United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges: 29 Posts: 29 Vacancies: 0 Active judges Chief: Sidney Thomas Kozinski • Hurwitz • Silverman • Bea • Callahan • O'Scannlain • Pregerson • Nguyen • Bybee • Owens • Rawlinson • Wardlaw • McKeown • Berzon • Murguia • Friedland • Smith • Christen • Watford • Smith • Clifton • Paez • Tallman • Gould • Ikuta • Reinhardt • Graber • Fletcher • Senior Judges Goodwin • Tashima • Wright Nelson • Leavy • Francis • Wallace • Noonan • Farris • Schroeder • Hawkins • Hug • Fisher • Trott • Canby • Former Judges

Key: (Numbers indicate % of seats vacant.) 0% 0%-10% 10%-25% 25%-40% More than 40%

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sometimes referred to simply as the Ninth Circuit, is one of the thirteen federal appellate courts. The court was established in 1891. It is by far the largest appellate court with 29 posts. The court is headquartered at the James R. Browning Federal Courthouse in San Francisco, California, but meets at locations throughout the Ninth Circuit.

Vacancy warning level

Currently the vacancy warning level for the Ninth Circuit is set at green. The court currently has no vacancies out of its 29 total seats.

Pending nominations

There are no pending nominations for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Active judges

Article III judges

Judge	Appointed by	Active	Chief	Preceeded	Bachelors	Law
Judge Alex Kozinski	Reagan	11/7/1985 - Present	2007-11/30/2014		UCLA, 1972	UCLA School of Law, 1975
Judge Andrew Hurwitz		06/12/2012-Present		Mary M. Schroeder	Princeton, 1968	Yale, 1972
Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw	Clinton	8/3/1998-Present		Clifford Wallace	UCLA, 1976	UCLA, 1979
Judge Mary Murguia	Obama	1/4/2011 - Present		Michael Hawkins	University of Kansas, 1982	University of Kansas Law School, 1985
Judge Morgan Christen	Obama	1/11/2012 - Present			University of Washington, 1983	Golden Gate U. Law, 1986
Judge Harry Pregerson	Carter	11/2/1979 - Present		New Seat|92 Stat. 1629	University of California 1947	California Boalt Hall School of Law 1950
Judge Stephen Reinhardt	Carter	09/11/1980 - Present			Pomona College, 1951	Yale Law School, 1954
Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain	Reagan	9/26/1986 - Present		Robert Boochever	St. John`s University 1957	Harvard Law School 1963
Chief Judge Sidney Thomas	Clinton	1/4/1996-Present	12/1/2014-Present	Dorothy Wright Nelson	Montana State University 1975	University of Montana School of Law 1978
Judge Barry Silverman	Clinton	2/4/1998 - Present		William Canby, Jr.	Arizona State University 1973	Arizona State University College of Law 1976
Judge Susan Graber	Clinton	3/19/1998 - Present		Edward Leavy	Wellesley College 1969	Yale Law School 1972
Judge Margaret McKeown	Clinton	4/8/1998 - Present		Joseph Jerome Farris	University of Wyoming 1972	Georgetown University Law Center 1975
Judge William Fletcher	Clinton	10/9/1998 - Present		William Albert Norris	Harvard University 1968	Yale Law School 1975
Judge Ronald Gould	Clinton	11/22/1999 - Present		Robert R. Beezer	University of Pennsylvania 1968	University of Michigan Law School 1973
Judge Richard Paez	Clinton	3/14/2000 - Present		Cecil F. Poole	Brigham Young U. 1969	University of California Berkeley Law 1972
Judge Marsha Berzon	Clinton	3/16/2000 - Present		John Noonan	Radcliffe College '66	University of California, Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law '73
Judge Richard Tallman	Clinton	5/25/2000 - Present		Betty Binns Fletcher	University of Santa Clara 1975	Northwestern University School of Law 1978
Judge Johnnie Rawlinson	Clinton	07/26/2000 - Present		Melvin Brunetti	North Carolina A&T State University 1974	University of the Pacific 1979
Judge Richard Clifton	W. Bush	7/30/2002 - Present		Cynthia Holcomb Hall	Princeton University 1972	Yale Law School 1975
Judge Jay Bybee	W. Bush	03/21/2003 - Present		Procter Hug, Jr.	Brigham Young University, 1977	Brigham Young University, 1980
Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan	W. Bush	5/28/2003 - Present		Ferdinand Francis Fernandez	Stanford University 1972	University of the Pacific 1975
Judge Carlos Bea	W. Bush	10/1/2003 - Present		Charles Edward Wiggins	Stanford U. '56	Stanford Law '58
Judge Milan Smith	W. Bush	5/18/2006 - Present		Wallace Tashima	Brigham Young University 1966	University of Chicago Law School 1969
Judge Sandra Ikuta	W. Bush	6/23/2006 - Present		James R. Browning	University of California, Berkeley 1976	UCLA Law School 1988
Judge Randy Smith	W. Bush	3/19/2007 - Present		Thomas G. Nelson	Brigham Young University 1974	J. Reuben Clark School of Law 1977
Judge Jacqueline Nguyen	Obama	5/7/2012 - Present		New Seat|121 Stat. 2534	Occidental College, A.B., 1987	University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law, J.D., 1991
Judge Paul Watford	Obama	5/21/2012 - Present		Pamela Ann Rymer	University of California, Berkeley, B.A., 1989	University of California, Los Angeles Law, J.D., 1994
Judge John B. Owens	Obama	3/31/2014-Present		Stephen S. Trott	University of California, Berkeley, B.A., 1993	Stanford Law, J.D., 1996
Judge Michelle T. Friedland	Obama	4/28/2014-Present		Raymond Fisher	Stanford U., B.A., 1995	Stanford U. Law, J.D., 2000

Active Article III judges by appointing political party

This graph displays the percent of active judges by the party of the appointing president and does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

Senior judges

Judge	Appointed by	Active	Chief	Senior	Bachelors	Law
Senior Judge Mary Schroeder	Carter	9/26/1979 - 12/31/2011	2000-2007	12/31/2011-Present	Swarthmore College 1962	University of Chicago Law School 1965
Senior judge Andrew Kleinfeld	H.W. Bush	9/16/1991 - 6/12/2010		6/12/2010 - Present	Wesleyan University 1966	Harvard Law School 1969
Senior Judge Raymond Fisher	Clinton	10/12/1999 - 4/1/2013		4/1/2013 - Present	University of California, Santa Barbara '61	Stanford Law School '66
Senior Judge Alfred Goodwin	Nixon	11/30/1971 - 1/31/1991	1988-1991	1/31/1991 - Present	University of Oregon 1947	University of Oregon Law School 1951
Senior Judge John Clifford Wallace	Nixon	6/28/1972 - 4/8/1996	1991-1996	4/8/1996 - Present	San Diego State University 1952	University of California Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law 1955
Senior Judge Procter Hug	Carter	9/15/1977 - 1/1/2002	1996-2000	1/1/2002 - Present	University of Nevada, Reno 1953	Stanford Law School 1958
Senior Judge Joseph Farris	Carter	9/27/1979 - 3/4/1995		'3/4/1995 - Present	Morehouse College 1941	Atlanta University 1955
Senior Judge Dorothy Wright Nelson	Carter	12/20/1979-1/1/1995		1/1/1995-Present	University of California, Los Angeles 1950	University of California, Los Angeles Law 1953
Senior Judge William Canby	Carter	'5/23/1980 - 5/23/1996		5/23/1996 - Present	Yale University 1953	University of Minnesota, Twin Cities 1956
Senior Judge John Noonan	Reagan	12/17/1985-12/27/1996		12/27/1996-Present	Harvard College 1946	Catholic University of America 1949
Senior Judge Edward Leavy	Reagan	3/23/1987 - 5/19/1997		5/19/1997 - Present	University of Portland, 1950	Notre Dame Law School, 1953
Senior Judge Stephen Trott	Reagan	3/25/1988 - 12/31/2004		12/31/2004 - Present	Wesleyan University, 1962	Harvard Law School, 1965
Senior Judge Ferdinand Francis Fernandez	H.W. Bush	5/22/1989-6/1/2002		6/1/2002-Present	University of Southern California, 1958	University of Southern California Law School, 1962
Senior Judge Michael Hawkins	Clinton	9/15/1994 - 2/12/2010		2/12/2010-Present	Arizona State University 1967	Arizona State University College of Law 1970
Senior Judge Atsushi Wallace Tashima	Clinton	1/4/1996 - 6/30/2004		6/30/2004 - Present	University of California, Los Angeles 1958	Harvard Law School 1961

Senior judges by appointing political party

This graph displays the percent of senior judges by the party of the appointing president and does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

Jurisdiction

Map of the Ninth Circuit. Click on a district to find out more about it.

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. Appeals of rulings by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals are petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Anthony Kennedy is the Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has 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:

• United States District Court for the District of Guam
• United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands

Caseloads

Federal Court Caseload Statistics*

Year	Starting case load:	Cases filed:	Total cases:	Cases terminated:	Remaining cases	Terminations on merits:	Terminations on Procedure	Cross Appeals:	Total Terminations:	Written decisions per Judge**
2013	14132	12826	26958	12779	14179	7247	5167	365	12779	178
2012	14041	12684	26725	12735	13990	7938	4335	462	12735	217
2011	15142	12141	27283	13025	14258	6517	6027	481	13025	168
2010	17306	11982	29288	13340	15948	6324	6515	501	13340	148
2009	17709	12211	29920	12818	17102	5509	6822	487	12818	137
2008	16267	13577	29844	12373	17471	5800	6068	505	12373	126
2007	17299	12549	29848	13600	16248	6503	6643	454	13600	147
2006	16074	14636	30710	13424	17286	6387	6611	426	13424	156

*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.

Notable cases

• Dismissal of jurors over sexual orientation is barred (2014)  (GlaxoSmithKline v. Abbott Laboratories, 11-17357)	Click for summary→
On January 21, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, comprised of Judges Reinhardt, Marsha Berzon and Senior Judge Mary Schroeder, ruled that peremptory strikes made by attorneys during jury selection may not be based on a juror's sexual orientation. In the underlying suit, drug companies GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) were involved in an antitrust dispute over the pricing of HIV medication. The case was heard by the Ninth Circuit on appeal from a decision previously made by Chief Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California. At trial, an attorney for Abbott used a peremptory strike to bar a gay man's service on the jury, seemingly due only to his sexual orientation. GSK's attorney raised a Batson challenge, meaning opposing counsel needed to provide a nondiscriminatory reason for the requested juror strike. Before this case, Batson challenges had only applied to race and gender. Wilken allowed Abbott's strike to stand, and after a jury verdict was issued, GSK appealed, claiming that a new trial was warranted due to Abbott's unconstitutionally permitted peremptory strike based on sexual orientation. Writing for the majority of the three-judge panel, Reinhardt concluded that Batson was applicable, because "permitting a strike based on sexual orientation would send the false message that gays and lesbians could not be trusted to reason fairly on issues of great import to the community or the nation." He further commented that "[t]o allow peremptory strikes because of assumptions based on sexual orientation is to revoke this civic responsibility, demeaning the dignity of the individual and threatening the impartiality of the judicial system."

• Proposition 8 appeal (2011)      Judge(s):Michael Hawkins, Stephen Reinhardt and Randy Smith (Perry v. Brown, Appeal No. 11-16577)	Click for summary→
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 argued 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. For the full story, see Proposition 8 supporters ask appeals court to overturn ruling. Update: On February 7, 2012, a three judge appellate panel from the 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 and 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. 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, 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.

• Medicinal marijuana in the U.S. (2005)      Judge(s):Harry Pregerson, Arlen Beam, Richard A. Paez (Angel McClary Raich, et al., v. John Ashcroft, et al., cv-02-4872-MJJ)	Click for summary→
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 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.

• Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools (2002)      Judge(s):Alfred Goodwin, Stephen Reinhardt, Ferdinand Fernandez (Michael A. Newdow v. U.S. Congress, et al., cv-00-00495-MLS/PAN)	Click for summary→
Critics of the Ninth Circuit often point to 2002's Newdow v. U.S. Congress decision as evidence of political bias and judicial activism. In the decision, the court declared that a public school district's practice of leading students in recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance amounted to an unconstitutional establishment of religion and an unlawful interference with Newdow's right to educate his daughter in accordance with his own religious beliefs. The court held that the violations of the Establishment Clause and other constitutional rights they found were based on the pledge's inclusion of the words "under God". 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 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 H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas disagreed with the majority's opinion of Newdow's standing, but 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.

History

Court history

The Ninth Circuit was created by the Evarts Act of 1891, which established nine circuit courts of appeal.

Judicial posts

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.

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

Reputation of the Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit is generally considered the most liberal in the nation. This reputation most likely dates back to the late 1970s, when President Jimmy Carter appointed about three-quarters of the court's judges. That notion was reinforced during the Supreme Court session in 2011, when the high court reversed or invalidated 19 out of 26 decisions reviewed from the circuit.

Some legal scholars, however, call that assessment of the court misguided. In 2010, the Dean of the UC Irvine Law School said, "The reality is a court that is very ideologically diverse."

Proposals to split the Ninth Circuit

Several proposals have been introduced to split the Ninth Circuit into two separate circuits, the Ninth and a newly created Twelfth Circuit Court of Appeals. An analysis from the Alaska Bar Association (in 2003) mentions bills introduced in the House or Senate in 1972, 1983, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999 and 2001.

The main argument for dividing the circuit has to do with its sheer size; the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over about 20% of the population of the United States. The political ideology of citizens of the states in the circuit has also frequently been mentioned as a reason for a split. Historically, proposals to divide the circuit have come from legislators from the states in the Pacific Northwest, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Alaska.

The following are the most prominent of the 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 have also abolished 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 have created 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 have beed 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 have 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 have created 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 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 have created 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 have provided 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, and was 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 have 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 have created five permanent and two temporary judgeships, all to be retained by the new Ninth Circuit. The temporary judgeships would have terminated upon the existence of a vacancy 10 years or more after passage of the act. Each 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.

For a transcript of the PBS Newshour's "Debate Brews over Splitting 9th Circuit Court" from January 17, 2005, visit this link.

Former judges

Former chief judges

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.

Alex Kozinski - (2007-2014) Mary Schroeder - (2000-2007) Procter Hug - (1996-200) John Clifford Wallace - (1991-1996) Alfred Goodwin - (1988-1991)

James R. Browning - (1976-1988) Richard Harvey Chambers - (1959-1976) Walter Pope - (1959) Albert Lee Stephens, Sr. - (1957-1959) William Denman - (1948-1957)

Former judges

For more information on the judges of the Ninth Circuit, see former federal judges of the Ninth Circuit.

Federal courthouse

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.

The Ninth Circuit is located in the James R. Browning Federal Courthouse in San Francisco, California. 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.

Media

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.

See also

• News: Federal 9th Circuit judges uphold overturning of California Proposition 8, February 7, 2012

External links

• United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit This website includes links to the court's published and unpublished opinions, and court rules and procedure.
• Judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
• Recent opinions from FindLaw
• Rulings of the 9th Circuit relevant to ballot initiatives
• Ninth Circuit blog
• The Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical Society
• Courthouse News Service, "Warrantless wiretap suit nixed by 9th Circuit," June 14, 2013
• The Wall Street Journal, “The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: To Split Or Not To Split?” March 23, 2006