Daniel Motsinger Treasurer 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Libby Y. Goodknight Assistant Treasurer This year’s event will feature an exploration of legal history and the law related to what is Daniel E. Pulliam popularly known as “gerrymandering” through the 1986 Davis v. Bandemer U.S. Supreme Court Secretary decision. The case was initially heard in the Birch Bayh Federal Building and U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 November 16, 2020 the Honorable Lindsey Graham Chairman, Senate
    November 16, 2020 The Honorable Lindsey Graham Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Dianne Feinstein Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee 152 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 RE: OPPOSITION TO NOMINATION OF THOMAS KIRSCH TO U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Dear Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein: On behalf of the NAACP, our nation’s oldest, largest, and most widely-recognized grassroots civil rights organization, I strongly urge you to oppose the nomination of Thomas Kirsch, a white male, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. His appointment will perpetuate the segregation of the only all- white appellate bench in the country. His nomination should not move forward in the Senate, especially when we are on the cusp of a new presidency and a new Senate. We urge Chairman Graham to cancel his hearing. If he insists on moving forward, we urge each and every Senator on the Judiciary Committee to refuse to participate in the hearing in protest of the continued segregation of this important appellate court. I. THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT IS AN ALL-WHITE COURT Donald Trump has nominated Thomas Kirsch to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Shockingly, in 2020, the Seventh Circuit is once again an all-white court. The court has eleven seats, and all ten judges currently sitting on the court are white. The Seventh Circuit is the only all-white appellate court in the country. The Seventh Circuit covers Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana.
    [Show full text]
  • PRESS RELEASE the Hon. William T. Lawrence Announces Decision
    For Immediate Release December 13, 2017 PRESS RELEASE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA Laura A. Briggs, Clerk 46 East Ohio Street Room 105 Indianapolis, IN 46204 The Hon. William T. Lawrence Announces Decision to Take Senior Status INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana (December 13, 2017): More changes are coming to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, as District Judge William T. Lawrence has notified President Donald J. Trump of his intention to take senior status effective July 1, 2018. Judge Lawrence will continue to render substantial judicial service as a senior judge. President Trump, with the guidance of Indiana’s United States Senators Joseph S. Donnelly and Todd C. Young, will nominate Judge Lawrence’s successor. Judge Lawrence first joined the Court as a Magistrate Judge in November 2002. President George W. Bush, with the confirmation of the Senate, elevated Judge Lawrence to the position of District Judge on June 30, 2008, making him the first Magistrate Judge in the Southern District to become a District Judge. He filled the vacancy created by Judge John Daniel Tinder’s elevation to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Prior to being a Magistrate Judge, Judge Lawrence was the elected Judge of the Marion County Circuit Court from 1996 to 2002, after serving as a Master Commissioner there for over 13 years. He served as a major felony Public Defender in the Marion County Criminal Court for nine years. In 1980, Judge Lawrence was appointed Executive Director of Indiana’s first Merit Selection Commission on Federal Judicial Appointments by Senator Richard Lugar.
    [Show full text]