Abstract
District vacancies without nominees that plague red jurisdictions deserve emphasis in this Essay for several reasons. First, there are myriad district court jurists who trigger greater numbers of empty posts when they assume senior status, retire, or die, which triggers more issues. Legislators have created 677 active trial court positions, which dwarf the 179 active court of appeals judicial posts. The trial courts are tribunals of last resort for most cases; their numerous jurists are the only court members that many litigants encounter, and significantly more district court openings lack nominees. In contrast, appellate courts explicitly articulate considerable policy, include multiple states, and enunciate precedent, which strictly binds trial level judges in each circuit’s purview.
Vacancies’ substantial quantity and protracted character impose serious complications. Extensive openings increase pressure on all jurists, court staff, and litigants by prolonging resolution. Litigants who file civil suits particularly feel the pressure of judicial vacancies. The prevalence and duration of many red state trial court vacancies without nominees essentially inflict adverse effects that may prevent judges from satisfying their duties to ensure expeditious, inexpensive, and equitable disposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1. Accordingly, that issue requires scrutiny, which this Essay undertakes.
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2024
Recommended Citation
Carl Tobias, Filling the Red State Federal Judicial Vacancies, 12 Tex. A&M L. Rev. Arguendo 1 (2024).
Included in
Civil Procedure Commons, Judges Commons, Jurisprudence Commons