Today are primary elections in Arkansas and Kentucky!
Check Judgepedia later this week for results.


Stephen Reinhardt

From Judgepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Share this Judge:  E-mail this story Bookmark with Facebook Share on twitter.com Share on Google+

Stephen Reinhardt
Current Court Information:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Title:   Judge
Station:   Los Angeles, CA
Service:
Appointed by:   Jimmy Carter
Active:   9/11/1980 - Current
Past post:   Private Practice
Past term:   1957 - 1980
Personal History
Born:   1931
Home State:   New York, NY
Bachelors:   Pomona College 1951
Law School:   Yale Law School 1954

Contents

Stephen Roy Reinhardt is a federal appeals judge with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. He joined the Court in 1980 after being nominated by President Jimmy Carter.

Early life and education

Born in New York City, New York, Reinhardt graduated from Pomona College with his Bachelor's degree in 1951 and later received a Bachelors of Laws degree, LL.B, from Yale Law School in 1954.[1]

Legal career

Reinhardt served in the U.S. Air Force from 1954 to 1956 before becoming a law clerk for the Honorable Luther Youngdahl in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia until 1957. Reinhardt was a private practice attorney in the State of California from 1957 to 1980.[1]

Federal judicial career

Reinhardt was nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by President Jimmy Carter on November 30, 1979, to a new seat created by 92 Stat. 1629, which was approved by Congress. Reinhardt was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on September 11, 1980 and received commission on September 11, 1980.[1]

Notable rulings

Proposition 8 appeal

  United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
     *Perry v. Brown Appeal No. 11-16577
On December 8, 2011, the court heard arguments from Proposition 8 supporters asking for Northern District Chief Judge James Ware's decision against them and vacate former Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling on the proposition's constitutionality. Proposition supporters are arguing that Judge Walker was biased against them at trial because he was involved in a same-sex relationship at the time. The panel hearing the appeal consists of Judges Michael Hawkins, Stephen Reinhardt and Randy Smith.[2]

For the full story, see Proposition 8 supporters ask appeals court to overturn ruling.

Update: On Tuesday, February 7, a three judge appellate panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in Perry v. Brown which upheld the rulings by district court judges Vaughn Walker and James Ware which overturned California's Proposition 8 which blocked same sex marriage in the state. The panel, consisting of Judges Michael Hawkins, Stephen Reinhardt and Randy Smith, stated that “Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California." The court ruled that the same-sex marriage ban violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The ruling states:

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted... Under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status...

In effect, the court concluded that, because domestic partnerships had already established equal rights for same-sex couples, the measure only served to deny these relationships the designation of "marriage." This, according to the court, was not a legitimate purpose for treating these couples differently under the law. The panel rendered split in its decision with Judge Randy Smith concurring in part and dissenting in part. The panel upheld both the decisions of Chief Judge Ware as well as Senior Judge Walker, whose original decision has been challenged on the grounds that Walker had an undisclosed long term relationship with another man at the time of the case. The ruling clears the way for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the subject next year.[3] For expansive coverage of the ballot measure and ensuing legal controversy, please see: California Proposition 8, the "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" Initiative (2008).

In a separate ruling, on Thursday, the same panel refused to release the videos from the original trial. The panel held that Walker “promised the litigants that the conditions under which the recording was maintained would not change — that there was no possibility that the recording would be broadcast to the public in the future.” Because of this, the judges determined that, “The integrity of our judicial system depends in no small part on the ability of litigants and members of the public to rely on a judge’s word. The record compels the finding that the trial judge’s representations to the parties were solemn commitments,” and that the video's should not be released.[4]


Gay benefits case

Judge Reinhardt, on November 18, 2009, ruled in favor of the federal government in regards to a gay couple having their spousal health care benefits denied.

Brad Levenson and Tony Sears were married during the period gay marriage was legal in California during 2008, and was seeking benefits for his partner while working as a public defender for the federal government. There is no word if the Office of Personnel Management will appeal the case further[5].

MediCal Case

Independent Living Ctr. of CA, Inc. v. Jolly, USCA 9th Cir. case No. 08-56422 (9th Cir. 2009).[6]

Judge Reinhardt was part of a written unanimous majority opinion in a lawsuit involving the withholding of retroactive reimbursement payments involving providers of Medi-Cal. The opinion was written by judge Milan Smith as Reinhardt served alongside William Fletcher. The panel ruled unanimously to uphold an injunction against cuts in reimbursements to providers. The judges ruled that California's budget crisis does not justify legislation passed last year to reduce the payments by 10%.[7]

The court ruled that California cannot withhold $1.1 billion a year in payments to doctors, dentists, pharmacists and other health care providers. Medi-Cal is the state's Medicaid program. [7] The lawsuit came in response to a bill passed by the California Legislature in 2008 which reduced compensation to providers of Medi-Cal by 10%. The move by the California Legislature withheld $1.1 billion in reimbursements to providers.[7] However, the state is facing a major budget crisis that has forced many state programs like Medi-Cal to make deep budget cuts.[7]

The opinion written by the three-judge panel stated that driving away more providers from the shrinking ranks, but allowing the system to still take state patients endangers their ability to get treatment.[7]

The original lawsuit came in 2008 when health care providers who represent seven million California citizens who are on Medi-Cal sued the California Department of Health Care Services after the law took effect July 1, 2008.[7]

Central District of California federal judge Christina Snyder ruled against the fee reductions on August 18, 2008 but also ruled that the California Constitution shielded the state from having to make retroactive payments when the law stated to cuts took place in July of 2008.[8]

As a result of the Ninth Circuit's ruling the State of California must pay providers $55.8 million dollars retroactive reimbursements that were withheld weeks before madam judge Snyder ruled the original injunction. A official for the California Department of finance told the Los Angeles Times that the ruling shouldn't affect the $26.3-billion state budget deficit on the basis that California hadn't counted on the 10% savings from the Medi-Cal reimbursement changes.[7]

See also

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Judge Reinhardt's Biography at the Federal Judicial Center
  2. ↑ Los Angeles Times "Appeals court asked to decide if gay judge could be fair on Prop. 8 case," December 8, 2011
  3. ↑ LA Times Blog, "Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules" 2/7/2012
  4. ↑ Dallas Voice, "Court won’t release videos from Prop 8 trial", 2/3/2012
  5. ↑ "Kansas City Star" Judge orders compensation for gay couple after federal government denied them benefits, November 18, 2009
  6. ↑ Independent Living Ctr. of CA, Inc. v. Jolly, USCA 9th Cir. case No. 08-56422 (9th Cir. 2009).
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 "LA Times" Payments to Medi-Cal providers will not be cut, federal court rules, July 10, 2009
  8. ↑ "San Francisco Chronicle" State can't cut Medi-Cal fees, court rules, July 10, 2009


Retrieved from "http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Stephen_Reinhardt"
Personal tools