United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

District of Columbia Circuit
Court of Appeals
Judgeships
Posts: 11
Judges: 11
Vacancies: 0
Judges
Chief: Sri Srinivasan
Active judges: Julianna Michelle Childs, Bradley Garcia, Karen Henderson, Greg Katsas, Patricia Ann Millett, Florence Pan, Cornelia T. L. Pillard, Neomi Rao, Srikanth Srinivasan, Justin Walker, Robert Leon Wilkins Senior judges: James Buckley, Harry Edwards, Douglas Ginsburg, Arthur Randolph, Judith Rogers, David Sentelle, David Tatel

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is a federal appellate court with appellate jurisdiction. It hears appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and its rulings may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

This court should not be confused with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which is equivalent to a state supreme court in the District of Columbia, or with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction is limited by subject matter. Appeals are heard in the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington, D.C.

Eight judges of the District of Columbia Circuit went on to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States: Fred M. Vinson, Wiley Rutledge, Warren Burger, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Brett Kavanaugh.

Vacancies

See also: Current federal judicial vacancies

There are no current vacancies on the District of Columbia Circuit.

Pending nominations

There are no pending nominees for this court.

Active judges

Article III judges

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Karen Henderson	George H.W. Bush (R)	July 5, 1990 -	Duke University, 1966	University of North Carolina School of Law, 1969
Srikanth Srinivasan	Barack Obama (D)	May 24, 2013 -	Stanford University, 1989	Stanford University Law, 1995
Patricia Ann Millett	Barack Obama (D)	December 10, 2013 -	University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1985	Harvard Law, 1988
Cornelia T. L. Pillard	Barack Obama (D)	December 17, 2013 -	Yale College, 1983	Harvard Law, 1987
Robert Leon Wilkins	Barack Obama (D)	January 15, 2014 -	Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, 1986	Harvard Law School, 1989
Greg Katsas	Donald Trump (R)	December 8, 2017 -	Princeton University, 1986	Harvard Law School, 1989
Neomi Rao	Donald Trump (R)	March 18, 2019 -	Yale University, 1995	University of Chicago Law School, 1999
Justin Walker	Donald Trump (R)	September 2, 2020 -	Duke University, 2004	Harvard Law School, 2009
Julianna Michelle Childs	Joe Biden (D)	July 25, 2022 -	University of South Florida, 1988	University of South Carolina School of Law, 1991
Florence Pan	Joe Biden (D)	September 26, 2022 -	University of Pennsylvania, 1988	Stanford Law School, 1993
Bradley Garcia	Joe Biden (D)	May 16, 2023 -	Johns Hopkins University, 2008	Harvard Law School, 2011

Active Article III judges by appointing political party

Below is a display of 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: 7
• Republican appointed: 4

Senior judges

Senior status is a classification for federal judges at all levels who are semi-retired. Senior judges are Article III judges who, having met eligibility through age and service requirements, continue to serve on federal courts while typically hearing a reduced number of cases. Some senior judges, however, elect to retain a full caseload after taking senior status. According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, senior judges "typically handle about 15 percent of the federal courts' workload annually." The date listed under assumed office in the table below reflects the date that the judge took senior status.

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
James Buckley	Ronald Reagan (R)	August 31, 1996 -	Yale, 1943	Yale Law, 1949
Harry Edwards	Jimmy Carter (D)	November 3, 2005 -	Cornell University, 1962	University of Michigan Law, 1965
Arthur Randolph	George H.W. Bush (R)	November 1, 2008 -	Drexel University, 1966	University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1969
Douglas Ginsburg	Ronald Reagan (R)	October 14, 2011 -	Cornell University, 1970	University of Chicago Law, 1973
David Sentelle	Ronald Reagan (R)	February 12, 2013 -	University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1965	University of North Carolina School of Law, 1968
David Tatel		May 16, 2022 -	University of Michigan, 1963	University of Chicago Law School, 1966
Judith Rogers		September 1, 2022 -	Radcliffe College, 1961	Harvard Law, 1964

Senior judges by appointing political party

Below is a display of 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: 2
• Republican appointed: 3

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.

Merrick Garland - (2013-2020) David Sentelle - (2008-2013) Douglas Ginsburg - (2001-2008) Harry Edwards - (1994-2001) Abner Mikva - (1991-1994) Patricia Wald - (1986-1991) Spottswood Robinson - (1981-1986) Carl McGowan - (1981) James Wright - (1978-1981) David Bazelon - (1962-1978)

Wilbur Miller - (1960-1962) Elijah Prettyman - (1958-1960) Henry Edgerton - (1955-1958) Harold Montelle Stephens - (1948-1955) Duncan Groner - (1937-1948) George Ewing Martin - (1924-1937) Constantine Joseph Smyth - (1917-1924) Seth Shepard - (1905-1917) Richard Henry Alvey - (1893-1905) William Cranch - (1806-1855)

Former judges

For more on the judges of the D.C. Circuit, see former federal judges of the D.C. Circuit.

Jurisdiction

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over cases heard by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law. Appeals of rulings by the D.C. Circuit are petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States. Chief Justice John Roberts is the circuit justice for the D.C. Circuit.

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 Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit caseload stats, 2010-2023
Year	Appeals Filed	Appeals Terminated	Pending Appeals	Terminations on the Merits (per Active Judge)	Procedural Terminations (per Active Judge)	Total Written Decisions (per Active Judge)	Number of Judgeships	Number of Sitting Senior Judges	Number of Vacant Judgeship Months	Median Time From Filing Notice of Appeal to Disposition
2010	1,176	1,271	1,287	173	28	57	11	4	24	11
2011	1,143	1,083	1,347	203	29	50	11	5	27	11
2012	1,170	1,098	1,419	211	53	48	11	5	36	10
2013	1,020	999	1,440	185	28	52	11	6	39	12
2014	1,092	1,034	1,503	138	28	35	11	6	0	14
2015	1,154	1,197	1,460	185	20	34	11	6	0	13
2016	1,158	1,154	1,464	163	24	37	11	6	0	13
2017	867	1,040	1,291	145	20	37	11	7	4	12
2018	1,064	1,110	1,245	163	24	41	11	7	3	12
2019	921	1,053	1,113	208	18	40	11	6	0	11
2020	1,145	966	1,292	143	22	39	11	6	0	11
2021	850	970	1,172	145	25	42	11	6	7	12
2022	991	917	1,246	137	13	39	11	8	5	11
2023	1,084	803	1,528	125	17	34	11	6	4	11
Average	1,060	1,050	1,343	166	25	42	11	6	11	12

History

The D.C. Circuit was established on February 9, 1893, by 27 Stat. 434, which granted the court one chief justice and two associate justices. Over the years, eight additional seats were added, resulting in a total of 11 posts.

Judicial posts

The following table highlights the development of judicial posts for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit:

Year	Statute	Total Seats
February 9, 1893	27 Stat. 434	3
June 19, 1930	46 Stat. 785	5
May 31, 1938	52 Stat. 584	6
August 3, 1949	63 Stat. 493	9
October 20, 1978	92 Stat. 1629	11
July 10, 1984	98 Stat. 333	12
January 7, 2008	121 Stat. 2534	11

Reversal rate

See also: SCOTUS case reversal rates (2007 - Present)

Since 2007, SCOTUS has released opinions in 1,250 cases. Of those, it reversed a lower court decision 891 times (71.3 percent) while affirming a lower court decision 347 times (27.8 percent).

In that time period, SCOTUS has decided 55 cases originating from the District of Columbia Circuit, affirming in 16 cases and reversing in 37 cases, for a reversal rate of 67 percent. As of the end of the 2023 term, of the Article III circuits—the ordinal circuits, the D.C. Circuit, and the Federal Circuit—the court with the lowest rate of overturned decisions is the Fourth Circuit at 62.1 percent.

Noteworthy cases

The following are noteworthy cases heard before this court. To suggest cases we should cover here, email us. To read opinions published by this court, click here.

• Obamacare enactment process deemed constitutional (2014)

Click for summary→

In late July 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dismissed a case that challenged Obamacare on the basis of how it was enacted. The plaintiffs, Pacific Legal Foundation, made their challenge based on the constitutional requirement that all revenue bills originate in the U.S. House of Representatives. In the case of the Affordable Care Act, the Senate took a House bill and kept its number before replacing the bill's contents with new Senate language. The three-judge panel, consisting of Judges Judith Rogers, Robert Leon Wilkins and Cornelia T. L. Pillard, decided that, at its heart, the law was not intended to be a tax, but instead was meant to promote the purchase of health insurance and decrease the number of uninsured people in the nation. The judges recognized the tax penalty for not obtaining health insurance, but found, like the U.S. Supreme Court, that it the penalty was secondary to the intent of the law. Articles: USA Today, "Obamacare survives another challenge," July 29, 2014 Christian Science Monitor, "Did Congress pass Obamacare the right way?" July 29, 2014

• Circuits split over federal subsidies for Obamacare (2014)

Click for summary→

On July 22, 2014, two circuits ruled in opposition to the other on the issue of federal subsidies available through the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) ruled that the federal subsidies were being given illegally to residents who use the federal marketplace to sign up for health insurance. Meanwhile, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found them to be legal. The D.C. Circuit, in a 2 to 1 decision, ruled that the subsidies portion of the Affordable Care Act indicated federal money would be made available to people “enrolled through an Exchange established by the State.” The White House argued that Congress intended for all Americans to receive the subsidies, regardless of whether they purchased their insurance through a state marketplace. The court said that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) drafted rules for the issuance of the subsidies in every state, even if the state chose to not set up its own marketplace. Judge Thomas Griffith wrote for the three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit, saying that the IRS rules are not dispositive and that the federal government is unable to “stand in the state’s shoes” in the marketplace. Judge Harry Edwards dissented from the majority opinion, saying it could have unintended, negative consequences. The Fourth Circuit found that the question of whether subsidies were to go to individuals in states that did not set up a marketplace was not answered in the ACA; thus, the IRS acted accordingly in setting out its rules on the subject. Judge Roger Gregory, writing for the three-judge panel, said that “widely available tax credits are essential to fulfilling the Act’s primary goals and that Congress was aware of their importance when drafting the bill.” Articles: Washington Post, “Federal Appeals Court Panel Deals Major Blow to Health Law,” July 22, 2014 CNBC, “Split decision! Fed appeals courts disagree on Obamacare subsidies,” July 22, 2014

• False claims case against Lance Armstrong can move forward (2014)

Click for summary→

Judge Robert Leon Wilkins of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the federal government's case against Lance Armstrong could move forward. The U.S. Postal Service sued Lance Armstrong, claiming Armstrong was unjustly paid while cheating. The federal government paid Armstrong $40 million to be his racing team’s title sponsor while he was riding, and winning, the Tour de France. The government claims that Armstrong lied about taking performance-enhancing drugs, making his actions fraudulent. The suit stemmed from a whistleblower lawsuit filed by Floyd Landis, one of Armstrong’s teammates, on behalf of the government in 2010. Landis brought the suit under the False Claims Act. The Department of Justice joined the case in 2013, as allowed under the Act. Armstrong sought to have the suit dismissed after arguing that the statute of limitations had expired, and the Postal Service refused to investigate the allegations made at the time of sponsorship. Further, Armstrong claimed that there was no injury because of his actions. Judge Wilkins disagreed with Armstrong and denied his motion to dismiss the case. Under the False Claims Act, a citizen, or whistleblower, may sue an individual he or she knows has defrauded the federal government. If the government steps into the case and recovers, the whistleblower receives a share of the damages. Articles: Dallas Morning News, "Judge refuses to toss lawsuit over Lance Armstrong's Tour rides for Postal Service team," June 19, 2014 Inquisitr, "Lance Armstrong Doping Saga Continues: Government Sues Him For Fraud," June 22, 2014

• EPA regulations cannot vary by judicial circuit (2014)

Click for summary→

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), because of an adverse United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruling, loosened regulations under the Clean Air Act, but only in that judicial circuit. The circuit is composed of four states: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. In 2012, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the EPA’s definition of adjacent, a key term in the Clean Air Act that affects permitting of pollution sources, was unreasonable. After the ruling, the EPA changed its definition of adjacent to no longer include functional interrelatedness, but that change was expressly stated to apply only to the states in the Sixth Circuit. The National Environment Development Association sued the EPA for inconsistency and disadvantaging facilities outside of the Sixth Circuit. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit, comprised of Judges David Tatel, Harry Edwards, and Stephen F. Williams, heard the case and ruled that the EPA must retain uniformity in its regulations and their application throughout the nation, regardless of an adverse judicial ruling. Edwards, the author of the court's decision, wrote that “[r]egional inconsistencies” were to be found and rectified through the use of “standardizing criteria, procedures, and policies.” Articles: Courthouse News, “D.C. Circuit Nixes Inconsistent Pollution Rules,” June 11, 2014 Warren Environmental Counsel, LLP, "Hoisted by its own petard," June 5, 2014 Fresh Law, "D.C. Circuit Vacates US EPA’s Summit Directive For The Aggregation Of “Adjacent Properties” Under The CAA," June 23, 2014

• Judge halts forced feedings at Guantanamo Bay (2014)

Click for summary→

In 2013, inmates at the prison camp located in the military installation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, organized a hunger strike. At its height, over 100 inmates, or more than two-thirds of detainees, were participating. Those in charge of detention operations decided to force-feed inmates to ensure their survival. One inmate, Mohammed Abu Wa’el Dhiab, a Syrian by birth whom President Obama ordered be released in 2010, chose to fight the forced feedings. He claimed that the military officers would drag him from his cell, put him in a chair used to restrain him and then give him nasogastric feedings. Dhiab also claims that the military videotaped these events. A military spokesperson said that the feedings were only used if and when it became necessary to preserve the life of the inmate. Judge Gladys Kessler ordered the military to stop the forced feedings on May 16, 2014. She further ordered that the military preserve all video recorded evidence of these events. Judge Kessler previously called the use of forced feedings at Guantanamo Bay a “painful, humiliating and degrading process." Articles: Miami Herald, "Judge halts force-feeding of Syrian Guantánamo captive," May 16, 2014 NY Times, “Judge orders U.S. to stop force feeding Syrian held at Guantanamo,” May 16, 2014

• Postal Service ordered to end preferential treatment of Netflix (2014)

Click for summary→

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ended the U.S. Postal Service's preferential treatment towards Netflix. In 2013, the D.C. Circuit ordered the Postal Service (USPS) to stop discriminating against GameFly, a company that also mails DVDs to customers via the USPS. GameFly was forced to use more expensive mailers because its DVDs were sorted through machine processing. Netflix DVD mailers, however, received hand sorting. To equalize how the USPS deals with both companies, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the USPS must either lower what it charges GameFly to mail its DVDs in the heavier mailers or enact operational procedures to prevent GameFly mailers from being damaged, such as sorting their DVD mailers by hand, as well. The USPS chose to reduce postage rates. A three-judge panel approved the remedy in April 2014. Judge Karen Henderson wrote for the court. She said that the rate decrease was “unequivocally effective in equalizing the playing field, thereby eliminating the discrimination—or at least its injurious effects.” Articles: Courthouse News, "Netflix Postal Advantage Comes to an End," April 14, 2014 Law360, "DC Circ. OKs Netflix Price Discrimination Fix At USPS," April 8, 2014

• Judge upholds labels for meat products (2014)

Click for summary→

A federal court upheld a law requiring the meat industry to label certain cuts to include where the animal was born, lived its life, and ultimately was slaughtered. Meat producers said that requiring labels on meat is a violation of their First Amendment right to free speech because it would force the producer to provide information about their product. Producers also argued that the information would be of little to no value to the consumer, and that regulation of the labels went beyond Congressional intent. Judge Stephen F. Williams, writing for a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, said that the labels allowed consumers to choose meats from the United States, where there are strict regulations about meat production, rather than from foreign countries that do not have such rules. He said the labeling measure allowed consumers to use “patriotic or protectionist criteria in the choice of meat.” The goals being met with the labels outweigh the infringement on meat producers’ free speech rights, the court ruled. Articles: FOX News, “Appeals court rules in favor of meat labels,” March 28, 2014 Washington Post, "Appeals court rules in favor of meat labels," March 28, 2014

• D.C. Circuit says judges can intercede in operations at Guantanamo Bay (2014)

Click for summary→

In 2014, the D.C. Circuit ruled that judges have the authority to hear cases on inmate treatment at Guantanamo Bay through the court’s habeas corpus power. A lower court rejected requests by inmates participating in a hunger strike to stop forced feedings, leading to an appeal to the D.C. Circuit. Judge David Tatel wrote for the three-judge panel, which voted 2 to 1 on this decision. Despite finding that forced feedings are “painful and evasive” and raise serious ethical concerns, Judge Tatel said that the military had a right to protect the lives of the inmates. This includes the use of force feedings, if necessary. Yet, because the court concluded that judges may hear cases on inmate treatment, the D.C. Circuit remanded the case to the district court for “further consideration.” Lawyers for the inmates said that this ruling gave federal judges the right to intercede when inmates are mistreated at Guantanamo Bay. It also settled the question of whether detainees at Guantanamo Bay have the right to judicial review. Articles: NY Times, "Appeals Court Allows Challenges by Detainees at Guantánamo Prison," February 11, 2014 The Jurist, "Federal appeals court denies Guantanamo detainees' challenge to force-feeding," February 12, 2014 The Guardian, “Guantánamo hunger strikers able to challenge force-feeding, court rules,” February 11, 2014

• D.C. Circuit cannot rule on filibuster lawsuit due to jurisdictional issue (2014)

Click for summary→

In April 2014, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit, comprised of Judges Arthur Randolph, Karen Henderson, and Stephen F. Williams, blocked a lawsuit filed by the advocacy group Common Cause having to do with Senate filibuster rules invoked in response to two bills: the DREAM Act, regarding immigrants who entered the U.S. as minors, and the DISCLOSE Act, a federal campaign finance bill. The decision, written by Judge Randolph, noted that the advocacy group failed to sue the proper party, namely, the Senate itself, as it was the cause of the alleged injury in question. Judge Randolph further determined that the Senate was an "absent third party," and that the D.C. Circuit therefore lacked jurisdiction to rule on the case. Articles: SCOTUSblog, "Filibuster challenge fails in court," April 15, 2014 The Hill, "D.C. Court: Common Cause 'hoist with its own petar' in filibuster case," April 15, 2014

• D.C. Circuit strikes down conflict minerals rule as unconstitutional (2014)

Click for summary→

On April 14, 2014, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit, comprised of Judges Arthur Randolph, David Sentelle, and Srikanth Srinivasan, struck down a securities disclosure rule concerning conflict minerals, a term ascribed to minerals excavated and sold in order to finance conflict in central Africa. The panel ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rule violated the First Amendment. In the opinion, Judge Randolph wrote that “[b]y compelling an issuer to confess blood on its hands, the statute interferes with that exercise of freedom of speech under the First Amendment.” Articles: E&E Publishing, "Appeals court strikes down conflict minerals disclosure rule," April 14, 2014 Huffington Post, "Conflict Minerals Disclosure Rule Struck Down By Appeals Court," April 14, 2014

• Net neutrality struck down (2014)      Judge(s):David Tatel, Judith Rogers, Laurence H. Silberman (Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission, 11-1355)	Click for summary→
On January 14, 2014, a split three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit, comprised of Judges David Tatel, Judith Rogers, and Laurence H. Silberman, struck down net neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) rules requiring Internet service providers to provide equal treatment to all communications. Tatel, writing for the majority, wrote that the government could not force internet providers to treat all traffic equally. This case was spurred by the FCC's 2010 passage of the Open Internet Order (OIO), a document which set out rules designed to "preserve the Internet as an open platform enabling consumer choice, freedom of expression, end-user control, competition, and the freedom to innovate without permission." Verizon challenged those rules, arguing that the FCC lacked the regulatory authority to enforce them, and that they served as a violation of the company's First Amendment right to free speech. In the decision, Tatel, joined by Rogers, wrote that "even though the [FCC] has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates," vacating the sections of the OIO that sought to regulate internet providers as common carriers. Silberman concurred in part and dissented in part, writing that he believed the FCC lacked the statutory authority to issue the OIO in the first place.

Before the U.S. Supreme Court

This section focuses on cases the U.S. Supreme Court heard that originated in this court. To suggest cases we should cover here, email us.

2023-2024 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024

The following cases were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2023-2024 term.

2023-2024 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the D.C. Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo	John Roberts	vacated and remanded	6-3
Carnahan v. Maloney	N/A	Case dismissed	N/A
Fischer v. United States	John Roberts	vacated and remanded	6-3
Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency	Neil Gorsuch	Application for stay granted	5-4
Trump v. Anderson	Per curiam	reversed	9-0
Trump v. United States	John Roberts	vacated and remanded	6-3

2022-2023 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023

The following case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2022-2023 term.

2022-2023 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the D.C. Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Arizona v. Mayorkas	N/A	vacated and remanded	N/A

2021-2022 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022

The following cases were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2021-2022 term.

2021-2022 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the D.C. Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
American Hospital Association v. Becerra	Brett Kavanaugh	reversed and remanded	9-0
West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (Consolidated with North American Coal Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, Westmoreland Mining Holdings v. Environmental Protection Agency, and North Dakota v. Environmental Protection Agency)	John Roberts	reversed and remanded	6-3

2020-2021 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

The following cases were scheduled for argument before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2020-2021 term.

2020-2021 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the District of Columbia Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Republic of Hungary v. Simon	Per curiam	vacated and remanded	9-0
Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp	John Roberts	vacated and remanded	9-0
Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation (Consolidated with Alaska Native Village Corporation Association v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation)	Sonia Sotomayor	reversed and remanded	6-3
Guam v. United States	Clarence Thomas	reversed and remanded	9-0

2019-2020 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2019-2020

The following cases were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2019-2020 term.

2019-2020 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the District of Columbia Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Opati v. Republic of Sudan	Neil Gorsuch	vacated and remanded	8-0
Trump v. Mazars USA (Consolidated with Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG)	John Roberts	vacated and remanded	7-2
Barr v. Lee	Per curiam	application for a stay granted	5-4

Federal courthouse

The court is based at the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington, D.C. It was built from 1949 to 1950 and opened in 1952. Three courts share this courthouse: the District of Columbia Circuit, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The courthouse is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is a property of the Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Site. The building was designed by Louis Justement.

About United States Court of Appeals

The United States courts of appeals (or circuit courts) are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal courts. The court of appeals was originally created in 1891 and has grown to include thirteen courts.

A court of appeals decides appeals from any of the district courts that are in its federal judicial circuit. The appeals courts also can hear appeals from some administrative agencies. Decisions of the federal appeals courts can, in turn, be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

There are thirteen United States courts of appeals. In addition, there are other federal courts (such as the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which hears appeals in court-martial cases) that have "Court of Appeals" in their titles.

The eleven "numbered" circuits and the D.C. Circuit are defined by geography. The thirteenth court of appeal is the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This court has nationwide jurisdiction over certain types of appeals based on what the underlying legal case is about.

All of the courts of appeals also hear appeals from some administrative agency decisions and rulemaking. The largest share of this type of case is heard by the D.C. Circuit. The Federal Circuit hears appeals from specialized trial courts, primarily the Court of International Trade and the Court of Federal Claims, as well as appeals from the district courts in patent cases and certain other specialized matters.

Federal circuit court judges are appointed for life. They are paid approximately $179,500 annually. At the age of 65, a federal judge may choose to retire with his or her full salary. Judges may also choose to go on senior status at age 65, if they have served actively for 15 years.

Appointments by president

The chart below shows the number of appeals 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 Trump had the most appeals court appointments with 53.

Judges by circuit

See also: Judicial vacancies in federal courts

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

See also

• United States District Court for the District of Columbia

External links

• Search Google News for this topic
• Official website of the District of Columbia Circuit
• Opinions of the District of Columbia Circuit