In The Court Of Appeals For The Fifth District Of: Fill & Download for Free

Congress could in fact disband the Ninth Circuit, but the judges already appointed to it would remain federal judges because federal judges serve for life according to the Constitution.It’s not clear what would happen if Congress passed a law disbanding a federal court that did not provide for what happens to the judges already appointed to it, because Congress has only done such a thing once, and it caused a massive furor that Congress is loath to experience again. It’s generally believed that the Supreme Court would find such a law unconstitutional. While Congress has the unquestioned right to determine the structure of the courts, it cannot abolish a judge’s seat without also transferring that judge to some other seat. It could assign the judge to an empty bench, but they’d still have to pay the judge’s salary and provide that judge with all of the other prerequisites of a federal judicial officer as long as that judge remains “in good behaviour”.There have been several acts reorganizing the federal judiciary over the centuries. With the exception of the baldly partisan Judiciary Act of 1802 (which itself simply reversed the equally baldly partisan Judiciary Act of 1801), every reorganization act has provided for the fates of each and every judge whose seat was eliminated or modified in the reorganization. For example, the Judicial Code of 1911, which abolished the old circuit courts of the United States and transferred their remaining jurisdiction to the district courts, included this provision:Sec. 298. The repeal of existing laws providing for the appointment of judges and other officers mentioned in this Act, or affecting the organization of the courts, shall not be construed to affect the tenure of office of the incumbents (except the office be abolished), but they shall continue to hold their respective offices during the terms for which appointed, unless removed as provided by law; nor (except the office be abolished) shall such repeal affect the salary or fees or compensation of any officer or person holding office or position by virtue of any law.However, the 1911 act has a more interesting aspect to it: at the time it became law, all of the judgeships authorized for the circuit courts it abolished were vacant, as Congress had previously, in 1891, transferred all currently-serving circuit court judges to the newly-established Circuit Courts of Appeals.When Congress abolished the Commerce Court (established in 1910 and abolished in 1913), four of the five judges appointed to that court became appellate judges at large, available to be appointed to serve by designation by the chief judge of any Circuit Court of Appeals. The fifth was impeached and removed from office for malfeasance.

To sum up the most significant decisions:The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to military service. This was perhaps unintentionally confirmed in the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision in 1857.The right to keep and bear arms is a right that exists independently of the Constitution and does not depend on the Constitution to exist. Confirmed in United States v. Cruikshank in 1876.The Congress does have the power to levy taxes on firearms and the such taxes may have a regulatory effect. Decided in Sonzinsky v. United States in 1937.The National Firearms Act of 1934 is a revenue measure and does not violate the Second Amendment. Decided in United States v. Miller in 1939.The federal government cannot compel a state to enforce a federal law. Decided in New York v. United States in 1992.That the federal government cannot compel a state official to enforce a federal law. Decided in Prinz v. United States in 1997.The Second Amendment protects an individual right unconnected to military service and protects the right of the individual to keep and bear arms for self-defense. That governments cannot prohibit the keeping of firearms in a condition suitable for self-defense in the home. That handguns are a protected firearm. That regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is permissible but such regulations must be balanced with the exercise of that right. Decided in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008.That the right to keep and bear arms is incorporated under the due process clause of the Constitution. That a ban on handguns was unconstitutional. The court did not rule to overturn a previous decision on incorporating the Bill of Rights among the privileges and immunities of the citizen. Decided in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010.That the Second Amendment was not limited to weapons in use at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified. Decided in a per curium opinion in Caetano v. Massachusetts in 2016. [kudos to Paul V. Willson for reminding me of the omission!]We are currently awaiting a decision in the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York. Arguments were heard in December. The opinion could range anywhere from a dismissal of the case as being moot as the law was repealed to a ruling that broadly expands the right to bear arms.Other cases making their way through the system:Young v. Hawaii. The most recent court action was in the Ninth District Court of Appeals where the court ruled that the right to bear arms meant that at least the right to openly carry a firearm was protected by the Second Amendment. This is currently on hold pending an en banc review and may be rendered moot depending on the Supreme Court’s action in NYSRPA v. New York.Duncan v. Becerra. The most recent action was by a U.S. District Judge in San Diego holding that a ban on magazines hold more than ten rounds was unconstitutional and that the confiscation of such magazines violated the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on taking without just compensation. Currently on appeal in the Ninth District.

Do I regret not going to a top 50 law school?Nope.I started off at Hamline University School of Law, which got eaten up in a one-of-a-kind merger with William Mitchell School of Law in the middle of my 1L year to become Mitchell Hamline School of Law. Neither were in the top 100 when I started, and the combined school hasn’t gone up from there.But let me tell you a little story about something that happened when I was between my 2L and 3L year, doing a judicial internship.I was volunteering with the Badger Boys’ State Law School short course, a quick and basic introduction to being an attorney for high school students. One of the other volunteers was a rising 3L at Harvard. We got to talking just to compare experience notes.I’d done a ton of practical work in my courses. We always had to apply what we did in class, not just on a test, but on real-world type work. I had to write a summons and complaint, court briefs, proposed orders, appellate work according to the state Court of Appeals rules, challenge omnibus issues, and more in hypotheticals for classes. We had to draft contracts, represent mock clients, and more.The Harvard guy was dumbfounded. He’d barely done anything practical. He didn’t learn half of what I did in his criminal procedure or trial advocacy courses. He was pretty reasonably ranked in his class, and already had a pretty prestigious firm job lined up for when he was done that I would have never even been considered for.But he would have spent at least his first entire year learning to do things that I already knew how to do before I graduated. He probably spent his first couple of years doing grunt work and pencil pushing, and probably will spend the first ten years never so much as meeting a client.I never wanted any of that.And he probably paid for the privilege. I don’t doubt that he graduated with three times the debt I did.Is he a better attorney than I am?Look, the USNWR rankings are basically made up by US News and World Report. They have a proprietary formula that they make semi-transparent, but in reality, a tremendous amount of weight is really from alumni donations and not actual student outcomes.If I wanted a prestigious Federal clerkship or a Supreme Court clerkship, I probably would never stand a chance straight out of law school at MH. That was okay by me.MH is a good school with a focus on practice-readiness. We did practical work in my courses. I had to write documents like a summons and complaint, actual briefs and memorandums according to the Court of Appeals rules, proposed orders, demand letters, and more, not just in my legal research and writing courses, but across the board.It’s consistently ranked the best of the three remaining law schools in Minnesota, beating out higher USNWR ranked St. Thomas and even the hotshot 20th ranked University of Minnesota Law School.We have excellent student opportunities and extracurricular programs.I did mock trial through an active Phi Alpha Delta chapter that has received numerous international awards in recent years, and there’s an active and engaged alumni community with that in the area. Our ABA negotiation team won a world championship a few years ago, and our moot court, mock trial, and mediation representation teams have also distinguished themselves.There’s excellent and highly ranked individual programs by USNWR, including the Health Law Institution (11th,) Dispute Resolution Institute (4th, and ranked in the top 5 for over fifteen years,) clinical program (22nd for 2017,) 38th for part-time programs, top most innovative part-time program (hybrid JD program, first of its kind in the nation,) and a slew of individual and school awards by National Jurist. Our bar passage rate is competitive with T-50 schools even if our entry median LSAT isn’t.More than half of Minnesota’s district court (county-level) judges are grads of Mitchell or Hamline, as well as more than half of the state’s county attorneys, and several notable state-level Court of Appeals and Supreme Court judges and justices. If you go back a ways, we’ve got a pretty notable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States in Warren E. Burger to our school’s name.An alum just got nominated to the Federal bench (Eric Tostrud), and there are others serving in that capacity as well. We’ve put out at least two Congressmen (Tom Emmer and Sean Duffy).I’d say the school’s doing all right for itself, in other words.I had to fight for my positions post law-school and do it by being a great attorney. I had to show good work product and consistently creative and solid logical thinking. The school I went to did a great job in preparing me to do that. I was very well supported and well-trained.By the fifth year out of school, nobody’s likely to care that much where you went. After you’ve cut your teeth a bit and proven yourself, it won’t matter. Your reputation, not the school’s, will define you.I do good work and make serious differences for the people I serve. My school contributed quite a lot to that.No, I don’t regret my choice of law school.Now, do I regret going to law school at all? Well…