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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT