Vol. 4, No. 11 (November, 1994)
RUGGED JUSTICE: THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND THE
AMERICAN WEST, 1891-1941 by David C. Frederick. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1994. 331pp.
Reviewed by Charles H. Sheldon, Washington State University
Justice Sandra Day O'Conner writes in the forward to the volume
that "The reader will have a rich and rewarding experience
following the history of the largest and most diverse federal
circuit in the 'big country.' Through it we can better learn who
we are." Reading Frederick's fine study is indeed a
"rich and rewarding" experience. However, I'm not sure
the results will lead us to "better learn who we are?"
The book was written under the auspices of the Ninth Circuit .
Frederick had served as a law clerk with Judge Joseph T. Sneed
and Justice Byron White, providing an "insiders"
perspective to his interpretations. His goal in the work was to
explore "the role the court played in western
development." Not only did he focus on how the court shaped
its environment, but also how its context constrained the court.
The work is not always a easy read, but certainly a rewarding
one.
Historical accounts of courts tend to gather information within a
particular framework. For example, the history can be built
around the backgrounds and behaviors of individual judges as they
interact on an appellate bench. Some histories focus on a Chief
Judge or leading figure on a court. A pure doctrinal analysis
shapes many tradition court studies. Concern for the political
and legal interests that bring the cases to the court provides
another framework. The shaping force of selection which excludes
many and selects a few with identifying characteristics and
viewpoints has explanatory powers. Frederick's history of the
Ninth Circuit has elements of all of these. This inclusiveness is
among the study's strengths as well as its major weakness.
Chapters follow the course of the circuit's history
chronologically, analyzing both the usual and unusual.
Transportation, labor and natural resources issues confronted the
court from its beginnings. Legal questions generated by the
railroads, the machinations of claim jumping in the Northern gold
fields, Chinese immigration, and exploitation of the rich natural
resources of the West fill the first half of the book. The
politics of recruitment, the fears generated by the First World
War, the enforcement of prohibition, and the many legal issues
surrounding the New Deal constitute the remainder of the study.
The analysis stops abruptly in 1941, covering the first fifty
years of the circuit.
The text is richly supported by 74 pages of extensive notes.
Frederick admits that his references are "only a starting
point." He consulted all the judicial papers available,
every law review on the Ninth Circuit and on its cases, and every
contemporary newspaper article. Additionally, he reviewed a
sample of the over 10,000 published decisions of the court.
Missing are references to frameworks utilized in other court
histories that could have provided models for gathering and
organizing
Page 157 follows:
his data. Nonetheless, for anyone interested in the subject, the
notes alone are worth the price of the book.
The Evarts Act of 1891 created the Ninth Circuit and almost
immediately the two judges, who shared trial and appellate
responsibilities with a U.S. Supreme Court Justice and at least
two federal district judges, were confronted with an issue
generated by railroads. Should the estate of Leland Stanford of
which Stanford University was a part, be responsible for paying
off the huge debts incurred by his Central Pacific Railroad?. The
court saved the university by upholding the immunity of the
stockholders from any debts and the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed.
Frederick speculates that the university may have been saved
because of the sympathy toward the institution and Stanford's
widow, the generosity and magnitude of the bequest, and the
general success railroad lawyers had before the courts.
Again, the railroads indirectly contributed to another series of
cases before the circuit. The completion of the transcontinental
railroads can arguably be attributed to the use of Chinese
laborers. The opportunities for work on the railroads and in the
mines and forests of the West brought an influx of Chinese
immigrants, threatening native laborers and stimulating racial
hatred. Congress responded with the Chinese Exclusion Acts of
1882 and 1880, which excluded all Chinese immigration except for
"merchants" or privileged classes. The U.S. Supreme
Court upheld the Acts but issues arose regarding entry
certification, citizenship for American born and the
"merchants' exception."
The obvious intolerance of the court toward the Chinese was
mitigated by the assignment of judges to panels. Generally, when
Justice McKenna and Judge Morrow dominated a panel, the Chinese
appellee lost. However, the circulation of panel membership
brought them some victories, largely through the "merchants'
exception." The circuit's history of intolerance toward the
Chinese can be attributed to the restrictive statutes, the anti-
Chinese biases of especially McKenna and Morrow, the legal and
factual context, and the developing separation of the trial and
appellate roles in the circuit. Trial judges personalized their
rulings, leading to some sympathy toward Chinese. The appellate
judges, removed from the intimate atmosphere of the trial, turned
to more impersonal sources for their rulings.
`The "Anvil Creek" incident brought issues of claim
jumping, corruption, and judicial authority to the Ninth Circuit.
Alexander McKenzie, who through highly questionable means,
accumulated the rich claims of Anvil Creek and elsewhere, when
his co-conspirator, District Judge Arthur H. Noyes awarded him
the receivership of challenged claims. However, McKenzie
continued to extract gold from the claims. When ordered by the a
circuit judge to discontinue, McKenzie ignored the order and
Noyes refused enforcement. Ultimately, the circuit court upheld
the single judge order, cited Judge Noyes for contempt and
sentenced McKenzie to prison. Frederick saw the Court's handling
of the Anvil Creek incident as restoring faith in the judiciary,
maintaining the hierarchical structure of the courts and
confirming the independence of the court from the political
machinations of the time.
Page 158 follows:
"No one could doubt that the court stood resolute against
similar lawlessness in its other tribunals throughout the
circuit" and "would handle disputes by process of law
without succumbing to corruption or political pressure."
(p.97).
Discord on the court was evident with issues surrounding the
West's vast mining, timber and oil resources. Judges William
Gilbert and Erskine Ross had disagreed on other matters, but the
conflict was clear in natural resources issues. However, the
contrast was in decisional style rather than end results,
although the former often dictated the latter. Ross's approach to
statutory interpretation was as a strict constructionist. Gilbert
would remain flexible in construing statutes and contracts.
Throughout litigation concerning the Anaconda copper mines,
exploitation of federal timber lands and California oil disputes,
these two judges carried on a dialogue about the appropriate
judicial role. Neither Ross nor Gilbert were able to dictate the
direction of the circuit, however.
Abrupt changes in the court occurred just prior to the First
World War. The growth in appellate litigation exploded. The dual
role of serving at both the trial and appellate levels ended and
new judges were appointed. Competition, lobbying by special
interests, and Congressional-President politics highlighted the
appointment process.
The new bench was confronted with issues generated by the First
World War, prohibition and the Tea Pot Dome scandal. As expected,
anti-war protesters, draft dodgers and German-Americans fared
poorly with the circuit. Interestingly, the "Wobblies"
consistently proved their cases before the circuit judges and the
procedural rights of those prosecuted under the Volstead Act
often prevailed. However, order generally prevailed over free
speech rights.
The Great Depression and Roosevelt's New Deal as with all
American politics transformed the Ninth Circuit. Roosevelt
appointees, four of the five by 1935, required creativity to
further the goals of the New Deal and to circumvent the U.S.
Supreme Court. Two judges were added in 1937. It was then
possible for two of the seven, sitting on a panel of three, to
dictate the outcome for the circuit. When those two were anti-
New Deal, the government consistently lost. En banc hearings
would eventually solve the problem.
Pressures of expanding litigation without a corresponding
increase in judgeships prompted the use of "one-judge
decisions." A case would be assigned to a single judge who
would draft the opinion before a conference vote had been taken.
Commonly, that opinion would prevail. By now, circuit judges no
longer conducted trials and district judges were no longer called
upon to sit on appellate panels. A clear distinction between
trial and appellate judicial roles was drawn.
The vast territory under the jurisdiction of the court and the
diversity of issues also prompted discussions, heard still today,
for dividing the circuit. Then as today, the debates revealed the
difficulties created by the split exceeded the benefits.
Page 159 follows:
Frederick's study concludes that the court's work "mirrored
the prevailing concerns of the West." (p.240) The image of
the court is also explained by the kinds of judges on the bench,
the fluidity of panel assignments, and the development of
judicial roles.
The study abruptly ends with 1941, thus covering the first 50
years of the court. Other than dividing the study exactly in
half, Frederick fails to be convincing in justifying the cut-off.
Further, cases saving Stanford University, excluding Chinese
immigrants, reviewing arguments of claim jumpers and bootleggers
hardly constitute precedent setting law.
My greatest concern is with the lack of an organizing scheme for
the vast amount of information Frederick reports. He is concerned
with a variety of themes that could hold the analysis together,
but fails to favor one. The "who we are" about which
Justice O'Conner writes, fails to take shape. No matter! The book
needs to be read and referenced by all interested in court
history generally and the Ninth Circuit specifically.
Copyright 1994