Docstoc

Ninth_Circuit_U.S._Court_of_Appeals

Document Sample
Ninth_Circuit_U.S._Court_of_Appeals Powered By Docstoc
					From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Year Jurisdiction 1891 CA, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA 1900 CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA Total Pop. as % of population nat’l pop. 2,087,000 2,798,000 3.3% 3.7% 6.7% 9.0% 12.6% 16.4% 19.3% 19.9% (n/a) Number of active judgeships 2 3 3 7 9 23 28 28 29

1920 AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA 7,415,000 1940 AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA 11,881,000 1960 AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA 1980 AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, MP, MT, NV, OR, WA 2000 AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, MP, MT, NV, OR, WA 2007 AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, MP, MT, NV, OR, WA 2009 AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, MP, MT, NV, OR, WA 22,607,000 37,170,000 54,575,000 60,400,000 (n/a)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (in case citations, 9th Cir.) is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts: • District of Alaska • District of Arizona • Central District of California • Eastern District of California • Northern District of California • Southern District of California • District of Hawaii • District of Idaho • District of Montana • District of Nevada • District of Oregon • Eastern District of Washington

• Western District of Washington It also has appellate jurisdiction over the following territorial courts: • District Court of Guam • United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands Headquartered in San Francisco, California, USA, the Ninth Circuit is by far the largest of the thirteen courts of appeals, with 29 active judgeships. The court’s regular meeting places are Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, and Pasadena, but panels of the court occasionally travel to hear cases in other locations within its territorial jurisdiction. Although the judges travel around the circuit, the court arranges its hearings so that cases from the northern region of the circuit are heard in Seattle or Portland, cases from southern California are heard in Pasadena, and cases from northern California, Nevada, Arizona, and Hawaii are heard in San Francisco. For lawyers who must come and present their cases to the court in person, this administrative grouping of cases helps to reduce the time and cost of travel.

History and background
1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The cultural and political jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit is just as varied as the land within its geographical borders. In a dissenting opinion in a rights of publicity case involving Wheel of Fortune star Vanna White, Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski sardonically noted that “[f]or better or worse, we are the Court of Appeals for the Hollywood Circuit.” Judges from more remote parts of the circuit note the contrast between legal issues confronted by populous states such as California and those confronted by rural states such as Alaska, Idaho, and Montana. Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld, who maintains his chambers in Fairbanks, Alaska, wrote in a 1998 letter: “Much federal law is not national in scope…. It is easy to make a mistake construing these laws when unfamiliar with them, as we often are, or not interpreting them regularly, as we never do.”[1] Many scholars and jurists, like Judge Kleinfeld, cite regional differences between states in the circuit, as well as the practical, procedural, and substantive difficulties in administering a court of this size, as reasons why Congress should split the Ninth Circuit into two or more smaller circuit courts. Opponents of such a move claim that the court is functioning smoothly from an administrative standpoint, and that the real problem is not that the circuit is too large, but that Congress has not created enough judgeships to handle the court’s workload. Opponents also point out that over half of the Ninth Circuit’s cases come from the state of California, and thus dividing the Circuit would result in whichever portion included California being dominated by cases from a single state. Moreover, many who advocate the preservation of the current Ninth Circuit see politics as a motivating factor in the split movement. They claim that by implementing a scheme that isolates California from the other states in the circuit, the effect of a split will be to dilute the power of judges who have handed down rulings that have angered social conservatives.

Ninth Circuit Court House in 1905 The large size of the current court is due to the fact that both the population of the western states and the geographic jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit have increased dramatically since Congress, in 1891, created the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court was originally granted appellate jurisdiction over federal district courts in California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. As new states and territories were added to the federal judicial hierarchy in the twentieth century, many of those in the West were placed in the Ninth Circuit: the newly acquired territory of Hawaii in 1900, Arizona upon its accession to statehood in 1912, the then-territory of Alaska in 1948, Guam in 1951, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) in 1977. In 1979, the Ninth Circuit became the first federal judicial circuit to set up a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.

Controversy
The Richard H. Chambers U.S. Court of Appeals, Pasadena, California Most criticism of the Ninth Circuit can be summarized by the following two claims: the Ninth Circuit is politically liberal and out of step with Supreme Court precedent, and the large size of the court prevents it from maintaining a coherent body of case law.

2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
concurred in the judgment, making this a unanimous decision reversing the Ninth Circuit. Thomas wrote that the Ninth Circuit’s opinion was “a persuasive reading of (Supreme Court) precedent,” but then attacked the precedent, particularly Lee v. Weisman. Rehnquist and O’Connor disagreed with the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of the precedent. Indeed, while the Ninth Circuit had long been instrumental in striking new legal ground, particularly in the areas of immigration law and prisoner rights, it was the Newdow decision that galvanized criticism against what conservatives saw as “judicial activism.” Reaction to the decision by prominent political leaders, especially those in the House and Senate, was passionate. President George W. Bush, through his spokesman Ari Fleischer, called the ruling “ridiculous,” while Senator Charles Grassley called it “crazy and outrageous.” Even mainstream Democrats attacked the decision, with House minority leader Richard Gephardt calling it “poorly thought out.” Criticisms of the Newdow decision were not limited to the substantive law considered by the judges who heard the case; they also attacked the legitimacy and political independence of the court itself. The result was a renewed focus on the Ninth Circuit’s caseload and a targeted effort by congressional Republicans to minimize the impact of such decisions. Another hotly contested case considered by the Ninth Circuit arose from the enactment of a California law permitting the cultivation and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. In Raich v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2003), rev’d sub nom. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), a cancer patient sued the federal government, seeking to prevent it from seizing her supply of medical marijuana under the federal Controlled Substances Act. The United States argued that it had the right to enforce its drug laws against Raich notwithstanding the California statute. Raich argued that since the marijuana was grown within California, had never left the state’s borders, and was not part of any economic transaction, Congress had no constitutional authority to regulate her cultivation and use of marijuana. In holding for Raich, the Ninth Circuit adhered to two landmark Supreme Court cases, United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), which had

Political liberalism
According to the most current count, the Ninth Circuit has the highest percentage of active judges appointed by Democratic presidents, with 59%. Until 2003, this percentage was much higher; a political stalemate over judicial nominations subsequently kept several vacancies on the court for several years. Nevertheless, such a percentage is not extreme in relation to the other Circuits. 82% of the active judges on the Eighth Circuit were appointed by Republicans and eight Circuits have partisan appointment ratios that are more skewed than the Ninth’s. Interestingly, the Ninth is currently the only Circuit Court on which a majority of the active members were appointed by Democratic presidents. Critics try to explain the court’s perceived liberal bias by reference to its relatively high proportion of Democratic appointees. Such critics often point to 2002’s Newdow v. U.S. Congress, in which the court declared that a public school district in Elk Grove, California, could not lead students in recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance (as then constituted); the pledge’s inclusion of the words "under God," the court held, violated the Establishment Clause. The case was brought by Michael Newdow, an atheist who felt that the daily recitation of the Pledge in his daughter’s school violated her First Amendment right to be free from government establishment of religion. In a 2–1 decision, a Ninth Circuit panel held for Newdow, stating that “[t]he text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God.” The majority opinion was written by Alfred T. Goodwin, who was appointed to the court by Richard M. Nixon, a Republican. In 2004, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision. However, the majority opinion did not reach the substantive issue of whether the Pledge violated the Establishment Clause, instead holding that Newdow, who did not have primary custody of his daughter (the child’s mother, whom Newdow never married, had custody), did not have standing to litigate the claim in federal court. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas disagreed with the majority’s opinion of Newdow’s standing, but

3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

substantially restricted Congress’s authority to regulate “noneconomic” activity under the guise of the Commerce Clause to the United States Constitution. In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court disagreed with this analysis, adhering instead to a 1942 case, Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), in which the Court held that cultivation of wheat for personal consumption could be subject to a federal production quota even though the crop never entered the stream of commerce. Interestingly, the three dissenters—voting to uphold the Ninth Circuit—were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas, considered to be two of the most conservative members of the Court, as well as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, considered to be the swing vote on the Court at the time. The Raich litigation illustrates that although the result of the Ninth Circuit’s decision pleased political liberals opposed to tough federal drug laws, the legal analysis employed by the court was faithful to the principles of federalism and thus wholly “conservative” from a legal perspective. On the other hand, not every Supreme Court reversal of a Ninth Circuit decision has come in a case where the appellate judges ruled in favor of a group championed by political liberals. In Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), the Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Ninth Circuit in favor of the government. The Ninth Circuit had ruled that evidence of a marijuana-growing operation obtained without a warrant by means of a thermal imaging device could be introduced at a criminal trial because the Fourth Amendment did not recognize an expectation of privacy in radiation emanating from a private home. The Supreme Court reversed because a person’s home is a place where he has always had an expectation of privacy, such that the search at issue required a warrant. [2]

Former Chief Judges Mary M. Schroeder and Procter Ralph Hug Jr. part in the original panel decision. By contrast, in the Ninth Circuit it is impractical for twenty-eight or more judges to take part in a single oral argument and deliberate on a decision en masse. The court thus provides for a “limited en banc” review of a randomly-selected 15 judge panel. This means that en banc reviews may not actually reflect the views of the majority of the court, and indeed may not include any of the three judges involved in the decision being reviewed in the first place. The result, according to detractors, is a high risk of intracircuit conflicts of law where different groupings of judges end up delivering contradictory opinions. This is said to cause uncertainty in the district courts and within the bar. However,en banc review is a relatively rare occurrence in all circuits and Ninth Circuit rules do provide for full en banc review in limited circumstances.[4] All currently proposed splits would leave at least one circuit with 21 judges, only two fewer than the 23 that the Ninth Circuit had when the limited en banc procedure was first adopted; in other words, after a split at least one of the circuits would still be utilizing limited en banc courts.[5] In March 2007, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas testified before a House Appropriations subcommittee that the

Size of the court
In addition to concerns over its legal doctrine, critics of the Ninth Circuit claim there are several adverse consequences of its large size.[3] Chief among these is the Ninth Circuit’s unique rules concerning the composition of an en banc court. In other circuits, en banc courts are composed of all active circuit judges, plus (depending on the rules of the particular court) any senior judges who took

4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judgeship and Reorganization Act of 2003, H.R. 2723 This proposal would split the Ninth Circuit into two, with Arizona, California and Nevada being retained by the new Ninth Circuit and the remaining Ninth Circuit jurisdictions being assigned to a new Twelfth Circuit. The bill would create five permanent and two temporary judgeships, all to be retained by the new Ninth Circuit. The temporary judgeships would terminate upon the existence of a vacancy ten years or more after passage of the act. Each current Ninth Circuit judge would be assigned to a new circuit based on the location of his or her duty station. This proposal was cosponsored by Republican congressmen from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. After a hearing by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property on October 21, 2003, no vote was held. This bill was reintroduced in the 109th Congress as H.R. 212, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judgeship and Reorganization Act of 2005. It is pending before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. Ninth Circuit Judgeship and Reorganization Act of 2004, S. 878 This proposal would create two new circuits, the Twelfth and Thirteenth. The Ninth Circuit would retain California, Hawaii, Guam, and the CNMI. The Twelfth Circuit would contain Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, and Montana. The Thirteenth Circuit would contain Alaska, Oregon, and Washington. The Act would provide that existing judges be assigned to new circuits based on the location of their duty stations, after which the number of active judgeships in the new Ninth Circuit would be increased to nineteen. This bill was reintroduced in the 109th Congress as the Ninth Circuit Judgeship and Reorganization Act of 2005, H.R. 211, co-sponsored by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and the same Republican Congressmen who had sponsored the Ninth Circuit Court of

consensus among the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States was that the Ninth Circuit was too large and unwieldy and should be split.[6]

Ninth Circuit split proposals
The following are the most prominent of the several existing or former proposals that have been considered by congressional leaders, legislative commissions, and interest groups. Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals, Final Report, Dec. 18, 1998 The Commission found that splitting the Ninth Circuit would be “impractical and … unnecessary.” However, it recommended that the circuit be divided into three “adjudicative divisions” each of which would hear appeals from specific regions. A fourth at-large “circuit division” would be invoked solely to resolve conflicts of law arising within a particular division. This proposal would also abolish circuit-wide en banc or limited en banc circuit panels, instead creating en banc panels from each of the three regions as necessary. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of Reorganization Act of 2003, S. 562 This proposal would split the Ninth Circuit into two, with California and Nevada being retained by the new Ninth Circuit and the remaining Ninth Circuit jurisdictions being assigned to a new Twelfth Circuit. The bill would create ten new judgeships, with 25 being retained by the Ninth Circuit and 13 being assigned to the Twelfth Circuit. Each current Ninth Circuit judge would be assigned to a new circuit based on the location of his or her duty station. This proposal was co-sponsored by seven Republican Senators from Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Oregon. After a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts on April 7, 2004, no vote was held.

5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Appeals Judgeship and Reorganization Act of 2003.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

The Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and Modernization Act of 2005, S. 1845[7] This proposal would split the Ninth Circuit into two, with California, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands being retained by the Ninth Circuit, and the remaining Ninth Circuit jurisdictions being assigned to new Twelfth Circuit. It would create five permanent and two temporary judgeships, all retained by the new Ninth Circuit. The temporary judgeships would terminate upon the existence of a vacancy ten years or more after passage of the act. Each current Ninth Circuit judge would be assigned to a new circuit based on the location of his or her duty station. The proposal was cosponsored by nine Republican senators from Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Nevada, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Oregon, including the same group of senators that had sponsored S. 562 in the previous Congress. It is pending before the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, and hearings have been held on it. It would seem to supersede S. 1296, which is similar in the states assigned to each new circuit and the number of judgeships in each new circuit; every sponsor of S. 1296 also sponsors S. 1845. Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and Modernization Act of 2007, S. 525[8] This proposal would amend Title 28, United States Code, to provide for the appointment of additional Federal circuit judges and to divide the Ninth Judicial Circuit of the United States into 2 circuits. The proposed split would be the Ninth Circuit (to be composed of California, Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands) and the Twelfth Circuit (to be composed of Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington). It was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 8, 2007.

Current composition of the court
As of February 1, 2009, the judges on the court are:

Pending nominations
• There are no pending nominations at this time.

List of former judges Chief judges
In order to qualify for the office of Chief Judge, a judge must have been in active service on the court for at least one year, be under the age of 65, and have not previously served as Chief Judge. A vacancy in the office of Chief Judge is filled by the judge highest in seniority among the group of qualified judges. The Chief Judge serves for a term of seven years or until age 70, whichever occurs first. The age restrictions are waived if no members of the court would otherwise be qualified for the position. Unlike the Chief Justice of the United States, a Chief Judge returns to active service after the expiration of his or her term and does not create a vacancy on the bench by the fact of his or her promotion. See 28 U.S.C. § 45. The above rules have applied since October 1, 1982. The office of Chief Judge was created in 1948 and until August 6, 1959 was filled by the longest-serving judge who had not elected to retire on what has since 1958 been known as senior status or declined to serve as Chief Judge. From then until 1982 it was filled by the senior such judge who had not turned 70.

Succession of seats
The court has 29 seats for active judges, numbered in the order in which they were filled. Judges who retire into senior status remain on the bench but leave their seat vacant. That seat is filled by the next circuit judge appointed by the President. Seat 1 Seat 2

6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
# Title 62 Chief Judge Judge Alex Kozinski Duty station Pasadena, CA

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Born Term of service Active Chief Senior 1950 1985–present 2007-present — — — — — Appointed by Reagan Carter Carter Carter Reagan

46 Circuit Mary M. Judge Schroeder 50 Circuit Harry Judge Pregerson 57 Circuit Stephen Judge Reinhardt

Phoenix, AZ 1940 1979–present 2000–2007 Woodland Hills, CA 1923 1979–present —

Los 1931 1980–present — Angeles, CA 1937 1986–present —

65 Circuit Diarmuid Portland, Judge Fionntain OR O’Scannlain 69 Circuit Pamela Ann Pasadena, Judge Rymer CA 71 Circuit Andrew Jay Fairbanks, Judge Kleinfeld AK 72 Circuit Michael Judge Daly Hawkins

1941 1989–present — 1945 1991–present —

— — —

G.H.W. Bush G.H.W. Bush Clinton

Phoenix, AZ 1945 1994–present —

74 Circuit Sidney Run- Billings, MT 1953 1996–present — Judge yan Thomas 75 Circuit Barry G. Judge Silverman 76 Circuit Susan P. Judge Graber 77 Circuit M. MarJudge garet McKeown 78 Circuit Kim Judge McLane Wardlaw 79 Circuit William A. Judge Fletcher 80 Circuit Raymond Judge C. Fisher 81 Circuit Ronald M. Judge Gould 82 Circuit Richard A. Judge Paez 83 Circuit Marsha L. Judge Berzon 84 Circuit Richard C. Judge Tallman 85 Circuit Johnnie B. Judge Rawlinson Phoenix, AZ 1951 1998–present — Portland, OR San Diego, CA Pasadena, CA San Francisco, CA Pasadena, CA 1949 1998–present — 1951 1998–present —

— — — —

Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton

1954 1998–present —

—

Clinton

1945 1998–present — 1939 1999–present —

— — — — — — —

Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton

Seattle, WA 1946 1999–present — Pasadena, CA San Francisco, CA 1947 2000–present — 1945 2000–present —

Seattle, WA 1953 2000–present — Las Vegas, NV 1952 2000–present —

7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
86 Circuit Richard R. Judge Clifton 87 Circuit Jay Bybee Judge 88 Circuit Consuelo Judge Maria Callahan 89 Circuit Carlos T. Judge Bea 90 Circuit Milan D. Judge Smith, Jr. Honolulu, HI Las Vegas, NV

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1950 2002–present — 1953 2003–present — — — — G.W. Bush G.W. Bush G.W. Bush

Sacramento, 1950 2003–present — CA San Francisco, CA 1934 2003–present —

— — — – (n/a) (n/a)

G.W. Bush G.W. Bush G.W. Bush G.W. Bush (n/a) (n/a)

El Segundo, 1942 2006–present — CA 1954 2006–present — 1949 2007–present – (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) 1918 1961–2000 (n/a) (n/a) 1976–1988

91 Circuit Sandra Pasadena, Judge Segal Ikuta CA 92 Circuit N. Randy Judge Smith — Circuit (vacant Judge seat 5) — Circuit (vacant Judge seat 29) 29 Senior James R. Circuit Browning Judge 38 Senior Alfred Circuit Theodore Judge Goodwin 39 Senior J. Clifford Circuit Wallace Judge Pocatello, ID (n/a) (n/a) San Francisco, CA Pasadena, CA San Diego, CA

2000–present Kennedy

1923 1971–1991

1988–1991

1991–present Nixon

1928 1972–1996

1991–1996

1996–present Nixon

43 Senior Procter Ral- Reno, NV Circuit ph Hug, Jr. Judge

1931 1977–2002

1996–2000

2002–present Carter

45 Senior Betty Binns Seattle, WA 1923 1979–1998 Circuit Fletcher Judge 47 Senior Otto Circuit Richard Judge Skopil, Jr. 48 Senior Joseph Circuit Jerome Judge Farris 49 Senior Arthur Circuit Lawrence Judge Alarcon 53 Senior Dorothy Circuit Wright Judge Nelson Portland, OR 1919 1979–1986

(none)

1998–present Carter

(none)

1986–present Carter

Seattle, WA 1930 1979–1995

(none)

1995–present Carter

Los 1925 1979–1992 Angeles, CA Pasadena, CA 1928 1979–1995

(none)

1992–present Carter

(none)

1995–present Carter

8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
54 Senior William Circuit Cameron Judge Canby, Jr. 55 Senior Robert Circuit Boochever Judge 58 Senior Robert R. Circuit Beezer Judge 59 Senior Cynthia Circuit Holcomb Judge Hall 61 Senior Melvin T. Circuit Brunetti Judge

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
(none) 1996–present Carter

Phoenix, AZ 1931 1980–1996

Pasadena, CA

1917 1980–1986

(none)

1986–present Carter

Seattle, WA 1928 1984–1996

(none)

1996–present Reagan

Pasadena, CA Reno, NV

1929 1984–1997

(none)

1997–present Reagan

1933 1985–1999

(none)

1999–present Reagan

63 Senior John T. San FranCircuit Noonan, Jr. cisco, CA Judge 64 Senior David R. Circuit Thompson Judge 66 Senior Edward Circuit Leavy Judge 67 Senior Stephen S. Circuit Trott Judge 68 Senior Ferdinand Circuit Francis Judge Fernandez 70 Senior Thomas G. Circuit Nelson Judge 73 Senior A. Wallace Circuit Tashima Judge San Diego, CA Portland, OR Boise, ID

1926 1985–1996

(none)

1996–present Reagan

1930 1985–1998

(none)

1998–present Reagan

1929 1987–1997

(none)

1997–present Reagan

1939 1988–2004

(none)

2005–present Reagan

Pasadena, CA Boise, ID

1937 1989–2002

(none)

2002–present G.H.W. Bush 2003–present G.H.W. Bush 2004–present Clinton

1936 1990–2003

(none)

Pasadena, CA

1934 1996–2004

(none)

Established on December 10, 1869 by the Judiciary Act of 1869 as a circuit judgeship for the Ninth Circuit Reassigned to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by the Judiciary Act of 1891 Sawyer Morrow Rudkin CA CA 1891–1891 1892–1897 1897–1923 McKenna CA

Established on June 16, Garrecht WA 1891 by the Judiciary Act of Pope MT 1891 Browning DC Gilbert OR 1892–1931 CA Ikuta Denman CA 1935–1957 Hamlin

1933–1948 on February 18, Established 1895 by 28 1949–1961 Stat. 665 Ross 1961–2000 CA 1895–1925 McCamant 2006–presentOR 1925–1926 ID

Esta judg 45 S

WA 1923–1931

Dietrich CA 1958–1963Seat 5 Sawtelle Ely CA 1964–1979 on August 2, Established Mathews 1935 by 49 508 Norris CA 1980–1994 Stat. Fee Haney OR CA 1998–present 1935–1943 W. Koelsch Fletcher Bone WA 1944–1956 Anderson Hamley WA 1956–1971 T. Nelson

1927–1930 Wilb Seat 6 AZ 1931–1934 Orr AZEstablished on April 14 1935–1953 1937 by 50 Stat. 64Barn OR 1954–1959 Cho Stephens CA 1937–19 ID 1959–1976 Bru Duniway CA 1961–19 ID 1976–1988 Raw Hug NV 1977–20 ID 1990–2003

Mad 193

9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
# Judge State Born/ Died CA

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Active service Term as Chief Judge (none) Senior status (none)

Appointed Reason for by termination
[9]

1

Sawyer, LorenzoLorenzo Sawyer McKenna, JosephJoseph McKenna Gilbert, William BallWilliam Ball Gilbert Ross, Erskine MayoErskine Mayo Ross Morrow, William W.William W. Morrow

1820–1891 1891–1891

death

2

CA

1843–1926 1892–1897

(none)

(none)

B. Harrison resignation

3

OR

1847–1931 1892–1931

(none)

(none)

B. Harrison death

4

CA

1845–1928 1895–1925

(none)

1925–1928 Cleveland

death

5

CA

1843–1929 1897–1923

(none)

(none)

McKinley

resignation

— Hunt, William HenryWilliam Henry Hunt 6 Rudkin, Frank H.Frank H. Rudkin McCamant, WallaceWallace McCamant

MT

1857–1949 1911–1928

(none)

1928–1928 [10]

resignation

WA

1864–1931 1923–1931

(none)

(none)

Harding

death

7

OR

1867–1944 1925[11]–1926 (none)

(none)

Coolidge

recess appointment not confirmed by the United States Senate death

8

Dietrich, Frank Si- ID gelFrank Sigel Dietrich Wilbur, Curtis CA D.Curtis D. Wilbur AZ

1863–1930 1927–1930

(none)

(none)

Coolidge

9

1867–1954 1929–1945 1868–1934 1931–1934

(none) (none)

1945–1954 Hoover[12] (none) Hoover

death death

10 Sawtelle, William HenryWilliam Henry Sawtelle 11 Garrecht, Francis ArthurFrancis Arthur Garrecht 12 Denman, WilliamWilliam Denman 13 Mathews, CliftonClifton Mathews

WA

1870–1948 1933–1948

(none)

(none)

F. Roosevelt

death

CA

1872–1959 1935–1957

1948–1957 1957–1959 F. Roosevelt (none) 1953–1962 F. Roosevelt

death

AZ

1880–1962 1935–1953

death

10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
14 Haney, Bert OR EmoryBert Emory Haney 15 Stephens, Sr., Albert LeeAlbert Lee Stephens, Sr. CA

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1879–1943 1935–1943 (none) (none) F. Roosevelt death

1874–1965 1937–1961

1957–1959 1961–1965 F. Roosevelt (none) (none) 1958–1962 F. Roosevelt 1956–1970 F. Roosevelt 1956–1965 Truman

death

16 Healy, WilliamWil- ID liam Healy 17 Bone, HomerHomer Bone WA

1881–1962 1937–1958 1883–1970 1944–1956

death death

18 Orr, William EdNV winWilliam Edwin Orr 19 Pope, Walter Lyn- MT donWalter Lyndon Pope 20 Lemmon, Dal Mil- CA lingtonDal Millington Lemmon 21 Chambers, Richard HarveyRichard Harvey Chambers 22 Fee, James AlgerJames Alger Fee 23 Barnes, Stanley NelsonStanley Nelson Barnes AZ

1881–1965 1945–1956

(none)

death

1889–1969 1949–1961

1959–1959 1961–1969 Truman

death

1887–1958 1954–1958

(none)

(none)

Eisenhower death

1906–1994 1954–1976

1959–1976 1976–1994 Eisenhower death

OR

1888–1959 1954–1959

(none)

(none)

Eisenhower death

CA

1900–1990 1956–1970

(none)

1970–1990 Eisenhower death

24 Hamley, Frederick WA GeorgeFrederick George Hamley 25 Hamlin, Jr., Oliver CA DevetaOliver Deveta Hamlin, Jr. 26 Jertberg, Gilbert H.Gilbert H. Jertberg 27 Merrill, Charles MertonCharles Merton Merrill 28 Koelsch, Montgomery OliverMontgomery Oliver Koelsch 30 Duniway, Benjamin CA

1903–1975 1956–1971

(none)

1971–1975 Eisenhower death

1892–1973 1958–1963

(none)

1963–1973 Eisenhower death

1897–1973 1958–1967

(none)

1967–1973 Eisenhower death

NV

1907–1996 1959–1974

(none)

1974–1996 Eisenhower death

ID

1912–1992 1959–1976

(none)

1976–1992 Eisenhower death

CA

1907–1986 1961–1976

(none)

1976–1986 Kennedy

death

11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CushingBenjamin Cushing Duniway 31 Ely, Jr., Walter RaleighWalter Raleigh Ely, Jr. 32 Carter, James MarshallJames Marshall Carter 33 Hufstedler, ShirleyShirley Hufstedler CA

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

1913–1979 1964–1979

(none)

1979–1984 L. Johnson

death

CA

1904–1979 1967–1971

(none)

1971–1979 L. Johnson

death

CA

1925–

1968–1979

(none)

(none)

L. Johnson

Appointed U.S. Secretary of Education death

34 Wright, Eugene WA AllenEugene Allen Wright 35 Kilkenny, John OR FrancisJohn Francis Kilkenny 36 Trask, Ozell MillerOzell Miller Trask AZ

1913–2002 1969–1983

(none)

1983–2002 Nixon

1901–1995 1969–1971

(none)

1971–1995 Nixon

death

1909–1984 1971–1984

(none)

(none)

Nixon

death

37 Choy, HerbertHer- HI bert Choy 40 Sneed III, Joseph CA TyreeJoseph Tyree Sneed III 41 Kennedy, AnthonyAnthony Kennedy 42 Anderson, J. BlaineJ. Blaine Anderson CA

1916–2004 1971–1984 1920-2008 1973–1987

(none) (none)

1984–2004 Nixon 1987–2008 Nixon

death death

1936–

1975–1988

(none)

(none)

Ford

elevation to Supreme Court death

ID

1922–1988 1976–1988

(none)

(none)

Ford

44 Tang, ThomasTho- AZ mas Tang 52 Poole, Cecil F.Cecil F. Poole CA

1922–1995 1977–1993 1914–1997 1979–1996 1927– 1980–1994

(none) (none) (none)

1993–1995 Carter 1996–1997 Carter 1994–1997 Carter

death death retirement

56 Norris, William Al- CA bertWilliam Albert Norris 60 Wiggins, Charles EdwardCharles Edward Wiggins 61 Warren John Ferguson Sneed Trott CA ID CA

1927–2000 1984–1996

(none)

1996–2000 Reagan

death

CA

1920-2008 1979–1986

(none)

1986–2008 Carter

death

1973–1987 1988–2004

Bybee

NV 2003–present (vacant) (n/ a)

2004–present 1989–present CA Rymer

Wallace

Wardla Seat 10

Seat 9

12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chief Judge Denman Stephens Pope Chambers Browning Goodwin Wallace Hug Schroeder Kozinski Established on February 10, 1954 by 68 Stat. 871 Chambers AZ 1954–1976 Tang Hawkins AZ 1977–1993 AZ 1994–present Seat 13 Established on June 18, 1968 by 82 Stat. 184 Trask AZ 1969–1979

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

1948–1957 1957–1959 1959–1959 1959–1976 1976–1988 1988–1991 1991–1996 1996–2000 2000–2007 2007–present Established on June 18, 1968 by 82 Stat. 184 Hufstedler Boochever CA 1968–1979 AK See1980–1986 also Established on June 18, 1968 by 82 Stat. 184 Wright WA 1969–1983 Beezer WA 1984–1996

Esta by 8

Kilk

Goo

O’Scannlain OR 1986–present Gould WA 1999–present • Federal judicial appointment history#Ninth Circuit Seat 14 Seat 15 Established on October 20, 1978 by 92 Stat. 1629

Kle

Notes

Established on October 20, 1978 by 92 Stat. 1629

Est 197

[1] Kleinfeld, WA 1979–1998 Andrew J. (1998-05-22). Memo Sk Schroeder AZ 1979–present to the Commission on Structural Canby AZ 1980–1996 Lea Alternatives Tallman WA 2000–present for the Federal Courts of Silverman AZ 1998–present Gr Appeals. URL accessed on June 21, 2005. [2] For a persuasive empirical argument Seat 17 Seat 18 Seat liberal that the Ninth Circuit is not too 19 and that the Established on October 20, Established on October 20, Established on October 20, high percentage of reversals Esta 1978 by 92 Stat. 1629 1978 by 92 Stat. is accounted for by the fact that 1629 1629 1978 by 92 Stat. the 197 Ninth Circuit hears more cases than any Farris WA 1979–1995 Alarcon CA 1979–1992 Fer Pregerson CA 1979–present other Circuit and that the Supreme Tashima CA 1996–2004 Fer McKeown WA 1998–present Court grants certiorari mostly for cases CA 2006–present reversed, see Jerome M.D. Cal that will be Smith Farris,The Ninth Circuit--Most Maligned Circuit in the Country Fact or Fiction? 58 Seat 21 Seat 22 Seat 23 Ohio St. L.J. 1464 (1997)(written by Circuit Judge Farris) on October 20, Established on October Established on October 20, Established Establish [3] 20, 1978 by 1978 by 92 Stat. 1629 O’Scannlain, Diarmuid (October 2005). 1978 by 92 Stat. 1629 1984 by "Ten Reasons Why the Ninth Circuit 92 Stat. 1629 D. CA 1979–1995 Hall Reinhardt CA 1980–present Should Be Split" (PDF). Engage 6 (2): Poole CA 1979–1996 Nelson Clifton 58–64. http://www.fed-soc.org/ Paez CA 2000–present Thomas MT 1996–present Publications/Engage/Oct%2005.pdf. B. Fletcher Seat 25 Established on July 10, 1984 by 98 Stat. 333 Wiggins NV 1984–1996 Bea CA 2003–present Retrieved on 2006-05-29. Seat[4] "Statement of Circuit Judge Alex 26 Seat 27 Kozinski to the House Judiciary 10, Established on July 10, 1984 Established on July Subcommittee on Courts" (PDF). The by 98 Stat. 333 1984 by 98 Stat. 333 Federal Bar Association. 2003-10-21. Noonan CA 1985–1996 Kozinski DC 1985–present http://www.fedbar.org/ Berzon CA 2000–present Kozinski_testimony.pdf. Retrieved on 2006-06-06.

Establish by 98 Sta Fisher

Thompso

13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
of his presidency, but the Senate failed to act on it before the 70tb Congress ended on March 3, 1929. "Wilbur Nominated for Judge Post," Woodland Daily Democrat, 1929-03-01 at p. 1 (noting, as the Coolidge Administration ended, that Coolidge nominated Wilbur for the new judgeship); "Sentence Cut Out by Hoover," Oakland Tribune, 1929-03-04, Section D, p. 1 (noting that the Wilbur nomination was not acted upon before the 70th Congress ended). Hoover then resubmitted the nomination to the Senate in the 71st Congress, which approved it.

[5] Schroeder, Mary M.; et al. (April 2006). "A Court United: A Statement of a Number of Ninth Circuit Judges" (PDF). Engage 7 (1): 63–66. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/ documents/wsj_court_united.pdf. Retrieved on 2006-06-06. [6] C-SPAN America and the Courts, (03/17/ 2007). [7] Testimony of Circuit Judge Richard Tallman: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. United States Senate: Committee on the Judiciary. Retrieved on November 19, 2007. [8] [1]GovTrack.us. S. 525--110th Congress (2007): Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and Modernization Act of 2007, GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation) <http://www.govtrack.us/ congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-525> (accessed Feb 18, 2008) [9] Sawyer was appointed as a circuit judge for the Ninth Circuit in 1869 by Ulysses S. Grant. The Judiciary Act of 1891 reassigned his seat to what is now the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. [10] Hunt did not have a permanent seat on this court. Instead, he was appointed to the ill-fated United States Commerce Court in 1911 by William Howard Taft. Aside from their duties on the Commerce Court, the judges of the Commerce Court also acted as at-large appellate judges, able to be assigned by the Chief Justice of the United States to whichever circuit most needed help. Hunt was assigned to the Ninth Circuit upon his commission. [11] Recess appointment. [12] President Coolidge first nominated Wilbur for the judgeship in the final days

See also
• Courts of California

External links
• United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit • This website includes links to the court’s published and unpublished opinions, court-specific rules of appellate procedure, and general operating procedures. • Recent opinions from FindLaw • Federal Judicial Center • “The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: To Split Or Not To Split?” (article in WSJ) • Disposition of Supreme Court decisions on certiorari or appeal from state and territory supreme courts, and from federal courts of appeals, 1950-2006

Navigation

Retrieved from ited_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit"

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Un-

Categories: United States courts of appeals, Government of San Francisco, California, Seattle, Washington, Portland, Oregon, Pasadena, California This page was last modified on 17 May 2009, at 00:54 (UTC). All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) taxdeductible nonprofit charity. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers

14


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:21
posted:5/28/2009
language:English
pages:14