Kenneth Ripple

Kenneth Ripple

Nonpartisan

United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (senior status)

Tenure

2008 - Present

Years in position

16

Prior offices

United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

Successor: David Hamilton

---

Education

Bachelor's

Fordham University, 1965

Graduate

George Washington University Law Center, 1972

Law

University of Virginia School of Law, 1968

Personal

Birthplace

Pittsburgh, Pa.

float:right;
border:1px solid #FFB81F;
background-color: white;
width: 250px;
font-size: .9em;
margin-bottom:0px;

} .infobox p { margin-bottom: 0; } .widget-row { display: inline-block; width: 100%; margin-top: 1px; margin-bottom: 1px; } .widget-row.heading { font-size: 1.2em; } .widget-row.value-only { text-align: center; background-color: grey; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.value-only.white { background-color: #f9f9f9; } .widget-row.value-only.black { background-color: #f9f9f9; color: black; } .widget-row.Democratic { background-color: #003388; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.Republican { background-color: red; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.Independent, .widget-row.Nonpartisan, .widget-row.Constitution { background-color: grey; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.Libertarian { background-color: #f9d334; color: black; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.Green { background-color: green; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-key { width: 43%; display: inline-block; padding-left: 10px; vertical-align: top; font-weight: bold; } .widget-value { width: 57%; float: right; display: inline-block; padding-left: 10px; word-wrap: break-word; } .widget-img { width: 150px; display: block; margin: auto; } .clearfix { clear: both; }

Kenneth Francis Ripple is a federal judge on senior status on the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. He joined the court in 1985 after being nominated by President Ronald Reagan. He assumed senior status on September 1, 2008.

Early life and education

A native of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Ripple earned his bachelor's degree summa cum laude from Fordham University in 1965, his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1968, and his LL.M. summa cum laude from the George Washington School of Law in 1972. He received honorary doctor of laws LL.D. degrees from George Washington University in 1992, and from Valparaiso University in 2013.

Military service

Ripple served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from 1968 to 1972. During his active service, he was counsel in the office of the Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy from 1969 to 1972.

Professional career

• 1978-1985: Reporter, Advisory committee on federal appellate rules
• 1977-Present: Professor of law, University of Notre Dame
• 1977-1985: Private practice, Washington, D.C.
• 1973-1977: Special assistant, Hon. Warren Burger, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the United States
• 1972-1973: Legal officer (staff counsel), Supreme Court of the United States
• 1968: Attorney, office of the general counsel, IBM

Judicial career

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Nomination Tracker
Nominee Information
Name: Kenneth F. Ripple
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
Progress
Confirmed 32 days after nomination.
ANominated: April 1, 1985
AABA Rating:
Questionnaire:
AHearing: April 24, 1985
QFRs: (Hover over QFRs to read more)
AReported: May 2, 1985
AConfirmed: May 3, 1985
AVote: Voice vote

Ripple was nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit by President Ronald Reagan on April 1, 1985, to a new seat created by 98 Stat. 353. Hearings on Ripple's nomination were held before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on April 24, 1985, and his nomination was reported by U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) on May 2, 1985. Ripple's nomination was confirmed by the Senate on May 3, 1985, and he received his commission on May 10, 1985. He assumed senior status on September 1, 2008. He was succeeded in this position by Judge David Hamilton.

Noteworthy cases

Wisconsin State Assembly maps and partisan gerrymandering (2016)

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (Whitford et al. v. Gill et al., 15-cv-421-bbc)

In June 2012, Democrats assumed a one-vote majority in the Wisconsin State Senate as the result of a series of recall elections. Although Democrats lost the majority five months later, they were able, in the meantime, to compel law firm Michael Best and Friedrich to turn over files related to the 2011 redistricting cycle (Republicans tasked with drafting new maps in 2011 worked out of the Michael Best and Friedrich office in Madison, Wisconsin). Before Democrats assumed the majority, they had asked Michael Best and Friedrich to turn over the requested records, but the firm refused, saying that it answered to the majority leader. Democrats used these records as evidence when they filed suit in federal district court, alleging that the Wisconsin State Assembly map treated voters "unequally, diluting their voting power based on their political beliefs, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection." On November 21, 2016, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin struck down the district map for the Wisconsin State Assembly, finding in favor of the plaintiffs, a group of state Democrats. The court ruled 2-1 on the matter, with Judges Kenneth Ripple and Barbara Crabb forming the majority. Ripple wrote the following in the court's majority opinion:

“	We find that Act 43 [the redistricting plan enacted by the state legislature in 2011] was intended to burden the representational rights of Democratic voters throughout the decennial period by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats. Moreover, as demonstrated by the results of the 2012 and 2014 elections, among other evidence, we conclude that Act 43 has had its intended effect.	”
—Judge Kenneth Ripple

Judge William Griesbach dissented and wrote the following in his dissent:

“	I am unable to accept proof of intent to act for political purposes as a significant part of any test for whether a task constitutionally entrusted to the political branches of government is unconstitutional. If political motivation is improper, then the task of redistricting should be constitutionally assigned to some other body, a change in law we lack any authority to effect.	”
—Judge William Griesbach

The court declined to order a remedy when it issued its ruling. Instead, the court ordered the parties involved in the case to submit briefs outlining recommended remedies within 30 days.

The plaintiffs in the case proposed a three-part test for determining whether illegal partisan gerrymandering has occurred in a state.

1. Intent: "Plaintiffs would have to establish that a state had an intent to gerrymander for partisan advantage."
2. Effect: "Plaintiffs would need to prove a partisan effect by proving that the efficiency gap for a plan exceeds a certain numerical threshold."
3. State interest: "Plaintiffs placed the burden on the defendants to rebut the presumption by showing that the plan 'is the necessary result of a legitimate state policy, or inevitable given the state's underlying political geography.'"

Peter Barca (D), the minority leader of the Wisconsin State Assembly, said, "This is an historic victory for voters and further admonishment of the extremely slanted maps that trample the democratic will of the people of Wisconsin." Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) said, "There are only two things that are certain about this case: it's unprecedented and it isn't over. The state of Wisconsin has competitive legislative districts that meet every traditional principle of redistricting. Republicans win elections because we have better candidates and a better message that continues to resonate with the voters."

On January 27, 2017, the court ordered state lawmakers to draft a remedial redistricting plan for use in the November 2018 election. The court ordered that this plan be adopted by the legislature and signed into law by the governor by November 1, 2017. On March 24, 2017, state attorneys petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse the district court's ruling.

On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that it would hear the case, Gill v. Whitford. The court also voted 5-4 to stay the district court decision that ordered Wisconsin lawmakers to draft new maps by November 1, 2017. Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch voted to stay the district court order. Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer dissented. Oral argument in the case took place on October 3, 2017. On June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate standing to bring the complaint under Article III of the United States Constitution. The court's opinion, penned by Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Kagan wrote a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Thomas authored an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Gorsuch.

In response to the ruling, Bill Whitford, a plaintiff in the suit, said, "The discouraging thing is just the delay. We have a road map forward ... I don't think we'll have any difficulty meeting the burdens the court asked us to meet." Wisconsin Solicitor General Misha Tseytlin doubted the viability of a further challenge, saying, "I think it is quite notable that [the plaintiffs] put together a failry large, well-funded litigation team, had a four-day trial, and the Supreme Court unanimously held 9-0 they did not prove the basis of standing. The plaintiffs here failed to prove up the minimal standing to even bring a lawsuit."

On September 14, 2018, in response to the high court's ruling in Gill, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Also on September 14, 2018, the Wisconsin Assembly Democratic Committee filed a similar but separate suit in the same court.

Wisconsin law degrees and the WI bar (2009)

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (Christopher L. Wiesmueller, v. John Kosobucki, et al., 07-c-2601)

In July 2009, Judge Richard Posner reauthorized a class-action lawsuit over the diploma-privilege clause given to graduates of Wisconsin and Marquette Law. Judge Posner's decision to reauthorize the case raised questions about Wisconsin's practice of admitting new graduates from Marquette and Wisconsin Law to the bar without taking a bar exam. The law stated that graduates of accredited law schools in states other than Wisconsin that want to practice law in the state have to pass the Wisconsin bar exam or have practiced law for five years in another state.

The plaintiffs, graduates of Oklahoma City Law, argued Wisconsin's policy violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution by discriminating against graduates of out-of-state law schools. The plaintiffs claimed that Wisconsin should extend diploma privilege to graduates of other law schools. The lawsuit named the Wisconsin Board of Bar Examiners and the Wisconsin Supreme Court as defendants.

The case was first filed in 2007 in the Western District of Wisconsin. Senior judge John C. Shabaz dismissed the case. Judge Shabaz said: "Diploma privilege does not discriminate because everyone who did not graduate from a Wisconsin law school has to take the bar." Judge Shabaz in his ruling mentioned state residents and non-residents alike.

Fellow judges Diane Wood and Ken Ripple also served with Judge Posner on the panel. The panel ordered the case to be re-heard by the Western District of Wisconsin.

See also

• United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

External links

• Judge Ripple's biography from the Federal Judicial Center

Footnotes

Political offices
Preceded by: New seat 98 Stat. 353	Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals 1985–2008	Succeeded by: David Hamilton