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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT