DOCSLIB.ORG

Gay Rights Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gay Rights Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2012 Section 7: Gay Rights Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School, "Section 7: Gay Rights" (2012). Supreme Court Preview. 8. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/8 Copyright c 2012 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview VII. Gay Rights In This Section: New Case and Topic: Defense of Marriage Act (looking ahead) p.432 12-15 Department ofHealth and Human Services v. Massach1lsetts 12-13 Bipartisan Legal Advisory Gro1lp of the United States HOllse of Representatives v. Gill 12-16 Office ofPersonnel Management v. Golinski 12-63 Windsor v. United States 12-97 Commonwealth ofMassach1lsetts v. Department ofHealth & Human Services Synopsis and Questions Presented p.432 "SUIT CITES STATES' RIGHTS ON BEHALF OF GAY RIGHTS" p.444 Adam Liptak "U.S. FILES DOMA CHALLENGES" p.446 Lyle Denniston "KEY PART OF FEDERAL GAY MARRIAGE LAW RULED p.447 UNCONSTITUTIONAL" David G. Savage "ApPEALS COURT HEARS ARGUMENTS ON GAY MARRIAGE LAW" p.451 Abby Goodnough "COURT PUTS REVIEW OF DOMA RULING ON HOLD" p.453 Bob Egelko "83-YEAR-OLD ASKS SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW GAY MARRIAGE BAN" p. 454 Terry Baynes "OBAMA TEAM WON'T DEFEND DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT" p.456 Kevin Johnson and Joan Biskupic New Case: 12-144 Hollingsworth v. Perry (looking ahead) p.458 "COURT STRIKES DOWN BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA" p.458 Adam Nagourney "GAY MARRIAGE FIGHT MAY HINGE ON SUPREME COURT'S ANTHONY p.461 KENNEDY" David G. Savage 430 "FURTHER PROP. 8 REVIEW DENIED BY COURT OF ApPEALS" p.462 Lyle Denniston "GAY-MARRIAGE FOES SEEK HIGH COURT REVIEW" p.465 Jess Bravin New Case: 12-23 Brewer v. Diaz (looking ahead) p.467 "A NEW TEST ON GAY RIGHTS" p.467 Lyle Denniston "SAME-SEX PARTNER BENEFITS CAN'T BE CUT OFF" p.470 Bob Egelko 431 Massachusetts v. United States Department ofHealth and Human Services No. 12-15 Ruling Below: Massachusetts v. Us. Dept. ofHealth & H1lman Services, 682 F.3d 1 (lst Cir. 2012),petitionfor cert.fzled, 2012 WL 2586937 (U.S. 2012). Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines the term "marriage" for all purposes under federal law as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." It also defines "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." In Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, seven homosexual couples and three surviving spouses married in Massachusetts sued to enjoin agencies and officials from enforcing DOMA and denying them federal benefits that were otherwise available to heterosexual couples. In Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and H1Iman Services, Massachusetts brought a companion case out of concern for losing federal funding for programs such as Medicaid and veterans' cemeteries. With opinions released on the same day, District Court Judge Tauro held that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment, and it violated the Spending Clause and Tenth Amendment. These cases were joined on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which affirmed the district court's decision that DOMA was unconstitutional on equal protection grounds while rejecting the Spending Clause and Tenth Amendment rationales. Question Presented: Whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.c. 7, violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their state. Commonwealth of MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et aI., Defendants, Appellants. Dean Hara, Plaintiff, Appellee/Cross-Appellant; Nancy Gill, et aI., Plaintiffs, Appellees; Keith Toney, et aI., Plaintiffs, v. Office of Personnel Management, et aI., Defendants, Appellants/Cross-Appellees; Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her official capacity as United States Secretary of State, Defendant. United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Decided May 31, 2012 [Excerpt; some footnotes and citations omitted.] BOUDIN, Circuit Judge. These appeals present constitutional challenges to section 3 of the Defense of 432 Marriage Act ("DOMA"), 1 U.S.c. § 7, union between one man and one woman as which denies federal economic and other husband and wife, and the word "spouse" benefits to same-sex couples lawfully refers only to a person of the opposite sex married in Massachusetts and to surviving who is a husband or a wife. spouses from couples thus married. Rather than challenging the right of states to define Section 2, which is not at issue here, marriage as they see fit, the appeals contest absolves states from recognizing same-sex the right of Congress to undercut the choices marriages solemnized in other states. made by same-sex couples and by individual states in deciding who can be married to DOMA does not formally invalidate same­ whom. sex marriages in states that permit them, but its adverse consequences for such a choice In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that are considerable. Notably, it prevents same­ it might violate the Hawaii constitution to sex married couples from filing joint federal deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. tax returns, which can lessen tax burdens, Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530 (1993). see 26 U.S.C. § 1(a)-(c), and prevents the Although Hawaii then empowered its surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage legislature to block such a ruling, Haw. from collecting Social Security survivor Const. art. I, § 23-which it did, Act of June benefits, e.g., 42 U.S.c. § 402(f), (i). 22, 1994, 1994 Haw. Sess. Laws 526 (H.B. DOMA also leaves federal employees 2312) (codified at Haw.Rev.Stat. § 572- unable to share their health insurance and 1)-the Hawaii decision was followed by certain other medical benefits with same-sex legalization of same-sex marriage in a small spouses. minority of states, some by statute and a few by judicial decision; many more states DOMA affects a thousand or more generic responded by banning same-sex marriage by cross-references to marriage in myriad statute or constitutional amendment. federal laws. In most cases, the changes operate to the disadvantage of same-sex Congress reacted with the same alarm as married couples in the half dozen or so many state legislatures. Within three years states that permit same-sex marriage. The after the Hawaii decision, DOMA was number of couples thus affected is estimated enacted with strong majorities in both at more than 100,000. Further, DOMA has Houses and signed into law by President potentially serious adverse consequences, Clinton. The entire statute, reprinted in an hereafter described, for states that choose to addendum to this decision, must-having legalize same-sex marriage. only two operative paragraphs-be one of the shortest major enactments in recent In Gill v. OPM, No. 10-2207, seven same­ history. Section 3 of DOMA, 1 U.S.c. § 7, sex couples married in Massachusetts and defines "marriage" for purposes of federal three surviving spouses of such marriages law: brought suit in federal district court to enjoin pertinent federal agencies and officials from In determining the meaning of any Act of enforcing DOMA to deprive the couples of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or federal benefits available to opposite-sex interpretation of the various administrative married couples in Massachusetts. The bureaus and agencies of the United States, Commonwealth brought a companion case, the word "marriage" means only a legal Massach1lsetts v. DHHS, No. 10-2204, 433 concerned that DOMA will revoke federal The Justice Department filed a brief in this funding for programs tied to DOMA's court defending DOMA against all opposite-sex marriage definition-such as constitutional claims. Thereafter, altering its Massachusetts' state Medicaid program and position, the Justice Department filed a veterans' cemeteries. revised brief arguing that the equal protection claim should be assessed under a By combining the income of individuals in "heightened scrutiny" standard and that same-sex marriages, Massachusetts' DOMA failed under that standard. It Medicaid program is noncompliant with opposed the separate Spending Clause and DOMA, and the Department of Health and Tenth Amendment claims pressed by the Human Services, through its Centers for Commonwealth. The Gill plaintiffs defend Medicare and Medicaid Services, has the district court judgment on all three discretion to rescind Medicaid funding to grounds. noncomplying states. Burying a veteran with his or her same-sex spouse removes federal A delay in proceedings followed the Justice "veterans' cemetery" status and gives the Department's about face while defense of Department of Veterans' Affairs discretion the statute passed to a group of Republican to recapture all federal funding for the leaders of the House of Representatives­ cemetery. the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group ("the Legal Group")-who retained counsel and The Department of Justice defended DOMA intervened in the appeal to support section 3. in the district court but, on July 8, 2010, that A large number of amicus briefs have been court found section 3 unconstitutional under filed on both sides of the dispute, some on the Equal Protection Clause. Gill v. Office of both sides proving very helpful to the court. Pers. Mgmt., 699 F.Supp.2d 374, 397 (D.Mass.2010). In the companion case, the On appeal from a grant of summary district court accepted the Commonwealth's judgment, our review is de novo, Kuperman argument that section 3 violated the v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Career News Archives Format)
    October 26, 2017 Hanson Bridgett 1L Interview Workshop Attention 1Ls! The Hanson Bridgett 1L Interview Workshop for diverse first year students will be at McGeorge School of Law on Saturday, November 18, 2017 from 7:30 am - 1:45 pm. The Workshop schedule is as follows: 7:30-8:00 - Check-in / breakfast / networking 8:00-10:15 - Seminar Alumni Directory 10:30-11:00 - Quick preparation for practice interviews 11:00-12:30 - Practice interviews 12:00-1:45 - Networking lunch Job Search Resources Symplicity If you are interested in attending, please RSVP to Marisa Compesi ([email protected]) before the Friday, November 3rd deadline and attach a copy of your resume (in PDF Career News Archives format). Archive of Recorded If you have not already updated your resume to include your current CSO Presentations enrollment at the law school, make sure to do that before submitting your RSVP. Also, in your RSVP please include your student organization affiliation(s). Please note that space is limited in the Walk-In Hours: workshop and Hanson Bridgett will schedule practice interviews on a first-come, first-served basis. 11 AM - Noon & 4 - 5 PM, Monday - Thursday; This is a great opportunity to gain interview experience and to 11 AM - 1 PM, Friday network with leading attorneys in the area! Walk-in Hours for 3Ls Only: 12 PM-1 PM, Monday - Friday Call 530.752.6574 or email Upcoming 1L Summer Information Sessions [email protected] to schedule an appointment. First-year students interested in learning more about judicial externships and public interest/public sector internships should mark their calendars for the relevant presentations.
    [Show full text]
  • President Bush's Judicial Nominations During the 101St and 102Nd
    Order Code 93-395 President Bush’s Judicial Nominations During the 101st and 102nd Congresses Updated March 29, 1993 Denis Steven Rutkus Specialist in American National Government Government Division President Bush’s Judicial Nominations During the 101st and 102nd Congresses Summary There are ten categories of courts (including the local courts of the District of Columbia) to which the President nominates judges. The following report provides background and statistics concerning President Bush’s judicial nominations in each court category as well as actions taken on those nominations by the United States Senate. Each of the report’s ten sections discusses the composition and jurisdiction of the court in question and notes the committee to which nominations to this court were referred when received by the Senate. Also, statistics on judicial nominations received by the Senate during the four years of the Bush Presidency are presented, including the following: ! Overall number of persons nominated, confirmed, and not confirmed to the court in question; ! Number of President Bush’s nominees currently sitting on the court; ! Breakdowns, for both the 101st and 102nd Congresses, of the number of nominations received by the Senate, confirmed, or failing to receive Senate confirmation. At the end of each section, a table lists President Bush’s pertinent court nominations during the 101st and 102nd Congresses, including nomination dates, hearing dates, dates reported out of committee, and dates of confirmation or other final Senate action. Contents Introduction ......................................................1 Nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States....................5 Nominations to the U.S. Courts of Appeals..............................7 Nominations to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federalist Society
    2014 ANNUAL REPORT The Federalist Society Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society. While some members of the academic community have dissented from these views, by and large they are taught simultaneously with (and indeed as if they were) the law. The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities. This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, law students and professors. In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community. Letter from the President The Federalist Society enjoyed great success in 2014. This past year has seen intended the legislature to be the most powerful branch of government. In its the creation and launching of many new initiatives, as well as the achievement present form, most would say it is not.
    [Show full text]
  • JUSTICE for ALL. NO EXCEPTIONS. That’S the American Way People for the American Way Foundation  Introduction
    THE HUMAN TOLL How Individual Americans Have Fared at the Hands of Bush Judges JUSTICE FOR ALL. NO EXCEPTIONS. That’s the American Way People For the American www.PFAW.org Way Foundation 1 Introduction As President Bush nears the end of his second term with record low approval ratings, the American public has rendered a clear verdict: the policies of the Bush administration have largely failed at home and abroad. Yet by one important measure that pollsters and pundits often ignore, Bush has been an over-achiever: during his administration, 314 judges have been confirmed to lifetime appoints to the federal bench, including the two Bush nominees who now sit on the United States Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. The impact that President Bush has had on the federal courts may be his most enduring legacy, at least domestically. After leaders to come have figured out what to do about $4.00 gasoline, $4 trillion in debt, a battered economy and a war that has damaged our standing in the world, Bush’s judges will still be safely ensconced on the federal bench, and on the highest court in the land. What has that meant for individual Americans? And what will that mean in the future? People For the American Way Foundation has documented in a series of reports the damage that Bush- nominated judges have done to the Constitution – and to Americans’ ability to seek and expect justice in the federal courts when challenging unlawful treatment by corporations, government agencies, and other powerful entities.
    [Show full text]
  • Oral History Interview of Ninth Circuit Judge Carlos Bea by Ben Feuer, Esq
    Oral History Interview Of Ninth Circuit Judge Carlos Bea by Ben Feuer, Esq. October 20191 Ben Feuer We are now recording the oral history of Carlos Tiburcio Bea, a Circuit Judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Today is Tuesday, October 15, 2019, and the time is approximately 4:15pm in San Francisco. So, let me begin by thanking you on behalf of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical Society for taking your time to give us a description and an oral recollection of the life and times of Carlos Tiburcio Bea. Judge Bea It's a pleasure. Ben Feuer Excellent. For the future listeners and readers of this oral history, Judge Bea was described in an article by the Los Angeles Daily Journal recently as the most interesting man on the Ninth Circuit, referencing a contemporary advertising campaign, so we hope to explore what about Judge Bea's life has made him so interesting. Or is it just that the other Ninth Circuit judges are so boring? We'll find out. Stay tuned for the next few hours to learn more. So thank you Judge Bea. Let's start this oral history at the beginning, as Lewis Carroll wrote. Where and when were you born? Judge Bea I was born in San Sebastian, Spain on April 18, 1934. My father and mother and older brother were living in a house in San Sebastian, a house we still have, and I visit every year. Ben Feuer What kind of work did your father engage in? Judge Bea My father was privileged, he didn't work.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit As of 10/8/2020
    Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 10/8/2020 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Jeffrey R. Howard 0 Kermit Victor Lipez (Snr) Sandra L. Lynch Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby (Snr) 0 Jon David Levy George Z. Singal (Snr) Nancy Torresen John A. Woodcock, Jr. (Snr) United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs 0 Denise Jefferson Casper Timothy S. Hillman Mark G. Mastroianni George A. O'Toole, Jr. (Snr) Michael A. Ponsor (Snr) Patti B. Saris F. Dennis Saylor Leo T. Sorokin Richard G. Stearns Indira Talwani Mark L. Wolf (Snr) Douglas P. Woodlock (Snr) William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Paul J. Barbadoro 0 Joseph N. Laplante Steven J. McAuliffe (Snr) Landya B. McCafferty Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 10/8/2020 United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Francisco Augusto Besosa 0 Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez Daniel R. Dominguez (Snr) Jay A. Garcia-Gregory (Snr) Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez (Snr) United States District Court District of Rhode Island Mary M. Lisi (Snr) 0 John J. McConnell, Jr. William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Jose A. Cabranes 0 Guido Calabresi (Snr) Denny Chin Christopher F. Droney (Ret) Peter W. Hall Pierre N. Leval (Snr) Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Gerard E. Lynch (Snr) Jon O. Newman (Snr) Barrington D. Parker, Jr. (Snr) Reena Raggi (Snr) Robert D. Sack (Snr) John M.
    [Show full text]
  • Status Report ______
    No. 14-55873 [DC 2:11-cv-09916-SJO-SS] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ________________________________ Charles Nichols, Plaintiff-Appellant v. EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of California and KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 2:11-cv-09916-SJO-SS The Honorable S. James Otero, Judge ________________________________ STATUS REPORT ________________________________ Charles Nichols PO Box 1302 Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Tel. No. (424) 634-7381 e-mail: [email protected] In Pro Per STATUS REPORT In response to this Court’s July 21, 2015, ORDER, Plaintiff-Appellant Charles Nichols files this Status Report concurrent with his unopposed motion to extend the present stay which expires on November 9, 2015 until this Court’s en banc resolution of Peruta v. County Of San Diego, No. 10-56971 “Peruta” and Richards v. Prieto, No. 11-16255 “Richards”. 1. Peruta and Richards were combined for the purpose of oral arguments before an en banc panel of this court which took place on June 16, 2015. 2. In response to questioning by Circuit Judges Richard Paez and Carlos Bea, California Solicitor General, Edward DuMont conceded that the “core right” of the Second Amendment extends to public places beyond the curtilage of one’s home but qualified his concession by stating that the core Second Amendment right does not extend to concealed carry in public. This concession is highly relevant to Plaintiff-Appellant Nichols present case as his is purely an Open Carry case.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Nominations President Bush's Confirmed Judicial
    http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/nominations/index.html Judicial Nominations "The Constitution requires that the President seek the Senate’s advice and consent in making appointments to the federal courts. As a senator and as the Democratic leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I take this responsibility very seriously." -- Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee 316 Of President Bush's Article III Judicial Nominees Have Been Confirmed. (As of September 29, 2008) Read a complete list of President Bush's confirmed nominees. http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/nominations/confirmednominees.htm President Bush's Confirmed Judicial Nominations Court of Supreme Court Circuit Court District Court International Nominees Nominees Nominees Trade As of September 29, 2008 Supreme Court Nominees 2. Samuel A. Alito, Associate Justice, Jan. 31, 2006 1. John G. Roberts, Chief Justice, Sept. 29, 2005 (vote (vote 58-42) 78-22) Circuit Court Nominees 61. Raymond Kethledge, 6th Circuit, June 24, 31. Franklin van Antwerpen, 3rd Circuit, May 20, 2008 (voice vote) 2004 (vote 96-0)30. D. Michael Fisher, 3rd Circuit, 60. Helene N. White, 6th Circuit, June 24, 2008 Dec. 9, 2003 (voice vote) (vote 63-32) 29. Carlos Bea, 9th Circuit, Sept. 29, 2003 (vote 59. G. Steven Agee, 4th Circuit, May 20, 2008 86-0) (vote 96-0) 28. Steven Colloton, 8th Circuit, Sept. 4, 2003 58. Catharina Haynes, 5th Circuit, April 10, 2008 (vote 94-1) (unanimous consent) 27. Allyson K. Duncan, 4th Circuit, July 17, 2003 57. John Daniel Tinder, 7th Circuit, December 18, (vote 93-0) 2007(vote 93-0) 26. Richard Wesley, 2nd Circuit, June 11, 2003 56.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies 2008 Annual Report
    The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies 2008 Annual Report “The Courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise will instead of JUDGMENT, the consequences would be the substitution of their pleasure for that of the legislative body.” The Federalist 78 THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY aw schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a L form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society. While some members of the academic community have dissented from these views, by and large they are taught simultaneously with (and indeed as if they were) the law. The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities. This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, law students and professors. In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.
    [Show full text]
  • February 2021
    Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 3/3/2021 International Trade United States Court of International Trade Timothy Reif 0 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Jeffrey R. Howard 0 Kermit Victor Lipez (Snr) Sandra L. Lynch Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby (Snr) 0 Jon David Levy George Z. Singal (Snr) Nancy Torresen John A. Woodcock, Jr. (Snr) United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs 0 Denise Jefferson Casper Timothy S. Hillman Mark G. Mastroianni George A. O'Toole, Jr. (Snr) Michael A. Ponsor (Snr) Patti B. Saris F. Dennis Saylor Leo T. Sorokin Richard G. Stearns Indira Talwani Mark L. Wolf (Snr) Douglas P. Woodlock (Snr) William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Paul J. Barbadoro 0 Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 3/3/2021 Joseph N. Laplante Steven J. McAuliffe (Snr) Landya B. McCafferty United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Francisco Augusto Besosa 0 Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez Daniel R. Dominguez (Snr) Jay A. Garcia-Gregory (Snr) Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. United States District Court District of Rhode Island Mary M. Lisi (Snr) 0 John J. McConnell, Jr. William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Joseph F. Bianco 0 Jose A. Cabranes Guido Calabresi (Snr) Denny Chin Christopher F. Droney (Ret) Peter W. Hall Pierre N. Leval (Snr) Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Gerard E. Lynch (Snr) Jon O. Newman (Snr) Barrington D.
    [Show full text]
  • Azela 9Th Circuit Organization Letter
    Page 1 August 22, 2017 Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: CC: Members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee We write in strong opposition to legislative proposals to divide the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, including S.276, the Judicial Administration and Improvement Act of 2017, and S. 295, the Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and Modernization Act. Special interests, dissatisfied with certain rulings, have long sought to divide the Ninth Circuit in an effort to obtain different rulings. And, after the Ninth Circuit struck down the Administration’s “travel ban,” Hawaii v. Trump, 859 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2017), and a California district court enjoined the President’s order withholding Federal funds from cities that failed to enforce immigration laws, Cnty. of Santa Clara v. Trump, Nos. 17-cv-00574 & 17-cv-00485, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62871 (N.D. Cal. April 25, 2017), President Trump attacked the Ninth Circuit. In fact, President Trump has led the recent charge to split the Ninth Circuit because he perceives it to be hostile to his unconstitutional agenda. Such results-driven considerations should not dictate the structure of the judiciary. Allowing this ideological campaign to overhaul the judicial branch threatens the integrity and independence of the judicial system. Further, if legislation to divide the Ninth Circuit is enacted, it will enable ideologically driven forum shopping aimed at eroding critical constitutional rights and legal protections that affect workers, civil rights, consumers, and the environment. Not only does such an obvious ideological driven campaign threaten the integrity of the judicial system, but there is no compelling reason to split the jurisdiction and to incur the substantial costs that such a split will generate.
    [Show full text]
  • Decision Making in Us Federal Specialized
    THE CONSEQUENCES OF SPECIALIZATION: DECISION MAKING IN U.S. FEDERAL SPECIALIZED COURTS Ryan J. Williams A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science in the College of Arts and Sciences. Chapel Hill 2019 Approved by: Kevin T. McGuire Isaac Unah Jason M. Roberts Virginia Gray Brett W. Curry © 2019 Ryan J. Williams ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Ryan J. Williams: The Consequences of Specialization: Decision Making in U.S. Federal Specialized Courts (Under the direction of Kevin T. McGuire) Political scientists have devoted little attention to the role of specialized courts in the United States federal and state judicial systems. At the federal level, theories of judicial decision making and institutional structures widely accepted in discussions of the U.S. Supreme Court and other generalist courts (the federal courts of appeals and district courts) have seen little examination in the context of specialized courts. In particular, scholars are just beginning to untangle the relationship between judicial expertise and decision making, as well as to understand how specialized courts interact with the bureaucratic agencies they review and the litigants who appear before them. In this dissertation, I examine the consequences of specialization in the federal judiciary. The first chapter introduces the landscape of existing federal specialized courts. The second chapter investigates the patterns of recent appointments to specialized courts, focusing specifically on how the qualifications of specialized court judges compare to those of generalists. The third chapter considers the role of expertise in a specialized court, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and argues that expertise enhances the ability for judges to apply their ideologies to complex, technical cases.
    [Show full text]