United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 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
• District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands

Headquartered in San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit is by far the largest of the thirteen courts of appeals, with 28 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.

Contents 1 History and background 2 Controversy 2.1 Political liberalism 2.2 Size of the court 3 Ninth Circuit split proposals 4 Current composition of the court 5 Pending nominations 6 List of former judges 7 Chief judges 8 Succession of seats 9 See also 10 Notes 11 External links 12 Navigation

[edit] History and background

Year	Jurisdiction	Total population	Pop. as % of nat'l pop.	Number of active judgeships
1891	CA, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA	2,087,000	3.3%	2
1900	CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA	2,798,000	3.7%	3
1920	AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA	7,415,000	6.7%	3
1940	AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA	11,881,000	9.0%	7
1960	AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA	22,607,000	12.6%	9
1980	AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, MP, MT, NV, OR, WA	37,170,000	16.4%	23
2000	AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, MP, MT, NV, OR, WA	54,575,000	19.3%	28

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 came under control of 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. The adjoining chart illustrates the scope of the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction at its inception in 1891 and at 20-year intervals since 1900.

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. 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. Whatever the motivations of both sides, it is clear that the proposal to split the Ninth Circuit will be as politically incendiary as the recent confirmation battles over circuit court judges.

[edit] Controversy

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.
• The large size of the court prevents it from maintaining a coherent body of case law.

[edit] 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 with regard to judicial nominations left several vacancies on the court languish for a number of years during the current administration. Because federal judges serve for life, the fact that the court has been dominated by appointees of Democratic presidents has led to the perception that the court has a liberal bias.

As an example of this liberal bias, critics often point to 2002's Newdow v. U.S. Congress. In that case the court declared that, because the Pledge of Allegiance included the words "under God", it violated the Establishment Clause for a public school district in Elk Grove, California, to force students to recite it. The case was litigated by Michael Newdow, an atheist who felt that the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance 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 in the Newdow case, as many had predicted. However, the majority opinion did not reach the substantive issue of whether the Pledge violated the Establishment Clause, instead holding that Michael 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 concurred in the judgement, 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 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 a moderate. 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.

Accusations of liberal judicial activism in the Ninth Circuit have led to it being referred to as the “Ninth Circus” by some conservative pundits, such as Rush Limbaugh.^[2]

On the other hand, not every reversal of a Ninth Circuit decision by the Supreme Court comes in a case where the Ninth Circuit has 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.

[edit] Size of the court

In addition to concerns over its legal doctrine, critics of the Ninth Circuit point out 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 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. Supporters of the existing court, however, point out that en banc review is a relatively rare occurrence and that court rules provide for full en banc review in limited circumstances.^[4] Supporters also point out that 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]

[edit] 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 seven by 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.

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 co-sponsored 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 Appeals Judgeship and Reorganization Act of 2003.

The Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and Modernization Act of 2005, S. 1845

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 co-sponsored 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.

[edit] Current composition of the court

As of Randy Smith's confirmation on February 15, 2007, the judges on the court are:

#	Title	Judge	Duty station	Born	Term of service			Appointed by
					Active	Chief	Senior
46	Chief Judge	Mary M. Schroeder	Phoenix, AZ	1940	1979–present	2000–present	—	Carter
50	Circuit Judge	Harry Pregerson	Woodland Hills, CA	1923	1979–present	—	—	Carter
57	Circuit Judge	Stephen Reinhardt	Los Angeles, CA	1931	1980–present	—	—	Carter
62	Circuit Judge	Alex Kozinski	Pasadena, CA	1950	1985–present	—	—	Reagan
65	Circuit Judge	Diarmuid Fionntain O'Scannlain	Portland, OR	1937	1986–present	—	—	Reagan
69	Circuit Judge	Pamela Ann Rymer	Pasadena, CA	1941	1989–present	—	—	G.H.W. Bush
71	Circuit Judge	Andrew Jay Kleinfeld	Fairbanks, AK	1945	1991–present	—	—	G.H.W. Bush
72	Circuit Judge	Michael Daly Hawkins	Phoenix, AZ	1945	1994–present	—	—	Clinton
74	Circuit Judge	Sidney Runyan Thomas	Billings, MT	1953	1996–present	—	—	Clinton
75	Circuit Judge	Barry G. Silverman	Phoenix, AZ	1951	1998–present	—	—	Clinton
76	Circuit Judge	Susan Graber	Portland, OR	1949	1998–present	—	—	Clinton
77	Circuit Judge	M. Margaret McKeown	San Diego, CA	1951	1998–present	—	—	Clinton
78	Circuit Judge	Kim McLane Wardlaw	Pasadena, CA	1954	1998–present	—	—	Clinton
79	Circuit Judge	William A. Fletcher	San Francisco, CA	1945	1998–present	—	—	Clinton
80	Circuit Judge	Raymond C. Fisher	Pasadena, CA	1939	1999–present	—	—	Clinton
81	Circuit Judge	Ronald M. Gould	Seattle, WA	1946	1999–present	—	—	Clinton
82	Circuit Judge	Richard A. Paez	Pasadena, CA	1947	2000–present	—	—	Clinton
83	Circuit Judge	Marsha L. Berzon	San Francisco, CA	1945	2000–present	—	—	Clinton
84	Circuit Judge	Richard C. Tallman	Seattle, WA	1953	2000–present	—	—	Clinton
85	Circuit Judge	Johnnie B. Rawlinson	Las Vegas, NV	1952	2000–present	—	—	Clinton
86	Circuit Judge	Richard R. Clifton	Honolulu, HI	1950	2002–present	—	—	G.W. Bush
87	Circuit Judge	Jay Bybee	Las Vegas, NV	1953	2003–present	—	—	G.W. Bush
88	Circuit Judge	Consuelo Maria Callahan	Sacramento, CA	1950	2003–present	—	—	G.W. Bush
89	Circuit Judge	Carlos T. Bea	San Francisco, CA	1934	2003–present	—	—	G.W. Bush
90	Circuit Judge	Milan Smith, Jr.	Pasadena, CA	1942	2006–present	—	—	G.W. Bush
91	Circuit Judge	Sandra Segal Ikuta	Pasadena, CA	1954	2006–present	—	—	G.W. Bush
92	Circuit Judge	N. Randy Smith	Idaho	1949	2007–present	–	–	G.W. Bush
—	Circuit Judge	(vacant - seat 5)	(n/a)	(n/a)	(n/a)	(n/a)	(n/a)	(n/a)
29	Senior Circuit Judge	James R. Browning	San Francisco, CA	1918	1961–2000	1976–1988	2000–present	Kennedy
38	Senior Circuit Judge	Alfred Theodore Goodwin	Pasadena, CA	1923	1971–1991	1988–1991	1991–present	Nixon
39	Senior Circuit Judge	J. Clifford Wallace	San Diego, CA	1928	1972–1996	1991–1996	1996–present	Nixon
40	Senior Circuit Judge	Joseph Tyree Sneed III	San Francisco, CA	1920	1973–1987	(none)	1987–present	Nixon
43	Senior Circuit Judge	Procter Ralph Hug, Jr.	Reno, NV	1931	1977–2002	1996–2000	2002–present	Carter
45	Senior Circuit Judge	Betty Binns Fletcher	Seattle, WA	1923	1979–1998	(none)	1998–present	Carter
47	Senior Circuit Judge	Otto Richard Skopil, Jr.	Portland, OR	1919	1979–1986	(none)	1986–present	Carter
48	Senior Circuit Judge	Joseph Jerome Farris	Seattle, WA	1930	1979–1995	(none)	1995–present	Carter
49	Senior Circuit Judge	Arthur Lawrence Alarcon	Los Angeles, CA	1925	1979–1992	(none)	1992–present	Carter
51	Senior Circuit Judge	Warren John Ferguson	Santa Ana, CA	1920	1979–1986	(none)	1986–present	Carter
53	Senior Circuit Judge	Dorothy Wright Nelson	Pasadena, CA	1928	1979–1995	(none)	1995–present	Carter
54	Senior Circuit Judge	William Cameron Canby, Jr.	Phoenix, AZ	1931	1980–1996	(none)	1996–present	Carter
55	Senior Circuit Judge	Robert Boochever	Pasadena, CA	1917	1980–1986	(none)	1986–present	Carter
58	Senior Circuit Judge	Robert R. Beezer	Seattle, WA	1928	1984–1996	(none)	1996–present	Reagan
59	Senior Circuit Judge	Cynthia Holcomb Hall	Pasadena, CA	1929	1984–1997	(none)	1997–present	Reagan
61	Senior Circuit Judge	Melvin T. Brunetti	Reno, NV	1933	1985–1999	(none)	1999–present	Reagan
63	Senior Circuit Judge	John T. Noonan, Jr.	San Francisco, CA	1926	1985–1996	(none)	1996–present	Reagan
64	Senior Circuit Judge	David R. Thompson	San Diego, CA	1930	1985–1998	(none)	1998–present	Reagan
66	Senior Circuit Judge	Edward Leavy	Portland, OR	1929	1987–1997	(none)	1997–present	Reagan
67	Senior Circuit Judge	Stephen S. Trott	Boise, ID	1939	1988–2004	(none)	2005–present	Reagan
68	Senior Circuit Judge	Ferdinand Francis Fernandez	Pasadena, CA	1937	1989–2002	(none)	2002–present	G.H.W. Bush
70	Senior Circuit Judge	Thomas G. Nelson	Boise, ID	1936	1990–2003	(none)	2003–present	G.H.W. Bush
73	Senior Circuit Judge	Atsushi Wallace Tashima	Pasadena, CA	1934	1996–2004	(none)	2004–present	Clinton

[edit] Pending nominations

• There are no pending nominations at this time.

[edit] List of former judges

#	Judge	State	Born/Died	Term of service			Appointed by	Reason for termination
				Active	Chief	Senior
1	Lorenzo Sawyer	CA	1820–1891	1891–1891	(none)	(none)	[6]	death
2	Joseph McKenna	CA	1843–1926	1892–1897	(none)	(none)	B. Harrison	resignation
3	William Ball Gilbert	OR	1847–1931	1892–1931	(none)	(none)	B. Harrison	death
4	Erskine Mayo Ross	CA	1845–1928	1895–1925	(none)	1925–1928	Cleveland	death
5	William W. Morrow	CA	1843–1929	1897–1923	(none)	(none)	McKinley	resignation
—	William Henry Hunt	MT	1857–1949	1911–1928	(none)	1928–1928	[7]	resignation
6	Frank H. Rudkin	WA	1864–1931	1923–1931	(none)	(none)	Harding	death
7	Wallace McCamant	OR	1867–1944	1925[8]–1926	(none)	(none)	Coolidge	recess appointment not confirmed by the Senate
8	Frank Sigel Dietrich	ID	1863–1930	1927–1930	(none)	(none)	Coolidge	death
9	Curtis D. Wilbur	CA	1867–1954	1929–1945	(none)	1945–1954	Hoover	death
10	William Henry Sawtelle	AZ	1868–1934	1931–1934	(none)	(none)	Hoover	death
11	Francis Arthur Garrecht	WA	1870–1948	1933–1948	(none)	(none)	F. Roosevelt	death
12	William Denman	CA	1872–1959	1935–1957	1948–1957	1957–1959	F. Roosevelt	death
13	Clifton Mathews	AZ	1880–1962	1935–1953	(none)	1953–1962	F. Roosevelt	death
14	Bert Emory Haney	OR	1879–1943	1935–1943	(none)	(none)	F. Roosevelt	death
15	Albert Lee Stephens, Sr.	CA	1874–1965	1937–1961	1957–1959	1961–1965	F. Roosevelt	death
16	William Healy	ID	1881–1962	1937–1958	(none)	1958–1962	F. Roosevelt	death
17	Homer Bone	WA	1883–1970	1944–1956	(none)	1956–1970	F. Roosevelt	death
18	William Edwin Orr	NV	1881–1965	1945–1956	(none)	1956–1965	Truman	death
19	Walter Lyndon Pope	MT	1889–1969	1949–1961	1959–1959	1961–1969	Truman	death
20	Dal Millington Lemmon	CA	1887–1958	1954–1958	(none)	(none)	Eisenhower	death
21	Richard Harvey Chambers	AZ	1906–1994	1954–1976	1959–1976	1976–1994	Eisenhower	death
22	James Alger Fee	OR	1888–1959	1954–1959	(none)	(none)	Eisenhower	death
23	Stanley Nelson Barnes	CA	1900–1990	1956–1970	(none)	1970–1990	Eisenhower	death
24	Frederick George Hamley	WA	1903–1975	1956–1971	(none)	1971–1975	Eisenhower	death
25	Oliver Deveta Hamlin, Jr.	CA	1892–1973	1958–1963	(none)	1963–1973	Eisenhower	death
26	Gilbert H. Jertberg	CA	1897–1973	1958–1967	(none)	1967–1973	Eisenhower	death
27	Charles Merton Merrill	NV	1907–1996	1959–1974	(none)	1974–1996	Eisenhower	death
28	Montgomery Oliver Koelsch	ID	1912–1992	1959–1976	(none)	1976–1992	Eisenhower	death
30	Benjamin Cushing Duniway	CA	1907–1986	1961–1976	(none)	1976–1986	Kennedy	death
31	Walter Raleigh Ely, Jr.	CA	1913–1979	1964–1979	(none)	1979–1984	L. Johnson	death
32	James Marshall Carter	CA	1904–1979	1967–1971	(none)	1971–1979	L. Johnson	death
33	Shirley Hufstedler	CA	1925–	1968–1979	(none)	(none)	L. Johnson	Appointed U.S. Secretary of Education
34	Eugene Allen Wright	WA	1913–2002	1969–1983	(none)	1983–2002	Nixon	death
35	John Francis Kilkenny	OR	1901–1995	1969–1971	(none)	1971–1995	Nixon	death
36	Ozell Miller Trask	AZ	1909–1984	1971–1984	(none)	(none)	Nixon	death
37	Herbert Choy	HI	1916–2004	1971–1984	(none)	1984–2004	Nixon	death
41	Anthony Kennedy	CA	1936–	1975–1988	(none)	(none)	Ford	elevation to Supreme Court
42	J. Blaine Anderson	ID	1922–1988	1976–1988	(none)	(none)	Ford	death
44	Thomas Tang	AZ	1922–1995	1977–1993	(none)	1993–1995	Carter	death
52	Cecil F. Poole	CA	1914–1997	1979–1996	(none)	1996–1997	Carter	death
56	William Albert Norris	CA	1927–	1980–1994	(none)	1994–1997	Carter	retirement
60	Charles Edward Wiggins	CA	1927–2000	1984–1996	(none)	1996–2000	Reagan	death

[edit] Chief judges

Chief Judge Denman 1948–1957 Stephens 1957–1959 Pope 1959–1959 Chambers 1959–1976 Browning 1976–1988 Goodwin 1988–1991 Wallace 1991–1996 Hug 1996–2000 Schroeder 2000–present

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.

[edit] Succession of seats

The court has 28 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 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 CA 1891–1891 McKenna CA 1892–1897 Morrow CA 1897–1923 Rudkin WA 1923–1931 Garrecht WA 1933–1948 Pope MT 1949–1961 Browning DC 1961–2000 Ikuta CA 2006–present

Seat 2 Established on June 16, 1891 by the Judiciary Act of 1891 Gilbert OR 1892–1931 Denman CA 1935–1957 Hamlin CA 1958–1963 Ely CA 1964–1979 Norris CA 1980–1994 W. Fletcher CA 1998–present

Seat 3 Established on February 18, 1895 by 28 Stat. 665 Ross CA 1895–1925 McCamant OR 1925–1926 Dietrich ID 1927–1930 Sawtelle AZ 1931–1934 Mathews AZ 1935–1953 Fee OR 1954–1959 Koelsch ID 1959–1976 Anderson ID 1976–1988 T. Nelson ID 1990–2003 N.R. Smith ID 2007–present

Seat 4 Established as a temporary judgeship on March 1, 1929 by 45 Stat. 1414 Made permanent on June 16, 1933 by 48 Stat. 310 Wilbur CA 1929–1945 Orr NV 1945–1956 Barnes CA 1956–1970 Choy HI 1971–1984 Brunetti NV 1985–1999 Rawlinson NV 2000–present

Seat 5 Established on August 2, 1935 by 49 Stat. 508 Haney OR 1935–1943 Bone WA 1944–1956 Hamley WA 1956–1971 Sneed CA 1973–1987 Trott ID 1988–2004 (vacant) (n/a) 2004–present

Seat 6 Established on April 14, 1937 by 50 Stat. 64 Stephens CA 1937–1961 Duniway CA 1961–1976 Hug NV 1977–2002 Bybee NV 2003–present

Seat 7 Established on April 14, 1937 by 50 Stat. 64 Healy ID 1937–1958 Merrill NV 1959–1974 Kennedy CA 1975–1988 Rymer CA 1989–present

Seat 8 Established on February 10, 1954 by 68 Stat. 871 Lemmon CA 1954–1958 Jertberg CA 1958–1967 Carter CA 1967–1971 Wallace CA 1972–1996 Wardlaw CA 1998–present

Seat 9 Established on February 10, 1954 by 68 Stat. 871 Chambers AZ 1954–1976 Tang AZ 1977–1993 Hawkins AZ 1994–present

Seat 10 Established on June 18, 1968 by 82 Stat. 184 Hufstedler CA 1968–1979 Boochever AK 1980–1986 O'Scannlain OR 1986–present

Seat 11 Established on June 18, 1968 by 82 Stat. 184 Wright WA 1969–1983 Beezer WA 1984–1996 Gould WA 1999–present

Seat 12 Established on June 18, 1968 by 82 Stat. 184 Kilkenny OR 1969–1971 Goodwin OR 1971–1991 Kleinfeld AK 1991–present

Seat 13 Established on June 18, 1968 by 82 Stat. 184 Trask AZ 1969–1979 Canby AZ 1980–1996 Silverman AZ 1998–present

Seat 14 Established on October 20, 1978 by 92 Stat. 1629 B. Fletcher WA 1979–1998 Tallman WA 2000–present

Seat 15 Established on October 20, 1978 by 92 Stat. 1629 Schroeder AZ 1979–present

Seat 16 Established on October 20, 1978 by 92 Stat. 1629 Skopil OR 1979–1986 Leavy OR 1987–1997 Graber OR 1998–present

Seat 17 Established on October 20, 1978 by 92 Stat. 1629 Farris WA 1979–1995 McKeown WA 1998–present

Seat 18 Established on October 20, 1978 by 92 Stat. 1629 Alarcon CA 1979–1992 Tashima CA 1996–2004 Smith CA 2006–present

Seat 19 Established on October 20, 1978 by 92 Stat. 1629 Pregerson CA 1979–present

Seat 20 Established on October 20, 1978 by 92 Stat. 1629 Ferguson CA 1979–1986 Fernandez CA 1989–2002 Callahan CA 2003–present

Seat 21 Established on October 20, 1978 by 92 Stat. 1629 Poole CA 1979–1996 Paez CA 2000–present

Seat 22 Established on October 20, 1978 by 92 Stat. 1629 D. Nelson CA 1979–1995 Thomas MT 1996–present

Seat 23 Established on October 20, 1978 by 92 Stat. 1629 Reinhardt CA 1980–present

Seat 24 Established on July 10, 1984 by 98 Stat. 333 Hall CA 1984–1997 Clifton HI 2002–present

Seat 25 Established on July 10, 1984 by 98 Stat. 333 Wiggins NV 1984–1996 Bea CA 2003–present

Seat 26 Established on July 10, 1984 by 98 Stat. 333 Kozinski DC 1985–present

Seat 27 Established on July 10, 1984 by 98 Stat. 333 Noonan CA 1985–1996 Berzon CA 2000–present

Seat 28 Established on July 10, 1984 by 98 Stat. 333 Thompson CA 1985–1998 Fisher CA 1999–present

[edit] See also

• Federal judicial appointment history#Ninth Circuit

[edit] Notes

1. ^ Kleinfeld, Andrew J. (1998-05-22). Memo to the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals. URL accessed on June 21, 2005.
2. ^ Limbaugh, Rush (2006-04-21). Limbaugh Legal Division: 9th Circus Rules in Favor of "The Offended" (subscription only). Official website of The Rush Limbaugh Show'. Premiere Radio Networks. Retrieved on June 5, 2006.
3. ^ O'Scannlain, Diarmuid (October 2005). "Ten Reasons Why the Ninth Circuit Should Be Split" (PDF). Engage 6 (2): 58–64. Retrieved on 2006-05-29. 
4. ^ Statement of Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts (PDF). The Federal Bar Association (2003-10-21). Retrieved on June 6, 2006.
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. Retrieved on 2006-06-06. 
6. ^ 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.
7. ^ 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.
8. ^ Recess appointment.

[edit] 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

[edit] Navigation

v • d • e United States courts of appeals
1st Circuit · 2nd Circuit · 3rd Circuit · 4th Circuit · 5th Circuit · 6th Circuit · 7th Circuit · 8th Circuit · 9th Circuit · 10th Circuit · 11th Circuit · DC Circuit · Federal Circuit