DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Judiciary Tracker

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Judiciary Tracker Federal Judiciary Tracker An up-to-date look at the federal judiciary and the status of President Trump’s judicial nominations November 18, 2020 Trump has had 229 federal judges confirmed while 23 seats remain vacant without a nominee Status of key positions !" #$ President Trump inherited 108 federal requiring Senate judge vacancies confirmation As of November 18, 2020: No nominee Awaiting confirmation 155 judiciary positions have opened up Confirmed during Trump’s presidency and either remain vacant or have been filled Total: 263 potential Trump nominations !!% !"#$%&'(!"#$%&'($)$%*'+,-.$* Trump has had more circuit judges confirmed than recent presidents at this point in their first term Number of Federal Judges Nominated and Confirmed +,-./ $&' )" " ?84:,8@:>@;-,:>A-BCD>>>> 68,@-8:>@;-,:>A-BCD>>>> E-/,D.D>6;-,:>A-BCD 012.2 $!( "* ! Source: Federal Judicial Center 3-45 $&) ") 6789:;9 $&% "* ! <=>3-45 $#( #! ! In three and a half years, Trump has confirmed more circuit judges than prior presidents in four years Number of Federal Judges Nominated and Confirmed !"#$% !"# '( ( ?84:,8@:>@;-,:>A-BCD>>>> 68,@-8:>@;-,:>A-BCD>>>> &'($( !$! () * E-/,D.D>6;-,:>A-BCD Source: Federal Judicial Center )#*+ !"% (' ,-./01/ !"& () * 234)#*+ !$% $* * An overview of the Article III courts US District Courts US Court of Appeals Supreme Court Organization: Organization: Organization: ! The nation is split into 94 ! Federal judicial districts ! The Supreme Court is the federal judicial districts are organized into 12 highest court in the US ! The District of Columbia circuits, which each have a ! There are nine justices on and four US territories court of appeals. There are the bench: one chief justice have a district court 13 US Court of Appeals and eight associate justices ! There are three judges and no jury Court cases: ! The Court has jurisdiction ! District courts hear over all federal and state disputes in trial and have a Court cases: courts, and is the final jury and district judge who ! Circuit courts hear interpreter of federal law hear the cases challenges to district courts within its circuit The three courts listed here are Article III courts, meaning that they are federal courts established under Article III of the US Constitution and have lifetime appointments Source: Ballotpedia Trump inherited over 100 vacant judiciary seats to fill at the beginning of his presidency Number of Federal Judicial Vacancies At the Beginning of Each President’s Term %& !! ?84:,8@:>@;-,:>A-BCD>>>> 68,@-8:>@;-,:>A-BCD>>>> E-/,D.D>6;-,:>A-BCD $! Source: Ballotpedia "# ') '( #( #! #& #* # !"#$% &'($( )#*+ ,-./01/2 345)#*+ *George HW Bush signed the Judicial Improvement Act of 1990 which created 85 new federal judicial positions. Due to congressional opposition and the 1991 Iraq War, Bush was not able to fill many of these positions, ultimately leaving a large number for Clinton to fill. 105 federal judges will be eligible to take senior status during Trump’s four years in office Senior status: ! Article III judges can qualify for senior status through the “Rule of 80” ! Under senior status, judges continue to ' hear cases, but only a fraction of the "& Circuit court District court normal case-load (semi-retirement) ! Starting at age 65, a judge can take senior judges judges status after having served 15 years )! ! The years of service required for senior $* status decreases as age increases (at 66, only 14 years needed, etc.) ! Judges who take senior status create a vacancy for the president to fill Appointed by a Republican Appointed by a Democrat Source: Ballotpedia 1st Circuit: Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island 5 judges* (4D, 1R), 1 vacancy Current judge Date President Nominee (if applicable) Date nominated 658DF>G HDFF,DI><;J2,B !**! KL=L>3-45 E29B,2>MI9@5 $%%) 6789:;9 0L>N;CD,8DD>+5;./4;9> !*$* 012.2 =87782.>O2I2::2P>H,L> !*$" 012.2 ?2Q8B>32,,;9 !*$# 012.2 R2@29:>SH-29>+;,,-D772T $%(# ND2C29 *Does not include federal judges with senior status who in some cases have authority to vote in en banc decisions !"#$%&'(!"#$%&'($)$%*'+,-.$* 2nd Circuit: Connecticut, New York and Vermont 13 judges* (6D, 7R), no vacancies Current judge Date President Nominee (if applicable) Date nominated !"#$%&' ($)*+&,--&.#/#-0123- 4556 7898&:;1" <31=&!+)*+-$1& >??@ !A#-23- B31$C+*D&E33A$*& >??F !A#-23- B3)$*2&G+2HC+-- >??? !A#-23- E$2$*&I+AA 455@ 7898&:;1" ($--D&!"#- 45>5 J)+C+ B+DC3-K&.3"#$*L&<*8& 45>5 J)+C+ M;1+-&!+*-$D 45>> J)+C+ B#N"+*K&M;AA#/+- 45>F O*;CP <31$P" Q*+-R&:#+-N3 45>? O*;CP S#N"+$A&I8&E+*R 45>? O*;CP 9#AA#+C&<31$P"&T+*K#-# 45>? O*;CP M2$/$-&S$-+1"# 45>? O*;CP *Does not include federal judges with senior status who in some cases have authority to vote in en banc decisions !"#$%&'(!"#$%&'($)$%*'+,-.$* 3rd Circuit: Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the US Virgin Islands 14 judges* (6D, 8R), no vacancies Nominee Date Nominee Date Current judge Date President Current judge Date President (if applicable) nominated (if applicable) nominated !"#$%&' (8&:*33R1&MC#2" 4554 7898&:;1" E+22D&M"V+*2H 45>W J)+C+ O"$3K3*$&SNG$$ >??@ !A#-23- !"$*DA&,--&G*+;1$& 45>@ J)+C+ O"3C+1&,C)*3 4555 !A#-23- .;#1&Q$A#P$&B$12*$P3 45>U J)+C+ S#N"+$A&!"+0+*$1 455U 7898&:;1" M2$P"+-31&:#)+1 45>6 O*;CP G$-2&<3*K+-& 455U 7898&:;1" (+/#K&<+C$1&E3*2$*& 45>F O*;CP O"3C+1&I+*K#C+- 4556 7898&:;1" E+;A&S+2$D 45>? O*;CP <31$P"&7*$$-+V+DL&<*8 45>5 J)+C+ E$2$*&<31$P" E"#PP1 45>? O*;CP *Does not include federal judges with senior status who in some cases have authority to vote in en banc decisions !"#$%&'(!"#$%&'($)$%*'+,-.$* 4th Circuit: Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia 15 judges* (9D, 6R), no vacancies Nominee Date Nominee Date Current judge Date President Current judge Date President (if applicable) nominated (if applicable) nominated !A#-23-X&7898& ,A)$*2&(#+H 45>5 J)+C+ !"#$%&' B30$*&7*$03*D 4555 :;1" I$-*D&Q*+-RA#-&QA3DK& 45>> J)+C+ <8&I+*/#$&9#AR#-13-&YYY >?F@ B$+0+-& M2$P"+-#$&O"+NR$*& 45>4 J)+C+ E+;A&T#$C$D$*& >??5 78I898&:;1" E+C$A+&I+**#1& 45>@ J)+C+ (#+-+&7*#))3- S32H >??@ !A#-23- <;A#;1&T$11&B#N"+*K13-& 45>F O*;CP B3)$*2&G#-0 >??F !A#-23- ,8&S+*/#-& 45>F O*;CP 78&M2$/$-&,0$$ 455F 7898&:;1" Z;+22A$)+;CL&<*8& :+*)+*+&S#A+-3&G$$-+- 45>5 J)+C+ ,AA#13-&<3-$1&B;1"#-0 45>? O*;CP <+C$1&9D--L&<*8 45>5 J)+C+ *Does not include federal judges with senior status who in some cases have authority to vote in en banc decisions !"#$%&'(!"#$%&'($)$%*'+,-.$* 5th Circuit: Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas 17 judges* (5D, 12R), no vacancies Nominee Date Nominee Date Current judge Date President Current judge Date President (if applicable) nominated (if applicable) nominated !"#$%&' E*#1N#AA+&JV$- 455[ 78&98&:;1" M2$P"$-&I#00#-13- 45>> J)+C+ \K#2"&<3-$1 >?F[ B$+0+-& 7*$00&!312+ 45>@ J)+C+ <$**D&\KV#-&MC#2" >?F6 B$+0+- (3-&9#AA$22 45>F O*;CP !+*A&M2$V+*2 >??@ !A#-23- <+C$1&I3 45>F O*;CP <+C$1&($--#1 >??[ !A#-23- M2;+*2&GDA$&(;-N+- 45>F O*;CP <$--#%$*&9+AR$*&\A*3K 4556 7898&:;1" G;*2&\-0$A"+*K2 45>F O*;CP .$1A#$&M3;2"V#NR 4556 7898&:;1" ,-K*$V&JAK"+C 45>F O*;CP !+2"+*#-+&I+D-$1 455F 7898&:;1" !3*D&O8&9#A13- 4545 O*;CP <+C$1&7*+/$1L&<*8& 45>> J)+C+ *Does not include federal judges with senior status who in some cases have authority to vote in en banc decisions !"#$%&'(!"#$%&'($)$%*'+,-.$* 6th Circuit: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee 16* judges (5D, 11R), no vacancies Nominee Date Nominee Date Current judge Date President Current judge Date President (if applicable) nominated (if applicable) nominated !"#$%&' B8&7;D&!3A$L&<*8& >??[ !A#-23- <+-$&:*+-12$22$* M2*+-N" 45>5 J)+C+ G+*$-&T$A13-&S33*$ >??[ !A#-23- :$*-#N$&:8&(3-+AK 45>> J)+C+ \*#N&!A+D >??6 !A#-23- ,C;A&O"+P+* 45>6 O*;CP <;A#+&MC#2"&7#))3-1 4554 7898&:;1" <3"-&:;1" 45>6 O*;CP <$%%*$D&M;223- 455W 7898&:;1" <3+-&.+*1$- 45>6 O*;CP B#N"+*K&7*#%%#- 455[ 7898&:;1" <3"-&T+A)+-K#+- 45>F O*;CP B+DC3-K&G$2"A$K0$ 455F 7898&:;1" !"+K&B$+KA$* 45>? O*;CP I$A$-$&9"#2$ 455F 7898&:;1" \*#N&S;*P"D 45>? O*;CP *Does not include federal judges with senior status who in some cases have authority to vote in en banc decisions !"#$%&'(!"#$%&'($)$%*'+,-.$* 7th Circuit: Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin 10 judges* (2D, 8R), 1 vacancy Current judge Date President Nominee (if applicable) Date nominated !"#$%&' (#+-$&MDR$1 455@ 7898&:;1" <3$A&QA+;C >?FW B$+0+- Q*+-R&\+12$*)*33R >?F[ B$+0+- S#N"+$A&G+--$ >?F6 B$+0+- YA+-+&B3/-$*& >??4 78I898&:;1" (#+-$&E+C$A+&933K >??[ !A#-23- (+/#K&I+C#A23- 455? J)+C+ S#N"+$A&:*$--+- 45>F O*;CP S#N"+$A&MN;KK$* 45>F O*;CP ,CD&M28&\/$ 45>F O*;CP ]+N+-2&^,CD&!3-$D&:+**$22_ 45>6 O*;CP O"3C+1&G#*1N"&YY T3/$C)$*&>UL&4545 *Does not include federal judges with senior status who in some cases have authority to vote in en banc decisions **Amy Coney Barrett was nominated to the Supreme Court in September 2020 !"#$%&'(!"#$%&'($)$%*'+,-.$* 8th Circuit: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota 11 judges* (1D, 10R), no vacancies Current judge Date President Nominee (if applicable) Date nominated !"#$%&' .+/$-1R# MC#2" 4554 7898&:;1" <+C$1&.3R$- >??5 78I898&:;1" M2$/$-&!3AA323- 455W 7898&:;1" B+DC3-K&7*;$-K$* 455@ 7898&:;1" (;+-$&:$-23- 455@ 7898&:;1" :3))D&M"$P"$*K 455U 7898&:;1" <+-$&G$AAD 45>W J)+C+ B+AP"&\*#NR13- 45>6 O*;CP .8&M2$/$-&7*+1H 45>F O*;CP (+/#K&M2*+1 45>F O*;CP <3-+2"+-&G3)$1 45>F O*;CP *Does not include federal judges with senior status who in some cases have authority to vote in en banc decisions !"#$%&'(!"#$%&'($)$%*'+,-.$* 9th Circuit: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Thomas Hardiman Trump’S Supreme Court Shortlist: Thomas Hardiman
    ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE SNAPSHOT Trump’s Supreme Court Shortlist: Thomas Hardiman Trump’s Supreme Court Shortlist: Thomas Hardiman Thomas Hardiman, currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, is on President Trump’s shortlist for the U.S. Supreme Court. Protections for the Wealthy and Powerful Over the Rights of All Hardiman consistently sides with the wealthy and powerful at the expense of everyday people. He has taken the position that it should be more difficult for everyday Americans –– workers, consumers, middle-class Americans, and small business owners –– to hold corporations and bad actors accountable. In 2018, Hardiman announced to a Federalist Society Convention: “If I were able to do something unilaterally, I would probably institute a new federal rule that said that all cases worth less than $500,000 will be tried without any discovery.” Such a rule would enable corporations and those who commit wrongdoing to hide critical evidence and deprive those with modest-dollar cases of their ability to argue their case in court, including individuals whose cases involve important rights. Hardiman has repeatedly ruled against the rights of workers. In 2015, Hardiman sided against nearly 1,800 truck drivers who were laid off and not paid approximately $8 million they were owed due to the short notice. Under Hardiman’s decision about the company’s bankruptcy, which the Supreme Court later reversed, banks and other lenders were paid first. One person from the company who had terminal cancer was unable to find replacement health insurance and passed away. In another case, Hardiman ruled for Allstate after it fired 6,200 sales agents, offering to bring them back as independent contractors on the condition that they sign away their rights to existing claims against the company, including discrimination claims.
    [Show full text]
  • Notre Dame Lawyer—2018 Notre Dame Law School
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Notre Dame Lawyer Law School Publications 2018 Notre Dame Lawyer—2018 Notre Dame Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/nd_lawyer Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Notre Dame Law School, "Notre Dame Lawyer—2018" (2018). Notre Dame Lawyer. 39. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/nd_lawyer/39 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Lawyer by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Q&A with Dean Newton Pg. 2 Big Ideas The expansion of ND Law’s intellectual property program is bearing fruit Pg. 20 20 18 A DIFFERENT KIND of LAWYER PHOTOGRAPHY Alicia Sachau and University Marketing Communications EDITOR Kevin Allen Notre Dame Lawyer 1337 Biolchini Hall Notre Dame, IN 46556 574-631-5962 [email protected] Inside 2 Dean Newton 4 Briefs & News 10 Profiles: A Different Kind of Lawyer 16 London Law at 50 20 Intellectual Property 26 Father Mike 30 Faculty News 36 Alumni Notes 44 In Memoriam 46 The Couples of ’81 48 Interrogatory Briefs Dean Newton Steps Down Joseph A. Matson Dean and Professor of Law Nell Jessup Newton will conclude her tenure as dean of Notre Dame Law School on June 30, 2019, after 10 years of service. What was your rela- ÅZ[\\QUMIVLM^MVUMM\QVO sion that leads to follow-up tionship with Notre Dame Fr. Ted. These memories MUIQT[)_ITSIZW]VL\PM before you became the Law are even more tender TISM[WZ\W\PM/ZW\\WKIV School’s dean? because Rob died in 1995 provide a moment to be My brother Rob Mier of lymphoma caused by his grateful for all the ways that attended ND on a Navy exposure to Agent Orange the Notre Dame community ROTC scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • Worry Over Mistreating Clots Drove Push to Pause J&J Shot
    P2JW109000-6-A00100-17FFFF5178F ****** MONDAY,APRIL 19,2021~VOL. CCLXXVII NO.90 WSJ.com HHHH $4.00 Last week: DJIA 34200.67 À 400.07 1.2% NASDAQ 14052.34 À 1.1% STOXX 600 442.49 À 1.2% 10-YR. TREASURY À 27/32 , yield 1.571% OIL $63.13 À $3.81 EURO $1.1982 YEN 108.81 Bull Run What’s News In Stocks Widens, Business&Finance Signaling More stocks have been propelling the U.S. market higher lately,asignal that fur- Strength ther gains could be ahead, but howsmooth the climb might be remains up fordebate. A1 Technical indicators WeWork’s plan to list suggestmoregains, stock by merging with a but some question how blank-check company has echoes of its approach in smooth theywill be 2019,when the shared-office provider’s IPO imploded. A1 BY CAITLIN MCCABE Citigroup plans to scale up its services to wealthy GES Agreater number of stocks entrepreneurs and their IMA have been propelling the U.S. businesses in Asia as the market higher lately,asignal bank refocuses its opera- GETTY that—if historyisany indica- tions in the region. B1 SE/ tor—moregains could be ahead. What remains up forde- A Maryland hotel mag- bate, however, is how smooth natebehind an 11th-hour bid ANCE-PRES FR the climb will be. to acquireTribune Publish- Indicatorsthat point to a ing is working to find new ENCE stronger and moreresilient financing and partnership AG stock market have been hitting options after his partner ON/ LL rare milestones recently as the withdrew from the deal.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgetown Law's Federalist Society Student Chapter Will Host the 37Th
    Georgetown Law’s Federalist Society Student Chapter will host the 37th National Student Symposium on March 9-10, 2018. The topic of the Symposium is "First Principles of the Constitution." FRIDAY, MARCH 9, 2018 Debate: The Judicial Power: The Judicial Duty to Follow the Law or a Discretionary Power of Judicial Review? 6:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. Hart Auditorium, Georgetown University Law Center Hamilton referred to the federal judiciary as the “least dangerous” branch of the new federal government. But the Court has clearly done more than he envisioned. What is its proper role? How much should judges interpret the exact text and how much should they look to the core principles the text seeks to protect? ● Justice Clint Bolick, Arizona Supreme Court ​ ● Ed Whelan, President, Ethics & Public Policy Center, former Law Clerk to Justice ​ Scalia, and Co-Editor, Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith and Life Well ​ Lived ● Moderator: Judge Kevin C. Newsom, United States Court of Appeals, ​ ​ Eleventh Circuit Presentation of the 2017 Article I Initiative Writing Contest Award by Mr. Christopher DeMuth, Co-Chairman, Board of Visitors, The Federalist Society 7:30 p.m. – 7:45 p.m. Hart Auditorium, Georgetown University Law Center Cocktail Reception 8:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. Supreme Court of the United States 1 First St., N.E., Washington, DC (NOTE: Due to space constraints, the reception is only open to the first 300 law student registrants.) SATURDAY, MARCH 10, 2018 Ending Government-by-Litigation: An Address by Attorney General Jeff Sessions (Conference Registration & ID REQUIRED) 8:30 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate the Senate Met at 9:30 A.M
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 109 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 151 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2005 No. 66 Senate The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was U.S. SENATE, EXECUTIVE SESSION called to order by the Honorable SAM PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE, BROWNBACK, a Senator from the State Washington, DC, May 18, 2005. of Kansas. To the Senate: NOMINATION OF PRISCILLA Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, RICHMAN OWEN TO BE UNITED PRAYER of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR appoint the Honorable SAM BROWNBACK, a THE FIFTH CIRCUIT The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- Senator from the State of Kansas, to per- fered the following prayer: form the duties of the Chair. Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask Let us pray. TED STEVENS, unanimous consent that the Senate Eternal Spirit, the fountain of light President pro tempore. now proceed to executive session to and wisdom, without Whom nothing is Mr. BROWNBACK thereupon as- consider calendar No. 71, the nomina- holy and nothing prevails, You have sumed the Chair as Acting President tion of Priscilla Owen to be United challenged us to let our lights shine, so pro tempore. States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Cir- that people can see our good works and cuit; provided further that the first glorify Your Name. f hour of debate, from 9:45 to 10:45, be Today, shine the light of Your pres- RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME under the control of the majority lead- ence through our Senators and illu- er or his designee; further that the minate our Nation and world.
    [Show full text]
  • Federalist Paper Template
    THE Federalist PAPER THE MAGAZINE OF THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY • FEDSOC.ORG Summer 2018 THE FEATURES Federalist PAPER THE MAGAZINE OF THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY • FEDSOC.ORG BOARD OF DIRECTORS BOARD OF VISITORS Prof. Steven G. Calabresi, Chairman Mr. Christopher DeMuth, Co-Chairman Hon. David M. McIntosh, Vice Chairman Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, Co-Chairman Prof. Gary Lawson, Secretary Prof. Lillian BeVier Mr. Brent O. Hatch, Treasurer Mr. George T. Conway 4 National Student Hon. T. Kenneth Cribb Ms. Kimberly O. Dennis Hon. C. Boyden Gray Mr. Michael W. Gleba Symposium Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive VP Hon. Lois Haight Herrington Hon. Edwin Meese, III Hon. Donald Paul Hodel 6 Student Division Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President Hon. Frank Keating, II Hon. Michael B. Mukasey Hon. Gale Norton 8 Lawyers Chapters Hon. Lee Liberman Otis, Senior VP Hon. Theodore B. Olson Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz Mr. Andrew J. Redleaf Hon. William Bradford Reynolds 10 Faculty Division Ms. Diana Davis Spencer Mr. Theodore W. Ullyot 12 Practice Groups STAFF 14 Article I President Executive Vice President Senior Vice President Eugene B. Meyer Leonard A. Leo Lee Liberman Otis 16 State Courts & AGs Student Division Lawyers Chapters Peter Redpath, VP & Director Lisa Budzynski Ezell, VP & Director 17 Regulatory Kamron Kompani, Deputy Director Sarah Landeene, Deputy Director Transparency Kate Alcantara, Deputy Director Katherine Fugate, Associate Director Faculty Division Practice Groups 18 Membership Lee Liberman Otis, Director Dean Reuter, VP & General Counsel Laura Flint, Deputy Director Anthony Deardurff, Deputy Director Wesley G. Hodges, Associate Director 19 Resources Jennifer Weinberg, Associate Director Micah Wallen, Assistant Director Brigid Flaherty, Assistant Director Regulatory Transparency Project External Relations Devon Westhill, Director Jonathan Bunch, VP & Director Colton Graub, Project Assistant Peter Bisbee, Director, State Courts Elizabeth Cirri, Assistant Director Article I Initiative Nathan Kaczmarek, Director International Affairs James P.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Section (PDF929KB)
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 109 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 151 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2005 No. 67 Senate The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was ceed to executive session for the con- Yesterday, 21 Senators—evenly di- called to order by the President pro sideration of calendar No. 71, which the vided, I believe 11 Republicans and 10 tempore (Mr. STEVENS). clerk will report. Democrats—debated for over 10 hours The legislative clerk read the nomi- on the nomination of Priscilla Owen. PRAYER nation of Priscilla Richman Owen, of We will continue that debate—10 hours The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- Texas, to be United States Circuit yesterday—maybe 20 hours, maybe 30 fered the following prayer: Judge for the Fifth Circuit. hours, and we will take as long as it Let us pray. RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER takes for Senators to express their God of grace and glory, open our eyes The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The views on this qualified nominee. to the power You provide for all of our majority leader is recognized. But at some point that debate should challenges. Give us a glimpse of Your SCHEDULE end and there should be a vote. It ability to do what seems impossible, to Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today we makes sense: up or down, ‘‘yes’’ or exceed what we can request or imagine. will resume executive session to con- ‘‘no,’’ confirm or reject; and then we Encourage us again with Your promise sider Priscilla Owen to be a U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Appellate Judges' Choices About Gender-Neutral Language
    Articles Framing Gender: Federal Appellate Judges' Choices About Gender-Neutral Language By JUDITH D. FISCHER* Introduction LANGUAGE IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT in the two fields at the center of this Article. Language is the tool of the legal profession,1 and feminists recognize that language has been an instrument of both women's oppression and their liberation.2 This Article considers a question relevant to both fields: Are judges using gender-neutral lan- guage? For lawyers, the answer may inform their choice of wording when they write for judges.3 For feminists, the answer will be one marker of the success of their efforts in language reform. * Judith D. Fischer is an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Louisville's Louis D. Brandeis School of Law. She appreciates the invaluable contribution to this Article's statistical analysis by Professor Jose M. Fernandez of the University of Louisville's Department of Economics and by attorney and mathematics doctoral candidate Carole Wastog. She thanks the law faculty at Indiana University at Indianapolis for their insightful suggestions at a presentation about this study. She is also grateful to Professors Craig Anthony Arnold, Kathleen Bean, Nancy Levit, Nancy Rapoport, and Joel Schumm for their very helpful comments on earlier drafts. Finally, thanks go to Amy Jay for her excellent research assistance. 1. See, e.g., FRANK E. COOPER, WRITING IN LAW PRAcTICE 1 (1963) ("[L]awyers have but one tool-language."); DAVID MELLINKOFF, THE LANGUAGE OF THE LAw, at vii (1963) ("The law is a profession of words."); Debra R. Cohen, Competent Legal Wrting-A Lauryer's ProfessionalResponsibility, 67 U.
    [Show full text]
  • Measures Highlight Campaign Plan
    On the ballot Why should you care whether the U.S. Senate confirms a Measures highlight campaign plan Supreme Court nominee now? There are two very important ini- osition 227 of 1998 and would pro- sembly and Senate, Congress and It may seem like little more than tiatives on the November ballot, the vide services for ALL students in the Presidential campaigns. The CTA noise out of Washington, D.C. , but Children’s Education and Health state of California that would put Board approved a Campaign Plan at the current battle to get the U.S. Sen- Care Protection Act (CEHCP), which them on the path to becoming bilin- their May 17 meeting. Information ate to do its job by considering a new is the extension of the Prop 30 tax on gual. on the Campaign Plan will be shared high court nominee has important im- high wage earners, and the Education CTA members will be asked to at State Council, Service Center plications for every student, every ed- for a Global Economy (EdGE), work in support of these initiatives as Councils and in local rep meetings. ucator, every school, and every union which would repeal and amend prop- well as targeted races in the State As- member in our nation. In the years ahead, the U.S. Su- preme Court may rule on issues in- cluding the rights of teachers to due Field work surprises process and a fair hearing when charges are leveled. It could rule on CSO staff Ed Sibby got a welcome surprise when covering an the rights of schools to be fully fund- Alliance To Reclaim Our Schools walk-in event in Lake Elsinore ed in order to provide a high quality in early May.
    [Show full text]
  • Confirming Supreme Court Justices in a Presidential Election Year
    Washington University Law Review Volume 94 Issue 4 2017 Confirming Supreme Court Justices in a Presidential Election Year Carl Tobias University of Richmond Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Judges Commons, and the Law and Politics Commons Recommended Citation Carl Tobias, Confirming Supreme Court Justices in a Presidential Election Year, 94 WASH. U. L. REV. 1089 (2017). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol94/iss4/11 This Commentary is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONFIRMING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR CARL TOBIAS Justice Antonin Scalia’s death prompted United States Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to argue that the President to be inaugurated on January 20, 2017—not Barack Obama—must fill the empty Scalia post.1 Obama in turn expressed sympathy for the Justice’s family and friends, lauded his consummate public service, and pledged to nominate a replacement “in due time,” contending that eleven months remained in his administration for confirming a worthy successor.2 Obama admonished that the President had a constitutional duty to nominate a superlative aspirant to the vacancy, which must not have persisted for more than one year, while the Senate had a constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on the nominee proffered.3 Because this dynamic affected efficacious Supreme Court operations and precipitated a constitutional standoff, the issue merits analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Visiting Judges
    Visiting Judges Marin K. Levy* Despite the fact that Article III judges hold particular seats on particular courts, the federal system rests on judicial interchangeability. Hundreds of judges “visit” other courts each year and collectively help decide thousands of appeals. Anyone from a retired Supreme Court Justice to a judge from the U.S. Court of International Trade to a district judge from out of circuit may come and hear cases on a given court of appeals. Although much has been written about the structure of the federal courts and the nature of Article III judgeships, little attention has been paid to the phenomenon of “sitting by designation”—how it came to be, how it functions today, and what it reveals about the judiciary more broadly. This Article offers an overdue account of visiting judges. It begins by providing an origin story, showing how the current practice stems from two radically different traditions. The first saw judges as fixed geographically, and allowed for visitors only as a stopgap measure when individual judges fell ill or courts fell into arrears with their cases. The second assumed greater fluidity within the courts, requiring Supreme Court Justices to ride circuit—to visit different regions and act as trial and appellate judges—for the first half of the Court’s history. These two traditions together provide the critical context for modern-day visiting. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38ZK55M67 Copyright © 2019 California Law Review, Inc. California Law Review, Inc. (CLR) is a California nonprofit corporation. CLR and the authors are solely responsible for the content of their publications.
    [Show full text]