STATEMENT OF BARBARA JACOBS ROTHSTEIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR THE FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS
MAY 27, 1998

I have served as a United States District Judge in the Western District of Washington for over seventeen years. For seven of those years, I served as the Chief Judge of the District. As Chief Judge, I became familiar with the administrative challenges faced by the federal court system and with the variety of solutions available to answer these challenges. Based on this experience, I am concerned about possible misperceptions of the challenges facing the Ninth Circuit and am testifying to express my strong opposition to the restructuring or realigning of the Ninth Circuit. My opposition is based on five arguments.

First, the Ninth Circuit is functioning well administratively. The Circuit has been able to take increasing advantage of new technology that enables it to communicate electronically. Fax machines, telephone conferences, e-mail, and computers have drastically reduced the distances within this Circuit. Technology has also resulted in more expeditious and economical handling of the Circuit's caseload and has allowed appellate panels to avoid conflicting rulings.

If a new circuit is created, it will require its own headquarters, clerk, and administrative systems. These requirements, which would duplicate existing structures, will cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. The most recent legislation, which illogically proposes two circuit headquarters and two clerks for the new circuit, would be even more expensive.

Moreover, the arrangement of the Ninth Circuit states and territories into one administrative unit is echoed in the administrative agencies that service the courts. The split of the Circuit would involve splitting and duplicating many of these government agencies ­ again at the taxpayers' expense.

Second, the geographic region that composes the Ninth Circuit faces common problems and issues necessitating a common body of law. For instance, the West Coast states benefit greatly from Pacific Rim trade. It is advantageous to the states and the domestic and international companies engaged in this trade to have a uniform body of commercial law.

Similarly, this region benefits from the uniform environmental law made possible by the current Circuit. Migrating species and flowing rivers do not honor state boundaries. This fact is recognized by the Pacific Fish Management Council, which creates management plans covering the migration of fish from Northern California to Alaska.

The composition of the Circuit also benefits the governmental agencies that are organized along Circuit lines in combating interstate problems. For example, law enforcement recognizes patterns in drug trafficking that extend from the Mexican border to the Canadian border and from the Far East Golden Triangle through Sea-Tac to California.

Third, the diversity of viewpoints that comes from having judges from differing areas of the circuit has been an enriching experience for us all. The exchange of ideas that comes about at circuit conferences and judicial workshops is invaluable. The provincialism that would result from a smaller circuit that would specialize in the more limited industries of the area should be avoided. A larger circuit requires judges to face a more varied set of issues which keeps them alert and informed of emerging legal doctrine.

Fourth, the identity of a circuit emerges over time. It learns from its mistakes, builds on experience, and acquires expertise amongst its staff and judges. The camaraderie among the judges takes time to build. Dividing the Ninth Circuit would threaten this tremendous asset.

Finally, and perhaps most important from the District Court perspective, the ability to receive assistance from judges in other districts within the circuit has been invaluable. As populations change, vacancies occur, and caseloads shift, some districts need to temporarily import judges from other districts. Relatively simple intracircuit transfers have allowed district judges to provide assistance in districts that are inundated with cases. When I first went on the bench, Seattle was short on judges. Had it not been for the aid of the Arizona judges, our cases would not have gone to trial for years. Today, the district which includes San Diego is overwhelmed with cases and Seattle judges have been able to provide assistance and assure the speedy resolution of cases.

Changing a circuit that has been working well for years is an enormous step. Before such a drastic change is made, one should examine very carefully the justifications for making such a move. To modify something that is working well and risk providing a lesser level of services does not serve the ends of speedy and fair justice to which we are all dedicated.