Pennsylvania,
Where Are the Judges?
By Sean Wright, Anisha Singh, and Michael Morrill May 21, 2015
It has been more than 620 days since Sean McLaughlin, the U.S. District Court judge for
the Western District of Pennsylvania, officially resigned from the bench—leaving a key
spot on this important court unfilled.1
Although Judge McLaughlin’s seat has been vacant the longest, his empty spot represents just the tip of the iceberg of what has become a federal judicial vacancy crisis in
Pennsylvania. As of March 2015, there were five current vacancies on federal courts
that serve the Keystone State.2 Only Texas has more federal judicial vacancies than
Pennsylvania.3 If nothing is done about this situation, there will be six vacancies on the
federal courts serving Pennsylvania within the next year.4 The result of these vacancies is
a backlog of more than 3,400 cases and a denial of access to justice for Pennsylvanians.5
That backlog will only grow unless action is taken.
Because of the deference to home-state senators to recommend judicial nominees,
the opportunity to resolve this vacancy crisis rests with Pennsylvania’s two U.S. senators, Democrat Bob Casey and Republican Pat Toomey, who have yet to identify
Pennsylvanians who can be nominated to fill court vacancies and get Pennsylvania’s
federal courts back to full strength. Once the senators offer suggestions to the Obama
administration, Republican leadership in the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee
will play a leading role in solving this problem by scheduling hearings for the nominees.6
From criminal cases to immigration hearings to civil disputes, federal judges in
Pennsylvania make decisions on issues that matter to Americans. There is no doubt
that Pennsylvania has an abundance of qualified, diverse candidates to serve on
its District Courts and on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. According to the
American Bar Association, there were 49,697 practicing attorneys in Pennsylvania in
2013.7 Yet Sens. Casey and Toomey have been slow in delivering nominee suggestions
to the White House. It is up to Pennsylvania’s senators to ensure that Pennsylvanians
have a fully functioning federal judiciary.
1 Center for American Progress | Pennsylvania, Where Are the Judges?
Denying Pennsylvanians access to justice
Federal courts make rulings that directly affect the lives of Americans. Federal courts
hear cases in which the United States is a party, cases involving violations of the
Constitution or federal laws, and cases between citizens of different states. The federal
courts also hear bankruptcy cases, patent cases, and cases involving maritime law.
Pennsylvania currently has four District Court judicial vacancies8 and one current circuit court vacancy—Judge L. Felipe Restrepo is currently awaiting a hearing from the
Senate Judiciary Committee for this position.9 The Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts has designated this seat a judicial emergency.10 As the Center for American
Progress previously noted, these are the judicial districts “where judges are overworked and where justice is being significantly delayed for the American public.”11
What’s more, two more federal court seats will open next year: one District Court seat
and one 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals seat that must be filled with the support of
Pennsylvania’s senators.12
The importance of the U.S. Supreme Court and how its decisions affect their lives is
widely understood by Americans. That is why it is national front-page news when a
Supreme Court justice steps down. But while Supreme Court decisions make the headlines, the reality is that lower federal courts—those affected by Pennsylvania’s judicial
vacancy crisis—decide hundreds of times more cases each year than the high court.
While the Supreme Court decides only around 80 cases per year, the 3rd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals—which hears appeals from Pennsylvania’s federal courts—heard
3,828 cases between March 2012 and March 2013, a 3.6 percent increase from the
year before.13 That averages out to around 273 cases per active judge. Of course, that is
assuming that all 14 authorized seats were filled.14
In the same time period, the U.S. District Courts in Pennsylvania heard 16,749 civil
cases15 and 1,305 criminal cases,16 averaging around 475 cases per judge—again, assuming all 38 authorized judgeships were filled. On top of that, Pennsylvanians should be
concerned that District Court caseloads have increased from 2013 in several instances:
The Middle District of Pennsylvania saw its criminal filings increase 7.3 percent17 and its
civil filings increase 2.1 percent18 while the Eastern District of Pennsylvania saw its civil
filings increase 6.1 percent19 from 2013 to 2014.
In all, if one adds up the number of days that Pennsylvania’s federal district and circuit
court seats have been vacant, nearly eight years’ worth of cases could have been decided
had judges been appointed to those federal court seats. Instead, there is a backlog of
more than 3,400 cases and some extremely overworked and overburdened court staffs.20
2 Center for American Progress | Pennsylvania, Where Are the Judges?
Because seats on federal benches are empty in the Keystone State,
Pennsylvanians cannot have their cases heard in a timely manner,
are denied access to justice, and incur unnecessary financial burdens.
Additionally, Pennsylvania federal judges and their staffs are overworked. Indeed, the Brennan Center for Justice found that judicial
vacancies lead to case delays, less time spent by judges on individual
cases, administrative burden, and an increase in the “risk of judicial
burnout.”24 Moreover, the Judicial Conference of the United States
found that the median time for a federal case to proceed from filing
to trial has increased more than 70 percent since 1992, rising from 15
months to 25.7 months by 2013.25
In Pennsylvania specifically, all three of the state’s federal districts are
dealing with vacancy issues. For example, The Atlantic reported in a
2012 article that Judge Richard Caputo had the most cases of any of
the judges within the Middle District of Pennsylvania, with more than
500 civil and criminal cases.26 A 2013 federal judicial survey found
that 422 cases in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania have dragged
out for three or more years without a trial or decision.27 An analysis
by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review found that the Western District of
Pennsylvania had a backlog of 329 adult and juvenile immigration
cases that languished, on average, for around one and a half years with
an average adjudication time of 516 days.28
What do the judges have to say?
Pennsylvania vacancy
consequences
As of April 2015:
• Pennsylvania alone constitutes nearly 10 percent of
all current federal judicial District Court vacancies
without a nominee.21
• Current Pennsylvania federal judgeships have sat
vacant for:
––2,267 days, or 6.21 years, on the District Courts
––619 days, or 1.70 years, on the circuit court
––2,886 days, or 7.91 years, total22
• The Pennsylvania federal court backlog*—based on
the number of days that currently unfilled judgeships have sat vacant and on the average number
of cases both circuit court and District Court judges
hear per year—stands at:
––More than 2,940 cases backlogged in
the District Courts
––More than 460 cases backlogged in
the circuit court
––More than 3,400 cases backlogged total23
* The backlog does not account for cases that
might be taken by magistrate, visiting, or seniorstatus judges.
Several judges from federal courts that serve Pennsylvanians have
publically lamented the effect of judicial vacancies on their courts.
Judge John Jones from the Middle District of Pennsylvania said, “The federal courts
are stacked up with motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment which are
very fact- specific and require a great deal of time. When you have fewer judges, and the
judges who are in service have more motions, everything is delayed.”29
In a blog post for the National Constitution Center, former 3rd Circuit Judge Timothy
K. Lewis noted:
A court with two or three vacancies simply cannot meet the demand with the efficiency
the parties deserve and that the rules and procedures mandate. ... There are real-world
consequences to this situation: businesses suffer while awaiting decisions on crucial
matters; where there are liberty interests involved, people suffer. Imagine telling the
man unfairly convicted that his appeal can’t be heard because there aren’t enough
judges to handle it.30
3 Center for American Progress | Pennsylvania, Where Are the Judges?
Judge Yvette Kane from the Middle District of Pennsylvania told The Patriot News, “I
don’t think anyone can look at [the current judicial vacancies] and say this isn’t going to
have an effect on tons of citizens in the district.”31
The process of appointing federal district court judges
Under the U.S. Constitution, the president appoints federal judges “by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate.”
FIGURE 1
An easy guide to federal judicial nominations
9 steps from vacancy to confirmation
Every day, federal judges make decisions that affect our lives. Not only do they hear cases affecting the environment, health care, Social Security benefits, and immigration, for example, but they often have the final say in
determining who we can marry, whether our speech is protected, or how we can vote. Despite these important
decisions, most Americans don’t know how or why a judge is chosen. Under the Constitution, the president
nominates federal judges by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Our simple step-by-step guide
illustrates the process.
3
1
2
Judges often give advance
notice of up to one year
before a vacancy occurs in
a federal district court or
circuit court of appeals.
4
The White House consults
with home state senators,
often soliciting their
recommendations, to
identify candidates to fill
the vacancy.
The White House conducts
a thorough vetting of the
candidate, considers the
candidate’s American Bar
Association rating, and
announces the nomination.
7
6
8
The Senate votes, and
the nominee is
confirmed with a
majority vote.
The Senate Judiciary
Committee sends blue
slips—requests for approval
on light blue paper—to each
home state senator to indicate
support for the nominee.
5
The Senate majority
leader schedules a full
vote in the U.S. Senate.
A majority of the Senate
Judiciary Committee
votes to move the
nominee forward.
9
After blue slips are returned in
favor of the nominee, the chair
of the Senate Judiciary
Committee schedules a
committee hearing where
members are able to debate the
candidate’s qualifications.
POTENTIAL ROADBLOCKS
The above process assumes there are no procedural roadblocks to an appointment. This process can
be affected by partisanship and can be delayed indefinitely.
The president signs the judge’s
commission and begins the
judge’s lifetime appointment
to the federal bench.
Home state
senators fail to
recommend a
candidate
to the president.
Home state senators
fail to return the blue
slip or disapprove of
the nominee.
Members of the
Senate Judiciary
Committee can delay
the committee vote.
Senators can block the
Senate majority leader
from promptly scheduling
a full Senate vote.
Sources: Personal communication from Jeremy Paris, former chief counsel for nominations and oversight, Sen. Patrick Leahy, October 23,
2012; U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, “Nominations,” available at http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominations (last accessed April
2015); American Bar Association, “Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary: What It Is and How It Works” (2009).
4 Center for American Progress | Pennsylvania, Where Are the Judges?
As detailed in an earlier CAP issue brief, “Texas, Where Are the Judges?”, federal court
appointments are for life, which means that it is up to each judge to decide when to step
down. When judges do decide to leave the bench, they typically give advance notice of
up to one year before leaving a federal District Court or circuit court.
Because judicial nominees cannot make it through the Senate confirmation process
without support from their home-state senators, the White House consults with the
senators who represent the state in which the particular court vacancy is located. Homestate senators may recommend judicial candidates to the White House in a number of
ways: by conducting exhaustive searches through the state bar for candidates; by creating selection committees, often made up of leading attorneys in the state; or by selecting
candidates based on the recommendations of these committees or other considerations.
Home-state senators’ failure to recommend a candidate to the president in a timely manner or to engage with the White House in its recommendation can slow the selection
process. After a candidate is officially nominated, the Senate determines how quickly, if
at all, the president’s nominee moves through the confirmation process.
The entire process—from vacancy to confirmation—can take months or even years
depending on how quickly the Senate acts. Throughout the process, senators can slow
or block progress by failing to initiate or participate in a candidate recommendation process. Senators, for example, may refuse to return blue slips, letters printed on light blue
paper that are used by the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask home-state senators to
approve committee consideration of nominees who would serve in their states. In recent
years, blue-slip approval from a home-state senator has been a de facto requirement
to move forward with a candidate. Senators may also obstruct by delaying the Senate
Judiciary Committee vote or by postponing a full vote in the Senate.32
Getting it done in Pennsylvania
If the judicial vacancy problem in Pennsylvania is going to be solved, Sens. Casey and
Toomey must work together in a bipartisan manner to identify consensus potential
nominees to send to the White House for vetting and consideration.
As Colorado Ethics Watch—a nonprofit, nonpartisan government watchdog—explains
in its report “Behind the Curtain of Federal Judicial Nominations”:
After Senator Toomey took office in 2011, the Senators started a new process for
recommending names for vacancies. The Senators established 20-member panels to recommend judicial nominees in each of the three judicial districts in Pennsylvania where
each Senator appoints a co-chair and half of the members of each panel.33
5 Center for American Progress | Pennsylvania, Where Are the Judges?
Pennsylvanians can apply for panel consideration by completing applications from
either of the senators’ websites.34 The senators then appear before the Judicial
Nominations Panel to select and submit judicial candidates jointly after reviewing information from the panels.35
In March 2014, the senators’ vetting and recommendation process created controversy.
Supposedly, Sens. Casey and Toomey had worked out a deal that would have allowed
“Casey to pick three or more federal judicial nominees in exchange for Toomey getting [David J.] Porter,” a corporate lawyer, appointed to the Western District Court of
Pennsylvania.36 Progressives were upset with the deal because Porter reportedly headed
“the Federalist Society’s Pittsburgh Lawyers Chapter, helped found a coalition that tried
to stop Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation, and is a contributor and
trustee at the conservative Center for Vision and Values.”37 The White House, however, did
not nominate Porter and the seat for which he was rumored to be in line remains empty.38
Since the Porter controversy, there has been little insight as to the progress of the
Pennsylvania committees or the ultimate decisions by either senator. Indeed, Sens.
Casey and Toomey seem to have a confidentiality agreement that as a McClatchyDC
commentary characterizes, “makes it impossible to know where candidates, if any, are in
the process.”39 Sources familiar with the negotiations to fill the existing vacancies believe
that once Porter was out of the mix, the judicial nomination package became stalled.40
Pennsylvania’s federal courts lack racial and gender diversity
The 3rd Circuit lacks diversity. Only three of the 13 judges on the 3rd Circuit are women,41
one of whom will be reaching senior status as of July 2015.42 The vast majority of the 3rd
Circuit bench is white, with only two African Americans and one Hispanic serving.43
Pennsylvania’s district courts also lack racial and ethnic diversity. In 2014, women
represented only 22 percent of District Court judges in Pennsylvania, including just
15 percent of judges in the Middle District.44 The Eastern District is the most racially
diverse of Pennsylvania’s federal courts with three Hispanic judges and four African
American judges.45
6 Center for American Progress | Pennsylvania, Where Are the Judges?
FIGURE 2
3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals:
Circuit court lacks racial and gender diversity
Racial diversity
Gender diversity
Vacancies
1
14
Authorized
seats
Hispanics
1
African Americans
14
1
2
Vacancies
10
Whites
Authorized
seats
3
10
Women
Men
Source: Federal Judicial Center, "Biographical Directory of Federal Judges," available at http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/judges.html (last
accessed May 2015); JudicialNominations.org, "Federal Judicial Vacancies: Third Circuit Court of Appeals," available at http://judicialnominations.org/
(last accessed May 2015).
Unprecedented obstruction
While things are stalled in Pennsylvania, that is not the end of the judicial vacancy issue
for Pennsylvanians. Because of unprecedented obstruction from Senate leadership in
the last phase of the judicial nominations process—Senate confirmation—there is cause
for further concern.
As discussed above, judicial nominees go through two important steps in the U.S.
Senate. They must receive a majority of votes in the Senate Judiciary Committee and the
entire Senate to be officially confirmed. These steps leave many procedural openings for
the party opposite of the president to slow and obstruct the nominees.
Between the beginning of the 114th Congress in January and April 1, 2015, the Senate
Judiciary Committee only voted on five judicial nominees.46 During those same three
months, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) scheduled zero votes on
the floor for judicial nominees. There are 15 nominees languishing before the Senate
Judiciary Committee, waiting for Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) to
schedule hearings and votes.47
Compared to 2007, it is clear that the Senate leadership’s obstruction of judicial
nominees is unprecedented and extreme. That year, different parties controlled the
presidency and the majority in the Senate. Despite facing divided government, the
Senate had confirmed 15 of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees by the end
of March 2007.48
7 Center for American Progress | Pennsylvania, Where Are the Judges?
The result of this unprecedented inaction by Senate leadership has
had a dramatic impact on Americans’ access to justice. Since the
beginning of the 114th Congress, nationwide judicial vacancies have
risen from 40 at the beginning of 2015 to 56 as of May 13.51 Judicial
emergencies—those defined by the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts as vacancies that cause an extreme amount of case backlog52—
have almost doubled during that same period, from 12 to 24.53 Finally,
on April 13, 2015, the new Senate leadership held its first vote on
one of President Obama’s judicial nominees, voting 95-0 to confirm
a judge to a Texas seat that sat vacant for 769 days.54 As of May 13,
just two judges have had floor votes for confirmation, and both were
overwhelmingly confirmed.55
Senate obstruction of the president’s judicial nominees is not a new
phenomenon. As noted in the previous CAP issue brief on Texas
federal court vacancies, throughout its long history, the U.S. Senate
has filibustered a total of 147 individual nominees.56 More than half of
those filibusters have taken place during the Obama administration.57
In U.S. history, there have been a total of 168 cloture motions filed or
reconsidered on nominations, and 82 of these have been made since
2009.58 Cloture is the only procedure by which the Senate can vote to
end debate and overcome a filibuster, requiring a simple majority of
51 on federal district and appeals court nominees.
Indeed, former 3rd Circuit Court Judge Lewis pointed to political
obstruction as the source of the vacancy issue: “In many states, senators’ unprecedented obstruction on the chamber floor has perpetuated this crisis. … Senate inaction is compromising the judiciary’s
constitutional responsibility to protect and preserve our liberties.”59
CASE STUDY:
Judicial emergency on the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit
President Barack Obama selected Judge L. Felipe
Restrepo more than six months ago for the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit to fill a seat that has been
open for 18 months. In the six months that he has
been waiting for a hearing, the vacancy that Judge
Restrepo would fill has become a “judicial emergency,”
overloading other judges and delaying justice from
being carried out.49
Despite the empty seat being declared a judicial
emergency for appeals out of Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, and Delaware, the leadership of the Senate
Judiciary Committee is refusing to hold confirmation
hearings for Judge Restrepo.
This obstruction comes despite Judge Restrepo’s
position as a District Court judge in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, for which he was nominated and confirmed by the full Senate in 2013, less than two years
ago. Judge Repestro is a highly qualified first-generation Latino nominee with a solid history as a defender
of civil liberties and civil rights and would be the first
judge on that court who has been a public defender.
Judge Restrepo would be the first Latino judge from
Pennsylvania to serve on the 3rd Circuit Court and only
the second Latino judge ever to serve on that court.50
Both Senate Majority Leader McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Grassley should make floor votes and hearings on judicial nominations a priority. It is also
incumbent upon individual senators with vacancies in their states to work in good faith
with the White House to identify quality nominees to fill needed positions on the bench.
Conclusion
It is vital that Sens. Casey and Toomey come together to work with the White House
to identify strong lawyers to fill vacancies on Pennsylvania’s federal courts. They also
should be vocal advocates to push Senate leadership to make confirming judicial nominees a priority and to ensure that U.S. courts are filled with qualified judges and that
Americans have access to justice.
8 Center for American Progress | Pennsylvania, Where Are the Judges?
Needless delays hurt Americans across the country, all of whom are entitled to a fully
staffed judiciary. Pennsylvanians are feeling the effects of judicial vacancies—and
the caseload backlog that comes with them—more than in any state except Texas.
Pennsylvanians do not deserve to be 49th in the nation.
Sens. Casey and Toomey have previously shown a willingness to cooperate on judicial
nominations. They have the power to address the judicial vacancy issue in federal courts
that serve the Keystone State in a fair and timely matter. They should make this effort a
priority for the sake of their constituents in Pennsylvania and for all Americans.
Sean Wright is the Policy Analyst for Legal Progress at the Center for American Progress. Anisha
Singh is the Campaign Manager for Legal Progress. Michael Morrill is the executive director of
Keystone Progress. Shannon Robin, a Legal Progress intern, also contributed to this issue brief.
9 Center for American Progress | Pennsylvania, Where Are the Judges?
Endnotes
1 Alliance for Justice, “AFJ Judicial Selection Dashboard,”
available at https://public.tableau.com/views/AFJ_Judicial_Dashboard_Current/Dashboard1?%3Aembed=y&%3A
display_count=no&%3AshowVizHome=no&%3Aretry=yes
(last accessed April 2015).
2 U.S. Courts, “Current Judicial Vacancies,” available at http://
www.uscourts.gov/JudgesAndJudgeships/JudicialVacancies/CurrentJudicialVacancies.aspx (last accessed April
2015).
3Ibid.
4 U.S. Courts, “Future Judicial Vacancies,” available at http://
www.uscourts.gov/JudgesAndJudgeships/JudicialVacancies/FutureJudicialVacancies.aspx (last accessed April 2015).
5 U.S. Courts, “U.S. District Courts—Civil Cases Commenced,
Terminated, and Pending During the 12-Month Periods
Ending March 31, 2012 and 2013,” available at http://
www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/Statistics/
FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/2013/tables/C00Mar13.
pdf (last accessed March 2014); U.S. Courts, “U.S. District
Courts—Criminal Cases Commenced, Terminated, and
Pending (Including Transfers) During the 12-Month Periods
Ending March 31, 2012 and 2013,” available at http://www.
uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/Statistics/FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/2013/tables/D00CMar13.pdf
(last accessed March 2014).
6 Alliance for Justice, “Judicial Selection in the 114th Congress: An Early Assessment” (2014), available at http://www.
afj.org/reports/judicial-selection-in-the-114th-congress-anearly-assessment.
7 American Bar Association, “National Lawyer Population by
State” (2013), available at http://www.americanbar.org/
content/dam/aba/administrative/market_research/2013_
natl_lawyer_by_state.authcheckdam.pdf.
8 U.S. Courts, “Current Judicial Vacancies.”
9 Alliance for Justice, “Pending Judicial Nominations”
(2015), available at http://www.afj.org/wp-content/
uploads/2014/11/ReportPendingNominees.pdf. Note:
Although circuit courts straddle many states, certain states
are traditionally responsible for filling vacancies that occur
in specific seats. For example, Sens. Casey and Toomey are
responsible for filling the seat vacated by Judge Anita B.
Brody, who took senior status on June 8, 2009. See Federal
Judicial Center, “Biographical Directory of Federal Judges:
Brody, Anita Blumstein,” available at http://www.fjc.gov/
servlet/nGetInfo?jid=271&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na
(last accessed April 2015).
16 U.S. Courts, “U.S. District Courts—Criminal Cases Commenced, Terminated, and Pending (Including Transfers)
During the 12-Month Periods Ending March 31, 2012 and
2013.”
17 U.S. Courts, “U.S. District Courts—Criminal Cases Commenced, Terminated, and Pending (Including Transfers) During the 12-Month Periods Ending March 31, 2013 and 2014,”
available at http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/
uscourts/Statistics/FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/2014/
tables/D00CMar14.pdf (last accessed April 2015).
18 U.S. Courts, “U.S. District Courts—Civil Cases Commenced,
Terminated, and Pending During the 12-Month Periods
Ending March 31, 2013 and 2014,” available at http://www.
uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/Statistics/FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/2014/tables/C00Mar14.pdf (last
accessed April 2015).
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.; U.S. Courts, “U.S. District Courts—Civil Cases Commenced, Terminated, and Pending During the 12-Month
Periods Ending March 31, 2012 and 2013.”
21 Alliance for Justice, “Judicial Vacancies Without Nominees”
(2015), available at http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ReportCurrentAndFutureVacancies.pdf.
22 Alliance for Justice, “Pending Judicial Nominees”
(2014), available at http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Pending-Judicial-Nominees-2.19.14.pdf.
23 U.S. Courts, “Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics 2013 Tables,”
available at http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/caseload-statistics-2013.aspx (last
accessed March 2014).
24 Alicia Bannon, “The Impact of Judicial Vacancies on Federal
Trial Courts” (New York: Brennan Center for Justice, 2014),
available at http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/
files/publications/Impact%20of%20Judicial%20Vacancies%20072114.pdf.
25 News Item, “Cheers to good will, 911 salutes; jeers to swaps,
slow justice,” September 16, 2013, available at http://newsitem.com/opinion/cheers-to-good-will-911-salutes-jeers-toswaps-slow-justice-1.1552667.
26 Andrew Cohen, “In Pennsylvania, the Human Costs of
Judicial Confirmation Delays,” The Atlantic, September 9,
2012, available at http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/
archive/2012/09/in-pennsylvania-the-human-costs-ofjudicial-confirmation-delays/261862/.
10 U.S. Courts, “Judicial Emergencies,” available at http://www.
uscourts.gov/JudgesAndJudgeships/Judicial-Vacancies/
JudicialEmergencies.aspx (last accessed May 2015).
27 Wendy Saltzman, “Action News Investigation: Major Delays
in Philadelphia’s Federal Court,” ABC Action News 6, July
30, 2014, available at http://6abc.com/news/investigationmajor-delays-in-philadelphias-federal-court/227114/.
11 Andrew Blotky and Sandhya Bathija, “Federal Judicial
Emergencies” (Washington: Center for American Progress,
2012), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/
issues/civil-liberties/report/2012/11/08/11914/federaljudicialemergencies/.
28 Carl Prine, “W. Pa. immigration court clogged by case
backlog,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, July 25, 2014, available
at http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/6482859-74/immigration-court-immigrants#axzz3OcdUtYNr.
12 U.S. Courts, “Current Judicial Vacancies.”
29 Andrew Cohen, “In Pennsylvania, the Human Costs of
Judicial Confirmation Delays.”
13 U.S. Courts, “U.S. Courts of Appeals—Appeals Commenced,
Terminated, and Pending During the 12-Month Periods
Ending March 31, 2012 and 2013,” available at http://www.
uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/Statistics/FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/2013/tables/B00Mar13.pdf (last
accessed February 2014).
30 Timothy K. Lewis, “Are judicial nomination battles damaging
our democracy?” Constitution Daily, September 12, 2011,
available at http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/09/arejudicial-nomination-battles-damaging-our-democracy/.
14 Ibid.
15 U.S. Courts, “U.S. District Courts—Civil Cases Commenced,
Terminated, and Pending During the 12-Month Periods Ending March 31, 2012 and 2013.”
31 The Harrisburg Patriot-News, “Editorial: The president’s
judicial nominees should get approval,” December 2, 2012,
available at http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2012/12/editorial_the_presidents_judicial_nominees_should_get_approval.html.
10 Center for American Progress | Pennsylvania, Where Are the Judges?
32 Sandhya Bathija, Joshua Field, and Phillip Martin, “Texas,
Where Are the Judges” (Washington: Center for American
Progress, 2014), available at https://www.americanprogress.
org/issues/civil-liberties/report/2014/04/02/86910/texaswhere-are-the-judges.
33 Colorado Ethics Watch, “Behind the Curtain of Federal Judicial Nominations” (2014), p. 20, available at http://crew.3cdn.
net/644dd2ad0ab2829e8c_n5m6bpjif.pdf.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid.
36 Jennifer Bendery, “Pennsylvania Progressives Race To Stave
Off Potential Republican Obama Nominee,” The Huffington
Post, March 27, 2014, available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/27/obama-judicial-nominee-davidporter_n_5042326.html.
37 Ibid.
38 Jennifer Bendery, “Pennsylvania Progressives Torpedo
Nomination Of Potential GOP Obama Judicial Pick,” The
Huffington Post, June 2, 2014, available at http://www.
huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/02/david-porter-toomeyobama-nominee_n_5433446.html.
39 Carl Tobias, “Commentary: Filling Eastern District Of Pennsylvania judicial vacancies,” McClatchyDC, June 21, 2012, available at http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/06/21/153292/
commentary-filling-eastern-district.html.
47 U.S. Courts, “Current Judicial Vacancies.”
48 Paul Gordon, “PFAW Edit Memo: Senate Republicans’ Failure
to Confirm Obama Nominees – By the Numbers,” People for
the American Way, March 27, 2015, available at http://www.
pfaw.org/press-releases/2015/03/pfaw-edit-memo-senaterepublicans-failure-confirm-obama-nominees-numbers.
49 U.S. Courts, “Judicial Emergencies.”
50 David Hawkings, “New Congress, New Round in Senate
Fight Over Obama’s Judges,” Roll Call, May 5, 2015, available
at http://blogs.rollcall.com/hawkings/new-congress-newround-senate-fight-obamas-judges/.
51 U.S. Courts, “Current Judicial Vacancies.”
52 U.S. Courts, “Judicial Emergencies.”
53 Ibid.
54 Jennifer Bendery, “Republicans Finally Let One Of Obama’s
Judicial Nominees Get A Vote,” The Huffington Post,
April 13, 2015, available at http://www.huffingtonpost.
com/2015/04/13/obama-judicial-nominees_n_7056684.
html.
55 U.S. Courts, “Confirmation Listing,” available at http://www.
uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-vacancies/confirmation-listing (last accessed May 2015).
41 Ibid.
56 Louis Jacobson, “Harry Reid says 82 presidential nominees
have been blocked under President Barack Obama, 86
blocked under all other presidents,” PolitiFact, November
22, 2013, available at http://www.politifact.com/truth-ometer/statements/2013/nov/22/harry-reid/harry-reid-says82-presidential-nominees-have-been/.
42 U.S. Courts, “Future Judicial Vacancies.”
57 Ibid.
43 Federal Judicial Center, “Biographical Directory of Federal
Judges.”
58 Richard S. Beth and Elizabeth Rybicki, “Nominations
with Cloture Motions, 2009 to the present” (Washington:
Congressional Research Service, 2013), available at http://
s3.documentcloud.org/documents/838702/crs-filibusterreport.pdf.
40 Bendery, “Pennsylvania Progressives Torpedo Nomination
Of Potential GOP Obama Judicial Pick.”
44 Pennsylvania Bar Association, “Commission on Women in
the Profession: 20th Report Card” (2015), available at https://
www.pabar.org/pdf/PBAWIPReportCard2015.pdf.
45 U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, “Court
Directory” (2015), available at https://www.paed.uscourts.
gov/documents/directry/directry.pdf.
59 Timothy K. Lewis, “Fill judicial vacancies,” The Scranton TimesTribune, February 17, 2012, available at http://thetimestribune.com/opinion/editorials-columns/guest-columnists/
fill-judicial-vacancies-1.1272779#axzz1mvcWpIO1.
46 Alliance for Justice, “Pending Judicial Nominations.”
11 Center for American Progress | Pennsylvania, Where Are the Judges?