DOCSLIB.ORG

KODAK Capture Pro Software

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
KODAK Capture Pro Software No. 17-256 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES --000— Linda Shao, Petitioner, VS. RECEIVED McManis Faulkner, LLP., James McManis, DEC 8 2017 Michael Reedy, Catherine Bechtel OFFICE OF THE CLERK Respondents. SUPREME COURT. U.S. —o0o— On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Appellate District (14-17063: denied rehearing on 5/16/2017) (Related Case with this Court: 17-82) REQUEST FOR RECUSAL OF CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS, JUSTICE ANTHONY M. KENNEDY, JUSTICE CLERENCE THOMAS, JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBERG, JUSTICE STEPHEN G. BREYER, JUSTICE SAMUEL A. AUTO, JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYER, JUSTICE ELENA KEGAN AND 38 CLERKS NAMED IN PAGES 12-15 YE TAI SHAO, Petitioner in pro per SHAO LAW FIRM, P.C. 4900 Hopyard Road, Ste. 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588-7101 Telephone: (408) 873-3888 FAX: (408) 418-4070 Email: [email protected] Petitioner In Pro Per Table of Contents REQUEST FOR RECUSAL...............................1 FACTUAL BASES...................................1 A. summary statement of relevant facts .............................. 1 B. FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF JUSTICES AND CLERKS THAT REQUIRE RECUSAL.......................8 Receipt Of The Financial Benefits Alone Created Bias Or Appearance Of Bias as The Eight Justices And Clerks Are Unlikely To Be Impartial In Determining If The Relationship Between The American Inns Of Court And The Financially Sponsoring Attorneys . ............... 15 The Financial Benefits Are Closely Related To Respondent James McManis ........................15 It Is Unlikely For Chief Justice John Roberts To Vote For Shao's Petitions To Oppose His Another Honorary Bencher, Respondent James McManis.........................................................16 The Financial Benefits Received By The Eight Justices And 38 Clerks Will Reasonably Appear To Affect Their Positions In Denying All Petitions Of Yi Tai Shao Where Challenges Were or are Made By Shao Rgarthng Bais Arising From Associations With The American Inns Of Court.................................................17 C. Chiefjusticejohn roberts should be recused................17 D. JUSTICE ANTHONY M. KENNEDY SHOULD BE RECUSED....................................................................18 E. JUSTICE GINSBURG SHOULD BE RECUSED......20 F. RECENT IRREGULARITIES AT THIS COURT'S CLERK'S OFFICE CREATE AN APPEARANCE OF BIAS.............................................................................. 20 First Irregularity—deterrence of filing of Amicus Curiae motion in Petition No. 17-82 by clerks who have no authority on the Amicus Curiae motions...............................................21 Second Irregularity: alteration of docket in Petition No. 17-613 ........................................ 22 G. THE AMERICAN INNS OF COURT ARE UNLIKE TRADITIONAL BAR ASSOCIATIONS BUT ARE SOCIAL CLUBS THAT PROVIDE FOR SECRET EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN FINANCIALLY STRONG ATTORNEYS AND 11 JUDGES .23 As A Social Club, Common Membership Of Judges And Attorneys Representing Parties Create The Appearance Of Bias . .................. 23 The Ninth Circuit And Eight Justices of This Court Both Sponsored The Private Clubs Without Reservation......................................24 II. LAW AND ARGUMENTS ....................25 law requires recusal of the Eight justices and 38 clerks of this court ........................................................................ 25 The SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF INJUSTICE, THE RISK OF FURTHER INJUSTICE IN OTHER CASES, AND RISK OF LOSS OF THE PUBLIC'S CONFIDENCE OF INTEGRITY OF THIS COURT MANDATE THAT THE THE DENIAL OF REHEARING OF PETITION NO. 17-82 ON NOVEMBER 27, 2017 AND VACATION OF THE DENIAL OF PETITION OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE, NO. 17-256 BE SET ASIDE AND RECONSIDERED ..................28 Actual injustice in denial of petition no. 17-82 and in the current proceeding in no. 17-613 29 Risk of loss of public confidence....................29 The court's denial of certiorari will cause risk of further injustice of another related case of 112cv220571 in the state court of santa clara county. ............................................................ 29 AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER.......................33 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Lijeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 US 847, at 850 (1988)..................................................27 Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. (US 1988) 486 US 847 ..................................................28 NRDC v. EPA 464 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2006)................4 Orion Tire Corp. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2001, 9th Cir.) 268 F.3d 1133, 1137 .......................4 Pilla v American Bar Asso. (1976, CA8 Minn) 542 F2d 56,58 . .................................................................... 26 US v. Will, 449 US 200 (1980).................................28 Voit v. Superior Court (6th District, 2011) 201 fli Cal.App.4th 1285 . 29 Statutes 28USC455 ............................................................ 26 28 USCS § 455..........................................................26 28 USCS §455...........................................................27 Rules Rule 5-300 of California Rules of Professional Conduct..................................................................24 Rule60(b)(6).............................................................29 LIST OF APPENDIX No. Document name pages 1 Temple Bar Scholarship recipients A.001-3 and sponsoring Justices of this Court 2 English & Irish Inns' Visits of the A.005-6 American Inns of Court—Respondent James McManis is active on this program which includes Temple Bar Scholarship 3 James McManis is an Honorary A.007-8 Bencher from the King's Inn in 2012, as the third American Honorary Bencher, the same honor as Chief Justice John Roberts 4 Admission of Respondent James A.009- McManis about his provision of free 21 legal services to personal affairs of unidentified judges/justices and his representation of Santa Clara County Court in person 5 Declaration of Meera Fox, Esq., as A.023- an expert regarding judiciary 56 conspiracy and corruptions played by Respondent McManis Faulkner law firm, including their attempts to dismiss _the _custody _appeal _(stalled _for iv more than 3 years), to keept the case inside their kingdom of power, Santa Clara County Superior Court, to stall jury trial, and recent irregularities of 2017 in felonious alteration of dockets, creation of false records of the court and deterring filing William A. Ingram American A.0047 Inn of Court's 2016-17 Executive Committee roster William A. Ingram American A.0049 Inn of Court 2016-17 Executive Committee Meetings William A. Ingram American A.0050 Inn of Court 2016-17 Schedule of Inn Meetings Notice of Designation of Court A.0051 Reporter's Transcript and Clerk's Transcript for Appeal from 3/14/2014's Order, received by California Sixth Appellate Court on October 7, 2014 Court Reporter's Transcripts A.0052 Deposited with the Court Pursuant to Rule 8.130(b)(3) Email notification of dismissal A.0053 of custody appeal on March 14, 2016 at 9:25 a.m. (Monday) Notice of Appellant's A.0054 Noncompliance filed on March 12, 2016 (Saturday) Order to dismiss the custody A.0055 appeal of March 14, 2016 Appellant's Default Notice of A.056 March _14,_2017_ (repeated _attempt _to dismiss the appeal by false notices) 6 A. The Ninth Circuit's News A057- Release of September 19, 2016: 60 Judge Wallace in the Ninth Circuit is a founder of the American Inns of Court The American Inns of Court used the site of the US Supreme Court for its November 5, 2016's conference Justice Auto who received 2 Temple Bar Scholarship awards for his clerks in 2017 held such a conference in 2016. B. Pages 2&3: The American Inns of Court used the site of the US Supreme Court on October 21, 2017 7 Homepage of the website of the A.061- Anthony M. Kennedy American Inn of 62 Court in Sacramento, California, as an affiliate to the American Inns of Court 8 Justice Kennedy received an A.063- award from the American Inns of Court 64 which is presumably sponsored by leading attorney Respondent James McManis 9 The Ninth Circuit established A.065- Kennedy Learning Center 66 10 The Ruth Bader Jinsburg A.067- American Inn of Court 68 11 Justice Kennedy has a history of A.069- denial of two Applications with super 71 speed on the ensuing date of docketing, without waiting for the Opposition, nor disclosing the conflicts of interest vi 12 The last membership disclosure of A.073- the American Inns of Court was in 2008 75 (selected pages) 13 Recent Irregularities of this A.077- Court's Clerk's Office 85 First Page: Mr. Jordan Bickell A.078 acted beyond his authority in deterring filing of the Amicus Curiae Motion in Petition No. 17-82 in September 2017 Second and third pages: excerpts A.079- from Petition for Rehearing of 17-82 80 describing how Mr. Bickell deterred filing Supplemental Appendix to A.081- Petition for Writ of Certiorari in 17-613 85 about alteration of dockets and unusual watching filing 14 Selected pages of "Second A.087- Supplement to Motion for Judicial 152 Notice" filed with the Ninth Circuit in support of Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for En Banc: Evidence of the conflicts of interest of Judge Lucy Koh Evidence of the conflicts of interest of the Ninth Circuit [the evidence of conflicts of interest was suppressed by the Ninth Circuit] Exh.J: Selected pages of A.109- Deposition of James McManis 112 Exh. K: Declaration of David A.113- Sussman—admission of his calling the 115 Court at the night of August 4, 2010
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Religious Affiliations of Trump's Judicial Nominees
    The Religious Affiliations of Trump's Judicial Nominees U.S. Supreme Court Religion Federalist Society Member Neil Gorsuch Catholic/Episcopal Listed on his SJQ U.S. Court of Appeals Amul Thapar Catholic Former John K. Bush Episcopal Yes Kevin Newsom Yes Amy Coney Barrett Catholic Yes Joan Larsen Former David Stras Jewish Yes Allison H. Eid Yes Ralph R. Erickson Catholic Stephanos Bibas Eastern Orthodox Yes Michael B. Brennan Yes L. Steven Grasz Presbyterian (PCA) Yes Ryan Wesley Bounds Yes Elizabeth L. Branch Yes Stuart Kyle Duncan Catholic Yes Gregory G. Katsas Yes Don R. Willett Baptist James C. Ho U.S. District Courts David Nye Mormon Timothy J. Kelly Catholic Yes Scott L. Palk Trevor N. McFadden Anglican Yes Dabney L. Friedrich Episcopal Claria Horn Boom Michael Lawrence Brown William L. Campbell Jr. Presbyterian Thomas Farr Yes Charles Barnes Goodwin Methodist Mark Norris Episcopal Tommy Parker Episcopal William McCrary Ray II Baptist Eli J. Richardson Tripp Self Baptist Yes Annemarie Carney Axon Liles C. Burke Methodist Donald C Coggins Jr. Methodist Terry A. Doughty Baptist Michael J. Juneau Christian A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. Presbyterian Holly Lou Teeter Catholic Robert E. Wier Methodist R. Stan Baker Methodist Jeffrey Uhlman Beaverstock Methodist John W. Broomes Baptist Walter David Counts III Baptist Rebecca Grady Jennings Methodist Matthew J. Kacsmaryk Christian Yes, in college Emily Coody Marks Yes Jeffrey C. Mateer Christian Terry F. Moorer Christian Matthew S. Petersen Former Fernando Rodriguez Jr. Christian Karen Gren Scholer Brett Joseph Talley Christian Howard C Nielson, Jr. Daniel Desmond Domenico Barry W. Ashe Kurt D.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Angry Judges
    Angry Judges Terry A. Maroney* Abstract Judges get angry. Law, however, is of two minds as to whether they should; more importantly, it is of two minds as to whether judges’ anger should influence their behavior and decision making. On the one hand, anger is the quintessentially judicial emotion. It involves appraisal of wrongdoing, attribution of blame, and assignment of punishment—precisely what we ask of judges. On the other, anger is associated with aggression, impulsivity, and irrationality. Aristotle, through his concept of virtue, proposed reconciling this conflict by asking whether a person is angry at the right people, for the right reasons, and in the right way. Modern affective psychology, for its part, offers empirical tools with which to determine whether and when anger conforms to Aristotelian virtue. This Article weaves these strands together to propose a new model of judicial anger: that of the righteously angry judge. The righteously angry judge is angry for good reasons; experiences and expresses that anger in a well-regulated manner; and uses her anger to motivate and carry out the tasks within her delegated authority. Offering not only the first comprehensive descriptive account of judicial anger but also first theoretical model for how such anger ought to be evaluated, the Article demonstrates how judicial behavior and decision making can benefit by harnessing anger—the most common and potent judicial emotion—in service of righteousness. Introduction................................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Elena Kagan Can't Say That: the Sorry State of Public Discourse Regarding Constitutional Interpretation
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 88 Issue 2 2010 Elena Kagan Can't Say That: The Sorry State of Public Discourse Regarding Constitutional Interpretation Neil J. Kinkopf Georgia State University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Neil J. Kinkopf, Elena Kagan Can't Say That: The Sorry State of Public Discourse Regarding Constitutional Interpretation, 88 WASH. U. L. REV. 543 (2010). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol88/iss2/7 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]. ELENA KAGAN CAN’T SAY THAT: THE SORRY STATE OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE REGARDING CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION NEIL J. KINKOPF MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES From: Ray L. Politik, Counsel to the President Re: Proposed Statement of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, on her nomination to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Date: June 2010 _______________________________________________________ I have reviewed the draft statement that Elena Kagan has proposed submitting to the Senate Judiciary Committee.1 In this statement, Dean Kagan seeks to educate the Judiciary Committee and the American people to think differently about the enterprise of constitutional interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • ACTL Mourns Loss of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
    ACTL MOURNS THE LOSS OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. (September 19, 2020) - The American College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL) mourns the loss of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a trailblazing advocate, a meticulous jurist, a true patriot, and an Honorary Fellow of the College. Chief Justice of the U.S. John Roberts said, “She was a justice of historic stature and a tireless and resolute champion of justice.” Recently Justice Ginsburg joined Justices Alito and Breyer, and jurists from the United Kingdom, in a U.K.–U.S. legal exchange sponsored by the ACTL to discuss common issues in support of the rule of law and access to justice, even across international boundaries. “Her commentary during those days together was both insightful and inspiring. In an era when uncertainty is so much a part of our national narrative, hers was a call to our ‘better angels’ and a meaningful challenge at a time that calls for equal protection to all persons and causes,” said ACTL President Douglas R. Young. The College commends Justice Ginsburg’s career as an accomplished and courageous trial and appellate lawyer while in private practice and a person of deep faith committed to the best our countries have to offer. The world is enriched by her example. We are humbled and inspired by her spirit. # # # About the American College of Trial Lawyers The American College of Trial Lawyers is composed of preeminent members of the trial bar from the United States and Canada and is recognized as the leading trial lawyer’s organization in both countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Kagan-Issues Privilege-June-301.Pdf
    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BLOG SCOTUSBLOG SCOTUSblog Briefing Paper Elena Kagan – Privilege and Release of Kagan Documents June 30, 2010 I. Summary and Our Take Shortly after Elena Kagan was nominated on May 10, 2010, the Senate Judiciary Committee set June 28, 2010 as the first day of an estimated four days of confirmation hearings. This meant that there were forty-nine days between the nomination and start of the hearings (as compared to forty-eight for Sonia Sotomayor last summer). The Committee almost immediately began the process of requesting documents related to Kagan’s service in both the Clinton and Obama Administrations. Senators, the Republicans in particular, hoped that these documents might shed new light on her judicial philosophy in a way that her relatively sparse written record had not. Under the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and Executive Order 13489b, all documents requested by the Judiciary Committee must be searched for, pulled, and read by archivists, who vet each page for possible legal restrictions. Then, representatives for both Presidents Clinton and Obama have the right to read and review documents related to their respective administrations and get the final say on which documents (or pages of documents) are released or withheld. Additionally, as the incumbent administration, Obama’s representatives have the right to review the documents of its own administration as well as those from the Clinton administration (Clinton representatives are not permitted to review documents from the Obama administration). When Kagan was nominated, it was unclear what documents, if any, the Obama or Clinton Administrations might choose to withhold, or whether there was a potential bombshell within these documents that might put the nomination in jeopardy.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice-And-Comment Sentencing
    Article Notice-and-Comment Sentencing Richard A. Bierschbach† & Stephanos Bibas†† Introduction ................................................................................... 2 I. Plea-Bargained Sentencing: Private Deals vs. The Public Interest ......................................................................... 8 A. The Status Quo: Private Deals ........................................ 8 B. Missing: The Public Interest .......................................... 13 C. An Illustration ................................................................ 17 II. Participation and the Public Interest in Administrative Law ......................................................................................... 20 A. Why Participation Matters ............................................ 20 B. How Participation Works ............................................... 25 1. Mechanisms of Participation ................................... 25 2. Participation, Explanation, and Judicial Review ... 29 C. Criminal Law’s Insularity .............................................. 31 III. Crafting a System of Notice-and-Comment Sentencing ..... 34 A. Wholesale or Retail? ....................................................... 35 B. At the Wholesale Level: Arrests, Charging, Plea Bargaining, Guidelines, and Sentencing ...................... 37 C. At the Retail Level .......................................................... 47 † Associate Professor, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University. †† Professor of Law and Criminology and Director,
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Deconstructing the Administrative State: Chevron Debates and the Transformation of Constitutional Politics
    DECONSTRUCTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE: CHEVRON DEBATES AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL POLITICS CRAIG GREEN* ABSTRACT This Article contrasts Reagan-era conservative support for Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC with conservative opposition to Chevron deference today. That dramatic shift offers important context for understanding how future attacks on the administrative state will develop. Newly collected historical evidence shows a sharp pivot after President Obama’s reelection, and conservative opposition to Chevron deference has become stronger ever since. The sudden emergence of anti-Chevron critiques, along with their continued growth during a Republican presidency, suggests that such arguments will increase in power and popularity for many years to come. Although critiques of Chevron invoke timeless rhetoric about constitutional structure, those critiques began at a very specific moment, and that historical coincidence fuels existing skepticism about such arguments’ substantive merit. This Article analyzes institutional questions surrounding Chevron with deliberate separation from modern politics. Regardless of one’s substantive opinions about President Trump, federal regulation, or administrative deference, this Article identifies extraordinary costs to the legal system of overruling Chevron through mechanisms of constitutional law. * Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law; Ph.D., Princeton University; J.D., Yale Law School. Many thanks for comments from participants at the Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference and the Philadelphia Law Department’s Annual Conference. Thanks also for individual suggestions from Kent Barnett, Jane Baron, Pamela Bookman, Heather Elliott, Kellen Funk, Tara Leigh Grove, Joseph Hall, Jonathan Lipson, Jane Manners, Gillian Metzger, Henry Monaghan, Andrea Monroe, Lauren Ouziel, Rachel Rebouché, Dan Rodgers, and Neil Siegel.
    [Show full text]