The Houston Chronicle has a very good profile of Lee Rosenthal, a highly respected federal district judge in the Southern District of Texas. Judge Rosenthal is well-known not only as an excellent jurist, but as a thoughtful and tireless worker on issues of court administration. I will add that she is a warm, gracious, and lovely person as well. A good read for anyone interested in the backgrounds of judges and (to some degree) the inner workings of the federal court system.
Category: federal courts
Chief Justice releases 2017 Year-End Report
For law geeks with small children, the highlight of every New Years Eve is the quiet posting of Chief Justice Roberts’s Year-End Report on the federal courts website. It is a predictably comfortable document that invariably begins with a 200-year-old anecdote, proceeds through a single chosen topic in 10th-grade detail, and ends with a brief recitation of court statistics. In other words, it’s a little like Dave Barry’s annual year-end column, if that column were written by John Roberts instead of Dave Barry.
This year the Chief Justice’s focus is on court preparedness in the face of terror and natural disaster — an appropriate enough topic in light of last year’s hurricane season. He also includes a short discussion of the courts’ forthcoming internal sexual harassment investigation.
Finally, some interesting statistical notes:
- The Supreme Court’s docket fell again, with a little under three percent fewer filings and only 61 signed opinions.
- Filings in the Courts of Appeal fell sixteen percent, but civil appeals were actually up one percent.
- Filings in the federal district courts fell eight percent, and bankruptcy filings fell two percent.
I will probably have more to say on these figures in subsequent posts. In the meantime, Happy New Year.
The local impact of judicial selection wars
The Dallas Morning News has a good story about the impact of longstanding federal judicial vacancies in Texas. For all the attention that President Trump has received regarding his judicial nominees, relatively few have been confirmed at the district court level. The article gives us a good look into districts where judicial emergencies stemming from longstanding vacancies are, unfortunately, a way of life.
North Carolina federal judgeship remains vacant as Senate sends nominee’s name back to the White House
In July, the White House nominated Thomas Farr for a vacant judgeship in the Eastern District of North Carolina. But this was not just any vacant judgeship — the position has sat empty for twelve years as a result of extreme partisan gamesmanship in the Senate. Farr was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in October, but the full Senate never voted on his nomination. Because no action was taken by year-end, the nomination was returned to the White House.
The President can renominate Farr after the first of the year, and probably will despite Democratic concerns about Farr’s alleged role on voter suppression tactics in the 1990s. If renominated, Farr would face a slightly different Judiciary Committee for a second hearing, with Al Franken gone and replaced, perhaps, by Cory Booker or Kamala Harris.
Whatever transpires with Farr’s nomination, both the Senate and the White House owe it to the people of North Carolina to finally fill this seat. The dozen-year vacancy is both embarrassing and detrimental to the work of the courts.
U.S. Courts announce plan to examine workplace misconduct
James Duff, Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, circulated a memo last week stating that “The Chief Justice has asked me to establish a working group to examine the sufficiency of the safeguards currently in place within the Judiciary to protect court employees, including law clerks, from wrongful conduct in the workplace.”
The announcement comes in the wake of Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski’s sudden retirement, spurred by several allegations of workplace harassment in his chambers. The Chief Justice has referred the matter to the Second Circuit Judicial Conference for investigation shortly before Kozinski resigned.
A report and recommendations are expected by May.
The Federal Judicial Center turns 50
The Federal Judicial Center, the research arm of the federal courts, turned 50 yesterday.
The FJC is well-known but probably underappreciated. It allows the court system to investigate its own operations — from the ways procedural rules are employed to the manner in which cases are allocated. Its seminal work on weighted caseloads, court productivity, and the frequency and nature of motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment (among many other things) have helped the court system understand and adapt its procedures to promote efficiency and cost-effectiveness. In addition, having a top-notch research institution in-house allows the courts to investigate issues of interest without having to rely on external sources.
If you have not explored the FJC’s research library, it’s worth a careful look. It is indispensable for those who study the federal courts, or simply want to know more about their operations.
Happy birthday and congratulations!
Why trial experience matters for new district judges
Federal district court nominee Matthew Spencer Petersen’s embarrassing unfamiliarity with basic trial court and litigation concepts recently led me to observe that concrete trial and pretrial experience should be a baseline requirement for all federal trial court nominees. Not everyone sees it that way. At the National Review, Carrie Severino downplays Peterson’s lack of trial experience, noting that his work at the Federal Election Commission over the past decade “gave him significant exposure to the sort of regulatory cases that the [U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the court to which Peterson has been nominated] regularly decides.” And at Prawfsblawg, Howard Wasserman similarly suggested that “[t]here is a benefit to having judges of various backgrounds” on the district court, and that a nominee’s failure to have tried a case should not be disqualifying. Other commentators have made comparable observations.
I respectfully disagree. Trial judges simply must have real trial experience, for the sake of the judicial institution and its users.
Continue reading “Why trial experience matters for new district judges”
Judge Kozinski announces immediate retirement in light of sexual misconduct allegations
The Washington Post has the story here.
Inexcusable ignorance from a federal judicial nominee
On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from five more federal district court nominees. Unlike those nominated for the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal, district court nominees often undergo little serious questioning. Their resumes speak to their qualifications, and the political stakes are lower than with appellate judges.
But basic qualifications are a serious problem for too many Trump nominees. When questioned by Senator John Kennedy, D.C. District nominee Matthew Petersen was unable to identify the most basic legal concepts that a federal judge must contend with on a daily basis. He admitted to being unfamiliar with the Daubert standard for evidence, Younger and Pullman abstention, and even the current Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This is not particularly surprising, since he has never tried a case, or even argued a motion, at any level of state or federal court.
Here is the jaw-dropping video, courtesy of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s Twitter feed. Mr. Peterson, a member of the Federal Election Commission since 2008 (and twice its chairman) has since withdrawn his nomination.
Mr. President, how about populating the trial courts with, you know, people who have actually done some trials?
UPDATE/CORRECTION: Peterson’s nomination is still pending as of Friday evening. But it’s hard to imagine it won’t be withdrawn soon.
White House withdraws two federal district court nominees
Two of President Trump’s nominees for federal district judgeships have been withdrawn. Brett Talley, a nominee for the bench in Alabama, and Jeff Mateer, nominated for the bench in Texas, will not advance.
Talley drew particular criticism over the last several months for his personal conflicts and clear lack of qualifications. The 36-year-old Justice Department attorney has only practiced law for three years and has never tried a case — a monumental shortcoming for a trial court nominee. Talley also failed to disclose that he was married to a White House lawyer, or that he had previously made controversial statements about death row inmates. (Of less direct importance, but no less head-scratching, was the additional revelation that Talley is a “ghost hunter.”) The ABA rated him “unqualified.”
Separately, Mateer came under fire for his statements on homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and transgender children.
The withdrawals come on the heels of Senator Chuck Grassley’s recommendation that the White House “reconsider” both nominations.
The Interdependent Third Branch 