United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

From Judgepedia
Jump to: navigation, search
[edit]

Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals
US-CourtOfAppeals-9thCircuit-Seal.svg
Chief:Alex KozinskiJudges:28
Posts:29Vacancies:1
Active judges
BeaBerzonBybeeCallahanCliftonChristenFletcherGouldGraberHurwitzIkutaMcKeownMurguiaNguyenO'ScannlainOwensPaezPregersonRawlinsonReinhardtSilvermanSmithSmithTallmanThomasWardlawWatford
Senior Judges
AlarconCanbyFarrisFernandezFisherGoodwinHawkinsHugKleinfeldLeavyNelsonNoonanSchroederTashimaTrottWallace
Former Judges
Key:
(Numbers indicate % of seats vacant.)
0%0%-10%
10%-25%25%-40%
More than 40%
Contents
1 Court
1.1 Vacancy warning level
1.2 Jurisdiction
1.2.1 Cases heard
1.2.2 Case load
1.3 Clerk's office
1.4 History
1.4.1 Court history
1.4.2 Judicial posts
1.4.3 Notable decisions
1.4.4 Federal courthouse
1.5 See also
1.6 External links
1.7 References
2 Judges

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sometimes referred to simply as the Ninth Circuit, is one of the 13 federal appellate courts. The court was established in 1891, and currently has a total of 29 seats. The court is located at the James R. Browning Federal Courthouse in San Francisco, CA.

Vacancy warning level

Currently the vacancy warning level for the Ninth Circuit is set at blue. The court currently has one vacancy out of its 29 total seats.

Jurisdiction

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:

It also has appellate jurisdiction over the following territorial courts:

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitUnited States District Court for the Western District of WashingtonUnited States District Court for the Western District of WashingtonUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of WashingtonUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of WashingtonUnited States District Court for the District of IdahoUnited States District Court for the District of MontanaUnited States District Court for the District of OregonUnited States District Court for the District of NevadaUnited States District Court for the District of ArizonaUnited States District Court for the Northern District of CaliforniaUnited States District Court for the Northern District of CaliforniaUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of CaliforniaUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of CaliforniaUnited States District Court for the Central District of CaliforniaUnited States District Court for the Southern District of CaliforniaUnited States District Court for the Central District of CaliforniaUnited States District Court for the Southern District of CaliforniaUnited States District Court for the District of AlaskaUnited States District Court for the District of HawaiiUnited States District Court for the District of HawaiiUnited States District Court for the District of HawaiiUnited States District Court for the District of HawaiiUnited States District Court for the District of HawaiiUnited States District Court for the District of HawaiiUnited States District Court for the District of HawaiiUnited States District Court for the District of HawaiiUnited States District Court for the District of HawaiiUnited States District Court for the District of GuamUnited States District Court for the District of GuamUnited States District Court for the Northern Mariana IslandsUnited States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands
Map of the Ninth Circuit. Click on a district to find out more about it.

Headquartered in San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit is by far the largest of the 13 courts of appeals, with 29 active judgeships. The court's regular meeting places are Seattle, Washington, Portland, Oregon, San Francisco, and Pasadena, California, 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.

Cases heard

The Ninth Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over cases heard in one of its subsidiary districts. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law.

Case load

Federal Court Case Load Statistics*
YearStarting case load:Cases filed:Total cases:Cases terminated:Remaining casesTerminations on merits:Terminations on ProcedureCross Appeals:Total Terminations: Written decisions per Judge**
201214041126842672512735139907938433546212735217
201115142121412728313025142586517602748113025168
201017306119822928813340159486324651550113340148
200917709122112992012818171025509682248712818137
200816267135772984412373174715800606850512373126
200717299125492984813600162486503664345413600147
200616074146363071013424172866387661142613424156
*All statistics are taken from the Official Federal Courts' Website (for District Courts) and reflect the calendar year through September.    **This statistic reflects only judges that are active for the entire 12 month period.

Clerk's office

The official Clerk of Court is Molly C. Dwyer. The main clerk's office is located in San Francisco, CA, with subsidiary offices in other locations.

THE JAMES R. BROWNING COURTHOUSE
95 7TH STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103
Phone: (415) 355-8000
Hours: 8:30AM - 5:00PM

THE RICHARD H. CHAMBERS COURTHOUSE
125 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE
PASADENA, CA 91105
Phone: (626) 229-7250
Hours: 8:30AM - 5:00PM

THE PIONEER COURTHOUSE
700 SW 6TH AVE, STE 110
PORTLAND, OR 97204
Phone: (503) 833-5311
Hours: 8:30AM - 5:00PM

WILLIAM K. NAKAMURA COURTHOUSE
1010 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 224-2200
Hours: 8:30AM - 4:30PM

History

Court history

Fedbadgesmall.png This federal judiciary article needs to be updated.

Notable firsts

  • In December 2013, the Ninth Circuit announced that it would become the first federal appeals court in the nation to allow live video footage of its proceedings in major cases to be streamed online via its website. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski noted that this step forward would not only make the court "more accessible and transparent," but it would also serve as a way to "open the court's doors even wider so that more people can see and hear what transpires in the courtroom." While the vast majority of the Ninth Circuit's cases are heard by three-judge panels, the new streaming video policy applies only to cases that are heard en banc, meaning that 11 members of the court -- ten randomly selected judges as well as the chief judge -- preside over the hearing. Live video streaming began on December 9, 2013. The Ninth Circuit's en banc streaming video feed can be accessed here.[1]

Appointments by Democratic Presidents

According to federal judicial appointment history, the Ninth Circuit has the highest percentage of active judges appointed by Democrat 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.

Judicial posts

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, MT, NV, OR, WA 37,170,000 16.4% 23
2000 AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, 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 created the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1891. 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 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 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.”[2]

Criticisms of the Ninth Circuit's Size

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.

Another criticism of the Ninth Circuit's size 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 28 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 11-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.[3] 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.[4][5]

In March 2007, Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas testified before a House Appropriations subcommittee that the 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]

Proposals to split the Ninth Circuit

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 10 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.
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 10 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.
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 19. 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[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 10 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 was before the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, and hearings were held on it. It would seem to supersede S. 1296, which was 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.
For a transcript of the PBS Newshour's "Debate Brews over Splitting 9th Circuit Court" from January 17, 2005, visit this link.

Notable cases





Federal courthouse

The Ninth Circuit is located in the James R. Browning Federal Courthouse in San Francisco, CA. The Courthouse was built at the turn of the century and was originally home to the court and the post office. Completed in 1905, the building was designed by the Supervising Architect of the Treasury, James Knox Taylor. The building was damaged in the earthquake of 1906, but was one of only two buildings left standing in that neighborhood of San Francisco and became a symbol of the rebuilding and restoration effort. Repairs were completed in 1910 and the building reopened. It was again damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta Earth-quake that struck San Francisco. This earthquake gave birth to a rebuilding and restoration effort complete with seismic retrofitting and the addition of 45,000 square feet of space costing a total of $91,000,000. The building formally reopened on October 17, 1996. Prior to this, the building was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1971.[14]

See also

External links

References

Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals
US-CourtOfAppeals-9thCircuit-Seal.svg
Chief:Alex KozinskiJudges:28
Posts:29Vacancies:1
Active judges
BeaBerzonBybeeCallahanCliftonChristenFletcherGouldGraberHurwitzIkutaMcKeownMurguiaNguyenO'ScannlainOwensPaezPregersonRawlinsonReinhardtSilvermanSmithSmithTallmanThomasWardlawWatford
Senior Judges
AlarconCanbyFarrisFernandezFisherGoodwinHawkinsHugKleinfeldLeavyNelsonNoonanSchroederTashimaTrottWallace
Former Judges
Key:
(Numbers indicate % of seats vacant.)
0%0%-10%
10%-25%25%-40%
More than 40%
Contents
1 Court
2 Judges
2.1 Active Judges
2.1.1 Article III judges
2.1.2 Pending appointments
2.1.3 Senior judges
2.2 Past judges
2.2.1 Former Chief judges
2.2.2 Former judges

Active judges

Article III judges

See: Article III federal judge
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has 29 posts and 1 vacancy. The current Chief Justice is Alex Kozinski. This is a list of the current judges on the court:
JudgeBornHomeAppointed byActiveChiefPreceededBachelorsLaw
Chief Judge Alex KozinskiJuly 23, 1950Bucharest, RomaniaReagan 11/7/1985 - Present2007-PresentUCLA 1972UCLA School of Law 1975
Judge Andrew Hurwitz1947New York, NY 6/12/2012-PresentMary M. SchroederPrinceton, A.B., 1968Yale, J.D., 1972
Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw1954San Francisco, CAClinton 8/3/1998 - PresentClifford WallaceUniversity of California-Los Angeles 1976University of California-Los Angeles 1979
Judge Mary Murguia1960Kansas City, KSObama 1/4/2011 - PresentMichael HawkinsU. of Kansas, 1982U. of Kansas Law School, 1985
Judge Morgan Christen1961Chehalis, WAObama 1/11/2012 - PresentU. of Washington, 1983Golden Gate U. Law, 1986
Judge Harry Pregerson1923Los Angeles, CACarter 11/2/1979 - PresentNew Seat|92 Stat. 1629University of California 1947California Boalt Hall School of Law 1950
Judge Stephen Reinhardt1931New York, NYCarter 9/11/1980 - PresentPomona College 1951Yale Law School 1954
Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain1937New York, NYReagan 9/26/1986 - PresentRobert BoocheverSt. John`s University 1957Harvard Law School 1963
Judge Sidney Thomas1953Bozeman, MTClinton 1/4/1996 - PresentDorothy Wright NelsonMontana State University 1975University of Montana School of Law 1978
Judge Barry Silverman1951New York, NYClinton 2/4/1998 - PresentWilliam Canby, Jr.Arizona State University 1973Arizona State University College of Law 1976
Judge Susan Graber1949Oklahoma City, OKClinton 3/19/1998 - PresentEdward LeavyWellesley College 1969Yale Law School 1972
Judge Margaret McKeown1951Casper, WYClinton 4/8/1998 - PresentJoseph Jerome FarrisUniversity of Wyoming 1972Georgetown University Law Center 1975
Judge William Fletcher1945Philadelphia, PAClinton 10/9/1998 - PresentWilliam Albert NorrisHarvard University 1968Yale Law School 1975
Judge Ronald Gould1946St Louis, MOClinton 11/22/1999 - PresentRobert R. BeezerUniversity of Pennsylvania 1968University of Michigan Law School 1973
Judge Richard Paez1947Salt Lake city, UTClinton 3/14/2000 - PresentCecil F. PooleBrigham Young U. 1969U. of California Berkeley Law 1972
Judge Marsha Berzon1945Cincinnati, OHClinton 3/16/2000 - PresentJohn NoonanRadcliffe College '66University of California, Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law '73
Judge Richard Tallman1953Oakland, CAClinton 5/25/2000 - PresentBetty Binns FletcherUniversity of Santa Clara 1975Northwestern University School of Law 1978
Judge Johnnie Rawlinson1952Concord, NCClinton 7/26/2000 - PresentMelvin BrunettiNorth Carolina A&T State University 1974University of the Pacific 1979
Judge Richard Clifton1950Framingham, MAW. Bush 7/30/2002 - PresentCynthia Holcomb HallPrinceton University 1972Yale Law School 1975
Judge Jay Bybee1953Oakland, CAW. Bush 3/21/2003 - PresentProcter Hug, Jr.Brigham Young University 1977Brigham Young University 1980
Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan1950Palo Alto, CAW. Bush 5/28/2003 - PresentFerdinand Francis FernandezStanford University 1972University of the Pacific 1975
Judge Carlos Bea1934San Sebastian, SpainW. Bush 10/1/2003 - PresentCharles Edward WigginsStanford U. '56Stanford Law '58
Judge Milan Smith1942Pendleton, ORW. Bush 5/18/2006 - PresentWallace TashimaBrigham Young University 1966University of Chicago Law School 1969
Judge Sandra Ikuta1954Los Angeles, CAW. Bush 6/23/2006 - PresentJames R. BrowningUniversity of California, Berkeley 1976UCLA Law School 1988
Judge Randy Smith1949Logan, UTW. Bush 3/19/2007 - PresentThomas G. NelsonBrigham Young University 1974J. Reuben Clark School of Law 1977
Judge Jacqueline Nguyen1965Dalat, VietnamObama 5/7/2012 - PresentNew Seat|121 Stat. 2534Occidental College, A.B., 1987U. of California, Los Angeles, School of Law, J.D., 1991
Judge Paul Watford1967Orange County, CAObama 5/21/2012 - PresentPamela Ann RymerU. of California, Berkeley, B.A., 1989U. of California, Los Angeles Law, J.D., 1994
Judge John B. Owens1971Washington D.C. 3/31/2014-PresentStephen S. TrottU. of California, Berkeley, B.A., 1993Stanford Law, J.D., 1996

Pending appointments

JudgeConfirmationBachelorsLaw
Michelle T. FriedlandStanford U., B.A., 1995Stanford U. Law, J.D., 2000


Senior judges

JudgeAppointed byActiveChiefSeniorBachelorsLaw
Senior Judge Mary SchroederCarter 9/26/1979 - 12/31/20112000-200712/31/2011-PresentSwarthmore College 1962University of Chicago Law School 1965
Senior judge Andrew KleinfeldH.W. Bush 9/16/1991 - 6/12/20106/12/2010 - PresentWesleyan University 1966Harvard Law School 1969
Senior Judge Raymond FisherClinton 10/12/1999 - 4/1/20134/1/2013 - PresentUniversity of California, Santa Barbara '61Stanford Law School '66
Senior Judge Alfred GoodwinNixon 11/30/1971 - 1/31/19911988-19911/31/1991 - PresentUniversity of Oregon 1947University of Oregon Law School 1951
Senior Judge John Clifford WallaceNixon 6/28/1972 - 4/8/19961991-19964/8/1996 - PresentSan Diego State University 1952University of California Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law 1955
Senior Judge Procter HugCarter 9/15/1977 - 1/1/20021996-20001/1/2002 - PresentUniversity of Nevada, Reno 1953Stanford Law School 1958
Senior Judge Joseph FarrisCarter 9/27/1979 - 3/4/1995'3/4/1995 - PresentMorehouse College 1941Atlanta University 1955
Senior Judge Arthur AlarconCarter 11/2/1979 - 11/21/199211/21/1992 - PresentUniversity of Southern California 1949University of Southern California Law School 1951
Senior Judge Dorothy Wright NelsonCarter 12/20/1979-1/1/19951/1/1995-PresentU. of California, Los Angeles 1950U. of California, Los Angeles Law 1953
Senior Judge William CanbyCarter '5/23/1980 - 5/23/19965/23/1996 - PresentYale University 1953University of Minnesota, Twin Cities 1956
Senior Judge John NoonanReagan 12/17/1985-12/27/199612/27/1996-PresentHarvard College 1946Catholic University of America 1949
Senior Judge Edward LeavyReagan 3/23/1987 - 5/19/19975/19/1997 - PresentUniversity of Portland 1950Notre Dame Law School 1953
Senior Judge Stephen TrottReagan 3/25/1988 - 12/31/200412/31/2004 - PresentWesleyan University 1962Harvard Law School 1965
Senior Judge Ferdinand Francis FernandezH.W. Bush 5/22/1989-6/1/20026/1/2002-PresentUniversity of Southern California 1958University of Southern California Law School 1962
Senior Judge Michael HawkinsClinton 9/15/1994 - 2/12/20102/12/2010-PresentArizona State University 1967Arizona State University College of Law 1970
Senior Judge Atsushi Wallace TashimaClinton 1/4/1996 - 6/30/20046/30/2004 - PresentUniversity of California, Los Angeles 1958Harvard Law School 1961


Past judges

Former Chief judges

Former Chief JudgesTerm
Albert Lee Stephens, Sr.1957-1959
Procter Hug1996-2000
John Clifford Wallace1991-1996
Alfred Goodwin1988-1991
James R. Browning1976-1988
Mary Schroeder2000-2007
Richard Harvey Chambers1959-1976
Walter Pope1959
William Denman1948-1957

In order to qualify for the office of Chief Judge in one of the federal courts, 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.[1][2]


Former judges

  1. Anthony Kennedy
  2. Lorenzo Sawyer
  3. Joseph McKenna
  4. William Ball Gilbert
  5. Erskine Mayo Ross
  6. William Henry Hunt
  7. Wallace McCamant
  8. Frank Sigel Dietrich
  9. William Henry Sawtelle
  10. Francis Arthur Garrecht
  11. William Denman
  12. Clifton Mathews
  13. Bert Emory Haney
  14. William Healy
  15. Homer Bone
  16. William Edwin Orr
  17. Walter Pope
  18. Dal Lemmon
  19. Richard Harvey Chambers
  20. Stanley Nelson Barnes
  21. Oliver Hamlin
  22. Gilbert Jertberg
  23. Charles Merton Merrill
  24. Montgomery Koelsch
  25. Benjamin Duniway
  26. Walter Raleigh Ely, Jr.
  27. James Marshall Carter
  28. Shirley Hufstedler
  29. Eugene Allen Wright
  30. John Francis Kilkenny
  31. Ozell Trask
  32. Herbert Choy
  33. J. Blaine Anderson
  34. Thomas Tang
  35. Cecil Poole
  36. William Albert Norris
  37. Charles Edward Wiggins
  38. Frederick Hamley
  39. Matthew Hall McAllister
  40. William Morrow
  41. Frank Rudkin
  42. Pamela Rymer
  43. James R. Browning
  44. Joseph Sneed
  45. Betty Binns Fletcher
  46. Otto Skopil
  47. Warren Ferguson
  48. Robert Boochever
  49. Cynthia Holcomb Hall
  50. Robert Beezer
  51. Melvin Brunetti
  52. David Thompson
  53. Thomas G. Nelson
  54. Curtis Dwight Wilbur
  55. Albert Lee Stephens, Sr.
  56. Albert Lee Stephens, Jr.
  57. William Orr
  58. John Kilkenny


Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found