The Case for Expanding Appeals Courts. Plus, the Upside to Airing High-Profile Trials
"What may have once been a much-needed efficiency has become an over-used convenience that threatens to undermine core distributive justice and day-in-court values," a new law review article argues.
November 11, 2021 at 06:29 PM
11 minute read
Hi, and welcome back to Bench Report! I hope if you had the holiday off, you enjoyed it. And if you didn't, you're not the only one! Send your news, tips and feedback to [email protected] and follow me on Twitter at @jacq_thomsen.
John Minor Wisdom U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit building, New Orleans, LA. (Photo: Rick Kopstein/ALM) A Pitch to Reform Appeals Courts
A lot of court reform these days is focused on the Supreme Court—but a law professor and former appellate practitioner is making the case for changing the way the federal courts of appeals function.
Merritt McAlister, a law professor with the University of Florida, published a piece this week in the Northwestern University Law Review that examines the two-tier system appeals courts currently have for taking up cases. The practice of using staff attorneys to process many cases and setting aside others for oral argument—and a published opinion—emerged as the appeals courts faced overwhelming dockets.
McAlister writes that, even as court dockets have lightened, the federal appeals courts are issuing more unpublished opinions and hearing fewer oral arguments than they did 15 years ago when those courts faced, in total, almost 20,000 more appeals.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Sorry. We Can't Get to Your Case: Judge Speaks Out on Judicial Shortages
'Discordant Dots': Why Phila. Zantac Judge Rejected Bid for His Recusal
3 minute read
‘Old Home Week’: Justice Breyer Hears Challenge to Cruise Ship Ordinance in 1st Circuit
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1iRobot Picks Up Law Firm Partner as New Legal Chief
- 2Baker McKenzie Spins Off AI-Powered Risk Management Tool SCOREalytics as Independent Business
- 3Edison Hit With Lawsuits Over Devastating Eaton Fire in Los Angeles
- 4Does Society’s Focus on Children’s Sexuality Make Them Vulnerable to Grooming?
- 5California Lawmakers Reach $50M Deal to Fund Legal Fights Against Trump
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
