ILNews

Easterbrook: 7th Circuit 'nation's leader' in productivity

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals presented his final State of the Circuit address during the Circuit conference this month in Indianapolis, describing the federal appellate court for Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin as perhaps the nation’s most industrious.

“In a world where the failings of government make headlines, it is well to emphasize the successes,” Easterbrook told the 7th Circuit Bar Association and Judicial Conference on May 6. Circuit Judge Diane Wood will succeed Easterbrook as chief judge on Oct. 1.

IL_Richard_Lugar02-15col.jpg 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook, left, and former Indiana Sen. Richard G. Lugar talk with members of the judiciary during a luncheon of the 7th Circuit Bar and Judicial Conference on May 6 in Indianapolis.(IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

“Last year the 7th Circuit issued 534 published opinions, more than any other (federal) court of appeals – even though we are a relatively small circuit. We issued fully reasoned, precedential opinions in more than 40 percent of all cases; the national average is 19 percent and several courts are down around 10 percent,” he said. “The 7th Circuit hears oral argument in 36 percent of all appeals, essentially every case that has lawyers on both sides. No other Circuit hears more than 30 percent, and one Circuit hears oral argument in only 11 percent of appeals.”

“That the Circuit remains the nation’s leader in both hearing arguments and publishing opinions has been made possible by the fact that for many years we have operated at or close to full strength.” The court has had one vacancy since January 2010 when Judge Terence Evans took senior status. Evans died Aug. 11, 2011.

“And every year about 10 District judges within the Circuit hear one or two days of appellate arguments. I think that judges of both the Circuit and the District courts gain from serving side-by-side as colleagues. We get to know each other, and know our shared business, better,” Easterbrook said.

After consulting with Wood, Easterbrook said the decision was made to make another round of invitations this summer for District judges to sit by designation on Circuit Court panels, starting with newly confirmed judges. After that, judges who received initial invitations four years ago will receive a second invitation.

Easterbrook delivered his address in advance of the introduction of former Sen. Richard G. Lugar. Like Lugar, Easterbrook addressed the escalating politicization of the judicial nomination process by senators of both parties. He joined President Barack Obama and United States Chief Justice John Roberts in calling for a return to historical practices and deference to qualifications over political litmus tests.

Whereas federal court nominees as recently as a decade ago could expect swift confirmation, Easterbrook said, “Senators are playing tit-for-tat, with each Congress determined to replicate delays and perceived injustices done by the other party in a preceding period. … Delay also makes it hard to attract top-quality people to the bench. No practicing lawyer wants to dangle in public while his or her practice dwindles.”

7thcircuit_facts.jpgAgainst such a backdrop, Easterbrook said he was concerned about the rate of confirmations and nominations. He noted the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has had a vacancy for 40 months and no nomination is pending. In the District courts, he said the Western District of Wisconsin has had a 50 percent vacancy rate for the past 38 months with no pending nominations. He said there are three vacancies in the Northern District of Illinois and one in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Meanwhile, federal courts have experienced a decline in filing, and thus revenue, in recent years.

On top of that, sequestration will hit the federal judiciary in areas where fixed costs are not set by law. Judges’ salaries and rent paid to the Government Services Administration for court space, for instance, are constant obligations. “Once the must-pay items are accounted for, a 4 percent reduction works out to a 10 percent or more cut in the money available to pay the people in the clerk’s offices who make the court function, and the federal-protection staff who keep the courthouses open and safe,” Easterbrook said. “The (7th Circuit) Court of Appeals has not found it necessary to lay off or furlough anyone; some District courts may need to do this. If the budget standoff continues, things will become worse for all components of the judiciary.

Funds to pay jurors and criminal-defense lawyers are separate line items. If these are depleted, trials may need to be halted toward the end of the fiscal year until these funds are replenished.” Easterbrook declined a request for interview, deferring to his remarks in which he modestly summed up his six-year tenure leading the court. “My hope when I became chief judge was that I would not spoil the features that have made this Circuit work well and earn the respect of the Supreme Court and our colleagues elsewhere,” he said. “That reputation is a tribute to all of my colleagues, and I think that they have survived my tenure admirably. I’m sure that Judge Wood will just add to the luster.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT