United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

District of Massachusetts
First Circuit
Judgeships
Posts: 13
Judges: 13
Vacancies: 0
Judges
Chief: Dennis Saylor
Active judges: Allison Dale Burroughs, Denise Casper, Nathaniel Gorton, Margaret R. Guzman, Myong Joun, Angel Kelley, Julia Kobick, Mark G. Mastroianni, Patti Saris, Dennis Saylor, Leo Sorokin, Richard Stearns, Indira Talwani Senior judges: Edward Harrington, Timothy Hillman, George O'Toole, Michael Ponsor, Mark Wolf, Douglas Woodlock, William G. Young, Rya Zobel

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts is one of 94 United States district courts. When decisions of the court are appealed, they are appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit based in downtown Boston at the John Joseph Moakley Federal Courthouse. There are two other courthouses in Worcester and Springfield, Massachusetts.

Vacancies

See also: Current federal judicial vacancies

There are no current vacancies on the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, out of the court's 13 judicial positions.

Pending nominations

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Brian Murphy

Active judges

Article III judges

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Nathaniel Gorton	George H.W. Bush (R)	September 24, 1992 -	Dartmouth College, 1960	Columbia Law, 1966
Patti Saris	Bill Clinton (D)	November 24, 1993 -	Radcliffe College, 1973	Harvard Law, 1976
Richard Stearns	Bill Clinton (D)	November 24, 1993 -	Stanford University, 1968	Harvard Law, 1976
Dennis Saylor	George W. Bush (R)	June 2, 2004 -	Northwestern University, 1977	Harvard University Law, 1981
Denise Casper	Barack Obama (D)	December 20, 2010 -	Wesleyan University, 1990	Harvard Law School, 1994
Indira Talwani	Barack Obama (D)	May 12, 2014 -	Harvard, 1982	University of California, Berkeley, 1988
Mark G. Mastroianni	Barack Obama (D)	June 5, 2014 -	American International College, 1986	Western New England College of Law, 1989
Leo Sorokin	Barack Obama (D)	June 10, 2014 -	Yale College, 1983	Columbia Law School, 1991
Allison Dale Burroughs	Barack Obama (D)	December 19, 2014 -	Middlebury College, 1983	University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1988
Angel Kelley	Joe Biden (D)	September 15, 2021 -	Colgate University, 1989	Georgetown University Law Center, 1992
Margaret R. Guzman	Joe Biden (D)	March 3, 2023 -	Clark University, 1989	Boston University School of Law, 1992
Myong Joun	Joe Biden (D)	July 14, 2023 -	University of Massachusetts, Boston	Suffolk University
Julia Kobick	Joe Biden (D)	November 13, 2023 -	Harvard University, 2005	Harvard Law School, 2010

Active Article III judges by appointing political party

The list below displays the number of active judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

• Democrat appointed: 11
• Republican appointed: 2

Senior judges

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Edward Harrington	Ronald Reagan (R)	March 1, 2001 -	College of the Holy Cross, 1955	Boston College Law School, 1960
Michael Ponsor	Bill Clinton (D)	August 15, 2011 -	Harvard University, 1969	Yale Law, 1975
Mark Wolf	Ronald Reagan (R)	January 1, 2013 -	Yale University, 1968	Harvard University Law, 1971
Rya Zobel	Jimmy Carter (D)	April 1, 2014 -	Radcliffe College, 1953	Harvard Law, 1956
Douglas Woodlock	Ronald Reagan (R)	June 1, 2015 -	Yale University, 1969	Georgetown University Law Center, 1975
George O'Toole	Bill Clinton (D)	January 1, 2018 -	Boston College, 1969	Harvard University Law, 1972
William G. Young		July 1, 2021 -	Harvard University, 1962	Harvard Law, 1967
Timothy Hillman		July 1, 2022 -	Coe College, 1970	Suffolk University Law, 1973

Senior judges by appointing political party

The list below displays the number of senior judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

• Democrat appointed: 4
• Republican appointed: 4

Magistrate judges

Federal magistrate judges are federal judges who serve in United States district courts, but they are not appointed by the president and they do not serve life terms. Magistrate judges are assigned duties by the district judges in the district in which they serve. They may preside over most phases of federal proceedings, except for criminal felony trials. The specific duties of a magistrate judge vary from district to district, but the responsibilities always include handling matters that would otherwise be on the dockets of the district judges. Full-time magistrate judges serve for renewable terms of eight years. Some federal district courts have part-time magistrate judges, who serve for renewable terms of four years.

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Robert Collings	United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts	March 15, 1982 -	Hamilton College, 1964	Harvard Law School, 1967
Kenneth Neiman	United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts	January 5, 1995 -	Tufts University, 1967	Harvard University Law School, 1971
Jerome Niedermeier	United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts	March 25, 2010 -	Boston College, 1967	Georgetown University Law Center, 1972
Jennifer Boal	United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts	May 3, 2010 -	Haverford College, 1985	Cornell Law School, 1989
David H. Hennessy	United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts	May 6, 2013 -	State University of New York, 1978	Fordham University School of Law, 1985
Mary Page Kelley	United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts	June 16, 2014 -	Smith College, 1981	Harvard Law, 1986
Katherine A. Robertson	United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts	January 6, 2015 -	Princeton University, 1975	Western New England College of Law, 1990
Donald L. Cabell	United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts	January 21, 2015 -	University of Massachusetts Amherst, 1986	Northeastern University School of Law, 1991

Former chief judges

In order to qualify for the office of chief judge in an Article III circuit or district court, or on the United States Court of International Trade, a judge must be in active service and hold seniority over the court's commissioned judges who are 64 years of age or under, have served one year or more, and have not previously served as chief judge.

In the event that no judge on the court meets those qualifications, the youngest judge in regular active service aged 65 years or more and who has served as a judge for one year or more shall become chief judge. If no judge meets those qualifications, the judge holding seniority in active service who has not served as chief before shall become the chief judge.

The chief judge serves for a term of seven years until another judge becomes eligible to serve in the position. No judge is permitted to serve as chief judge after reaching the age of 70 years unless no other judge is qualified to serve.

Unlike the chief justice of the United States, a chief judge returns to active service after the expiration of their term and does not create a vacancy on the court by the fact of their promotion.

On the United States Court of Federal Claims, the chief judge is selected by the president of the United States. The judge must be less than 70 years of age. A chief may serve until they reach age 70 or until another judge is designated by the president as the new chief judge. If the president selects a new chief judge, the former chief judge may continue active service on the court for the remainder of their appointed term.

William G. Young - (1999-2005) Joseph Tauro - (1992-1999) Frank Freedman - (1986-1992) Andrew Caffrey - (1972-1986)

Anthony Julian - (1971-1972) Charles Wyzanski - (1965-1971) George Clinton Sweeney - (1948-1965)

Former judges

For more information on the judges of the District of Massachusetts, see former federal judges of the District of Massachusetts.

Jurisdiction

The Counties of Massachusetts (click for larger map)

The District of Massachusetts has original jurisdiction over cases filed within its jurisdiction. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law.

The jurisdiction of the District of Massachusetts consists of all the counties in the state of Massachusetts. The court's headquarters are in Boston, with courthouses in Springfield and Worcester.

Caseloads

This section contains court management statistics dating back to 2010. It was last updated in September 2024. Click [show] below for more information on caseload terms and definitions.

Caseload statistics explanation
Term	Explanation
Cases filed and terminated	The number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated or decided by the court in a calendar year. The chart below reflects the table columns Cases filed and Cases terminated.
Average time from filing to disposition	The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to date of disposition (acquittal, sentencing, dismissal, etc.). The chart below reflects the table columns Median time (Criminal) and Median time (Civil).
Starting case load	The number of cases pending from the previous calendar year.
Cases filed	The number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated in a calendar year.
Cases terminated	The total number of civil and criminal lawsuits decided by the court in a calendar year.
Remaining cases	The number of civil and criminal cases pending at the end of a given year.
Median time (Criminal)	The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to the date of disposition. In criminal cases, the date of disposition occurs on the day of sentencing or acquittal/dismissal.
Median time (Civil)	The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to the date of disposition.
Three-year civil cases	The number and percent of civil cases that were filed more than three years before the end of the given calendar year.
Vacant posts	The number of months during the year an authorized judgeship was vacant.
Trial/Post	The number of trials completed divided by the number of authorized judgeships on the court. Trials include evidentiary trials, hearings on temporary restraining orders, and preliminary injunctions.
Source: United States Courts, "Explanation of the Judicial Caseload Profiles for United States District Courts," accessed September 25, 2018

United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts caseload stats, 2010-2023
Year	Cases Filed	Cases Terminated	Cases Pending	Number of Judgeships	Vacant Judgeship Months	Average Total Filings per Judgeship	Trials Completed per Judgeship	Median time from filing to disposition, criminal	Median time from filing to disposition, civil	Three-year civil cases (#)	Three-year civil cases (%)
2010	3,663	3,388	3,999	13	12	282	16	16	9	187	6
2011	3,593	3,697	3,593	13	12	276	11	16	9	184	6
2012	3,652	3,624	3,926	13	17	281	12	16	9	214	7
2013	4,470	3,634	4,763	13	27	344	12	15	9	229	6
2014	5,966	3,681	7,025	13	23	459	10	16	9	296	5
2015	5,596	3,939	8,674	13	7	430	12	15	10	274	4
2016	4,032	3,887	8,830	13	12	310	10	12	11	771	10
2017	3,761	4,882	7,721	13	12	289	11	14	17	2,198	32
2018	4,002	5,463	6,262	13	24	308	12	14	26	1,841	34
2019	4,054	5,653	4,664	13	24	312	12	12	20	553	15
2020	3,385	3,067	4,933	13	24	260	6	14	9	716	19
2021	3,202	3,592	4,537	13	26	246	10	18	12	518	15
2022	3,299	3,579	4,249	13	18	254	8	26	12	445	14
2023	4,203	3,495	4,949	13	18	323	9	25	7	417	10
Average	4,063	3,970	5,580	13	18	312	11	16	12	632	13

History

The District of Massachusetts was established by Congress with one judicial post on September 24, 1789, and assigned to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eastern Circuit, and then was later reassigned to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in 1801. Over time, beginning in 1922, twelve additional judicial posts were added for a total of thirteen current posts.

Judicial posts

The following table highlights the development of judicial posts for the District of Massachusetts:

Year	Statute	Total Seats
September 24, 1789	1 Stat. 73	1
September 14, 1922	42 Stat. 837	3(2 temporary)
August 19, 1935	49 Stat. 659	3(Temporary posts made permanent)
May 31, 1938	52 Stat. 584	4(1 temporary)
November 21, 1941	55 Stat. 773	4(Temporary post made permanent)
February 10, 1954	68 Stat. 8	5
May 19, 1961	75 Stat. 80	6
October 20, 1978	92 Stat. 1629	10
July 10, 1984	104 Stat. 5089	11(1 temporary)
December 1, 1990	104 Stat. 5089	13(Temporary post made permanent)

Noteworthy cases

• Bombing suspect loses pre-trial challenges (2014)

Click for summary→

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the 21-year-old who along with his brother was accused of masterminding the Boston Marathon bombing, lost his bid to have evidence kept from the jury when he went to trial. The evidence was collected by law enforcement during its investigation and included items found when the FBI searched his computer, Dartmouth dorm room, and his parent's apartment. Tsarnaev also asked for the charges against him to be dropped, claiming his rights were being violated by unfair jury selection processes. Judge George O'Toole denied both the request to suppress evidence and to dismiss charges. He pointed out that law enforcement obtained the necessary search warrants and exercised proper judgment when conducting the searches, though he left open the option to challenge individual pieces of evidence as they came up during the trial. Further, Judge O'Toole found that Tsarnaev failed to present any specific facts showing bias or prejudice against him in the jury selection process. Articles: Boston Globe, "Judge rejects Tsarnaev request for dismissal of charges," October 17, 2014 National Law Journal, "Accused Marathon Bomber Loses Jury, Evidence Challenges," October 17, 2014

• Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Boston Marathon bombings trial (2013)      Judge(s):George O'Toole (U.S. v. Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, 1:13-cr-10200)	Click for summary→
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 20, was accused of orchestrating the bombings that took place at the 117th running of the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013. Tsarnaev's brother, Tamerlan, was also a suspect in the case, but was killed during a police shootout before Tsarnaev's capture. The explosions near the finish line killed three people and wounded 260. Tsarnaev was charged with 30 criminal counts, 17 of which included the death penalty as a possible punishment. While capital punishment is unconstitutional in Massachusetts, Tsarnaev was charged under federal terrorism laws that allowed for the implementation of the death penalty. Tsarnaev's attorneys requested additional time to convince prosecutors to spare their client's life, but Judge George O'Toole denied the defense attorneys' pleas. In the ruling, Judge O'Toole cited the Attorney General's ultimate discretion in the matter, noting that it would be "well beyond the scope of any inherent authority" he had to intervene. Tsarnaev's attorneys also requested sweeping access to the prosecution's files in the case -- a request that Judge O'Toole denied. Tsarnaev's defense team failed to provide any specificity in their request, which prompted Judge O'Toole to note that the defense "essentially seeks access to the government’s information haystack because he is confident there are useful evidentiary needles to be found there. That is simply not enough to trigger a disclosure obligation..." The judge did, however, rule that Tsarnaev's attorneys were entitled to all relevant information in the government's files, including but not limited to, recordings of calls Tsarnaev made while in custody, and information regarding Tsarnaev's eligibility for the death penalty. The order can be found here. Attorney General Eric Holder had until January 31, 2014, to decide whether the government would pursue the death penalty as an option in the case. On January 30, 2014, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it would authorize prosecutors to seek the death penalty against Tsarnaev, citing the defendant's lack of remorse and the age of the victims, one of whom was eight years old. The DOJ's notice of intent to seek the death penalty is available here. On February 12, 2014, O'Toole notified counsel that Tsarnaev's trial would begin on November 3, 2014, despite the fact that Tsarnaev's defense team requested that the trial begin no earlier than fall 2015. He later did, however, delay the trial's starting date to January 5, 2015. On February 20, 2014, Judge O'Toole approved the addition of a second death penalty expert to Tsarnaev's defense team. The defense team's previous request to supplement their client's representation in court was denied by O'Toole, without prejudice. In this case, the judge ruled that a "satisfactory showing" was made as to why a second death penalty expert was "necessary for adequate representation." On March 12, 2014, Judge O'Toole set a hearing date of April 16, 2014, which would allow the defense to present arguments as to why the court should end their client's special prison restrictions. In addition, the defense would be allowed to argue in favor of reducing the total number of criminal charges their client faces. Tsarnaev's lawyers believed that "[s]uch proliferation of multiple capital charges arising from each alleged act appears designed to put a thumb on the scales of justice in favor of the death penalty." In May 2015, Tsarnaev was sentenced to death. In July 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the death sentence due to potential juror bias and the exclusion of certain evidence in the original trial.

• Boston bombing suspects' hearings (2013)      Judge(s):Marianne Bowler (United States v. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, No. 13-MJ-02016)	Click for summary→
On April 22, 2013, Judge Bowler presided over the initial appearance of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev while he was hospitalized. He was charged with using a weapon of mass destruction and malicious destruction of property for a bombing which caused the death of three civilians and injuries to over 200 more. Though early reports indicated Tsarnaev was unable to speak due to injuries sustained during the manhunt that lead to his capture, later reports confirmed that he was actually able to reveal details of the attack to investigators. Several Republican lawmakers publicly criticized Judge Bowler's actions during the appearance, as reports also indicate that Tsarnaev stopped talking upon Bowler's entering the room and advising him of his right to remain silent. They allege she prevented the collection of valuable intelligence. Bowler's spokesman declined to comment, though a Boston U.S. Attorney's Office representative said there was nothing unusual about the judge's actions. Click here to read the full transcript of Tsarnaev's bedside hearing. Dzokhar Tsarnaev was indicted on June 27, 2013, with Judge George O'Toole presiding, thus minimizing Judge Bowler's role. Judge Bowler presided over the court appearances of Tsarnaev's friend, Robel Phillipos, accused of lying to investigators. On May 6, 2013, she ordered his release on $100,000 bond, on the conditions that he remain in his mother's home and wear an electronic monitoring bracelet. The federal prosecutors previously requested he remain detained until his trial, based on the assertion he was a flight risk, but changed their position after meeting and reaching an agreement with his lawyers. Judge Bowler oversaw Phillipos' probable cause hearing on July 12, 2013. On March 6, 2014, she appointed Derege Demissie as a taxpayer-funded lawyer to represent Phillipos, even though he had already hired Demissie. The appointment was made on a "procedural basis," as Phillipos was too indigent to pay Demissie.

• Former Boston mob boss convicted after years in hiding (2013)      Judge(s):Denise Casper (U.S. v. James J. Bulger, US 99-10371-DJC)	Click for summary→
After nearly two decades spent in hiding, James Joseph "Whitey" Bulger, Jr., the 83-year-old former boss of the Boston mob, was charged in a 32-count indictment including racketeering, money laundering, and murder. Before the case was presented to a jury, Bulger attempted to present an immunity defense to Judge Denise Casper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, claiming that the late federal prosecutor Jeremiah T. O’Sullivan verbally promised him lifetime immunity for all of his crimes, including murder. Casper, who was described as “cool, calm, and collected,” rejected Bulger's defense in a 31-page ruling. Bulger's federal trial before Judge Casper began on June 12, 2013, with the prosecution led by the office of Carmen Ortiz, U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. After deliberating for about five days, a jury found Bulger guilty of 31 of the charges lodged against him, including two racketeering charges, one extortion charge, 23 money laundering charges, and five weapons charges. Bulger was also found to have been complicit in 11 murders. Through June 2013, Bulger's defense cost more than $2.6 million. Sentencing: In November 2013, Bulger was sentenced to two life terms plus five years in prison, the amount requested by the prosecution. During the sentencing, Judge Capser said: “ Your conduct merits the most severe penalty. The scope, the callousness, the depravity of your crimes, are almost unfathomable. ”

• Prisoner gender re-assignment surgery (2012)      Judge(s):Mark Wolf (Kosilek v. Department of Corr, et al, 1:2000-cv-12455)	Click for summary→
Mark Wolf granted inmate Michelle Kosilek a state-funded gender re-assignment surgery. Wolf wrote in his ruling on September 4, 2012 that "there is no less intrusive means to correct the prolonged violation of Kosilek's Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care." Kosilek sued in 2000 and again in 2005 on grounds the State of Massachusetts violated her constitutional rights. Attorneys for the Massachusetts Attorney General felt that the after-effects of the surgery could cause security problems. They said that the surgery would make Kosilek a target for sexual assault in the all-male prison. Wolf noted that the Department of Correction's medical officers testified that the surgery was the only adequate treatment. Kosilek was born a man, but has taken hormone treatments and lives as a woman. Formerly known as Robert, she was convicted of murdering Cheryl Kosilek, her wife, in 1990. She is serving a life term. On December 19, 2012, Judge Wolf ruled that more than $700,000 were due in attorney's fees for Kosilek. In his December 19th ruling, Wolf noted that Kosilek’s legal team had offered to forgo legal fees, if the Department of Corrections dropped its appeal and moved forward with Kosilek’s gender re-assignment surgery. Wolf was critical of the Department of Corrections in his ruling from the bench, saying, “The repeated violation of constitutional rights of prisoners…costs taxpayers money that is needed for other purposes.” In 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled against Kosilek. In 2015, the United States Supreme Court chose not to hear an appeal in the case, upholding the lower court's ruling.

• Salvatore DiMasi case (2011-2012)      Judge(s):Mark Wolf (USA v. DiMasi et al, 1:09-cr-10166-MLW-1)	Click for summary→
Former Massaschusetts House of Representatives Speaker Salvatore DiMasi (D) was convicted on corruption charges in June 2011. He was found guilty of seven of nine charges, including conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, and extortion. He was sentenced to eight years in prison as a result of the conviction. In August 2012, DiMasi's attorneys filed an appeal of the conviction, stating that the prosecution did not prove that DiMasi "knowingly" accepted bribes.

• Boston Scientific recall (2010)      Judge(s):Douglas Woodlock (Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement System v. Boston Scientific Corporation, Civil Action No. 05-11934-DPW)	Click for summary→
On April 28, 2010, Judge Woodlock threw out a class-action lawsuit filed by the Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement System against Boston Scientific. The judge found that the State of Mississippi failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Taxus Express medical device recall was concealed by the manufacturer. Boston Scientific recalled the product after there were serious injuries and deaths related to the Taxus Express device.

• Boston hybrid taxis (2009)      Judge(s):William G. Young (Ophir v. City Of Boston, Civil Action No. 09-10467-WGY)	Click for summary→
On December 11, 2009, Judge Young ruled in favor of the Boston Taxi Owners Association who sued the City of Boston over a new policy requiring taxi owners to switch to hybrids by 2015. The taxi owners sued on claims that they were bullied by the Boston Police's Hackney Carriage unit to buy the new hybrids. The judge found in his ruling that the new rules instituted by the Boston Police were in violation of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.

• Adam Walsh Act case (2009)      Judge(s):Joseph Tauro (U.S. v. Hunt, Civil Action No. 07-12063-JLT)	Click for summary→
Judge Tauro on August 19, 2009, became only the second judge to invoke The Adam Walsh Act of 2006 which allows judges to indefinitely hold child sexual exploitation offenders in jail if deemed a public danger. The judge found Wayne Hunt of New York a danger after a five-day proceeding that found the repeat offender to still be a public danger despite serving multiple prison sentences for sexual offenses.

• Elizabeth Hasselbeck case (2009)      Judge(s):Joseph Tauro (Hassett v. Hasselbeck et al, 1:2009cv11063)	Click for summary→
Judge Tauro on November 16, 2009 dismissed a case against television personality Elizabeth Hasselbeck on charges of plagiarism. Hasselbeck was accused of taking content from a book on Celiac Disease written by Susan Hassett that Hasselbeck used in her book. The judge dismissed the case after the plantiff's attorneys felt they did not have enough evidence to continue their pursuit of the case.

• Mitt Romney case (2009)      Judge(s):Nancy Gertner (Monahan v. Romney, et al, No. 09-2458)	Click for summary→
In 2009, Judge Gertner cleared former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in a wrongful termination case in which the former Chairman of the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission sued the former Governor. The judge ruled in favor of the former Governor saying that William Monahan, the former Civil Service Commission chairman, voluntarily resigned and forfeited his right to due process in his actions. This came after Romney testified in a hearing that an aide approached Monahan to resign but offered him to help find another job.

• Fair use download case (2009)      Judge(s):Nancy Gertner (Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, No. 10-1947)	Click for summary→
Judge Gertner presided in a highly publicized civil trial in which a Massachusetts college student was sued for illegal music downloading. Capital Records sued Joel Tannenbaum over illegally downloading music on Kazaa, a music sharing program. Tannenbaum was represented by Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, who was critical of the major record companies unfairly targeting young people in lawsuits. On December 7, 2009, Judge Gertner signed off on a $675,000 jury verdict after a jury found Tannenbaum liable for illegal downloading.

• Fish seller case (2009)      Judge(s):Douglas Woodlock	Click for summary→
On July 20, 2009, Judge Woodlock ruled that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration cannot shut down a fish seller with cases pending in court. NOAA wanted to impose a shutdown penalty on the Gloucester Seafood Display Auction over three different allegations of fishery law violations. Attorneys for NOAA argued for immediate action over issues of timing and public perception. However, the judge ruled that NOAA's actions preceded the judicial process and ordered an injunction until further notice.

Federal courthouse

The District of Massachusetts is served by three federal courthouses.

Cameras in the courtroom pilot program

The court participated in a three-year long pilot program that allowed video recordings of civil trials in 14 different federal courts. Massachusetts already allowed cameras into state courtrooms with special permission, but this was a new experience for the federal court. Shooting began on October 17, 2011, with a few limitations: criminal trials would not be recorded, the recording of civil cases must have been agreed upon by both parties and the judge, and only official court videos made by court personnel would be allowed. The videos were available to the public on www.uscourts.gov.

About United States District Courts

The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal courts. There are 94 such courts. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of both law and equity.

There is a United States bankruptcy court and a number of bankruptcy judges associated with each United States district court. Each federal judicial district has at least one courthouse, and most districts have more than one.

There is at least one judicial district for each state, and one each for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. District courts in three insular areas—the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands—exercise the same jurisdiction as U.S. district courts. Despite their name, these courts are technically not District Courts of the United States. Judges on these territorial courts do not enjoy the protections of Article III of the Constitution, and serve terms of 10 years rather than for life.

There are 677 U.S. District Court judgeships.

The number of federal district judge positions is set by the U.S. Congress in Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 133, which authorizes a set number of judge positions, or judgeships, making changes and adjustments in these numbers from time to time.

In order to relieve the pressure of trying the hundreds of thousands of cases brought before the federal district courts each year, many trials are tried by juries, along with a presiding judge.

Appointments by president

The chart below shows the number of district court judges confirmed by the U.S. Senate through November 1 of the fourth year of each president's term in office. At this point in the term, President Bill Clinton had the most district court appointments with 169.

Judges by district

See also: Judicial vacancies in federal courts

The table below displays the number of judges in each district and indicates how many were appointed by presidents from each major political party. It also includes the number of vacancies in a district and how many pending nominations for that district are before the United States Senate. The table can be sorted by clicking the column headers above the line, and you can navigate through the pages by clicking the arrows at the top of the table. It is updated every Monday.

Judicial selection

The district courts are served by Article III federal judges who are appointed for life during "good behavior." They are usually first recommended by senators (or members of the House, occasionally). The President of the United States makes the appointments, which must then be confirmed by the U.S. Senate in accordance with Article III of the United States Constitution.

Step	A Candidacy Proceeds	A Candidacy Halts
1. Recommendation made by Congress Member to the President	President Nominates to Senate Judiciary Committee	President Declines Nomination
2. Senate Judiciary Committee interviews Candidate	Sends candidate to Senate for confirmation	Returns candidate to President, who may re-nominate to Committee
3. Senate votes on candidate confirmation	Candidate becomes federal judge	Candidate does not receive judgeship

Magistrate judges

The district courts are also served by magistrate judges. Congress created the judicial office of federal magistrate in 1968. In 1990, the position title was changed to magistrate judge. The chief judge of each district appoints one or more magistrate judges, who discharge many of the ancillary duties of district judges so judges can handle more trials. There are both full-time and part-time magistrate judge positions, and these positions are assigned to the district courts according to caseload criteria (subject to funding by Congress). A full-time magistrate judge serves a term of eight years; a part-time magistrate judge's term of office is four years.

See also

• United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• United States District Court for the District of Maine
• United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire
• United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
• United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island

External links

• Search Google News for this topic
• United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts Official Website
• United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts Official Website
• Judges of the District of Massachusetts

Footnotes

Massachusetts courts

---

Federal courts:

First Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: District of Massachusetts • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: District of Massachusetts

State courts:

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court • Massachusetts Appeals Court • Massachusetts Superior Courts • Massachusetts District Courts • Massachusetts Housing Courts • Massachusetts Juvenile Courts • Massachusetts Land Courts • Massachusetts Probate and Family Courts • Boston Municipal Courts, Massachusetts

State resources:

Courts in Massachusetts • Massachusetts judicial elections • Judicial selection in Massachusetts