The Enlightenment

Image courtesy of Sora Shimazaki/Pexels

Welcome to The Judiciary at Noon! Take a break from work to get an update on the oft-neglected third branch of the United States government, the judicial branch.

The series covers any updates to the federal judiciary, including any new judges confirmed, any deaths, resignations, or retirements from the courts, and any new vacancies that have occurred. It includes political analysis and fun information about the United States judiciary at the very end. All information spans the previous week.

Confirmations

• February 5th: Joseph Albert Larowski, Jr. was confirmed to the US Court of International Trade, a court that presides over trade disputes.
• February 6th: Amy Margaret Baggio was confirmed to the District of Oregon to succeed Judge Marco Antonio Hernandez when Hernandez takes senior status, a form of semi-retirement, on August 21, 2024.

As discussed last week, the Court of International Trade now has a majority of its judges appointed by Democrats. Larowski’s confirmation solidifies this transition: the court is now has 9 judges appointed by Democrats and 7 by Republicans.

Baggio’s confirmation won’t do much to change the composition of the heavily-Democratic District of Oregon. With Baggio’s appointment, a full 9 out of 12 judges on the Court have been appointed by Democrats.

Vacancies

No vacancies occurred for the week of February 2nd to February 8th, 2024. 86 vacancies remain on the federal judiciary, down from 88 a week ago.

Retirements, Deaths, and Resignations

There have been no retirements, deaths, or resignations on the federal judiciary from February 2nd to February 8th, 2024.

Other

• February 7th: President Biden nominated four new judges to courts in California, New York, and South Dakota.
• February 8th: The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on 5 judges nominated by Biden to serve on courts in the District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Illinois, Michigan, and Virginia.

Analysis

Man, it feels good to finally see the number of vacancies tick down for once. To be clear, 86 vacancies is no laughing matter, and I believe it needs to be addressed with all possible haste. But the number of vacancies ticking down is a fresh change after months of that number going up or staying the same.

This last week showed us just how consequential judges can be. In the case of United States v. Trump, decided February 6th, a three-judge panel from the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously decided that Trump is not immune from prosecution as a former President.

Who was one of the three judges? Judge Florence Pan, a Biden appointee.

Judges are selected randomly, and Trump appointed 3 out of the 16 judges on this court. Biden appointed another 3, reducing the chance of a Republican judge or Trump judge being selected.

I’m not saying a Republican judge would have ruled in favor of Trump (one of the three judges to rule against Trump, Judge Karen Henderson, was appointed by Republican George H. W. Bush). I’m not saying a Trump judge would’ve ruled in favor of Trump, either.

But it’s fair to say that one of Trump’s appointees would’ve been more likely to rule in favor of the former President, and if Biden hadn’t nominated anyone to the Circuit, it would have been about 23% more likely by probability that at least one of Trump’s appointees would’ve been ruling on Trump’s immunity.

What would that case have looked like? What would a 2-1 decision against Trump say to the world? Rather than putting the immunity question to rest, there would still be debate about Trump’s immunity.

Or what if, by a slim chance, you had two Republicans, or even less likely, two of Trump’s appointees ruling on his immunity? What would have happened if, by a 2-1 vote, the DC Circuit put the breaks on the numerous investigations of former President Trump by saying he had immunity as a former President?

Judges are unknown. You don’t know their names (unless you read this blog). But the media picks up on their decisions, which trickle down to high-information consumers, and before you know it judicial decisions end up framing the narrative on important political issues.

That’s why I cover this stuff. Because the routine appointment of 3 unknown appeals judges by a president has the opportunity to fundamentally reshape the political landscape—and you won’t even realize it.

BONUS: The busiest courts

Not all courts are made equal. Courts vary significantly in the amount of people that they cover, their geographic size, and their caseload, or the amount of cases they receive on a yearly basis.

Statistics show that the District Court of Northern Florida was the busiest court in the country in 2023. That court alone had 31,000 cases filed, or over 10% of all cases filed in the entire country in federal district courts that year!

A higher population does not necessarily correlate with a higher caseload. The aforementioned District of Northern Florida (1.75 million) has less than one-tenth the population of the Central District of California (19 million) but still has over twice the caseload.

This is due to the fact that certain jurisdictions undergo heavy judge-shopping (i.e. partisan lawyers file cases in that court looking for a predetermined outcome from a partisan judge). Other courts contain a lot of businesses or financial institutions in their borders.

That’s why the Southern District of New York (covering Manhattan) and the District of New Jersey (covering some of the largest ports in the United States) are some of the busiest courts in the country.

The 9th Circuit, which covers 11 states and territories including California, is by far the busiest Circuit court. By contrast, the District of Vermont is the sleepiest court in the country. If you want an easy gig, become a judge there: the Court oversaw just 224 cases in 2023, or 61 cases per judge.

SIGN-OFF

That’s it for this week’s The Judiciary at Noon. This has been Anthony Myrlados. I’ll see you next noon and until then I wish you all an enjoyable weekend!