DOCSLIB.ORG

New at the Federalist Society

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Magazine of the Federalist Society SUMMER The R5 5R FederalistSummer 2015 www.fed-soc.org Paper INSIDE: National Lawyers Convention Recap National Student Symposium Highlights Faculty, Lawyers, Practice Groups & State Courts Updates The Federalist No. 78 Letter from the “The courts must declare Editor the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed Dear Friend of the Society, to excercise WILL instead We are pleased to bring you the fall issue of The Federalist Paper. of JUDGMENT, the Inside, as always, we review the consequence would many programs and publications the Federalist Society has sponsored equally be the substitution through its various divisions and of their pleasure to that of special projects over the past months. the legislative body.” The Student Division finished another stellar year of events at nearly every law school across the country. Directors/Officers Steven G. Calabresi, Chairman The highlight of the first half of 2015 Hon. David M. McIntosh, Vice Chairman was our Annual Student Symposium Gary Lawson, Secretary Brent O. Hatch, Treasurer at the University of Chicago Law T. Kenneth Cribb School in February. C. Boyden Gray Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President Edwin Meese, III We are also pleased to bring you Eugene B. Meyer, President a recap of our National Lawyers Michael B. Mukasey Lee Liberman Otis, Senior Vice President Convention from last November. Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz Also included in this issue are full Board of Visitors updates from the many activities Mr. Christopher DeMuth, Co-Chairman of our Lawyers Chapters, State Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, Co-Chairman Prof. Lillian BeVier Hon. Elaine L. Chao Courts Project, International Law & Mr. George T. Conway Hon. Lois Haight Herrington Sovereignty Project. Hon. Donald Paul Hodel Hon. Frank Keating, II Mr. Andrew J. Redleaf Hon. Gale Norton Hon. Theodore B. Olson Ms. Diana Davis Spencer We are looking forward to our next Hon. Wm. Bradford Reynolds National Lawyers Convention in Hon. Gerald Walpin Washington, DC on November 12- 14. Staff President Eugene B. Meyer Stay tuned on fedsoc.org and Executive Vice President FedSocBlog.com to stay updated Leonard A. Leo Senior Vice President & Faculty Division Director on our Teleforum Conference Calls, Lee Liberman Otis Lawyers Division SCOTUScasts, Practice Group Dean Reuter, Vice President, Practice Groups Director Anthony Deardurff, Deputy Director, Faculty Division Engage Lisa Ezell, Vice President, Lawyers Chapters Director Tyler Lowe, Director of Online Education Podcasts, newest articles, and C. William Courtney, Deputy Director, Practice Groups Christopher Goffos, Assistant Director, Faculty Division white papers. Juli Nix, Director of Conferences Maria Marshall, Associate Director Student Division Sarah Landeene, Assistant Director Peter Redpath, Vice President, Director Finally, in May the Federalist Gianna Burkhardt, Assistant Director Austin Lipari, Deputy Director Jack Neblett, Assistant Director Kate Beer Alcantara, Associate Director Society’s offices in Washington, D.C. Caroline Moore, Assistant Director moved to a new address: 1776 I St. External Relations Jonathan Bunch, Vice President, Director Finance NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. Zach Mayo, Deputy Director Douglas C. Ubben, Vice President, Director Amy Harper, Assistant Director 20006. Development Cynthia Searcy, Vice President, Director Information Technology Director Katelynd Mahoney, Assistant Director C. David Smith, Vice President As always, we invite and encourage Brigid Hasson, Grants Administrator friends and members to send in Membership Director Office Management Peter Bisbee comments and suggestions to Katie. Rhonda Moaland, Director [email protected]—and we Maureen Collins, Assistant Director Digital Strategist Daniel Richards look forward to hearing from you! International Law & Sovereignty Project James P. Kelly, III, Director Publications Director Paul Zimmerman, Deputy Director Katie McClendon 2 The Federalist Paper Summer 2015 Features Summer 2015 Student Division ............................................ 4 Faculty Division ............................................. 8 National Lawyers Convention ........................ 9 Practice Groups ............................................ 12 National Student Symposium ....................... 16 Lawyers Chapters ......................................... 20 Alumni Relations ......................................... 23 Digital Media ............................................... 24 State Courts Report ..................................... 27 Summer 2015 The Federalist Paper 3 Student Division Report By Caroline Moore Assistant Director, Student Division tudent chapters held over 1100 events during the and specifically insurance subsidies through the federal 2014-2015 academic year. One of the main con- exchanges. One of the highest attended Supreme Court siderations for our chapters is outreach and atten- Previews was at California-Berkeley. Profs. John Yoo Sdance numbers. So, we anticipated the number of events and Jesse Choper, both of California-Berkeley, debated would drop a little this year. Several student chapters had for the chapter’s “Supreme Court Review,” which had 150 events with 150 or more attendees, those chapters were attendees. Southwestern once again hosted a successful as follows: Northwestern, Missouri-Columbia, Har- “Supreme Court Preview” panel with Profs. Gowri Ram- vard, California-Berkeley, Barry, California-UCLA, achandran, Jonathan Miller, Roam Hoyos, and Amy Pei- Brigham Young, Michigan, Nebraska, George Mason, koff, all of Southwestern. The 90 attendees enjoyed hear- Campbell, and Yale. Our chapters worked tirelessly ing from this panel for the annual panel that touched on to increase attendance for all of their events by bring- upcoming Supreme Court cases. Southern California ing in engaging held “Supreme speakers, using Court Preview” innovative social with Miguel Es- media advertis- trada of Gibson ing, and provid- Dunn, Benja- ing students with min Howich of intelligent dis- Munger Tolles cussions of time- & Olson LLP, ly issues that face and Prof. Rebec- our courts. ca Brown from As in past Southern Cali- years, many fornia. Ohio student chapters State held a kicked off their Shaun McCutcheon with the University of Kentucky chapter after an event on campaign Supreme Court school year with finance and Mr. McCutcheon’s victory at the U.S. Supreme Court. preview with a panels forecast- panel of Ohio ing decisions on cases for the upcoming Supreme State Professors. The panelists included: Dean Alan Court term. Chapters held 30 Supreme Court Reviews Micheals, Prof. Rick Simmons, Prof. Guy Rub, and Prof. and Previews in the fall. Three of the cases that are of Martha Chamallas. They had over 115 attendees at this particular interest to our chapters are as follows. Holt v. event. Chapters at Columbia, William & Mary, Notre Hobbs looked at whether or not a prisoner can grow a Dame, Roger Williams, Chicago, and Michigan State beard behind bars to comply with his religious obligation. held Supreme Court previews with over 80 attendees. Thirty-nine states in addition to Arkansas allow inmates These are some of our highest attended events of the year to grow beards. Another intriguing case this term was because they are a great way for our chapters to kick off Yates v. United States. Yates centers around a fisherman their semesters and attract a wide range of attendees. who was cited for catching oversized red grouper; the case Campaign finance was a prevalent topic and Shaun explores the definition of “tangible objects.” The court McCutcheon, of McCutcheon v. FEC, spoke to our had to decide if fish were considered tangible objects and chapters on several occasions. This provided students decide if Mr. Yates’ act of throwing the oversized fish with insight into how a case makes it to the Supreme overboard was a tactic to derail the investigation. Last Court. The average attendance for these events was 69. but not least, King v. Burwell had to do with Obamacare Kentucky hosted Shaun McCutcheon and commenta- 4 The Federalist Paper Summer 2015 tor Prof. Joshua Douglas of Kentucky for a discussion come. Dr. James Carafano from the Heritage Foundation on “McCutcheon v. FEC: Campaign Finance & the 2016 debated Raed Gonzalez from Gonzalez Olivieri LLC at Elections.” Mr. McCutcheon discussed the case he was South Texas. The event was titled, “Immigration Dis- directly involved in and his political activism. In his cussion: Unaccompanied Minors & the Administration’s remarks, he stressed the importance of eliminating limita- Stance on Addressing the Issue after the Elections.” There tions to individual campaign spending to protect the First were 70 attendees at this event. Doug Bandow from the Amendment. Prof. Douglas drew from his experience as Cato Institute and attorney Wayne Golding participated an election law scholar to explain concepts such as public in a debate on immigration at Florida A&M this fall. The financing of campaigns. Michigan hosted “Campaign debate had the chapter’s highest attendance of the year Finance after McCutcheon” with Prof. Brad Smith of West with 75 attendees. The average attendance for events on Virginia for this event. The chapter continued its streak immigration is 53. of strong attendance for this event, which drew a crowd Students continue to hold a significant number of of 90. Prof. Smith explained what McCutcheon’s role is in events honoring Judge Robert Bork’s legacy by addressing the ever-changing
Recommended publications
  • Workshop on Venture Capital and Antitrust, February 12, 2020

    Workshop on Venture Capital and Antitrust, February 12, 2020

    Venture Capital and Antitrust Transcript of Proceedings at the Public Workshop Held by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice February 12, 2020 Paul Brest Hall Stanford University 555 Salvatierra Walk Stanford, CA 94305 Table of Contents Opening Remarks ......................................................................................................................... 1 Fireside Chat with Michael Moritz: Trends in VC Investment: How did we get here? ........ 5 Antitrust for VCs: A Discussion with Stanford Law Professor Doug Melamed ................... 14 Panel 1: What explains the Kill Zones? .................................................................................... 22 Afternoon Remarks .................................................................................................................... 40 Panel 2: Monetizing data ............................................................................................................ 42 Panel 3: Investing in platform-dominated markets ................................................................. 62 Roundtable: Is there a problem and what is the solution? ..................................................... 84 Closing Remarks ......................................................................................................................... 99 Public Workshop on Venture Capital and Antitrust, February 12, 2020 Opening Remarks • Makan Delrahim, Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice MAKAN
  • 2013 Mont Pelerin Society Membership List

    2013 Mont Pelerin Society Membership List

    MONT PELERIN SOCIETY DIRECTORY- 2013 1 ARGENTINA Dr. Martin Krause _____________________ San Isidro, Buenos Aires Argentina Dr. Alberto Benegas-Lynch Jr. San Isidro, BU Argentina 2000 Eduardo Marty 1978 Buenos Aires Argentina Gerardo Bongiovanni 2004 Rosario, Santa Fe Argentina Maria Gabriela Mrad 2007 Buenos Aires Argentina Mr. Walter Castro 2002 Rosario, Santa Fe Argentina Professor Martin Simonetta 2011 Buenos Aires Argentina Mr. Eduardo Helguera 2011 Argentina 1988 _______________________________________________________ H = Home Phone O = Office Phone F = Fax 19/20_ = Year of Membership * = Past President MONT PELERIN SOCIETY DIRECTORY- 2013 2 Professor Hector Siracusano AUSTRALIA _____________________ Buenos Aires Argentina Dr. Tanveer Ahmed Drummoyne, NSW Australia 1994 Life Member 2011 Eduardo Stordeur Argentina DR. Janet Albrechttsen 2012 Sydney, NSW Dr. Esteban Thomsen Australia Martinez, Buenos Aires Argentina 2011 1988 Professor James Allan Mr Guillermo Yeatts Sherwood, Brisbane, QLD Australia San Isidro, Buenos Aires Argentina 2010 1998 Mr. David Archibald Dr. Meir Zylberberg Perth, WA Buenos Aires Australia Argentina 2011 1969 Life Member _______________________________________________________ H = Home Phone O = Office Phone F = Fax 19/20_ = Year of Membership * = Past President MONT PELERIN SOCIETY DIRECTORY- 2013 3 Prof. Jeff Bennett Ms. Juel Briggs Gladesville, NSW Gundaroo, NSW Australia Australia 2008 2011 Mr. Chris Berg Mr. Robert Carling Mosman, NSW Melbourne, VIC Australia Australia 2011 2011 Mr. James Cox PSM Dr. Peter J. Boxall AO Sydney, NSW Coogee, NSW Australia Australia 2011 2011 Dr. Jonathan Crowe T. C. Beirne School of Law- The Professor Geoffrey Brennan University of Queensland Canberra W232A Forgan Smith Building, St. Lucia Capus Australia Brisbane, QLD 4072 Australia 1987 2011 _______________________________________________________ H = Home Phone O = Office Phone F = Fax 19/20_ = Year of Membership * = Past President MONT PELERIN SOCIETY DIRECTORY- 2013 4 Michael Darling Mr.
  • Shredding the Social Safety Net

    Shredding the Social Safety Net

    Shredding the Social Safety Net Introduction The coronavirus pandemic of 2020 has revealed an urgent need to shore up our nation’s infrastructure for supporting public health and welfare, as millions of Americans struggle to access health care and financial resources. Yet that infrastructure is in fact more endangered than ever – thanks in large part to a quiet right-wing revolution that has been taking place within the federal court system. Even after the current health crisis is over, this transformation will have the potential to change the nature of American life and, if it proceeds unchecked, could effectively choke off the next president’s ability to govern. Through strategic appointments to the federal bench, the far right has in recent years achieved astonishing progress toward its long-held goal to do away with a wide range of government powers and authorities that it sees as impeding the “free market.” Most alarmingly, these efforts have been focused on using the federal courts as tools to gut protections for public health, safety and welfare. It’s a plan that aims to do nothing less than to shred the social safety net that has underpinned American society for decades, including all the landmark achievements of the New Deal. No electorate would ever vote for candidates pledging to dirty the water, pollute the air, deprive senior citizens of Social Security or strip health care coverage for people with preexisting conditions. So Republicans have chosen to pursue these goals through the federal courts, which essentially allows them to achieve their ends while flying under the radar.
  • Contempt of Courts? President Trump's

    Contempt of Courts? President Trump's

    CONTEMPT OF COURTS? PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TRANSFORMATION OF THE JUDICIARY Brendan Williams* Faced with a letter from the American Bar Association (ABA) assessing him as “arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice,” Lawrence VanDyke, nominated by President Trump to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, cried during an October 2019 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.1 Republican senators dutifully attacked the ABA as liberally-biased.2 In a Wall Street Journal column, a defender of VanDyke assailed what he called a “smear campaign” and wrote that “[t]he ABA’s aggressive politicization is especially frustrating for someone like me, an active member of the ABA[.]”3 VanDyke was confirmed anyway.4 Contrary to Republican protestations, the ABA has deemed 97% of President Trump’s nominees to be “well qualified” or “qualified.”5 Indeed, in the most polarizing judicial nomination of the Trump Administration, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh’s defenders pointed to the ABA having rated him “well qualified” despite the association having once, in 2006, dropped his rating to “qualified” due to concerns about his temperament.6 *Attorney Brendan Williams is the author of over 30 law review articles, predominantly on civil rights and health care issues. A former Washington Supreme Court judicial clerk, Brendan is a New Hampshire long-term care advocate. This article is dedicated to his father Wayne Williams, admitted to the Washington bar in 1970. 1Hannah Knowles, Trump Judicial Nominee Cries over Scathing Letter from the American Bar Association, WASH. POST (Oct. 30, 2015). 2Id.
  • FOIA) Document Clearinghouse in the World

    FOIA) Document Clearinghouse in the World

    This document is made available through the declassification efforts and research of John Greenewald, Jr., creator of: The Black Vault The Black Vault is the largest online Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) document clearinghouse in the world. The research efforts here are responsible for the declassification of hundreds of thousands of pages released by the U.S. Government & Military. Discover the Truth at: http://www.theblackvault.com Received Received Request ID Requester Name Organization Closed Date Final Disposition Request Description Mode Date 17-F-0001 Greenewald, John The Black Vault PAL 10/3/2016 11/4/2016 Granted/Denied in Part I respectfully request a copy of records, electronic or otherwise, of all contracts past and present, that the DOD / OSD / JS has had with the British PR firm Bell Pottinger. Bell Pottinger Private (legally BPP Communications Ltd.; informally Bell Pottinger) is a British multinational public relations and marketing company headquartered in London, United Kingdom. 17-F-0002 Palma, Bethania - PAL 10/3/2016 11/4/2016 Other Reasons - No Records Contracts with Bell Pottinger for information operations and psychological operations. (Date Range for Record Search: From 01/01/2007 To 12/31/2011) 17-F-0003 Greenewald, John The Black Vault Mail 10/3/2016 1/13/2017 Other Reasons - Not a proper FOIA I respectfully request a copy of the Intellipedia category index page for the following category: request for some other reason Nuclear Weapons Glossary 17-F-0004 Jackson, Brian - Mail 10/3/2016 - - I request a copy of any available documents related to Army Intelligence's participation in an FBI counterintelligence source operation beginning in about 1959, per David Wise book, "Cassidy's Run," under the following code names: ZYRKSEEZ SHOCKER I am also interested in obtaining Army Intelligence documents authorizing, as well as policy documents guiding, the use of an Army source in an FBI operation.
  • The Use of Philosophers by the Supreme Court Neomi Raot

    The Use of Philosophers by the Supreme Court Neomi Raot

    A Backdoor to Policy Making: The Use of Philosophers by the Supreme Court Neomi Raot The Supreme Court's decisions in Vacco v Quill' and Wash- ington v Glucksberg2 held that a state can ban assisted suicide without violating the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. In these high profile cases, six phi- losophers filed an amicus brief ("Philosophers'Brief') that argued for the recognition of a constitutional right to die.3 Although the brief was written by six of the most prominent American philoso- phers-Ronald Dworkin, Thomas Nagel, Robert Nozick, John Rawls, Thomas Scanlon, and Judith Jarvis Thomson-the Court made no mention of the brief in unanimously reaching the oppo- site conclusion.4 In light of the Court's recent failure to engage philosophical arguments, this Comment examines the conditions under which philosophy does and should affect judicial decision making. These questions are relevant in considering the proper role of the Court in controversial political questions and are central to a recent de- bate focusing on whether the law can still be considered an autonomous discipline that relies only on traditional legal sources. Scholars concerned with law and economics and critical legal studies have argued that the law is no longer autonomous, but rather that it does and should draw on many external sources in order to resolve legal disputes. Critics of this view have main- tained that legal reasoning is distinct from other disciplines, and that the law has and should maintain its own methods, conven- tions, and conclusions. This Comment follows the latter group of scholars, and ar- gues that the Court should, as it did in the right-to-die cases, stay clear of philosophy and base its decisions on history, precedent, and a recognition of the limits of judicial authority.
  • Trump Judges: Even More Extreme Than Reagan and Bush Judges

    Trump Judges: Even More Extreme Than Reagan and Bush Judges

    Trump Judges: Even More Extreme Than Reagan and Bush Judges September 3, 2020 Executive Summary In June, President Donald Trump pledged to release a new short list of potential Supreme Court nominees by September 1, 2020, for his consideration should he be reelected in November. While Trump has not yet released such a list, it likely would include several people he has already picked for powerful lifetime seats on the federal courts of appeals. Trump appointees' records raise alarms about the extremism they would bring to the highest court in the United States – and the people he would put on the appellate bench if he is reelected to a second term. According to People For the American Way’s ongoing research, these judges (including those likely to be on Trump’s short list), have written or joined more than 100 opinions or dissents as of August 31 that are so far to the right that in nearly one out of every four cases we have reviewed, other Republican-appointed judges, including those on Trump’s previous Supreme Court short lists, have disagreed with them.1 Considering that every Republican president since Ronald Reagan has made a considerable effort to pick very conservative judges, the likelihood that Trump could elevate even more of his extreme judicial picks raises serious concerns. On issues including reproductive rights, voting rights, police violence, gun safety, consumer rights against corporations, and the environment, Trump judges have consistently sided with right-wing special interests over the American people – even measured against other Republican-appointed judges. Many of these cases concern majority rulings issued or joined by Trump judges.
  • The Judiciary and the Academy: a Fraught Relationship

    The Judiciary and the Academy: a Fraught Relationship

    THE JUDICIARY AND THE ACADEMY: A FRAUGHT RELATIONSHIP RICHARD A. POSNER* I have been a federal court of appeals judge since 1981, and before that I had been a full-time law professor since 1968. And since becoming a judge I have continued to teach part time and do academic research and writing. The United States is unusual if not quite unique in the porousness of the membranes that separate the different branches of the legal profession. The judiciary both federal and state is a lateral-entry institution rather than a conventional civil service; and unlike the British system (though that system is loosening up and becoming more like the U.S. system), in which the judges are drawn from a narrow, homogeneous slice of the legal profession – namely, senior barristers – American judges are drawn from all the different branches of the profession, including the academic. Among appellate judges who came to the bench from academia are Oliver Wendell Holmes (although he had joined the Harvard Law School faculty only months before being appointed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, he had been doing academic writing for many years), Harlan Fiske Stone, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, Antonin Scalia, Ruth Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer (U.S. Supreme Court); Calvert Magruder, Charles Clark, Jerome Frank, Joseph Sneed, Harry Edwards, Robert Bork, Ralph Winter, Frank Easterbrook, Stephen Williams, J. Harvie Wilkinson, John Noonan, Douglas Ginsburg, S. Jay Plager, Kenneth Ripple, Guido Calabresi, Michael McConnell, William Fletcher, and Diane Wood (U.S. courts of appeals); and Roger Traynor, Hans Linde, Benjamin Kaplan, Robert Braucher, Ellen Peters, and Charles Fried (state supreme courts).
  • Promising the Constitution

    Promising the Constitution

    RE (DO NOT DELETE) 2/14/2016 2:41 PM Copyright 2016 by Richard M. Re Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 110, No. 2 Articles PROMISING THE CONSTITUTION Richard M. Re ABSTRACT—The Constitution requires that all legislators, judges, and executive officers swear or affirm their fidelity to it. The resulting practice, often called “the oath,” has had a pervasive role in constitutional law, giving rise to an underappreciated tradition of promissory constitutionalism. For example, the Supreme Court has cited the oath as a reason to invalidate statutes, or sustain them; to respect state courts, or override them; and to follow precedents, or overrule them. Meanwhile, commentators contend that the oath demands particular interpretive methods, such as originalism, or particular distributions of interpretive authority, such as departmentalism. This Article provides a new framework for understanding the oath, its moral content, and its implications for legal practice. Because it engenders a promise, the oath gives rise to personal moral obligations. Further, the content of each oath, like the content of everyday promises, is linked to its meaning at the time it is made. The oath accordingly provides a normative basis for officials to adhere to interpretive methods and substantive principles that are contemporaneously associated with “the Constitution.” So understood, the oath provides a solution to the “dead hand” problem and explains how the people can legitimately bind their elected representatives: with each vote cast, the people today choose to be governed by oath-bound officials tomorrow. Constitutional duty thus flows from a rolling series of promises undertaken by individual officials at different times.
  • Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals

    Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals

    Florida State University Law Review Volume 32 Issue 4 Article 14 2005 Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals Michael E. Solimine [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael E. Solimine, Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals, 32 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. (2006) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol32/iss4/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW JUDICAL STRATIFICATION AND THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS Michael E. Solimine VOLUME 32 SUMMER 2005 NUMBER 4 Recommended citation: Michael E. Solimine, Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals, 32 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 1331 (2005). JUDICIAL STRATIFICATION AND THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS MICHAEL E. SOLIMINE* I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1331 II. MEASURING JUDICIAL REPUTATION, PRESTIGE, AND INFLUENCE: INDIVIDUAL JUDGES AND MULTIMEMBER COURTS ............................................................... 1333 III. MEASURING THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS . 1339 IV. THE RISE AND FALL OF
  • Examining the Demographic Compositions of U.S. Circuit and District Courts

    Examining the Demographic Compositions of U.S. Circuit and District Courts

    GETTY STEELE IMAGES/KIM Examining the Demographic Compositions of U.S. Circuit and District Courts By Democracy and Government Reform Team February 2020 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG Examining the Demographic Compositions of U.S. Circuit and District Courts By Democracy and Government Reform Team February 2020 Contents 1 Introduction and summary 7 The demographic compositions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals 10 1st Circuit 23 8th Circuit 12 2nd Circuit 25 9th Circuit 14 3rd Circuit 27 10th Circuit 16 4th Circuit 29 11th Circuit 18 5th Circuit 31 D.C. Circuit 20 6th Circuit 32 Federal Circuit 22 7th Circuit 33 The demographic compositions of the U.S. District Courts 36 District courts housed 66 District courts housed within the 1st Circuit within the 7th Circuit 39 District courts housed 71 District courts housed within the 2nd Circuit within the 8th Circuit 44 District courts housed 76 District courts housed within the 3rd Circuit within the 9th Circuit 48 District courts housed 86 District courts housed within the 4th Circuit within the 10th Circuit 54 District courts housed 91 District courts housed within the 5th Circuit within the 11th Circuit 60 District courts housed 97 District court housed within the 6th Circuit within the D.C. Circuit 110 Conclusion 111 Endnotes Introduction and summary Authors’ note: This report reflects data as of November 18, 2019. Its main goal is to provide advocates and policymakers with an accessible resource demonstrating general trends pertaining to the lack of demographic diversity across all of the lower federal courts. Some individual data points may have altered slightly between November and publication and are not reflected within this report.
  • Annual Report 2016

    Annual Report 2016

    ANNUAL REPORT 2016 Section 1 WE THOUGHT WE WERE JUST PLANTING ‘‘A WILDFLOWER AMONG THE WEEDS OF ACADEMIC LIBERALISM, AND IT TURNED OUT TO BE AN OAK.” — Antonin Scalia (1936–2016) Section 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 7 8 13 The President’s Student Lawyers Message Division Chapters 16 21 24 Faculty Practice State Division Groups Outreach 26 28 30 Alumni International National Lawyers OUR PURPOSE Relations Affairs Convention Federalist Society Senior Vice President Lee Liberman Otis, President Eugene B. Meyer, and Executive Vice President Leonard A. Leo. 38 40 43 Regulatory Article I Digital Transparency Project Initiative Law schools and the legal profession are currently emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles 46 48 society. While some members of the academic and to further their application through its activities. Publications Benefactors community have dissented from these views, by and & Blog large they are taught simultaneously with (and indeed This entails reordering priorities within the legal as if they were) the law. system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires 53 59 The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy restoring the recognition of the importance of these Independent Officers & Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians norms among lawyers, judges, law students, and Audit Staff interested in the current state of the legal order.