DOCSLIB.ORG

Jerry-Building the Road to the Future: an Evaluation of the White Commission Report on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Jerry-Building the Road to the Future: An Evaluation of the White Commission Report on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals JOSEPH N. AKROTIRIANAKIS* PAUL GARO ARSHAGOUNI** ZAREH A. JALOTORSSIAN*** TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................356 II. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................358 A. The Ninth Circuitand the Federal Courts ofAppeals ..............................358 B. CircuitDivisions in the Twentieth Century ..............................................359 II. THE WHITE COMMISSION REPORT ......................................................................361 A. Creation of the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals........................................................................ 361 B. The Commission'sProposal: Internally Divide the Ninth Circuit, But Do Not Split It into Two Separate Circuits............................................... 362 C. Alternative Solutions Consideredand Rejected by the Com m ission ..............................................................................................364 D. Rationalizingthe Commission's Recommendation................................... 368 IV. EVALUATION OF THE COMMISSION'S PROPOSAL ..................................................369 A. Enhancing Consistency and Coherency of Ninth Circuit Law ..................370 B. Improving the Ninth Circuit'sEn Banc Process....................................... 373 C. IncreasingRegional Connections............................................................. 376 1. Debunking the Myth of "CaliforniaJudging ..................................377 2. PromotingJudicial Regionalism: A Misconception of the Role of Our Federal Courts........................................................................... 378 D. Other Disadvantagesof the ProposedReorganization ............................. 379 V. COMMON CRITICISMS OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOT ADDRESSED BY THE COMMISSION ...................................................................................................... 381 A. The Sheer Expanse of the Ninth Circuit's BoundariesIs Reason to Divide It Only if Size Results in Other Problems...................................... 382 1. The Ninth Circuit's Size Has Not Resulted in a Lack of Expediency in Resolving Appeals ...................................................... 382 2. The Ninth Circuit's Size Has Not Caused a Loss of Collegiality Among Its Judges.............................................................................. 384 B. The Supreme Court'sReversal Rate of the Ninth Circuit......................... 385 VI. REFOCUSING THE DEBATE: THE REAL PROBLEM FACED BY THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS .............................................................................. 387 A. The Workload Crisis:A Threat to Appellate Justice ................................ 387 B. Non-CircuitDividing Alternatives............................................................ 390 C. The Modern Ninth Circuit: A Triumph of Innovative Case Managem ent ............................................................................................. 392 VII. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 395 I. INTRODUCTION For years, critics have argued that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should be divided because it has grown too large to manage its caseload effectively.' They blame the Ninth Circuit's size for alleged increases in intra-circuit conflicts, inefficiency, delay, and a lack of collegiality among its judges.! In recent years, conservative congressmen in the Pacific Northwest have criticized the San Francisco- based circuit for its "liberal" rulings on everything from the environment to the death penalty? On November 26, 1997, Congress created the Commission on * Law Clerk to the Honorable Harry Pregerson, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; J.D., magna cum laude, 1998, Loyola Law School; B.A., cum laude, 1995, Whittier College. ** Former extem to Judge Pregerson; J.D. 1999, U.C.L.A. Law School; M.P.H., sumnma cure laude, 1994, U.C.L.A.; M.D. 1988, U.C. Irvine; B.A., magna cum laude, 1984, U.C.L.A. *** Former extem to Judge Pregerson; J.D. 1999, U.C.L.A.; B.A., summa cum laude, 1996, U.C.L.A. The authors would like to thank the following for their assistance in the preparation of this article: Judge Harry Pregerson, Cathy Catterson, Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Shelley Levine, Serge Avakian, Peder Batalden, and the staff and editors of the San Diego Law Review. 1. See David G. Savage, Panel Urges Realignment ofAppeals Court, L.A. TIMES, Oct. 8, 1998, at A3. 2. See Conrad Bums, Dividing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: A Proposition Long Overdue, 57 MONT. L. REV. 245, 250-51 (1996). 3. See 9th Circuit Split It in 3, Panel Says, ARIz. DAILY STAR, Oct. 8, 1998, at 9A; Savage, supra note 1, at A3. [VOL. 36: 355, 1999] Jerry-Buildingthe Road SAN DIEGO LAW REVIEW Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals.4 The Commission was headed by the Honorable Byron R. White, retired Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. It was charged with studying the structure of the federal courts of appeals, focusing on whether the Ninth Circuit should be divided On December 18, 1998, the Commission issued its report and recommended an unprecedented reorganization of the Ninth Circuit.' The Commission recommended that Congress reorganize the Ninth Circuit into Northern, Middle and Southern divisions. Under the proposed plan, a majority of each division's judges would reside within the division's borders,7 and each division would have exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals from lower courts and administrative agencies within its bounds. The Commission considered and rejected proposals to divide the Ninth Circuit into two separate circuits and thereby create a new Twelfth Circuit.8 On January 19, 1999, Senators Frank H. Murkowski and Slade Gorton introduced the Federal Ninth Circuit Reorganization Act of 1999.9 The bill is verbatim the model act proposed by the White Commission. This Article critically analyzes the Commission's recommendation. Part II reviews the history and background of the debate whether the Ninth Circuit should be divided. Part Ell examines the Commission's findings. Part IV evaluates the Commission's proposal and the reasons the Commission offers in support of its recommendation. Part V discusses criticisms of the Ninth Circuit that the Commission did not address and analyzes whether those criticisms justify the Ninth Circuit's division. Part VI examines the ways in which the Ninth Circuit has innovated to deal with increasing workloads and suggests that these 4. See COMM'N ON STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE FED. COURTS OF APPEALS, PUB L. No. 105-119, FINAL REPORT 1 (1998) [hereinafter REPORT]. 5. See id. 6. See id. at iii. 7. See COMM'N ON STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE FED. COURTS OF APPEALS, TENTATIVE DRAFr REPORT 41 (1998) [hereinafter DRAFT REPORT]. A minority of each division's judges would also reside outside the division's borders. See id. 8. See id. at 39. 9. Federal Ninth Circuit Reorganization Act of 1999, S. 253, 106th Cong. The asserted purpose of Senate Bill 253 is "[t]o provide for the reorganization of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and for other purposes." Id. Murkowski is a Republican Senator from Alaska and Gorton is a Republican Senator from Washington. Both Senators have previously endorsed bills to split the Ninth Circuit. 10. This Article addresses the recommendations of the Final Report. innovations are solutions to problems that will soon become common to all federal courts of appeals. II. BACKGROUND A. The Ninth Circuitand the Federal Courts of Appeals The present arrangement of the federal courts of appeals can be traced to the Judiciary Act of 1789." The 1789 Act created a federal judicial district and a one-judge district court in each of the then-eleven states.'2 The Act divided the eleven districts into three "circuit courts" and thereby created an intermediate tier of federal courts with limited appellate duties.'3 These original circuit courts were the principal federal trial courts. They heard major federal criminal cases, diversity actions, and civil cases in which the United States was a party.'4 The circuit courts had no judges of their own. Rather, they were presided over by three-judge panels composed of one district judge and two Supreme Court Justices who "rode circuit."'5 The original circuit courts had some appellate jurisdiction to review "specified categories of district court decisions."'6 The United States Supreme Court, however, functioned as the primary appellate court.'7 Congress eventually created circuit judgeships which assumed the role previously played by Supreme Court Justices, whose circuit riding was reduced to a symbolic minimum.'8 By 1866, Congress had realigned the circuit courts' boundaries 11. Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, § 1, 1 Stat. 73; Thomas E. Baker, On Redrawing Circuit Boundaries. Why the Proposal to Divide the United States Court of Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit Is Not Such a Good Idea, 22 ARIz. ST. L.J. 917, 919 (1990). The Judiciary Act was passed pursuant to Congress' power to vest "[t]he judicial power of the United States" in lower federal courts that Congress may
Recommended publications
  • Measuring Judicial Ideology Using Law Clerk Hiring Adam Bonica

    Measuring Judicial Ideology Using Law Clerk Hiring Adam Bonica

    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics Economics 2016 Measuring Judicial Ideology Using Law Clerk Hiring Adam Bonica Adam S. Chilton Jacob Goldin Kyle Rozema Maya Sen Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Adam Bonica, Adam S. Chilton, Jacob Goldin, Kyle Rozema & Maya Sen, "Measuring Judicial Ideology Using Law Clerk Hiring" (Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics No. 767, 2016). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Measuring Judicial Ideology Using Law Clerk Hiring Adam Bonica, Adam Chilton, Jacob Goldin, Kyle Rozema, & Maya Sen∗ July 21, 2016 ∗Bonica: Stanford University, Department of Political Science, e-mail: [email protected]. Chilton: University of Chicago Law School, e-mail: [email protected]. Goldin: Stanford Law School, e-mail: js- [email protected]. Rozema: Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, e-mail: [email protected]. Sen: Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, e-mail: maya [email protected]. For helpful com- ments, we are grateful to Omri Ben-Shahar, Erin Delaney, Joshua Fischman, Tom Ginsburg, William Hubbard, Tonja Jacobi, Jim Lindgren, Robin Kar, Anup Malani, Jonathan Masur, Richard McAdams, Jennifer Nou, Eric Posner, Max Schanzenbach, Matt Spitzer, Eugene Volokh, and seminar participants at the University of Chicago Law School and at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.
  • THE RHETORICAL POWER of LAW CLERKS, 40 Sw

    THE RHETORICAL POWER of LAW CLERKS, 40 Sw

    THE RHETORICAL POWER OF LAW CLERKS, 40 Sw. L. Rev. 473 40 Sw. L. Rev. 473 Southwestern Law Review 2011 Articles THE RHETORICAL POWER OF LAW CLERKS Parker B. Potter, Jr. a1 Copyright (c) 2011 Southwestern Law School; Parker B. Potter, Jr. I. Introduction “Many believe confession is good for the soul,” 1 so I confess: Bless me, Readers, 2 for I have sinned; the title of this article is a swerve. 3 While a plain-meaning construction of my title might suggest that my topic is the rhetorical power wielded by law clerks when they draft opinions for their judges, 4 my actual topic is not law clerks as masters of rhetoric but, rather, law clerks-- or the idea of law clerks--as rhetorical devices employed by federal judges in their opinions. That is, I examine opinions in which judges have used their understanding of the role of the law clerk to make a point about something else, outside chambers and relevant to the case at hand. *474 The purpose of this article is two-fold. My first goal is to showcase snappy judicial writing. 5 Commentators too numerous to enumerate have criticized judicial writing for being dry, lifeless, and formulaic. 6 While some attempts to counter that trend have drawn criticisms of their own, 7 there is something to be said for a well-turned phrase, an apt metaphor, or a pithy example. The law-clerk references I highlight in this article certainly fall at least somewhat outside the rather small box that holds most judicial writing. My second goal is to turn the rhetoric around, using law-clerk references not to shed light on the world outside chambers--as the writing judge surely intended--but rather, to piece together a composite view of the institution of law clerking.
  • The Cost of Partisan Politics on Minority Diversity of the Federal Bench

    The Cost of Partisan Politics on Minority Diversity of the Federal Bench

    Indiana Law Journal Volume 83 Issue 4 Article 11 Fall 2008 Only Skin Deep?: The Cost of Partisan Politics on Minority Diversity of the Federal Bench Sylvia R. Lazos Vargas William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Courts Commons, Judges Commons, and the Law and Politics Commons Recommended Citation Lazos Vargas, Sylvia R. (2008) "Only Skin Deep?: The Cost of Partisan Politics on Minority Diversity of the Federal Bench," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 83 : Iss. 4 , Article 11. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol83/iss4/11 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Only Skin Deep?: The Cost of Partisan Politics on Minority Diversity of the Federal Bench SYLVIA R. LAZOS VARGAS* INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1423 I. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS TO THE JUDICIARY FROM DIVERSITY? ....... .. .. .. .. 1426 A . D escriptive Diversity ........................................................................ 1428 B. Sym bolic D iversity............................................................................ 1430 C. Viewpoint D iversity .........................................................................
  • Standing in Judge Betty Fletcher's Court

    Standing in Judge Betty Fletcher's Court

    Washington Law Review Volume 85 Number 1 A Tribute to the Honorable Betty Binns Fletcher 2-1-2010 All Rise! Standing in Judge Betty Fletcher's Court Thomas D. Rowe Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Thomas D. Rowe Jr., Essay, All Rise! Standing in Judge Betty Fletcher's Court, 85 Wash. L. Rev. 19 (2010). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol85/iss1/4 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington Law Review by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rowe DTPed (2).doc (Do Not Delete) 2/11/2010 2:15 PM Copyright © 2010 by Washington Law Review Association ALL RISE! STANDING IN JUDGE BETTY FLETCHER’S COURT Thomas D. Rowe, Jr.* Abstract : In this essay, based on a talk given at the Washington Law Review’s March 2009 symposium in honor of Senior Ninth Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher and her three decades of service on that court, I selectively survey her opinions on justiciability issues: standing, ripeness, mootness, and political questions. A significant starting point for this survey is Professor Richard Pierce’s 1999 law review article, Is Standing Law or Politics? , arguing that many Supreme Court votes in standing cases generally, and appellate judges’ votes in environmental-standing cases specifically, can be explained better on the basis of politics than by reference to supposedly governing doctrine.
  • Senate Section (PDF929KB)

    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.
  • Tie Votes in the Supreme Court Justin Pidot

    Tie Votes in the Supreme Court Justin Pidot

    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 2016 Tie Votes in the Supreme Court Justin Pidot Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Pidot, Justin, "Tie Votes in the Supreme Court" (2016). Minnesota Law Review. 139. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/139 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Article Tie Votes in the Supreme Court Justin Pidot† INTRODUCTION What should the Supreme Court do with a tie vote? Since at least 1792, the Court has followed the rule that where the Justices are evenly divided, the lower court’s decision is af- firmed, and the Supreme Court’s order has no precedential ef- fect.1 Such cases are unusual but hardly scarce. Since 1866, an odd number of Justices have composed the Supreme Court, and when an odd number of individuals vote, that vote typically doesn’t result in a tie.2 Yet due to death, retirement, or recusal, there have been 164 tie votes in the Supreme Court between 1925 and 2015.3 These ties have largely, but not entirely, gone unnoticed, in part because few of them involved particularly contentious cases in the eye of the public.4 † Associate Professor, University of Denver Sturm College of Law. I would like to thank Bob Bone, Alan Chen, Lee Epstein, Tara Leigh Grove, Lee Kovarsky, Nancy Leong, Margaret Kwoka, Alan Morrison, Jim Pfander, Ju- dith Resnick, Allan Stein, and Ben Spencer for sharing their insights and also my research assistant Courtney McVean for all of her help.
  • Falsities on the Senate Floor John Cornyn United States Senator

    Falsities on the Senate Floor John Cornyn United States Senator

    University of Richmond Law Review Volume 39 Issue 3 Allen Chair Symposium 2004 Federal Judicial Article 13 Selection 3-2005 Falsities on the Senate Floor John Cornyn United States Senator Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview Part of the American Politics Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation John Cornyn, Falsities on the Senate Floor, 39 U. Rich. L. Rev. 963 (2005). Available at: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol39/iss3/13 This Letter is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Richmond Law Review by an authorized editor of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FALSITIES ON THE SENATE FLOOR * The Honorable John Cornyn ** Throughout last night's historic round-the-clock session of the United States Senate, a partisan minority of senators defended their filibusters against the President's judicial nominees by mak- ing two basic arguments. Both were false. First, they claim that the Senate's record of "168-4"-168 judges confirmed, 4 filibustered (so far)-somehow proves that the cur- rent filibuster crisis is mere politics as usual.1 But, as I explained in an op-ed yesterday, this is not politics as usual; it is politics at its worst.2 * An earlier version of this Article was originally published on the National Review Online website on November 13, 2003. John Cornyn, Falsities on the Senate Floor, NAT'L REV. ONLINE, Nov.
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 108 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

    Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 108 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 108 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 149 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2003 No. 26—Part II Senate EXECUTIVE SESSION The problem here is that he didn’t cuit Court of Appeals for the District answer the questions the way they of Columbia. wanted him to. He answered them the Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, will NOMINATION OF MIGUEL A. way he should have. We put those ques- the Senator yield for a question? ESTRADA, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE tions and those answers into the UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE Mr. HATCH. I am happy to yield for RECORD today. a question without losing my right to FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUM- It is unfair, after what this man has BIA CIRCUIT the floor. gone through—after all the hearings, Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, one (Continued) all the questions, all the time that has of the issues I have heard raised by the The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The elapsed—almost 2 years—that this other side is that the nominee has not Senator from Utah. highly qualified individual is now being had judicial experience. In fact, the Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, here we filibustered on the floor of the Senate. chairman of the House Democratic His- are in the middle of an unprecedented If the Democrat Members of the Sen- panic Caucus wrote a letter to the Ju- filibuster against the first Hispanic ate do not like his answers, then they diciary Committee, I understand.
  • Alumni Magazine the Inauguration of David J

    Alumni Magazine the Inauguration of David J

    c1,c2,p1,c3,c4CAMND06 10/19/06 2:22 PM Page c1 CU LAUNCHES $4 BILLION CAPITAL CAMPAIGN November/December 2006 $6.00 alumni magazine The Inauguration of David J. Skorton Twelfth President of Cornell University c1,c2,p1,c3,c4CAMND06 10/19/06 4:00 PM Page c2 c1,c2,p1,c3,c4CAMND06 10/19/06 4:00 PM Page 1 002-003CAMND06toc 10/16/06 3:45 PM Page 2 Contents NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 2006 VOLUME 109 NUMBER 3 4 Letter From Ithaca alumni magazine French toast Features 6 Correspondence Natural selection 10 From the Hill The dawn of the campaign. Plus: Milstein Hall 3.0, meeting the Class of 2010, the ranking file, the Creeper pleads, and a new divestment movement. 16 Sports A rink renewed 18 Authors The full Marcham 35 Finger Lakes Marketplace 52 44 Wines of the Finger Lakes 46 In Our Own Words 2005 Lucas Cabernet Franc CAROL KAMMEN “Limited Reserve” To Cornell historian Carol Kammen, 62 Classifieds & Cornellians the unheard voices in the University’s in Business story belong to the students them- selves. So the senior lecturer dug into 65 Alma Matters the vaults of the Kroch Library and unearthed a trove of diaries, scrap- books, letters, and journals written by 68 Class Notes undergraduates from the founding to 109 the present.Their thoughts—now 46 assembled into a book, First-Person Alumni Deaths Cornell—reveal how the anxieties, 112 distractions, and preoccupations of students on the Hill have (and haven’t) changed since 1868.We offer some excerpts. Cornelliana Authority figures 52 Rhapsody in Red JIM ROBERTS ’71 112 The inauguration of David Skorton
  • Please View the Program Here

    Please View the Program Here

    Schedule 8:20 Registration & Coffee 9:30 Introduction: Chancellor & Dean David Faigman, UC Hastings College of the Law 9:40 A Conversation with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Professor Zachary Price (Kennedy clerk OT ‘05), Miles Ehrlich (Kennedy clerk OT ‘93), and Professor Leah Litman (Kennedy clerk OT ‘11) 10:40 Panel 1: Justice Kennedy and the First Amendment Moderator: The Honorable Gary Feinerman, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of Illinois (Kennedy clerk OT ‘93) Panelists: 1. Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Berkeley School of Law 2. Professor Ashutosh Bhagwat, UC Davis School of Law (Kennedy clerk OT ‘91) 3. Professor Nadine Strossen, New York Law School 12:00 Lunch 12:45 Keynote: Professor Orin Kerr, USC Gould School of Law (Kennedy clerk OT ‘03), “Justice Kennedy and the Counter-Majoritarian Difficulty” 1:20 Break 1:30 Panel 2: Justice Kennedy and Due Process Moderator: Professor Matt Coles, UC Hastings College of the Law Panelists: 1. Professor Melissa Murray, NYU School of Law 2. Professor Leah Litman, UC Irvine School of Law (Kennedy clerk OT ‘11) 3. Professor Russell Robinson, UC Berkeley School of Law 2:50 Break 3:00 Panel 3: Justice Kennedy’s Overall Impact Moderator: Professor Rory Little, UC Hastings College of the Law Panelists: 1. The Honorable Marsha Berzon, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit 2. Professor Dan Epps, Washington University School of Law (Kennedy clerk OT ‘09) 3. Professor Zachary Price, UC Hastings College of the Law (Kennedy clerk OT ‘05) 4:20 Closing remarks: Professor Rory Little, UC Hastings College of the Law 5:00 Reception in the UC Hastings Skyroom Presentations A Conversation with Justice Anthony M.
  • The Political Ideologies of Law Clerks and Their Judges

    The Political Ideologies of Law Clerks and Their Judges

    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics Economics 2016 The olitP ical Ideologies of Law Clerks and their Judges Adam Bonica Adam S. Chilton Jacob Goldin Kyle Rozema Maya Sen Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Adam Bonica, Adam S. Chilton, Jacob Goldin, Kyle Rozema & Maya Sen, " The oP litical Ideologies of Law Clerks and their Judges" (Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics No. 754, 2016). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Political Ideologies of Law Clerks and their Judges Adam Bonica, Adam Chilton, Jacob Goldin, Kyle Rozema, & Maya Sen∗ February 29, 2016 We study the political ideology of judicial law clerks using a novel dataset that combines the most comprehensive data sources on political ideology and the identity of U.S. federal law clerks. First, we examine the distribu- tion of clerks' ideology and find that clerks tend to be disproportionately liberal, with clerks on lower courts being more liberal on average than clerks for higher courts. Second, we find that judges tend to consistently hire clerks with similar ideologies and that those ideologies track available measures of the judge's own ideology.
  • Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals Marin K

    Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals Marin K

    Cornell Law Review Volume 103 Article 2 Issue 1 November 2017 Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals Marin K. Levy Duke University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Marin K. Levy, Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals, 103 Cornell L. Rev. 65 (2017) Available at: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol103/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\C\CRN\103-1\CRN102.txt unknown Seq: 1 17-NOV-17 13:58 PANEL ASSIGNMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS Marin K. Levy† It is common knowledge that the federal courts of appeals typically hear cases in panels of three judges and that the composition of the panel can have significant consequences for case outcomes and for legal doctrine more generally. Yet neither legal scholars nor social scientists have focused on the question of how judges are selected for their panels. Instead, a substantial body of scholarship simply assumes that panel assignment is random. This Article provides what, up until this point, has been a missing account of panel assignment. Drawing on a multiyear qualitative study of five circuit courts, including in-depth inter- views with thirty-five judges and senior administrators, I show that strictly random selection is a myth, and an improb- able one at that—in many instances, it would have been im- possible as a practical matter for the courts studied here to create their panels by random draw.