Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "McMillion, Barry J." in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
U.S. Circuit and District Court Judges: Profile of Select Characteristics [August 01, 2017]
"This report provides a profile of select demographic and background characteristics of active judges currently serving on the U.S. courts of appeals and U.S. district courts. Specifically, for active circuit and district court judges serving as of June 1, 2017, this report provides a statistical breakdown of these judges' gender; race; gender and race, combined; current age; age at the time of their appointment to the bench; length of service; and professional occupation or position at the time of their appointment. A statistical breakdown of these select demographic and background characteristics is provided first for active U.S. circuit court judges, followed by the same information for active U.S. district court judges."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2017-08-01
-
Blue Slip Process for U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations: Frequently Asked Questions
"The blue slip process used by the Senate Judiciary Committee (the committee) for U.S. circuit and district court nominations has received renewed interest from Senators. The committee's use of the blue slip has been, since at least 1917, a feature of its consideration of U.S. circuit and district court nominations. After a President selects a nominee for a U.S. circuit or district court judgeship, the chairman sends a blue-colored form to the Senators representing the home state of the nominee. The form seeks the home state Senators' assessment of the nominee. If a home state Senator has no objection to a nominee, the blue slip is returned to the chairman with a positive response. If, however, a home state Senator objects to a nominee, the blue slip is either withheld or returned with a negative response. Since the use of blue slips is not codified or included in the committee's rules, the chairman of the committee has the discretion to determine the extent to which a home state Senator's negative, or withheld, blue slip stops a President's judicial nomination from receiving a committee hearing and a committee vote and, consequently, whether it reaches the Senate floor. Over the century of the use of the blue slip, different chairmen have used the blue slip in different ways. During some years, a chairman has required a nominee to receive two positive blue slips from his or her home state Senators. This particular blue slip policy, for example, was in place during the eight years of the Obama presidency and much of the George W. Bush presidency--during periods of both unified and divided party control."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2017-10-02
-
President's Selection of a Nominee for a Supreme Court Vacancy: Overview [June 27, 2018]
"On June 27, 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy, after serving on the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice since 1988, announced his intention to retire from the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy indicated that his retirement would be effective July 31, 2018. This Insight provides an overview of several issues related to the selection of a nominee by a President for a vacancy on the Court. For additional information and analyses on these and other issues, see CRS Report R44235, Supreme Court Appointment Process: President's Selection of a Nominee."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2018-06-27
-
Recent Recommendations by the Judicial Conference for New U.S. Circuit and District Court Judgeships: Overview and Analysis [September 3, 2019]
From the Introduction: "Article III, Section I of the Constitution provides that the 'judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.' Consequently, Congress determines through legislative action both the size and structure of the federal judiciary. For example, the size of the federal judiciary is determined, in part, by the number of U.S. circuit and district court judgeships authorized by Congress. Congress has, at numerous times over the years, authorized an increase in the number of such judgeships in order to meet the workload-based needs of the federal court system. The Judicial Conference of the United States, the national policymaking body of the federal courts, makes biennial recommendations to Congress to assist it in identifying any U.S. circuit and district courts that may be in need of additional judgeships. The most recent recommendations for new U.S. circuit and district court judgeships were released by the Judicial Conference in March 2019."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2019-09-03
-
U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations During the Obama Presidency: Midyear Analysis and Comparison with Recent Presidents [June 30, 2014]
"The nomination and confirmation process for U.S. circuit and district court judges is of ongoing interest to Congress. Recent Senate debates over judicial nominations have focused on issues such as the relative degree of success of President Barack Obama's nominees in gaining Senate confirmation compared with other recent Presidents, as well as the pace of confirmation of his nominees compared to the nominees of other recent Presidents, and the relative prevalence of vacant judgeships compared to years past. This report addresses these issues by providing a statistical analysis of nominations to U.S. circuit and district court judgeships from January 20 of President Obama's first year in office to June 30 of his sixth year, and by comparing statistics during this period of the Obama presidency to statistics from comparable periods of time during the presidencies of his two most recent predecessors."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2014-06-30
-
U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations During President Trump's First Year in Office: Comparative Analysis with Recent Presidents [May 2, 2018]
"'This report, in light of continued Senate interest in the judicial confirmation process during a President's first year in office, provides statistics related to the nomination and confirmation of U.S. circuit and district court nominees during the first year of the Trump presidency (as well as during the first year of each of his three immediate predecessors--Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton).' [..] The information is described in detail in Figures 1-6 and Tables 1-6."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2018-05-02
-
U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations: Comparative Statistics of Two-Term Presidencies Since 1945 [April 24, 2017]
"This Insight provides comparative statistics related to the nomination and confirmation of U.S. circuit and district court judges during the eighth year of two-term presidencies since 1945 (i.e., the Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama presidencies). It also provides cumulative comparative statistics for the entire terms of these same six presidencies. Previous CRS [Congressional Research Service] research has analyzed final Senate action on judicial nominations during the eighth year of the Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush presidencies."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2017-04-24
-
U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations During President Obama's First Five Years: Comparative Analysis With Recent Presidents [January 24, 2014]
"The selection and confirmation process for U.S. circuit and district court judges is of continuing interest to Congress. […] Senate debates over judicial nominations have focused on issues such as the relative degree of success of President Barack Obama's nominees in gaining Senate confirmation compared with other […] Presidents, as well as the relative prevalence of vacant judgeships compared to years past, and the effect of delayed judicial appointments on judicial vacancy levels. This report addresses these issues, and others, by providing a statistical analysis of nominations to U.S. circuit and district court judgeships during the first five years of President Obama's time in office and that of his three [previous] two-term predecessors."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2014-01-24
-
U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations During President Obama's First Six Years (2009-2014): Comparative Analysis with Recent Presidents [March 9, 2015
From the report summary: "The selection and confirmation process for U.S. circuit and district court judges is of continuing interest to Congress. Recent Senate debates over judicial nominations have focused on issues such as the relative degree of success of President Barack Obama's nominees in gaining Senate confirmation compared with other recent Presidents, as well as the time from nomination to confirmation for nominees, and the relative prevalence of vacant judgeships compared to years past. This report addresses these issues, and others, by providing a statistical analysis of nominations to U.S. circuit and district court judgeships during the first six years of President Obama's time in office and that of his three most recent two-term predecessors, Presidents Reagan, Clinton and G.W. Bush."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2015-03-09
-
Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2017: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President [July 6, 2018]
"The procedure for appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States is provided for by the Constitution in only a few words. The 'Appointments Clause' (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) states that the President 'shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court.' The process of appointing Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature--the sharing of power between the President and Senate--has remained unchanged. To receive a lifetime appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. An important role also has come to be played midway in the process (after the President selects, but before the Senate considers) by the Senate Judiciary Committee. On rare occasions, Presidents also have made Supreme Court appointments without the Senate's consent, when the Senate was in recess. Such 'recess appointments,' however, were temporary, with their terms expiring at the end of the Senate's next session. The last recess appointments to the Court were made in the 1950s."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.; Rutkus, Denis Steven
2018-07-06
-
Supreme Court Appointment Process: President's Selection of a Nominee [June 27, 2018]
"The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is an event of major significance in American politics. Each appointment is of consequence because of the enormous judicial power the Supreme Court exercises as the highest appellate court in the federal judiciary. Appointments are usually infrequent, as a vacancy on the nine-member Court may occur only once or twice, or never at all, during a particular President's years in office. Under the Constitution, Justices on the Supreme Court receive what can amount to lifetime appointments which, by constitutional design, helps ensure the Court's independence from the President and Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2018-06-27
-
Supreme Court Appointment Process: Consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee [August 14, 2018]
"The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is an event of major significance in American politics. Each appointment is of consequence because of the enormous judicial power the Supreme Court exercises as the highest appellate court in the federal judiciary. To receive appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. Although not mentioned in the Constitution, an important role is played midway in the process (after the President selects, but before the Senate considers) by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Specifically, the Judiciary Committee, rather than the Senate as a whole, assumes the principal responsibility for investigating the background and qualifications of each Supreme Court nominee, and typically the committee conducts a close, intensive investigation of each nominee."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2018-08-14
-
Supreme Court Appointment Process: President's Selection of a Nominee [February 6, 2017]
"The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is an event of major significance in American politics. Each appointment is of consequence because of the enormous judicial power the Supreme Court exercises as the highest appellate court in the federal judiciary. Appointments are usually infrequent, as a vacancy on the nine-member Court may occur only once or twice, or never at all, during a particular President's years in office. Under the Constitution, Justices on the Supreme Court receive what can amount to lifetime appointments which, by constitutional design, helps ensure the Court's independence from the President and Congress. [...] Additionally, over more than two centuries, a recurring theme in the Supreme Court appointment process has been the assumed need for professional excellence in a nominee. During recent presidencies, nominees have at the time of nomination, most often, served as U.S. appellate court judges. The integrity and impartiality of an individual have also been important criteria for a President when selecting a nominee for the Court."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2017-02-06
-
Supreme Court Appointment Process: President's Selection of a Nominee [January 27, 2017]
"The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is an event of major significance in American politics. Each appointment is of consequence because of the enormous judicial power the Supreme Court exercises as the highest appellate court in the federal judiciary. Appointments are usually infrequent, as a vacancy on the nine-member Court may occur only once or twice, or never at all, during a particular President's years in office. Under the Constitution, Justices on the Supreme Court receive what can amount to lifetime appointments which, by constitutional design, helps ensure the Court's independence from the President and Congress. The procedure for appointing a Justice is provided for by the Constitution in only a few words. The 'Appointments Clause' (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) states that the President 'shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court.' The process of appointing Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature--the sharing of power between the President and Senate--has remained unchanged: To receive appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2017-01-27
-
Supreme Court Appointment Process: Consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee [March 17, 2017]
"The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is an event of major significance in American politics. Each appointment is of consequence because of the enormous judicial power the Supreme Court exercises as the highest appellate court in the federal judiciary. To receive appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. Although not mentioned in the Constitution, an important role is played midway in the process (after the President selects, but before the Senate considers) by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Specifically, the Judiciary Committee, rather than the Senate as a whole, assumes the principal responsibility for investigating the background and qualifications of each Supreme Court nominee, and typically the committee conducts a close, intensive investigation of each nominee."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2017-03-17
-
Supreme Court Appointment Process: Consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee [October 19, 2015]
"To receive appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. Although not mentioned in the Constitution, an important role is played midway in the process (after the President selects, but before the Senate considers) by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Specifically, the Judiciary Committee, rather than the Senate as a whole, invariably assumes the principal responsibility for investigating the background and qualifications of each Supreme Court nominee, and typically the committee conducts a close, intensive investigation of each nominee. Since the late 1960s, the Judiciary Committee's consideration of a Supreme Court nominee almost always has consisted of three distinct stages--(1) a pre-hearing investigative stage, followed by (2) public hearings, and concluding with (3) a committee decision on what recommendation to make to the full Senate."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2015-10-19
-
Supreme Court Appointment Process: President's Selection of a Nominee [April 1, 2016]
"The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is an event of major significance in American politics. Each appointment is of consequence because of the enormous judicial power the Supreme Court exercises as the highest appellate court in the federal judiciary. Appointments are usually infrequent, as a vacancy on the nine-member Court may occur only once or twice, or never at all, during a particular President's years in office. Under the Constitution, Justices on the Supreme Court receive what can amount to lifetime appointments which, by constitutional design, helps ensure the Court's independence from the President and Congress. The procedure for appointing a Justice is provided for by the Constitution in only a few words. The 'Appointments Clause' (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) states that the President 'shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court.' The process of appointing Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature--the sharing of power between the President and Senate--has remained unchanged: To receive appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. Political considerations typically play an important role in Supreme Court appointments. It is often assumed, for example, that Presidents will be inclined to select a nominee whose political or ideological views appear compatible with their own. The political nature of the appointment process becomes especially apparent when a President submits a nominee with controversial views, there are sharp partisan or ideological differences between the President and the Senate, or the outcome of important constitutional issues before the Court is seen to be at stake."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2016-04-01
-
Supreme Court Appointment Process: President's Selection of a Nominee [October 19, 2015]
"The procedure for appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court is provided for in the U.S. Constitution in only a few words. The 'Appointments Clause' in the Constitution (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) states that the President 'shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court.' While the process of appointing Justices has undergone some changes over two centuries, its most essential feature--the sharing of power between the President and the Senate--has remained unchanged: To receive lifetime appointment to the Court, one must first be formally selected ('nominated') by the President and then approved ('confirmed') by the Senate. For the President, the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice can be a notable measure by which history will judge his Presidency. For the Senate, a decision to confirm is a solemn matter as well, for it is the Senate alone, through its 'Advice and Consent' function, without any formal involvement of the House of Representatives, which acts as a safeguard on the President's judgment. "
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2015-10-19
-
Supreme Court Appointment Process: Senate Debate and Confirmation Vote [September 7, 2018]
"The procedure for appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States is provided for by the Constitution in only a few words. The 'Appointments Clause' (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) states that the President 'shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court.' The process of appointing Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature--the sharing of power between the President and Senate--has remained unchanged. To receive an appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. This report provides information and analyses related to the debate and consideration of Supreme Court nominations by the full Senate once nominations are reported by the Judiciary Committee."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2018-09-07
-
Senate Confirmation Votes on U.S. Supreme Court Nominations: Overview [September 13, 2018]
"After the Senate Judiciary Committee reports a Supreme Court nomination, it is placed on the Senate Executive Calendar (to be considered in executive session). Senate consideration of a Supreme Court nomination includes floor debate on the nomination, as well as a final vote by the Senate on whether to approve it. When floor debate on a nomination ends, the presiding officer puts the question of confirmation to a vote. A roll call vote to confirm requires a simple majority of Senators present and voting, a quorum being present. Since 1967, beginning with the confirmation of Thurgood Marshall, every Senate vote on whether to confirm a Supreme Court nomination has been by roll call (prior to 1967, most confirmation votes were by voice vote)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2018-09-13
-
U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominees Who Received a Rating of 'Not Qualified' from the American Bar Association: Background and Historical Analysis [November 13, 2017]
"The process used by the American Bar Association (ABA) to evaluate judicial nominees has, over the years, remained a topic of ongoing interest among Senators during the judicial confirmation process. This CRS (Congressional Research Service) Insight provides background information and historical analysis of U.S. circuit and district court nominees who received, from 1953 to the present, a rating of 'not qualified' from the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary of the ABA. Since 1953, every presidential Administration, except those of George W. Bush and Donald Trump, has sought ABA prenomination evaluations of its prospective U.S. circuit and district court nominees. During the Bush presidency, as well as during the current Administration, the ABA has provided postnomination evaluations of nominees."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2017-11-13
-
Judicial Nomination Statistics and Analysis: U.S. District and Circuit Courts, 1977-2018 [March 21, 2019]
From the Document: "In recent decades, the process for appointing judges to the U.S. circuit courts of appeals and the U.S. district courts has been of continuing Senate interest. The President and the Senate share responsibility for making these appointments. Pursuant to the Constitution's Appointments Clause, the President nominates persons to fill federal judgeships, with the appointment of each nominee also requiring Senate confirmation. Although not mentioned in the Constitution, an important role is also played midway in the appointment process by the Senate Judiciary Committee."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2019-03-21
-
Overview of Recent Responses to COVID-19 by the Judicial Conference of the United States, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and Select Courts Within the Federal Judiciary [Updated April 27, 2020]
From the Document: "This CRS [Congressional Research Service] Insight provides information related to recent responses to Coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19, by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) and select courts within the federal judiciary. It is not intended to provide a comprehensive overview of the policies and practices adopted by each federal court or judicial entity. Additionally, given the rapidly changing situation surrounding COVID-19, the information provided in this Insight may be superseded by new information from that which is described in the text below."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2020-04-27
-
Federal Jury Trials and COVID-19 [April 20, 2020]
From the Document: "This Insight provides information and analysis related to federal jury trials and how such trials have been impacted by Coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19. Given the rapidly changing situation surrounding COVID-19, the information provided in this Insight may be superseded by new information that differs from what is described in the text below. If there are any questions regarding whether such changes have occurred, congressional staff may contact the author of this Insight."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2020-04-20
-
Overview of Recent Responses to COVID-19 by the Judicial Conference of the United States, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and Select Courts Within the Federal Judiciary [Updated June 11, 2020]
From the Document: "This CRS [Congressional Research Service] Insight provides information related to recent responses to Coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19, by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), and select courts within the federal judiciary. It is not intended to provide a comprehensive overview of the policies and practices adopted by each federal court or judicial entity. Additionally, the information provided in this Insight may be superseded by new information from that which is described below."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2020-06-11
-
Recent Responses to COVID-19 by the Judicial Conference of the United States and Select Courts Within the Federal Judiciary (December 2020) [December 23, 2020]
From the Document: "This Insight provides information related to recent responses to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the United States Supreme Court, and other select courts within the federal judiciary. The responses discussed below have occurred since September 1, 2020."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2020-12-23
-
U.S. District Court Vacancies at the Beginning and End of the Obama Presidency: Overview and Comparative Analysis [January 31, 2017]
"This Insight provides comparative historical data related to U.S. district court vacancies that existed at the beginning and end of the Obama presidency (as well as at the beginning and end of the presidencies of his two most recent predecessors, Presidents George W. Bush and Clinton). This Insight also provides a geographic overview of the location of district court vacancies that existed on President Obama's final full day in office (i.e., on January 19, 2017), as well as the location of vacancies deemed 'judicial emergencies' by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts. At present, Congress has authorized 673 district court judgeships. Vacant judgeships typically arise when a judge voluntarily retires or assumes senior status, but can also occur by other means (such as when a judge is elevated to a circuit court judgeship or when new judgeships are authorized by Congress)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2017-01-31
-
Select Demographic and Other Characteristics of Recent U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominees [August 17, 2017]
"This Insight provides information related to select demographic and other characteristics of U.S. circuit and district court nominees whose nominations were submitted to the Senate by President Trump prior to August 1, 2017. President Trump submitted a total of 26 nominations prior to this date. The select demographic and other characteristics of these 26 individuals are compared to the same demographic and other characteristics of the first 26 individuals nominated to U.S. circuit and district court judgeships during the Obama, George W. Bush, and Clinton presidencies. The information is summarized in Figure 1."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2017-08-17
-
President Obama's First-Term U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations: An Analysis and Comparison with Presidents Since Reagan [May 2, 2013]
"The process by which lower federal court judges are nominated by the President and considered by the Senate is of continuing interest to Congress. Recent Senate debates in Congress over judicial nominations have focused on issues such as the relative degree of success of President Barack Obama's nominees in gaining Senate confirmation (compared with other recent Presidents) as well as the number and percentage of vacant judgeships in the federal judiciary and the effect of delayed judicial appointments on judicial vacancy levels. This report addresses these issues, and others, by providing a statistical analysis of nominations to U.S. circuit and district court judgeships during the first terms of President Obama and his four most recent predecessors."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2013-05-02
-
U.S. Circuit Court Judges: Profile of Professional Experiences Prior to Appointment [May 9, 2014]
"This report provides an analysis of the professional qualifications and experiences of U.S. circuit court judges who are currently serving on the federal bench. Interest in the professional qualifications of those nominated to the federal judiciary has been demonstrated by Congress and others. Congressional interest in the professional experiences of those nominated by a President to the federal courts reflects, in part, the evaluative role of Congress in examining the qualifications of those who are nominated to life-tenure positions. Other organizations, such as the American Bar Association (ABA), also have an ongoing interest in the professional qualifications of those appointed to the federal judiciary. Additionally, scholars have demonstrated an interest in this topic by examining whether a relationship exists between the professional or career experiences of judges and judicial decision making. The analysis in this report focuses on the professional experiences of 163 active U.S. circuit court judges who were serving as of February 1, 2014. Active judges are those who have not taken senior status, retired, or resigned. Consequently, the statistics provided do not necessarily reflect all circuit court judges who are 'sitting' on the bench (which include judges who have assumed senior status)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2014-05-09
