May 1, 2025, is Law Day, the day designated to reflect on the importance of the role of law for our country. On that day, I ask every lawyer, judge, and community member to join us for a public demonstration of support for the rule of law. Let's stand together - at noon (12 p.m.) on the steps of your nearest federal courthouse. In San Francisco, we'll gather at noon at the steps of the Ninth Circuit Courthouse. There we will reaffirm our commitment to judicial and legal independence.
Professor Miller first met Ruth Bader Ginsburg when they, along with RBG's husband Marty, were law students at Harvard. The pair would become lifelong friends, both successfully arguing cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, and maintaining that bond of friendship as she ascended to the Supreme Court herself and he established a prestigious career at Harvard, and later NYU.
Bloomberg Law has Justice Amy Coney Barrett's Lucrative Memoir to Come in Fall -- Barrett’s “Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution,” will come out Sept. 9 in the run up to the Supreme Court’s new term, Penguin Random House announced Friday.
Is this the appellate opinion of the future? The 147-page en banc opinion in this case (not to mention the 104-page separate order regarding whether the en banc court has statutory authority to decide the appeal) is supplemented by Judge VanDyke’s 18-minute YouTube video, in which he discusses firearm mechanisms, and illustrates his point with multiple examples. Appellate courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court) have been linking to video footage for several years; indeed, a dissenting Ninth Circuit judge did so in one of my cases (Vos v. City of Newport Beach). But this is the first instance I’ve seen of a judge actually delivering a video lecture as part of an opinion. Appellate opinions are evolving.
Law.com has ‘Wildly Improper’: Judge’s Video Dissent Showing Handguns Sparks Colleagues' Criticism -- The 18-minute video was part of Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s dissent to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's holding that large-capacity magazines are neither “arms” nor necessary accessories to operate an “arm” protected by the Second Amendment.
Bloomberg Law has Judge VanDyke Displays Handguns in Unusual Video Dissent
VanDyke has written sharp opinions jabbing at his colleagues before. In 2022 he wrote an alternate draft opinion in a separate gun case that he suggested a majority of the en banc court might adopt, if they were to review his decision. “You’re welcome,” he wrote sarcastically.
Law360 has 9th Circ. Judge Takes Aim At Calif. Gun Ruling On YouTube
The Wall St. Journal has Gun-Handling Judge Posts a Novel YouTube Dissent in Second Amendment CaseA federal appellate judge took the maxim “show, don’t tell” to a new level Thursday in a novel dissent to a closely watched Second Amendment case. “This is the first video like this that I’ve ever made,” said Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke in a YouTube video he recorded, in his chambers, as the bespectacled jurist in his black robes handled a handgun and explained its mechanics and operation to the camera.
The SF Chronicle has 9th Circuit judge handles a cache of firearms while robed in bizarre video dissent
AZ Supreme Court's New "Reporters" Aren't Human
Arizona's highest court has unveiled AI-generated avatars Daniel and Victoria to deliver court news. KVOA reports these digital personas will explain cases and decisions on the court's website and social media. "We want to help you understand the court and its decisions better and make sure you get accurate information directly from us in a timely way," says Daniel, one of the court's AI reporters. Victoria, his digital colleague, explains their purpose: "Our goal is to bridge the gap between complex legal proceedings and the Public's understanding of them."
The Associated Press confirms this is the first U.S. state court system using AI characters as the official "face" of court news. KVOA reports that Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer is “thrilled” about the innovation, while The Center Square quotes Media Research Center's Dan Schneider cautioning the Chief Justice “needs to use serious caution when selecting AI programs.”
The irony is striking: The institution that determines rights for humans now employs non-humans to explain its reasoning to the public. The court of public opinion will ultimately render the verdict on this experiment.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Diane Sykes will be taking senior status on Oct. 1, giving President Donald Trump a seat to fill on the Chicago-based appellate court.
Speaking of the 7th, that court's annual conference will be August 17-19 at the Swissotel in Chicago, and will feature: Paul Clement, Ross Guberman, Pulitzer Prize-winning author Gilbert King, Elizabeth Prelogar, and others, as well as plenary sessions on AI and the law. Register for the conference by clicking this link: https://registration.crowdcomms.com/benchbarconference25/register
Two former Goodwin Procter partners and an experienced Washington, D.C., appellate lawyer have opened a boutique law firm—Zimmer, Citron & Clarke—that aims to fill a niche: representing plaintiffs in high-stakes appeals. .... The three have clerked for 11 federal judges, including Zimmer for Justice Elena Kagan; Clarke for Justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter; and Citron for Kagan and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
Chief Justice John Roberts made a rare public statement against President Donald Trump’s call for the impeachment of a judge who ruled against his effort to swiftly deport alleged Venezuelan gang members.
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said on Tuesday. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
Law.com has Chief Justice Roberts Condemns Impeachment Threats Of Judges After Trump Attack
Ikuta is the first appellate judge to announce senior status since Trump started his second term on Jan. 20. There are also vacancies on the First, Fourth and Third circuits for Trump to fill, with the White House yet to name any nominees.
Law360 has Judge Ikuta's Sr. Status Plans Give Trump 9th Circ. Opening
The DJ has 9th Circuit's Sandra Ikuta to take senior status, pending Trump's replacement -- Judge Sandra S. Ikuta has been a prominent conservative voice on the appellate court. She has written major rulings later upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and played a key role in dissenting opinions that led to reversals of the court's liberal-leaning decisions.
On the appellate civility front, see this unpub from 2/4, discussed in the MetNews at Westwood Lawyers Slammed in C.A.Opinion for Second Time for Incivility in Briefing [3/20 update: The DJ has Panel rebukes firm for incivility but says it's right on the merits]
W.D.Tex Judge Fred Biery (formerly on the Texas Fourth Court of Appeals) has a piece in today's Law360: A Judge's Pointers For Adding Spice To Dry Legal Writing, about how to write decisions that aren't boring. He says to "tell a human story," "be original," and he points out that:
In addition to traditional legalese, alliteration, double entendre, analogy, cadence, aphorism, malapropism, oxymoron, simile and euphemism can add spice to an otherwise bland bowl of legal porridge, whether in opinions or brief-writing.
A federal judge overseeing judicial security issues said he’s concerned about recent articles of impeachment filed against judges who have ruled against the Trump administration’s early actions.
Asked about the impeachment effort, Judge Richard Sullivan, who chairs the Judicial Conference’s committee on judicial security, said at a press briefing Tuesday that judges can’t avoid deciding cases, and that there are already proper pathways for litigants to challenge rulings they dislike through appeals.
“Impeachment is not—shouldn’t be—a short circuiting of that process, and so it is concerning if impeachment is used in a way that is designed to do just that,” said Sullivan, who sits on the New York-based US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Law.com has Federal Appellate Judges Denounce Threats, Impeachment Efforts -- "Criticism is no surprise. It's part of the job," said Sixth Circuit Jeffrey Sutton. "But I do think when it gets to the level of a threat, it really is about attacking judicial independence, and that's just not good for the system or the country.”
Law360 has Threats Against Judges 'Top Priority,' Fed. Judiciary Says -- Protecting federal judges is a "top priority" as violent threats spike against a polarized political backdrop, making congressional funding for additional security measures more important than ever, the U.S. Judicial Conference said Tuesday.
Reuters has US federal judiciary undertakes review of its own DEI programs
Greetings from Retirementland, the amusement park we all aspire to!
This is my first column since retirement. I‘ve only been retired a short time and, as many of you will attest, it takes me awhile to figure things out. So I can’t really tell you much about my life here yet, but I can see already that it’s going to be an adventure.
We must address the regrettable briefing submitted by Mother’s appellate counsel. Mother’s appellate briefing is little more than a screed against the juvenile court, imbuing almost its every word or action with a malevolent intent that is not supported by the record. Mother’s appellate counsel postulates a moustache-twirling villain of a juvenile court that “prejudged the permanency with a focus on adoption, never entertaining another permanent plan,” resolved from its very first hearing in the case to ensure M.V. was adopted by the paternal grandparents, and “announced” its plan “long before the permanency hearing.”
These overheated accusations “cannot be fairly characterized as acts of zealous advocacy” (Martinez v. O’Hara (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 853, 857) in an effort to challenge the court’s order. Instead, Mother’s appellate briefs repeatedly accuse the juvenile court of intentionally refusing to follow and apply the law in a deliberate, long-term plan to manipulate the parties and violate their rights to achieve its preconceived goal. As discussed above, there is no support in the record for such serious charges. When made without evidentiary support, accusations that a judicial officer intentionally refused to follow and apply the law constitute reportable misconduct. (Id. at pp. 857–858.)
Additionally, Mother’s appellate counsel’s language is unprofessional and intemperate. Attorneys have a duty to “maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068, subd. (b).) “ ‘[I]t is vital to the integrity of our adversary legal process that attorneys strive to maintain the highest standards of ethics, civility, and professionalism in the practice of law.’ ” (In re S.C., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 412.) With this contemptuous tirade, counsel’s language “lurched off the path of discourse and into the ditch of abuse.” (In re Mahoney (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 376, 381.)
“This kind of over-the-top, anything-goes, devil-take-the hindmost rhetoric has to stop. [¶] If you think the court is wrong, don’t hesitate to say so. Explain the error. Analyze the cases the court relied upon and delineate its mistake. Do so forcefully. Do so con brio; do so with zeal, with passion. We in the appellate courts will respect your efforts and understand your ardor. . . . [¶] But don’t expect to get anywhere—except the reported decisions—with jeremiads.” (Id. at p. 380.)
We will forward a copy of this opinion to the California Appellate Project—which oversees the work of appointed appellate counsel—for whatever action it deems appropriate.
Justice Currey provides services as: Mediator | Arbitrator | Discovery Referee | Appellate Consultant
Law360 has Judicial Impeachment Calls Could Drive Anger At Bench
Posts
All Comments
