[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 22 (Monday, February 8, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S697-S700]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a very
important issue for our Nation's judicial system and two bills that I
and my colleague from Montana have introduced. The bills' primary focus
is what all of us in the Senate want, and that is equal justice under
the law.
[[Page S698]]
One of the bills would split the dysfunctional and unwieldy U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The other bill would form a
commission to evaluate the court and make recommendations based on its
findings.
Like a lot of us here, when I am in Washington I like to get out and
try to get a run in in the morning and look at the beautiful monuments,
memorials. Oftentimes I run past the U.S. Supreme Court, and I often
look at the inscription etched on the beautiful Court there that says
simply ``Equal justice under law.'' I think of Supreme Court Justice
Lewis Powell's famous quote restated:
Equal justice under the law is not merely a caption on the
facade of the Supreme Court building, it is perhaps the most
inspiring ideal of our society. It is one of the ends for
which our entire legal system exists. . . .
I also think of the thousands of lawyers and judges and clerks, past
and present, who have lived their lives attempting to fulfill its
important ideal and how our democratic system of government is
dependent on striving for this ideal.
We should do everything in this body to make sure that simple
concept--equal justice under the law--is a reality for all Americans.
All Americans should feel assured that when we seek justice, the
burdens we encounter, the time we encounter to achieve justice won't be
smaller or greater depending on the part of the country in which we
live.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. Unfortunately, if you are a
citizen of the United States and you live in one of the States over
which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction
over your legal issues in the administration of justice, one in five
Americans do not get equal justice under the law. What our bills are
focused on doing is righting that wrong because the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is simply too large, its scope is too
wide, and it has long passed its ability to provide equal justice and
to contribute as a functional court system in the U.S. court of appeals
Federal court system in our country.
This is no surprise. We have known this for decades. Dividing the
Ninth Circuit is not a new idea. In fact, not doing it is radical. If
you look at the history of the United States, when Federal courts of
appeals have grown in terms of population, what has happened every time
for decades, for well over 100 years, is that when the court grows too
big and the administration of justice grinds to a halt, the court is
split so that you have that justice. That is the usual course of
American history. What is not usual is the refusal to do this.
To give a few examples, in 1973 a congressionally chartered
Commission recommended to this body that for the administration of
justice for American citizens, the Ninth Circuit should be split. It
actually recommended that the Fifth and Ninth Circuit should be split.
The Fifth Circuit was eventually split, but according to the
Commission, the Ninth Circuit, which it said had serious difficulties
with backlog, delay, and justice for Americans, was not split, and it
has only gotten worse.
To give a few facts, there are 65 million people living within the
boundaries of the Ninth Circuit. That represents 20 percent of the
total population of the United States--one in five Americans. That is
almost two times as many people as there are in the next biggest
circuit in the U.S. court of appeals system, and it is almost three
times the average population of all the other circuits combined. It is
not only just the size of the court.
The caseload is what is inhibiting justice for Americans in the Ninth
Circuit. At the end of a 12-month period last year, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals had almost 14,000 pending appeals; the next largest
court of appeals had about 4,700. Justice delayed is justice denied.
In previous hearings in the Senate, we found that it takes, on
average, for the Ninth Circuit, almost 40 percent longer to dispose of
an appeal than in any other circuit in the country. This is simply a
function of a court that is too big and too unwieldy. Because of the
size and inefficiency of the court, the court has started to come up
with creative shortcuts--questionable procedural shortcuts which I
believe are shortchanging justice for tens of thousands of Americans
every year in this court of appeals.
Let me give you a few examples. Every court in the U.S. Federal
system, in order to have uniformity of law, when they have difficult
issues, they meet as a court in what they call an en banc meeting. This
provides uniformity in all the courts. There is only one court that
doesn't do that. Because it has 29 judges--much more than any other
court--the Ninth Circuit does not meet as a whole court; therefore,
limiting its ability to address intracircuit conflicts, with no
uniformity in the law in the Ninth Circuit, and it is seen again and
again and again. Further, and perhaps most alarming--again because of
its size--the Ninth Circuit is the only court of Federal appeals where
a nonelected, nonappointed, nonarticle II judge called an appellate
commissioner rules on matters by the thousands that should be handled
by article III life-tenured judges--not an appellate commissioner who
is none of those things.
In a 2005 congressional hearing, one of the Ninth Circuit judges
testified ``that the appellate commissioner resolved 4,600 motions that
would otherwise have been heard by judges.'' This is fast-food justice
for one in five Americans who are part of the Ninth Circuit.
This Senator plans to come down to the floor over the next several
weeks and speak to my experience on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
I had the opportunity--the honor--to be a judicial law clerk for one of
the most esteemed judges, Judge Kleinfeld of Fairbanks, AK, many years
ago, but I did see firsthand how the unwieldy size of this court of
appeals limits justice, not just for Alaskans but for any citizen who
is under the jurisdiction of this court.
Chief Justice Warren Burger warned in 1970 that ``a sense of
confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered
liberty for a free people.'' He cautioned that inefficiency and delay
in our courts of appeals could destroy that confidence. Unfortunately,
as it is currently constituted, the Ninth Circuit is inefficient, it
delays, and therefore denies justice for millions of Americans, and we
cannot allow the confidence in our system of justice to be undermined
by continuing a court of appeals that is so large and so unwieldy. That
is why the Senator from Montana and I intend with our bills to bring
equal justice for all Americans.
I turn to my colleague from Montana for his views on this very
important issue.
Mr. DAINES. I thank the junior Senator from Alaska, and I appreciate
him joining me in this most important effort and also for the
leadership he has demonstrated on this issue. As the junior Senator
from Alaska knows, the Ninth Circuit Court is broken. It is
overburdened and is unable to provide quality service and expeditious
justice for the Americans it is supposed to serve.
When we offer the Pledge of Allegiance, we close with ``and justice
for all.'' As I frequently tell my staff, we in public service are
ultimately in the customer service business. As U.S. Senators, our No.
1 job is to represent and to serve the people in our States. Our courts
should reflect the same serving mentality as they uphold their
responsibility to justice, but when our courts are overburdened and
overworked, it is the American people who are left underserved and
waiting far too long for justice. Unfortunately, under the current
structure, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is unable to provide
Americans in the West the service they deserve.
Take a look at this chart behind me. At 64.4 million people served,
the current Ninth Circuit is the largest circuit by population as well
as the largest land area. As the junior Senator from Alaska will
sometimes remind us, if they divide Alaska in two, Texas is the third
largest State in the Nation. It is not just about the geographical size
of the West. Look at the number of people who are served in the Ninth
Circuit. It includes Montana, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho,
Nevada, Arizona, California, and Hawaii, not to mention several U.S.
territories, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. That alone amounts
to 20 percent of the Nation's population.
Let's put this in context. That is 85 percent larger than the next
largest
[[Page S699]]
circuit which serves just 34.8 million people, and this chart
illustrates that well. Needless to say, the Ninth Circuit's caseload is
significantly greater than any other circuit, and that means backlogs
and that means delays. Not only is it larger, it is disproportionately
larger. On average, the Ninth Circuit has had more than 32 percent of
all cases pending nationally. As the junior Senator from Alaska
mentioned, it currently has over 14,000 cases pending. As you can see
in this next chart behind me, that is three times more than the next
closest circuit, the Fifth Circuit, which has around 4,700 cases
pending. Processing all these cases takes time; in fact, on the
average, over the last 5 years, nearly 15 months from appeal to
determination.
It is time to take a serious look at how our court system can better
serve the American people, and that is why Senator Sullivan and I have
introduced two separate bills to address these challenges. Our bills
would bring much needed reform, not just to the Ninth Circuit but also
to the entire Federal circuit courts of appeals system. The Circuit
Court of Appeals Restructuring and Modernization Act would split the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals into two circuits, providing a more
manageable balance of population and geography for both circuits so
western Americans can be better served by our courts.
The Federal Courts of Appeals Modernization Act would establish a
commission to study the Federal circuit courts of appeals system and
identify changes needed to promote an expeditious and effective
disposition of the Ninth Circuit caseload. Keep this in mind. When we
split the circuits into a new Ninth and the Twelfth Circuits, the Ninth
Circuit would still have a larger caseload than any other circuit. In
the new Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction, there would be 40.8 million
people. It would continue to maintain its status as first in
population. In the Twelfth Circuit's jurisdiction, this new circuit we
would establish, there would be 24.3 million people, which makes it the
seventh largest in population among the circuits. It is just a little
bit below the average. Those numbers alone should make it clear reforms
are needed.
It is worth remembering that the challenges facing the Ninth Circuit
have been longstanding, and the efforts to find solutions are
bipartisan. In fact, two prior Commissions--one in 1973 and the other
in 1988, which, by the way, was championed by California Senator Dianne
Feinstein--both determined that the Ninth Circuit had an overly
burdensome size and scope and suggested that changes be made with the
structure of the Federal courts of appeals.
It is time to move forward with concrete solutions to address this
problem. The bills introduced by the junior Senator from Alaska and I
will do so.
I was trained as an engineer. As an engineer, one identifies a
problem and most importantly finds a solution. We have a capacity
constraint which can be alleviated. In thinking about our communities,
as our communities grow, we need to add more schools, add more
teachers, and add more police officers.
We need to ensure that all Americans have access to the justice they
deserve. It is time to split the Ninth Circuit.
I want to thank the junior Senator from Alaska for championing this
important issue, and I look forward to working with him to find a
resolution.
Mr. SULLIVAN. I thank my colleague from Montana and for his point in
particular. The charts make a very compelling case, but I think his
point in particular about constraints--when things get too large, they
become an organization that cannot function.
I think when you look at the debate that has occurred previously
about the Ninth Circuit, somehow we have gotten to the point where it
is some kind of radical idea to split the Ninth Circuit. But if you
look at the history of our country, the radical idea is actually not
splitting the Ninth Circuit. The outlier position is not to take a
court either that has this many cases pending or that controls this
much of the population and not do something about it.
The history of this body, starting with the Judiciary Act of 1789
that created three circuit courts: Eastern, Middle, and Southern--only
a few years later, Congress acted again--in 1802, a mere 13 years
later--and Congress doubled the number of circuit courts to six. What
we have seen throughout our history is when this kind of situation
exists where one court has an enormously oversized population,
Congress--as my colleague from Montana mentioned--acts in a bipartisan
manner, and they act for the sole reason to make sure all Americans are
getting effective administration of justice.
When your citizens wait longer than any other Americans and have
delays more than any other Americans and when your court that you are
subject to the jurisdiction of starts to create procedural shortcuts,
not a lot of which are known--and we are going to talk about some of
those over the next several weeks--and no other court does that, you
start to see that one in five Americans is burdened by this and
burdened by the lack of what the Supreme Court says: ``Equal Justice
Under Law.''
I again thank my colleague from Montana. I know he has some views on
what would happen again if this doesn't happen in his State or in my
State. But this isn't just about the West; this is about all Americans.
We all deserve the same justice.
Just by looking at these two posters, cases pending, as I talked
about earlier, and the time it takes to get appeals completed and the
enormous population of just one circuit, what is clear to me is that
the Congress needs to act.
I am honored to be working with my good friend from Montana where we
are offering Congress a variety of different ways to approach this--a
commission, a bill to split the circuit.
But I want to emphasize that this is not a radical idea; the radical
idea that is out of step with American history is to not do something
about this.
Every time in America's history since the Judiciary Act of 1789 when
this type of situation has occurred, Congress has acted, and they acted
because they knew equal justice under the law was at stake.
Mr. DAINES. I remember as we were raising our four children,
sometimes it would be late at night with a sick child, and I would turn
on ``Sesame Street'' with the child. I remember there was that ``One of
These Things (Is Not Like the Others)'' song. As I look at that chart,
this could be a ``Sesame Street'' illustration. One of these circuits
is not like the others. It is such a stark contrast to what we see with
the Ninth Circuit.
With the disproportionate number of cases that are pending in the
Ninth Circuit, this is not that complicated of a problem in terms of
trying to identify where the problem lies. It is simply a factor of
constraints, and it starts with the population chart my colleague from
Alaska has, but then it results in a disproportionate share of cases
coming out of that population. That is why something must be done.
These two prior Commissions that have studied this before, the one in
1973--which, by the way, in 1973, I was 11 years old. I was about
``Sesame Street'' age then. At that point they said the Ninth Circuit
had an overly burdensome size in 1973. Yet again in 1998, I am grateful
that California Senator Dianne Feinstein was championing that
Commission. She looked at this same issue 18 years ago and determined
that the Ninth Circuit was overly burdened and suggested changes be
made to the structure of the Federal courts of appeal.
So I look forward to working with my colleague from Alaska as we have
identified this problem and now move forward to a solution. If there is
something we hear over and over again from the American people, it is
this: You are not solving the problems facing this country.
We have a problem. We have a solution. I look forward to vigorous
discussions and continuing to get more information, and I look forward
to the alternatives. We think this is the best solution--to split the
Ninth, add the Twelfth Circuit. Even after that is done--you take the
Ninth and create the new Twelfth Circuit--the Ninth Circuit will still
be the largest circuit by population in the United States.
I again thank the junior Senator from Alaska for taking the lead in
this effort and look forward to continuing this discussion.
Mr. SULLIVAN. I appreciate my colleague's efforts as well. We will
continue to be focused on this.
[[Page S700]]
I will end by mentioning--my colleague mentioned the Sesame Street
adage ``One of these things is not like the other.'' But one other area
where this is the case, as I mentioned before, is in the en banc
procedures. That is when the courts of appeal--every one of them in the
country with the exception of one--when they have difficult issues,
they sit together. All the active judges sit together. This provides
uniformity and predictability in these courts. But one of these courts
is not like the others. The Ninth Circuit cannot do this. It is too
big. So they have developed what is called a limited en banc review,
which by definition is incorrect and an oxymoron because ``en banc''
means the whole court. So that is why you have so many opinions in this
court that are not uniform, that are problematic, and that undermine
the administration of justice for the one in five Americans who is
subject to this court's jurisdiction.
I look forward to working on this with my good friend the Senator
from Montana and Members on both sides of the aisle. This should be a
bipartisan issue for every Member of this body who wants to make sure
their citizens have equal justice under the law.
I yield the floor.
____________________