DOCSLIB.ORG

Lower Courts of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lower Courts of the United States 66 U.S. GOVERNMENT MANUAL of Decisions, the Librarian, the Marshal, Court Term The term of the Court the Director of Budget and Personnel, begins on the first Monday in October the Court Counsel, the Curator, the and lasts until the first Monday in Director of Data Systems, and the Public October of the next year. Approximately Information Officer. 8,000 cases are filed with the Court in Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate the course of a term, and some 1,000 jurisdiction has been conferred upon the applications of various kinds are filed Supreme Court by various statutes under each year that can be acted upon by a the authority given Congress by the single Justice. Constitution. The basic statute effective at this time in conferring and controlling Access to Facilities The Supreme Court jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 4:30 be found in 28 U.S.C. 1251, 1253, p.m., Monday through Friday, except on 1254, 1257–1259, and various special Federal holidays. Unless the Court or statutes. Congress has no authority to Chief Justice orders otherwise, the change the original jurisdiction of this Clerk’s office is open from 9 a.m. to 5 Court. p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Rulemaking Power Congress has from Federal legal holidays. The library is time to time conferred upon the open to members of the bar of the Court, Supreme Court power to prescribe rules attorneys for the various Federal of procedure to be followed by the departments and agencies, and Members lower courts of the United States. of Congress. For further information concerning the Supreme Court, contact the Public Information Office, United States Supreme Court Building, One First Street NE., Washington, DC 20543. Phone, 202–479–3211. Internet, www.supremecourtus.gov. Lower Courts Article III of the Constitution declares, in They also are empowered to review and section 1, that the judicial power of the enforce orders of many Federal United States shall be invested in one administrative bodies. The decisions of Supreme Court and in ‘‘such inferior the courts of appeals are final except as Courts as the Congress may from time to they are subject to review on writ of time ordain and establish.’’ The Supreme certiorari by the Supreme Court. Court has held that these constitutional The United States is divided courts ‘‘. share in the exercise of the geographically into 12 judicial circuits, judicial power defined in that section, including the District of Columbia. Each can be invested with no other circuit has a court of appeals (28 U.S.C. jurisdiction, and have judges who hold 41, 1294). Each of the 50 States is office during good behavior, with no assigned to one of the circuits. The power in Congress to provide territories and the Commonwealth of otherwise.’’ Puerto Rico are assigned variously to the United States Courts of Appeals The first, third, and ninth circuits. There is courts of appeals are intermediate also a Court of Appeals for the Federal appellate courts created by act of March Circuit, which has nationwide 3, 1891 (28 U.S.C. ch. 3), to relieve the jurisdiction defined by subject matter. At Supreme Court of considering all appeals present each court of appeals has from 6 in cases originally decided by the to 28 permanent circuit judgeships (179 Federal trial courts. They are empowered in all), depending upon the amount of to review all final decisions and certain judicial work in the circuit. Circuit interlocutory decisions (18 U.S.C. 3731; judges hold their offices during good 28 U.S.C. 1291, 1292) of district courts. behavior as provided by Article III, VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:47 Sep 23, 2009 Jkt 217558 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6997 Sfmt 6997 M:\GOVMAN\217558\217558.009 APPS06 PsN: 217558 dkrause on GSDDPC29 with $$_JOB JUDICIAL BRANCH 67 section 1, of the Constitution. The judge established under Article III of the senior in commission who is under 70 Constitution pursuant to the Federal years of age (65 at inception of term), Courts Improvement Act of 1982 (28 has been in office at least 1 year, and U.S.C. 41, 44, 48), as successor to the has not previously been chief judge, former United States Court of Customs serves as the chief judge of the circuit and Patent Appeals and the United for a 7-year term. One of the justices of States Court of Claims. The jurisdiction the Supreme Court is assigned as circuit of the court is nationwide (as provided justice for each of the 13 judicial by 28 U.S.C. 1295) and includes appeals circuits. Each court of appeals normally from the district courts in patent cases; hears cases in panels consisting of three appeals from the district courts in judges but may sit en banc with all contract, and certain other civil actions judges present. in which the United States is a The judges of each circuit (except the defendant; and appeals from final Federal Circuit) by vote determine the decisions of the U.S. Court of size of the judicial council for the International Trade, the U.S. Court of circuit, which consists of the chief judge Federal Claims, and the U.S. Court of and an equal number of circuit and Appeals for Veterans Claims. The district judges. The council considers the jurisdiction of the court also includes the state of Federal judicial business in the review of administrative rulings by the circuit and may ‘‘make all necessary and Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. appropriate orders for [its] effective and International Trade Commission, expeditious administration . .’’ (28 Secretary of Commerce, agency boards U.S.C. 332). The chief judge of each of contract appeals, and the Merit circuit may summon periodically a Systems Protection Board, as well as judicial conference of all judges of the rulemaking of the Department of circuit, including members of the bar, to Veterans Affairs; review of decisions of discuss the business of the Federal courts the U.S. Senate Select Committee on of the circuit (28 U.S.C. 333). The chief Ethics concerning discrimination claims judge of each circuit and a district judge of Senate employees; and review of a elected from each of the 12 geographical final order of an entity to be designated circuits, together with the chief judge of by the President concerning the Court of International Trade, serve as discrimination claims of Presidential members of the Judicial Conference of appointees. the United States, over which the Chief The court consists of 12 circuit judges. Justice of the United States presides. This It sits in panels of three or more on each is the governing body for the case and may also hear or rehear a case administration of the Federal judicial en banc. The court sits principally in system as a whole (28 U.S.C. 331). Washington, DC, and may hold court United States Court of Appeals for the wherever any court of appeals sits (28 Federal Circuit This court was U.S.C. 48). Judicial Circuits—United States Courts of Appeals Circuit Judges Official Station District of Columbia Circuit (11) (Clerk: Mark J. Langer; Circuit Justice Circuit Executive: Elizabeth H. Paret; Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. Washington, DC) Circuit Judges David Bryan Sentelle, Chief Judge Washington, DC Douglas H. Ginsburg Washington, DC Karen LeCraft Henderson Washington, DC Judith W. Rogers Washington, DC David S. Tatel Washington, DC Merrick B. Garland Washington, DC Janice Rogers Brown Washington, DC Thomas B. Griffith Washington, DC Brett M. Kavanaugh Washington, DC VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:47 Sep 23, 2009 Jkt 217558 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6997 Sfmt 6997 M:\GOVMAN\217558\217558.009 APPS06 PsN: 217558 dkrause on GSDDPC29 with $$_JOB 68 U.S. GOVERNMENT MANUAL Judicial Circuits—United States Courts of Appeals—Continued Circuit Judges Official Station (2 vacancies) First Circuit (6) Districts of Maine, New Circuit Justice Hampshire, Massachusetts, Justice Stephen G. Breyer Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico (Clerk: Richard C. Donovan; Circuit Judges Circuit Executive: Sandra L. Lynch, Chief Judge Boston, MA Gary Wente; Juan R. Torruella San Juan, PR Michael Boudin, Boston, MA Kermit V. Lipez Portland, ME Jeffrey R. Howard Concord, NH (vacancy) Second Circuit (13) Districts of Vermont, Circuit Justice Connecticut, northern New Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg York, southern New York, eastern New York, and Circuit Judges western New York Dennis G. Jacobs, Chief Judge New York, NY (Clerk: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe; Jose A. Cabranes New Haven, CT Circuit Executive: Karen Greve Milton; Rosemary S. Pooler Syracuse, NY New York, NY) Robert A. Katzmann New York, NY Barrington D. Parker, Jr. New York, NY Reena Raggi Brooklyn, NY Richard C. Wesley Geneseo, NY Peter W. Hall Rutland, VT Debra Ann Livingston New York, NY (4 vacancies) Third Circuit (14) Districts of New Jersey, Circuit Justice eastern Pennsylvania, Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. middle Pennsylvania, western Pennsylvania, Circuit Judges Delaware, and the Virgin Anthony J. Scirica, Chief Judge Philadelphia, PA Islands Dolores Korman Sloviter Philadelphia, PA (Clerk: Marcia M. Waldron; Theodore A. McKee Philadelphia, PA Circuit Executive: Marjorie O. Rendell Philadelphia, PA Toby D. Slawsky; Maryanne Trump Barry Newark, NJ Philadelphia, PA) Thomas L. Ambro Wilmington, DE Julio M. Fuentes Newark, NJ D. Brooks Smith Duncansville, PA D. Michael Fisher Pittsburg, PA Michael A. Chagares Newark, NJ Kent A. Jordan Wilmington, DE Thomas M. Hardiman Pittsburgh, PA (2 vacancies) Fourth Circuit (15) Districts of Maryland, Circuit Justice northern West Virginia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. southern West Virginia, eastern Virginia, western Virginia, eastern North Circuit Judges Carolina, western North William B.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Fellows of the American Bar Foundation
    THE FELLOWS OF THE AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION 2015-2016 2015-2016 Fellows Officers: Chair Hon. Cara Lee T. Neville (Ret.) Chair – Elect Michael H. Byowitz Secretary Rew R. Goodenow Immediate Past Chair Kathleen J. Hopkins The Fellows is an honorary organization of attorneys, judges and law professors whose pro- fessional, public and private careers have demonstrated outstanding dedication to the welfare of their communities and to the highest principles of the legal profession. Established in 1955, The Fellows encourage and support the research program of the American Bar Foundation. The American Bar Foundation works to advance justice through ground-breaking, independ- ent research on law, legal institutions, and legal processes. Current research covers meaning- ful topics including legal needs of ordinary Americans and how justice gaps can be filled; the changing nature of legal careers and opportunities for more diversity within the profession; social and political costs of mass incarceration; how juries actually decide cases; the ability of China’s criminal defense lawyers to protect basic legal freedoms; and, how to better prepare for end of life decision-making. With the generous support of those listed on the pages that follow, the American Bar Founda- tion is able to truly impact the very foundation of democracy and the future of our global soci- ety. The Fellows of the American Bar Foundation 750 N. Lake Shore Drive, 4th Floor Chicago, IL 60611-4403 (800) 292-5065 Fax: (312) 564-8910 [email protected] www.americanbarfoundation.org/fellows OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE Rew R. Goodenow, Secretary AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION Parsons Behle & Latimer David A.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Judges 1985–2017 Notre Dame Law School
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Annual Moot Court Showcase Argument Conferences, Events and Lectures 2017 List of Judges 1985–2017 Notre Dame Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_moot_court Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Notre Dame Law School, "List of Judges 1985–2017" (2017). Annual Moot Court Showcase Argument. 1. http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_moot_court/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences, Events and Lectures at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Annual Moot Court Showcase Argument by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. List of Judges that Have Served the Moot Court Showcase Argument 2009 to present held in McCarten Court Room, Eck Hall of Law Updated: March 2017 Name Yr. Served ND Grad Court Judge Alice Batchelder 3/3/2017 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit Chief Justice Matthew Durrant 3/3/2017 Utah Supreme Court NDLS 1992 Judge John Blakey 3/3/2017 BA-UND 1988 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Chief Justice Matthew G. Durrant 2/25/2106 Utah Supreme Court Judge Alice Batchelder 2/25/2016 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen Kelly 2/25/2016 BA-UND 1983 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Joel F. Dubina 2/26/2015 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit Chief Judge Frederico A. Moreno 2/26/2015 United States District Court - Miami, FL Judge Patricia O'Brien Cotter 2/26/2015 NDLS 1977 Montana Supreme Court Judge Margaret A.
    [Show full text]
  • 1986 Journal
    OCTOBER TERM, 1986 Reference Index Contents: page Statistics n General in Appeals in Arguments iv Attorneys iv Briefs iv Certiorari v Costs v Judgments and Opinions v Original Cases vi Parties vii Stays vn Conclusion vn (i) II STATISTICS AS OF JUNE 26, 1987 In Forma Paid Original Pauperis Total Cases Cases Number of cases on docket 12 2,547 2,564 5,123 Cases disposed of 1 2,104 2,241 4,349 Remaining on docket 11 440 323 774 Cases docketed during term: Paid cases 2,071 In forma pauperis cases 2, 165 Original cases 4 Total 4,240 Cases remaining from last term 883 Total cases on docket 5, 123 Cases disposed of 4,349 Number of remaining on docket 774 Petitions for certiorari granted: In paid cases 121 In in forma pauperis cases............... 14 Appeals granted: In paid cases 31 In in forma pauperis cases 1 Total cases granted plenary review 167 Cases argued during term 175 Number disposed of by full opinions 164 Number disposed of by per curiam opinions 10 Number set for reargument next term 1 Cases available for argument at beginning of term 101 Disposed of summarily after review was granted 4 Original cases set for argument 0 Cases reviewed and decided without oral argument 109 Total cases available for argument at start of next term 91 Number of written opinions of the Court 145 Opinions per curiam in argued cases 9 Number of lawyers admitted to practice as of October 4, 1987: On written motion 3,679 On oral motion...... 1,081 Total...............................
    [Show full text]
  • The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007
    American University Law Review Volume 56 | Issue 4 Article 1 2007 Price of Popularity: The ourC t of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007 Jay S. Plager United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Plager, Jay S. “Price of Popularity: The ourC t of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007.” American University Law Review 56, no. 4 (February 2007): 751-760. This Foreword is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Price of Popularity: The ourC t of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007 Abstract This year marked the twenty-fifth nniva ersary of the establishment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The nniva ersary was acknowledged with appropriate ceremony, including an en banc session of the court on April 2 attended by various luminaries in the judicial and political branches of the United States. The somewhat tongue-in-cheek title of this essay is intended to suggest an important idea about the court today: with increased visibility, significance, and impact have come consequences, some desirable, some not. This essay undertook a brief review of how the court got where it is, and a look at what these consequences may be.
    [Show full text]
  • CAREERS DONALD SHUM ’13 Is an Associate at Cooley in New York City; ALYSSA KUHN ’13 Is Clerking for Judge Joseph F
    CAREERS DONALD SHUM ’13 is an associate at Cooley in New York City; ALYSSA KUHN ’13 is clerking for Judge Joseph F. Bianco of the Eastern District of New York after working as an associate at Gibson Dunn in New York; and ZACH TORRES-FOWLER ’12 is an associate at Pepper Hamilton in Philadelphia. THE CAREER SERVICES PROGRAM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW is one of the most successful among national law VIRGINIA ENJOYS A REPUTATION FOR PRODUCING LAWYERS who master the schools and provides students with a wide range of job intellectual challenges of legal practice, and also contribute broadly to the institutions they join through strong leadership and interpersonal skills. opportunities across the nation and abroad. AS A RESULT, PRIVATE- AND PUBLIC-SECTOR EMPLOYERS HEAVILY RECRUIT VIRGINIA STUDENTS EACH YEAR. Graduates start their careers across the country with large and small law firms, government agencies and public interest groups. ZACHARY REPRESENTATIVE RAY ’16 EMPLOYERS TAYLOR clerked for U.S. CLASSES OF 2015-17 STEFFAN ’15 District Judge clerked for Gershwin A. Judge Patrick Drain of the LOS ANGELES Higginbotham of Eastern District UNITED Hewlett Packard Enterprise Jones Day the 5th U.S. Circuit of Michigan STATES Dentons Jones Day Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Court of Appeals SARAH after law school, Howarth & Smith Reed Smith Morrison & Foerster in Austin, Texas, PELHAM ’16 followed by a ALABAMA Latham & Watkins Simpson Thacher & Bartlett Orrick, Herrington & before returning is an associate clerkship with BIRMINGHAM Mercer Consulting Sullivan & Cromwell Sutcliffe to Washington, with Simpson Judge Roger L. REDWOOD CITY D.C., to work for Thacher & Gregory of the Bradley Arant Boult Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Perkins Coie Covington Bartlett in New 4th U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • For Publication United States Bankruptcy Appellate
    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT _____________________________ BAP NO. PR 16-034 _______________________________ Bankruptcy Case No. 12-08567-MCF Bankruptcy Case No. 12-08570-MCF (Consolidated) Adversary Proceeding No. 14-00030-MCF _______________________________ COUSINS INTERNATIONAL FOOD, CORP., a/k/a IHOP Caguas, and CIF BARCELONETA CORP., a/k/a IHOP Barceloneta, Debtors. _______________________________ ENCANTO RESTAURANTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LUIS S. AQUINO VIDAL, OLGA M. VIDAL, HÉCTOR A. CORTÉS BABILONIA, and GUILLERMO D. RODRÍGUEZ SERRANO, Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________ Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico (Hon. Mildred Cabán Flores, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge) _______________________________ Before Bailey, Harwood, and Fagone, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges. _______________________________ Hermann D. Bauer Alvarez, Esq., Nayuan Zouairabani Trinidad, Esq., and Gabriel L. Olivera Dubón, Esq., on brief for Plaintiff-Appellant. Jacqueline E. Hernandez Santiago, Esq., on brief for Defendants-Appellees. _______________________________ March 21, 2017 _______________________________ Fagone, U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. Encanto Restaurants, Inc. (“Encanto”), the purchaser of substantially all of the assets of the chapter 11 debtor, Cousins International Food, Corp., a/k/a IHOP Caguas (the “Debtor”), appeals from the bankruptcy court’s June 14, 2016 Opinion and Order (the “June 2016 Order”).1 Encanto also appeals from the bankruptcy court’s June 15, 2016 Judgment (the “Judgment”). By its appeal, Encanto attempts to challenge two refusals by the bankruptcy court: one relating to Encanto’s requests for relief under § 362, and a second relating to its requests for relief under a certain sale order (the “Sale Order”).2 Encanto lacks standing to pursue an appeal from the June 2016 Order and the Judgment to the extent that those rulings denied Encanto’s requests for relief for alleged violations of § 362’s automatic stay.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court
    Case 1:13-cv-06802-WHP Document 567 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE DIAL CORPORATION, et al., Civil Action No. 13-cv-06802-WHP Individually and on behalf of Similarly Situated Companies, Plaintiffs, v. NEWS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. DECLARATION OF STEVEN F. BENZ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT Case 1:13-cv-06802-WHP Document 567 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 17 I, Steven F. Benz, declare as follows: 1. I submit this declaration in support of preliminary approval of the settlement reached on behalf of the certified Class and Defendants News Corporation, News America, Inc., News America Marketing In-Store Services L.L.C., and News America Marketing FSI L.L.C. (collectively, “Defendants”). 2. I am a partner with the law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C. (“Kellogg Huber”), which is Co-Lead Counsel for the Class of plaintiffs certified by the Court on June 18, 2015. I am a member of good standing of the District of Columbia, Iowa, Maryland and Minnesota bars, and am admitted to practice before this Court pro hac vice. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration. I became involved in this case at its inception in 2011 and am closely familiar with all aspects of this case since that time. 3. Both Kellogg Huber and I personally have significant experience with antitrust litigation and class actions, including settlements thereof. Copies of my firm’s resume and my personal profile are annexed to this declaration as Exhibit A.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals
    United States Court of Appeals Fifth Federal Judicial Circuit Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas Circuit Judges Priscilla R. Owen, Chief Judge ...............903 San Jacinto Blvd., Rm. 434 ..................................................... (512) 916-5167 Austin, Texas 78701-2450 Carl E. Stewart ......................................300 Fannin St., Ste. 5226 ............................................................... (318) 676-3765 Shreveport, LA 71101-3425 Edith H. Jones .......................................515 Rusk St., U.S. Courthouse, Rm. 12505 ................................... (713) 250-5484 Houston, Texas 77002-2655 Jerry E. Smith ........................................515 Rusk St., U.S. Courthouse, Rm. 12621 ................................... (713) 250-5101 Houston, Texas 77002-2698 James L. Dennis ....................................600 Camp St., Rm. 219 .................................................................. (504) 310-8000 New Orleans, LA 70130-3425 Jennifer Walker Elrod ........................... 515 Rusk St., U.S. Courthouse, Rm. 12014 .................................. (713) 250-7590 Houston, Texas 77002-2603 Leslie H. Southwick ...............................501 E. Court St., Ste. 3.750 ........................................................... (601) 608-4760 Jackson, MS 39201 Catharina Haynes .................................1100 Commerce St., Rm. 1452 ..................................................... (214) 753-2750 Dallas, Texas 75242 James E. Graves Jr. ................................501 E. Court
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference
    -REPORTOF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES MARCH 16, 1999 WASHINGTON, D.C. JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES CHIEFJUSTICE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, PRESIDING LEONIDAS RALPH MECHAM, SECRETARY REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES March 16, 1999 Contents Call of the Conference........................... ......... ....4 Reports ...................................... ........ ....4 Elections...................................... .......... ....4 Executive Committee............................ .... ... ...4 Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance ........ .......... ....5 Budgetary Matters......................... .... .... ..6 Federal Courts Improvement Legislation ......... .... ... ...6 Miscellaneous Actions...................... ......... ....7 Committee on the Administrative Office .............. ......... ....7 Committee Activities....................... .......... ....8 Committee on Automation and Technology ........... ......... ....8 Courtroom Technologies .................... ...... ... 8 Long Range Plan for Information Technology. ....... ... 8 Access to Internet Sites .................... Committee on the Administration of the Bankruptcy System .............. .9 Bankruptcy Judgeships ................................... .9 Bankruptcy Estate Administration ........................... 10 Committee on the Budget....................................... Committee Activities..................................... Committee on Codes of Conduct.................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Empirical Study of the Ideologies of Judges on the Unites States
    JUDGED BY THE COMPANY YOU KEEP: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE IDEOLOGIES OF JUDGES ON THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS Corey Rayburn Yung* Abstract: Although there has been an explosion of empirical legal schol- arship about the federal judiciary, with a particular focus on judicial ide- ology, the question remains: how do we know what the ideology of a judge actually is? For federal courts below the U.S. Supreme Court, legal aca- demics and political scientists have offered only crude proxies to identify the ideologies of judges. This Article attempts to cure this deficiency in empirical research about the federal courts by introducing a new tech- nique for measuring the ideology of judges based upon judicial behavior in the U.S. courts of appeals. This study measures ideology, not by subjec- tively coding the ideological direction of case outcomes, but by determin- ing the degree to which federal appellate judges agree and disagree with their liberal and conservative colleagues at both the appellate and district court levels. Further, through regression analysis, several important find- ings related to the Ideology Scores emerge. First, the Ideology Scores in this Article offer substantial improvements in predicting civil rights case outcomes over the leading measures of ideology. Second, there were very different levels and heterogeneity of ideology among the judges on the studied circuits. Third, the data did not support the conventional wisdom that Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush appointed uniquely ideological judges. Fourth, in general judges appointed by Republican presidents were more ideological than those appointed by Democratic presidents.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies 2009 Annual Report
    The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies 2009 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]
  • Confirmation Hearings on Federal Appointments
    S. HRG. 110–138 CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION FEBRUARY 6, MARCH 13, APRIL 11, JUNE 20, AND JULY 19, 2007 PART 1 Serial No. J–110–8 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:38 Sep 17, 2007 Jkt 037658 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6011 Sfmt 6011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\37658.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:38 Sep 17, 2007 Jkt 037658 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\37658.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC S. HRG. 110–138 CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION FEBRUARY 6, MARCH 13, APRIL 11, JUNE 20, AND JULY 19, 2007 PART 1 Serial No. J–110–8 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 37–658 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:38 Sep 17, 2007 Jkt 037658 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\37658.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R.
    [Show full text]