Hon. Judges of the Court 1789 to Present · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
=== Francis Hopkinson ===
Francis Hopkinson Born: October 2, 1737, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Died: May 9, 1791, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George Washington on September 24, 1789, to a new seat authorized by 1 Stat. 73. Confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 1789, and received commission on September 26, 1789. Service terminated on May 9, 1791, due to death. Education: College of Philadelphia (now University of Pennsylvania), A.B. 1757 College of Philadelphia (now University of Pennsylvania), A.M., 1760 Professional Career: Private practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1761-1766 Collector of customs, Salem, New Jersey: 1763 Merchant, Bordentown, New Jersey: 1768-1772 Collector of Customs, New Castle, Delaware: 1772-1773 Private Practice, Bordentown, New Jersey: 1773-1774 Member, Governor’s Council of New Jersey: 1774-1776 Delegate, Continental Congress: 1776 Member, Navy Board, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1776-1777 Treasurer, Continental Loan Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1778-1781 Judge, Admiralty Court of Pennsylvania: 1779-1789 * * * Judicial Biography *Francis Hopkinson was the first United States District Judge appointed to what was then known as the United States District Court for the District of Pennsylvania. The Constitutional Convention completed its work and adjourned on September 17, 1787 after thirty-nine delegates from twelve states signed the Constitution and submitted it to the states for ratification. The Constitution took effect on June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire became the ninth state to give its assent. Congress convened on March 4, 1789, and George Washington was inaugurated as President on April 30. That first Congress voted to “ordain and establish” federal courts “inferior to the Supreme Court,” by passing the Judiciary Act which President Washington signed on September 24, 1789. The Act created thirteen District Courts including the United States District Court for the District of Pennsylvania. There was one court for each of the eleven states which by that time had ratified the Constitution as well as a court for Maine, which was then part of Massachusetts and one for Kentucky which was then part of Virginia. The Act authorized one District Judge for each court, although the salaries of the judges varied. President Washington, a proponent of a strong federal government, moved swiftly to submit to the Senate for its advice and consent the names of his nominees for lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court and the thirteen District Courts. In fact, he transmitted his list on September 24, 1789, the same day he signed the Judiciary Act into law, except for the District Court nominees for New Jersey and New York which came a day later. All were leading citizens and supporters of the Constitution. Included among Washington’s choices were Francis Hopkinson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a state Admiralty judge, to fill the seat on the District Court for the District of Pennsylvania. Hopkinson was well known to Washington. He had lobbied the President for a judgeship, and his selection came as no surprise. The Senate confirmed Hopkinson two dates later, on Saturday, September 26, and the President signed his Commission before the day had come to an end. At least in regard to judicial appointment, events of the eighteenth century moved with greater alacrity than today. There were no lengthy questionnaires to fill out, no American Bar Association evaluations, no FBI or IRS background checks, no fingerprinting, no Judiciary Committee hearings, and no filibusters. Hopkinson’s Commission read: * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. George Washington, President of the United States of America. To All who shall see these Presents – Greeting. Know Ye, that reposing special Trust and Confidence in the Wisdom, Uprightness and Learning of Francis Hopkinson of Pennsylvania, Esquire, I have nominated, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, do appoint him Judge of the District Court in and for Pennsylvania District; and do authorize and empower him to execute and fulfil the Duties of that Office according to the Constitution and Laws of the said United States; and to have and to hold the said Office, with all the Powers, Privileges and Emoluments to the same of Right appertaining, unto him the said Francis Hopkinson during his good Behaviour. In Testimony whereof I have caused these Letters to be made patent, and the Seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed. Given under my Hand the twenty sixth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine. G. Washington This wording for the Commission of a United States District Judge continues in use to the present time with only minor changes. In a letter to Hopkinson enclosing his commission, Washington wrote: I have the pleasure to enclose to you a commission as Judge of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, to which office I have nominated, and, by and with the advice and consent for the Senate, have appointed you. In my nomination of Persons to fill offices in the Judicial Department, I have been guided by the importance of the object-- considering it as of the first magnitude, and as the Pillar upon which our political fabric must rest. I have endeavored to bring into the office of its administration such Characters as will give stability and dignity to our national Government, --and I persuade myself that they will discover a due desire to promote the happiness of our Country by a ready acceptance of their several appointments. Francis Hopkinson was born into an eminent colonial family in Philadelphia in September 1737. His father, Thomas Hopkinson, who died when Francis was fourteen, was a close friend of Benjamin Franklin. The elder Hopkinson had sat as an admiralty judge and for a time was a member of the Council of the Pennsylvania Governor. A few years after his father’s death, Hopkinson entered the College of Philadelphia (the forerunner of the University of Pennsylvania) and was graduated in its first class in 1757 at the age of nineteen. He proceeded thereafter to study law under Benjamin Chew, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and in due course was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar. In May 1766, he set sail for England where his mother’s cousin, James Johnson, officiated as the Anglican Bishop of Worcester. In October 1767, after an extended stay at Hartlebury Castle, the country seat of the Bishop, he returned to Philadelphia and, within a year, married Anne Borden of Bordentown, New Jersey. Her father was a leading citizen in Burlington County. In late 1773 or early 1774, as the storm clouds preceding the American Revolution were gathering, the Hopkinson family moved from Philadelphia to Bordentown. At that time, William Franklin, son of Benjamin Franklin, was the Royal Governor of New Jersey. Hopkinson soon was named a Justice of the Peace for Burlington County and a member of the Governor’s Council. He also joined the New Jersey Bar. By 1774, despite Hopkinson’s ties with prominent loyalists, he had become an ardent patriot. In late June 1776, he was elected as a delegate from New Jersey to the Second Continental Congress sitting in Philadelphia. A few days later, on July 2, he voted for the resolution declaring the colonies free and independent states and thereafter signed the Declaration of Independence. With the stroke of the pen, he joined that group of patriots about whom Benjamin Franklin purportedly remarked, “ ... we must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” In August 1776, while serving in the Continental Congress, John Adams wrote a letter from Philadelphia to his wife Abigail in which he described Hopkinson after meeting him in the studio of the artist Charles Wilson Peale: At this shop [Peale’s] I met Mr. Francis Hopkinson, ... now a member of the Continental Congress, who, it seems, is a native of Philadelphia, a son of a prothonotary of this county, who was a person much respected. The son was liberally educated, and is a painter and a poet. I have curiosity to penetrate a little deeper into the bosom of this curious gentleman, ... He is one of your pretty, little, curious, ingenious men. His head is not bigger than a large apple ... I have not met with anything in natural history more amusing and entertaining than his personal appearance; yet he is genteel and well-bred, and is very social. Hopkinson remained a member of the Continental Congress for only a few months. In November 1776, it named him to the three member Navy Board where he probably served as its Chair. The Board had responsibility during the Revolution for the oversight and operation of the American Navy. There is evidence that at this time he designed the American Flag, albeit with six rather than five pointed stars. Several years later, he attempted to obtain compensation from the Government for that effort but was unsuccessful. A committee responsible for looking into the matter decided that others were also involved with Hopkinson and that no payments should be made. During part of the time Hopkinson served on the Navy Board, the British occupied Philadelphia. In May 1778, as the British General William Howe was about to evacuate the City and return to New York, he decided to put the homes of a few selected patriots to the torch. He sent an expedition of Hessians to Bordentown who burned down the home of Joseph Borden, Hopkinson’s father-in-law. Hopkinson’s home, across the street, was spared. Legend has it that when the Hessian Captain entered the house, he saw Hopkinson’s library filled with scientific apparatus and volumes of books. He purportedly commented that while Hopkinson may be a rebel, he must also be “a very learned man.” The Captain could not bring himself to destroy Hopkinson’s property and ordered the fires that were started to be extinguished. This house in Bordentown can still be seen today. A year later, in 1779, Hopkinson was back in Philadelphia. The Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania appointed him a Judge of Admiralty, a position his late father Thomas Hopkinson had held many years before. His time in that office, which continued until he was appointed a federal District Judge, was marked with distinction. He authored many significant pamphlets and poems, often satirical, supporting the colonists’ struggle with Great Britain. In the mid-1780’s, while on the state bench, Hopkinson did not shrink from the political thicket in advocating a new constitution to replace the ineffective Articles of Confederation. After the Constitutional Convention, he pushed hard for ratification through his writings. On December 12, 1787, Pennsylvania became the second state, following Delaware, to ratify the Constitution and join the Union. In the summer of 1789, after the new Constitution took effect, Hopkinson provided suggestions to Congress for the Judiciary Act which it was then drafting. According to Robert Morris, one of Pennsylvania’s first senators, the suggestions were received with “great effect.” Hopkinson was a true renaissance man. He was a prolific poet and writer, not only on political and legal subjects but also an insightful writer on a wide range of topics, including education and science. Furthermore, he composed a large amount of music both secular and religious, including hymns for the singing of the Psalms. The most famous of his many poems, which showed his mastery of satire, was called the Battle of the Kegs written in early 1778 to ridicule the British troops occupying Philadelphia. On January 1 of that year, the Continental forces, with the approval of General Washington and the Navy Board, floated kegs of gunpowder down the Delaware River from Bordentown, New Jersey. They were rudimentary mines designed to blow up the British ships anchored at Philadelphia if and when the kegs came into contact with the ships. No ships were ever destroyed or damaged by these devices, but the British were so concerned that their troops were ordered to shoot at the kegs to explode them as they appeared in the waters at Philadelphia. The popular poem was set to music and sung throughout the Revolution. While a state admiralty judge, he wrote a satire entitled “A Specimen of a Modern Law- Suit” about the mysteries of the legal profession and the public’s need for a better understanding of the law. He bemoaned the fact that “the subject matter [was] concealed in technical jargon, and a cloud of artificial terms, to many of which professors themselves have not yet assigned a determinate meaning.” To remedy this sad state of affairs, he recommended that “all trials and law proceedings” including the rendition of the “opinions of the judges” should be stated in “as few and plain words as may be” and “in dramatic form.” In 1788, in support of the new Constitution, he penned a ballad called The New Roof: A Song for Federal Mechanics which included an encomium to judges: Our King Posts are judges – how upright they stand, Supporting the Braces, the Laws of the Land -- The Laws of the Land, which divide right from wrong. And strengthen the weak, by weak’ning the strong. Hopkinson was active in the American Philosophical Society for most of his adult life where from time to time he presented scholarly papers. He was also an inventor. He made a significant improvement to the construction of the harpsichord which enhanced its sound. The Society presented him shortly before his death with a medal for his invention of a spring block to assist vessels in sailing. His correspondence with Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin contained frequent discussions of scientific topics. Franklin held him in such high esteem that he wrote in his will: “The philosophical instruments I have in Philadelphia I give to my ingenious friend Francis Hopkinson.” He designated Hopkinson as one of his executors. In addition to all of Hopkinson’s other achievements, it appears he was an amateur artist. Hopkinson served as a member of the Vestry and a Warden of Christ Church in Philadelphia as well as its organist for a number of years. In 1789, shortly after he was appointed a federal judge, he was named a deputy and secretary of the organizing convention which established the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States with a form of governance with lay participation. He helped craft the Church’s Book of Common Prayer. Just as he played a prominent role in severing the political ties between Great Britain and the American Colonies in 1776, he was an important participant in severing the ecclesiastical ties between the Church of England and the Episcopal Churches in America. When Hopkinson assumed his duties as a federal District Judge in September 1789, the jurisdiction of the District Court was quite limited. Congress, bowing to Anti-Federalist sentiment, had not vested the lower federal courts with the full scope of jurisdiction allowed by the Constitution. The District Courts, for the most part, were created to hear admiralty and maritime claims, an area of the law in which Hopkinson had considerable expertise as a Pennsylvania Admiralty judge. Of all the areas of federal court jurisdiction, this was the one on which there was clearly a consensus for inclusion. The Judiciary Act of 1789 also granted those courts cognizance of tort actions by aliens in violation of the law of nations or a treaty, suits by the United States where the amount in dispute did not exceed $100, certain suits against consuls and vice-consuls, and suits for penalties and forfeiture under United States law. It was not to be long after the passage of the Judiciary Act that Congress expanded the types of civil claims to be heard by the District Courts to include those under the patent and copyright laws as well as bankruptcy matters. The Court’s criminal jurisdiction was restricted to those crimes “where no other punishment than whipping, not exceeding thirty stripes, a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, is to be inflicted.” The District Judges had additional responsibilities besides those within the jurisdiction of the District Court. The Judiciary Act established three Circuit Courts on which a District Judge sat along with two Supreme Court justices. The Middle Circuit consisted of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. The Circuit Courts had jurisdiction of “all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity” where the amount in dispute exceeded $500, exclusive of interest and costs, and either the United States was a plaintiff or the parties were of diverse citizenship, that is, citizens of different states. Removal of diversity actions from the state court to the Circuit Court was authorized. The latter also heard appeals from certain cases assigned to the District Court. The Circuit Court was vested with “exclusive cognizance of all crimes and offenses cognizable under the authority of the United States” except as otherwise directed and with “concurrent jurisdiction with the District Court of the crimes and offenses cognizable therein.” In 1793, Congress reduced from two to one the number of Supreme Court justices needed to hear a matter with a District Judge in the Circuit Court. Judge Hopkinson opened the first session of the District Court on November 10, 1789, in the Pennsylvania State House where thirteen years earlier, at the age of 38, he had courageously voted for separation from Great Britain as a delegate to the Second Continental Congress. At this first proceeding of the Court, the Mayor and Recorder of Philadelphia, as well as members of Congress attended along with a “number of respectable citizens.” The commissions of Judge Hopkinson, the United States Attorney for the District of Pennsylvania William Lewis, and the Marshal for the District Clement Biddle were “proclaimed” and a number of “Gentlemen of the Bar” admitted. Judge Hopkinson on this occasion addressed the grand jury. In that early era, the grand jury address was more than legal instructions concerning the handing down of indictments. It served as an opportunity for the judge to endorse the new Constitution and federal government. At the outset Hopkinson spoke of the importance of the courts: ... The institution of courts for the administration of justice is the conclusive criterion of an organized system of polity; in as much as it implies the security of all just rights and the redress of all real injuries to every individual of the community. Revolutions may take place, former systems of government may be done away, by the all powerful will of the people, and new constitutions proposed, and even agreed to; but until laws are enacted, and courts established for carrying those laws into effect, the business is not complete, nor can the people boast of a settled government or a national character. He then reviewed for those assembled the weakness of the Articles of Confederation and the subsequent formation of the Constitution with its judiciary article. He also outlined the jurisdiction of the District and Circuit Courts under the recently passed Judiciary Act. Thereafter, he brought his address to a close: Thus hath the Government of the United States been established on the broad basis of the will of the people; which is the only just and permanent foundation on which government can be built; for the people are the true source of power, and the object of government should be the good and prosperity of those from whom government is derived and for whom it is instituted. My hearers will, I am sure, rejoice with me in the prospect of the future glory of our new founded empire -- a dominion extending to various climates -- resources inexhaustible --the blessings of nature improved and heightened by the powers of art -- endless population -- commerce unlimited -- and, above all, the wealth and strength of so many potent states, united and bound together by a liberal, and yet vigorous constitution, give us a reasonable hope that America will soon rise, like her own eagle, and soar above those clouds and storms which disturb and terrify birds of a weaker wing. Thus began the work of the District Court. Hopkinson had no law clerks and no secretary. His only staff consisted of the Court Clerk, Samuel Caldwell whom he had appointed on October 6, 1789, pursuant to authority granted him under the Judiciary Act. In 1790, a court crier, Joseph Fox, was added. The Court’s docket was sparse compared with the situation today. Admiralty matters, in which Hopkinson was well versed, seemed to have accounted for the bulk of his workload. One of his first cases in 1789 involved the attachment of the Sloop Polly in Philadelphia to secure the payment of wages to two seamen who had boarded the vessel in Halifax, Nova Scotia. In another, he ruled in favor of seamen who sought their wages after leaving a brig in Lisbon because of cruel beatings by the ship’s captain. While acknowledging that the master of a vessel must be given great discretion, he determined the relationship is properly dissolved “when the master is found to abuse his authority by undue severity and cruelty.” In April 1790, Supreme Court Justice James Wilson and Judge Hopkinson presided in Independence Hall at the first session of the Circuit Court “in and for the Pennsylvania District of the Middle Circuit.” A formal Rule for Admission of Attorneys was adopted and read into the record: Ordered, that it shall be requisite to the admission of Attorneys and Counsellors, to practice in this Court, that they shall have been such, for two years past, in the Supreme Court of the States to which they respectively belong, and that their private and professional characters shall appear to be fair. That they respectively take the following oath (or affirmation), vis: I, A.B. do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will demean myself, as an Attorney of the Court, uprightly and according to law; and that I will support the Constitution of the United States. At this session of the Circuit Court, on the motion of William Lewis, the Attorney for the United States in the District of Pennsylvania, twenty-six attorneys, including Lewis, were formally admitted. The minutes refer to them all as “gentlemen” and presumably the “private and professional characters” of all appeared to be “fair”. With Pennsylvania having been founded by William Penn, a member of the Society of Friends (Quakers), and with a significant presence of coreligionists in Philadelphia, it was not surprising that six, including Lewis, “affirmed” according to Quaker practice rather than “swore” the required oath. Unfortunately, Hopkinson’s days on the federal bench were short-lived. Sometime in 1790, it appears that he had a stroke, and while he continued to sit as a judge and participate in the life of the American Philosophical Society, he had to be assisted to and from the courtroom at least for a time. He died suddenly on May 9, 1791, at the age of fifty-three, less than two years after taking office. A coupler lauding him read: And be this truth upon his marble writ He shone in virtue, science, taste and wit He was interred in the Christ Church burial ground at Fifth and Arch Streets, approximately two blocks from Independence Hall and the present federal courthouse. * * * Biographical Materials 1. 2. 3. 4. President George Washington’s September 26, 1789 commission appointing Honorable Francis Hopkinson as the first judge of the United States District Court for Pennsylvania, later known as the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Appointment of Samuel Caldwell as the first Clerk of the Court, dated October 6, 1789 signed by Judge Francis Hopkinson. Admiralty Order entered by Judge Francis Hopkinson dated August 17, 1784. Appointment of Francis Hopkinson, issued by the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania dated April 6, 1787. .... ( ...,_ -... .:��::� .. ,i . . ,• . \ \ \ \r;, ,, ,:,_.,.r.•_;;.:·· • •• f ) • The Supreme �xecutive Council, • • ···:i . fa1d Commonwealth, . To <c/Jz'd?tc;; rff/!%jvtf.wz.ft?7z,/"·tftya4�u-''. . M � 0 .l:'enniylvania. J of the /� r-. c{ .• � . :;,r�. -r�_ --_- -, [-; �-e___--:;--/ \ _ .� . a .,c�. 'WE, npfzng efpecia(_�reft and Co7!(idence in your ,Pruclence, lnte{rdJ, aifd 4kilztze:5,, have_aM�znr� 7ou t��.fazd;3G,zncf _ I� ,,tn.f�tf vc .• �-1/c,at:/ f!'&ru,�: �}fZ,. 7.;...,,✓a:a&--. b":7hnMuue;,ff,£_ .. You If�e t [tre y_)hefe .·. �?fanfs c,&q-Wfed to b5?7��Az "�iw&-;;,i 1w11i& 7:J,ta �� ,z;f pq ,��- - ,-_ � =- 1 • • ._ a • •• _ • ✓, _ - _ 1!J':1:!2}?,/f��,31ft,:!J,)J:fd)J.,y"-� any Wffe:_� /• <3/,�) --� with all }lye Ri,g'hts, Pow��' SalpfJfs, and r t� _ _ GIVE M:.0in s,mttcil, unde State, a�Ph.i/adelphia, th.isd-iad;,({2 _ &i7.,.we?U'./'· . • . � - . / 1/4 t??:u/#J/ LJJi(-.. . "", -� ATTEST. d ofcif) &ee/£,.u;;fiiiyd-;;;:;;,/4.u,-D??ef�ire, --- Prefident, and Ha the Seal of th� • � . . , Day of�-u,lJtn the Year of..'(':'!.. Lord one thoujand Jeven_ kundred and ✓ . __ // . . . . , ..- • (rd·_. ( I - •. i - : • • ,, . . � l . • • • • . : ·•. . (�- • • ,Z£eft�:Lad/ � ,'..4_ :,.,,�d2ia ,,,./f.¼'h,w.,.74";,,, • .;,.:/1 l ,'//' ?Z/ �r-AJ.,,-O;/J, � 7':>��--_.,-p✓-�- ,, . , .. /)��-> .;- . .,/ / ✓ 1/,/'·-·�• ... J • -�r.�,41.-,,'"�o/J¼z-�.,..;({:-t'.· -!;.y,;../-0·1:�-,,..;,•.· .f, • :�;;�_?•¥�/.�9..,;;..,, .. .t.t- \ �?-0•, ;,"r:r;,;._ ••;a •. ••�• • . • . . ·. /_,,,,.. • . \ /> • •:-::�,:': • � • � ' \ "" .1· _j;;::;: �- ; �-- t ,///(///,,.,,:;;•·�,-.t;N-· __ , ).� ··-------<'·.)'•,,. . • •. 1/; ( . - • ,f'_./4". / . . .. .,_,.,. ,,, . . ' . _;.? ....... ..i,.. /-· -·· / • <'·· . "' " .. ;· #0/ . __ .,.,..., . ,✓/' ✓, ··-:.. ,,..,.,. .· . ,; ,:r.· •. , ' / ., ) ,,......._ � • ' . . . ., t -·- . ,,; • • .,. • . . . . • • • . ; ' . . . • / // _,,...-.-:.:_ ·_- .,· � I·�' ... , • .-·;-. /. . � .• :>· : •• •••• ,,_ / • '-..... . 'fit .. � .. ' , _____ ----- -· -·--·-· - ,._ - ·----------- ------ ---- -·- �/-,,,,. .. " -----�---�------� --' _,_. ·------·------
=== William Lewis ===
William Lewis Born: January 22, 1752, in Edgmont, Pennsylvania. Died: August 16, 1819, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Pennsylvania Received a recess appointment from George Washington on July 14, 1791, to a seat vacated by Francis Hopkinson; nominated to the same position by George Washington on October 31, 1791. Confirmed by the Senate on November 7, 1791, and received commission on November 7, 1791. Service terminated on January 4, 1792, due to resignation. Education: Read law, 1773 Professional Career: Private practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1773-1787, 1792-1817 State Representative, Pennsylvania: 1787-1789 U.S. Attorney for the District of Pennsylvania: 1789-1791 * * * Judicial Biography *With the death of Judge Hopkinson, President Washington named William Lewis, the United States Attorney, as the second District Judge. After his nomination and confirmation in * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. July 1791, Supreme Court Justice James Wilson administered him the oath of office. As a Quaker, Lewis “solemnly affirmed.” Lewis was born in Edgmont, Chester (now Delaware) County, Pennsylvania, on February 13, 1751, into a Welsh Quaker family, with roots in the area dating back to the time of William Penn. He studied at a local Friends School in Chester County and with the encouragement of his parents, became proficient in French, Latin, and German. Around his seventeenth birthday, he commenced study in a Friends School in Philadelphia and was entrusted to the care of his cousin, the successful Philadelphia merchant Mordecai Lewis, who further contributed to his knowledge in the fields of finance and business. Lewis, who did not attend college, thereafter decided to make the law his profession. Though his mother did not approve, perhaps showing a Quaker aversion to that vocation, his father aided Lewis’ ambitions. In 1770, when he was just nineteen, Lewis began studying law with Nicholas Waln. Over the next six years, he became a leader of the Philadelphia Bar and kept many of Waln’s clients when his mentor decided to retire from the profession. In contrast to Hopkinson, who was physically diminutive with, in John Adams’ picturesque description, a head "not bigger than a large apple," Lewis stood over six feet tall though he eventually developed something of a stoop and was very thin. He had a rather prominent nose and a deep baritone voice with a penchant for cigars from which he was rarely separated either inside or outside the courtroom. With respect to his attire, he was his own man and wore knee britches long after they had gone out of fashion. In October 1775, he was disowned by the Philadelphia Monthly Meeting of Friends for “marrying contrary to the good order used among us; bearing arms; and keeping unprofitable company.” By 1776, Lewis had cast his lot with those advocating independence. While his precise activities during the war remain somewhat shrouded, Lewis continued to practice law during the Revolution, outside the reach of the British. Despite the fact that he was no longer a member in good standing with the Friends, part of his practice during and after the war centered upon defending those charged with aiding the British, many of whom were Quakers. By the time the war ended, Lewis, like Hopkinson, favored an energetic national, government. He worked for the ratification of the new United States Constitution as a delegate to the Pennsylvania Convention summoned to decide the issue. He was elected as a member of the unicameral Pennsylvania Assembly in 1787 and 1789. While in the State Assembly, he supported the successful effort to call a convention to amend the Commonwealth’s 1776 Constitution and was chosen as a delegate to that convention which wrote the more conservative Constitution of 1790. Among the significant changes which were achieved were a bicameral legislature, a strong independent judiciary, and a Governor with extensive powers of appointment in place of a Supreme Executive Council. Lewis developed a friendship with George Washington and Alexander Hamilton with whom he shared similar political views. In 1789, President Washington appointed Lewis as the first United States Attorney for the District of Pennsylvania. His workload was minimal, and he continued to maintain his private practice as was then permitted. The one indictment he signed charged two defendants with murder on the high seas. During this period, Hamilton, Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury, consulted Lewis regularly and even requested him to review his 1791 opinion on the constitutionality of the First Bank of the United States. Like other members of the Bar, Lewis took an active role in promoting Philadelphia. He was one of the founders of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, along with William Rawle and Joseph Hopkinson. In 1790, he helped to forge the merger of the College of Philadelphia and the University of the State of Pennsylvania into what became the University of Pennsylvania after a long period of acrimony between the two educational institutions. The new entity had the benefit of his service as a trustee for the rest of his life. He was also one of the organizers of the Law Library Company of the City of Philadelphia, which was the forerunner of the Philadelphia Bar Association. Other of his activities included advocating the construction of the Schuylkill Falls Bridge and serving as a counselor for the Bank of North America. Lewis, consistent with his Quaker heritage, was an early opponent of slavery. He was a longtime member and counselor of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society. One of his most praiseworthy accomplishments was as the principal draftsman of the Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery in the Commonwealth, enacted by the Pennsylvania Assembly on March 1, 1780. It was the first such law in any state. He further put his legal talents to work and thereafter successfully represented several slaves who sought their freedom under the Act. In August 1791, not long after Lewis was inducted as a District Judge, what is now known as Philadelphia’s Old City Hall was completed and ready for occupancy. The handsome Georgian edifice, which still stands immediately east of Independence Hall at the southwest corner of Fifth and Chestnut Streets, became the home of the District Court. At that time, the City shared the building with the federal courts. Lewis’ courtroom was on the second floor. The United States Supreme Court sat on the first floor from 1790 until 1800 while Philadelphia was the nation’s capital. The tenure of Judge Lewis turned out to be even shorter than that of Hopkinson. He resigned in January 1792, after only a few months on the bench, to return to his lucrative law practice. After leaving the bench, he was involved as counsel in many important cases in both the state and federal courts, including the highly publicized John Fries trials. During the 1790’s, he was one of a small group of lawyers, mainly from Philadelphia, who regularly argued before the United States Supreme Court. Indeed, he was one of the most distinguished and respected lawyers of his time. For the last two years of his life, he lived with his second wife at his long time country home on the banks of the Schuylkill, known to us today as Strawberry Mansion. He died on August 16, 1819, at the age of sixty-eight and is buried in the yard of St. Peter’s Church in Philadelphia. * * * Biographical Materials 1. 2. 3. Program Booklet: Portrait Presentation and Symposium on the Life of the Honorable William Lewis, First United States Attorney and Second Judge of the District of Pennsylvania. Transcript of Portrait Presentation and Symposium held on June 25, 2008. Certificate of Admission of William Lewis, as an attorney of the United States District Court for the District of Pennsylvania dated November 16, 1789.
=== Richard Peters ===
Richard Peters Born: June 22, 1744, in (Belmont) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Died: August 22, 1828, in (Belmont) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George Washington on January 12, 1792, to a seat vacated by William Lewis. Confirmed by the Senate on January 12, 1792, and received commission on January 13, 1792. Service terminated on April 20, 1818, due to reassignment. Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Reassigned on April 20, 1818, to a new seat authorized by 3 Stat. 462. Service terminated on August 22, 1828, due to death. Education: College of Philadelphia (now University of Pennsylvania): 1761 Read law, 1763 Professional Career: Private practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1763-1771, 1783-1787 Continental Army: 1771 Register of Admiralty, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1771-1776 Secretary and member, Continental Board of War: 1776-1781 Delegate, Continental Congress: 1782-1783 State Representative, Pennsylvania: 1787-1790 State Senator, Pennsylvania: 1791-1792 * * * Judicial Biography *President Washington named another Federalist, Richard Peters, as his third appointee to the District Court of Pennsylvania to succeed Lewis. The Senate, again moving quickly, gave its advice and consent on January 13, 1792, a day after he was nominated. Upon confirmation, Peters still had some business to finish as a state senator and requested that Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, withhold his Commission until that business was completed. Peters resigned his legislative office on February 1, 1792, and then took the oath of office. In contrast to the short tenures of Judges Hopkinson and Lewis, Peters went on to serve as the District’s sole federal judge for the next thirty-six years. Peters was born on June 22, 1744 in Blockley Township, Philadelphia County at the family farm known as Belmont, in what is now part of the Fairmount Park in West Philadelphia. His father, William Peters, was a large landowner and successful lawyer who at one point held office as a colonial judge. An uncle, The Reverend Richard Peters, served as the rector of Christ Church before the Revolution. As had Hopkinson, Peters earned a degree from the College of Philadelphia (now the University of Pennsylvania) and subsequently read law. Although his family had maintained a close relationship with the Penns, the colonial proprietors of Pennsylvania, Peters supported the American cause during the Revolution. He resigned his post as Registrar of the Admiralty Court, which he had held since 1771 and became a captain in the Pennsylvania militia. On June 13, 1776, Congress appointed him Secretary of the Board of War. From this position, Peters exposed the peculations of Benedict Arnold and worked fervently and successfully at raising money and provisions for the Continental Army during the Revolution at a time when the situation was dire. He resigned in 1781 when a Department of War was created and then served a year in Congress. Thereafter, Peters was elected to the Pennsylvania Assembly and later to the state Senate. In each instance his fellow legislators chose him as that body’s Speaker. Before his appointment as a District Judge, he had been offered but declined the position of Comptroller of the Treasury in the new federal government. Peters was a noted wit and conversationalist who made a delightful dinner companion. He was a classical scholar with a reading knowledge of Dutch, Spanish, French, and Italian. His proficiency in German helped his legal career among Pennsylvania’s large German population. While most of his adult life was dominated by politics and his judicial career, his interests cut across a wide spectrum. He was a devout and influential Episcopalian, who like Francis Hopkinson was instrumental in the establishment of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. After the Revolution, he sailed to England and met with the Archbishop of Canterbury to resolve certain ecclesiastical issues with the Church of England. * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. He, like William Lewis, held membership in the Pennsylvania Abolition Society. Devoted to innovation in farming, he served as the first president of the Philadelphia Society for the Promotion of Agriculture and wrote a number of influential articles on agricultural subjects. His knowledge and practical experience were such that George Washington, retired at Mt. Vernon, sought his advice on what type of grain to plant to avoid destruction of his crops by the Hessian fly. Among a wide variety of civic improvement projects with which he was connected, one of the most important was the construction of the bridge over the Schuylkill at High (now Market) Street which made travel easier to and from the western part of Philadelphia County where he lived. At the time Peters was appointed to the bench in 1792, the District Court was still sitting in Philadelphia’s City Hall at Fifth and Chestnut Streets. The Court remained there until 1824, except for a temporary absence during the summer and fall of 1799, when it sought refuge in the Montgomery County Courthouse in Norristown because of the yellow fever epidemic in Philadelphia. In 1824, the Court moved a few yards west from City Hall to Congress Hall, originally constructed as the Philadelphia County Courthouse, at Sixth and Chestnut Streets. After a two year stay, the Court relocated again. A ten-year lease, effective January 1, 1826, was signed for the use of the second floor of the Franklin Institute on Seventh Street, just south of Market Street. However, the Court occupied that venue only until April 1, 1830, when the United States Marshal, who had responsibility for leasing court space and paying the rent, negotiated a release of the Government’s obligations to the Franklin Institute. The building still stands and now houses the Philadelphia History Museum at the Atwater Kent. Thereafter, the Court returned to Independence Hall where it sat on the second floor until 1854. When Peters was sitting as a District Judge on the Circuit Court, he was joined by one or more Supreme Court Justices as provided in the Judiciary Act. In his early years on the bench, Justices John Blair, Samuel Chase, James Iredell, William Paterson, and James Wilson presided with him at one time or another. On December 19, 1798, President Adams appointed Bushrod Washington, the nephew of George Washington, to the Supreme Court to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Wilson. The younger Washington, a Virginian, had studied law under Wilson in Philadelphia. Within a few years of his appointment, he was the justice who regularly joined Peters on the Circuit Court. Washington’s time on the Supreme Court (1798-1829) largely coincided with that of Peters on the District Court (1792-1828). The two men developed a close friendship. Both were Federalists, and both held Chief Justice John Marshall in high regard. Washington died in Philadelphia on November 26, 1829, while present for a court session. On the third floor of the present United States courthouse outside the judges’ conference room is a marble relief of the Justice with an accompanying tablet which reads: THIS TABLET RECORDS the affection and respect, of the members of the Philadelphia Bar, for BUSHROD WASHINGTON an associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: alike distinguished for simplicity of manners, arid purity of heart: fearless, dignified, and enlightened as a Judge; no influence or interest, could touch his integrity, or bias his judgment: a zealous patriot, and a pious christian. He died at Philadelphia, on the 26th of November A.D. 1829; leaving to his professional brethren, a spotless fame; and to his country, the learning, labour, and wisdom, of a long judicial life. The main work of the District Court in the days of Judge Peters was presiding over and deciding admiralty and maritime cases, and it is in this setting that he earned an esteemed reputation. These lawsuits ranged widely in subject matter. They concerned the seizure of ships during wartime, the distribution of prize money from captured vessels, insurance coverage for lost or damaged cargo, and wages and medical care due seamen. Criminal cases involving murder and assault on the high seas also came before the Court. The highly respected Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story lauded Peters for his “rich contribution to the maritime jurisprudence of our country.” It was also a time when there existed tens of thousands of acres of virgin land west of the developed areas of the eastern seaboard. A number of civil suits of note before Peters concerned land disputes and land speculators. Peters from the outset was sensitive to the separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. In 1792, Congress approved the Pension Act to benefit certain Revolutionary War veterans. The Act included a provision for the Circuit Courts to evaluate pension applications. The conclusions of the judges and the proofs upon which they relied were to be forwarded to the Secretary of War for his review and approval, with authority given the Secretary to deny a pension where he “shall have cause to suspect imposition or mistake.” William Hayburn petitioned the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania to be placed on the pension list. Justices James Wilson and John Blair along with Judge Peters, then sitting on the Circuit Court, decided “after due Deliberation” that they would “not proceed upon” the petition. Instead of issuing an opinion setting forth the reasons why they refused to resolve the case on the merits, they addressed an explanatory letter to President Washington. They first stated that it was a “painful occasion” not to have been able to proceed with Hayburn’s petition. Nonetheless, it was their conclusion that a part of the Pension Act was unconstitutional in that any judicial decision on his pension request was subject to revision “by an officer in the executive department.” Consequently, the statutory scheme was “radically inconsistent with the independence of that judicial power which is vested in the courts; and consequently with that important principle which is so strictly observed by the constitution of the United States.” The letter closed apologetically: These, Sir, are the reasons of our conduct. Be assured that, though it became necessary, it was far from being pleasant. To be obliged to act contrary either to the obvious directions of congress, or to a constitutional principle, in our judgment equally obvious, excited feelings in us, we hope never to experience again. The Circuit Courts in New York and North Carolina each took a similar stance. Attorney General Edmund Randolph thereupon filed a petition for mandamus on behalf of Hayburn in the Supreme Court. While the matter was pending, Congress enacted a new procedure for processing pension applications without judicial involvement. As a result, the Supreme Court never ruled on the Attorney General’s motion. The decision of the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania in Hayburn’s Case in which Judge Peters participated was handed down some eleven years before the famous case of Marbury v. Madison in which the Supreme Court firmly established the right of the courts to invalidate an Act of Congress as repugnant to the Constitution. Peters had been the District Judge only a relatively short time when the Whiskey Rebellion erupted in Western Pennsylvania in 1794. It was precipitated by an excise tax on whiskey, to be paid by the distillers, which Congress had enacted to help pay for the massive fiscal program of Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton to assume the debt of the states incurred during the Revolution. Many of those living in that rugged area of Pennsylvania refused to pay the levy. There was even talk of establishing a separate country beyond the Allegheny Mountains and of marching on Philadelphia, the nation’s capital. President Washington decided to dispatch some 13,000 militiamen to quell the revolt. He joined the troops as Commander-in-Chief in Carlisle, Cumberland County and accompanied them as far as Bedford County before returning to Philadelphia. As the Army marched westward, it met no opposition, and shots were never fired. The rebellion simply dissolved. What began as a political and military issue was transformed, as so often happens, into a judicial matter. Judge Peters and United States Attorney William Rawle, one of the initial twenty-six attorneys to have been admitted to practice before the Circuit Court in 1790, traveled with the soldiers into Western Pennsylvania. Arrests were made, and Peters sent some back to Philadelphia for trial. Indictments for treason were handed down, such as the one against Frederick Reamer, which charged him as “an evil, depraved person ... of a turbulent and seditious disposition.” Supreme Court Justice William Paterson of New Jersey and Judge Peters presided over the Circuit Court trials in Philadelphia. Of those indicted, two were convicted of treason and sentenced to death, but both were pardoned by President Washington. In early 1798, Justice Samuel Chase and Judge Peters decided a case involving the important but unsettled legal question as to whether federal common law crimes exist, that is, whether a court may deem to be a crime conduct which Congress had not made criminal. Robert Worrall was indicted for attempting to bribe a Government official in Philadelphia in connection with the construction contract for a lighthouse in Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. There was no federal statute at the time making such behavior a crime. Worrall was convicted by a jury. Justice Chase was of the view that the indictment should be dismissed because the Constitution only allowed conduct to be considered a federal crime pursuant to a law passed by Congress. Judge Peters disagreed. He reasoned: the existence of the Federal government would be precarious, it could no longer be called an independent government, if, for the punishment of offences of this nature, tending to obstruct and pervert the administration of its affairs, an appeal must be made to the State tribunals, or the offenders must escape with absolute impunity. Chase ultimately relented, and Worrall was sentenced to jail and fined. The position of Peters that the Constitution countenanced federal common law crimes was widely held by federalist judges of that period and was consistent with the notion of an energetic federal government. Thomas Jefferson and his Republican adherents vehemently disagreed. They considered the Federalist position to be nothing less than a dangerous and illegal enhancement of federal judicial power. It was not until 1812 that the Supreme Court finally settled the issue by deciding that Chase’s original position had been correct. The Court concluded that neither the enumerated nor the implied powers granted under the Constitution authorize federal common law crimes. In 1798, a few years after the Whiskey Rebellion, Judge Peters was confronted with what is known as the Fries Rebellion. At that time, France and Great Britain were locked in war, with both nations seizing neutral American ships. In response, Congress enacted a series of taxes on real estate to raise revenue to finance an enlarged Army and Navy. The tax was calculated on the basis of the number of windows in a person’s home. German-speaking residents of Bucks and Northampton counties, led by a John Fries, “revolted” against compliance with the tax. Fries was a Federalist who had served as an Army officer during the Revolution and during the Whiskey Rebellion. In civilian life he was an auctioneer. Poor communication about the tax in these areas as well as in Montgomery County played a role in the Fries Rebellion or, as it is sometimes known, the “Hot Water War.” When revenue collectors arrived in the area, they were often met with hot water dumped on them from upper windows. The fleeing tax assessors were thus prevented from calculating the taxes owed. Judge Peters directed United States Marshal William Nichols to arrest those responsible. After making several arrests, Nichols was met by John Fries and other armed locals at the Sun Tavern in Bethlehem. Fries demanded the prisoners be tried in local courts rather than in the federal court in Philadelphia. Nichols refused the demand but being surrounded eventually turned the prisoners over to Fries and his men. Fortunately, no shots were fired during the standoff. President Adams thereafter ordered troops to seize those in revolt. That Fries had served his country in the army and was a Federalist mattered little. All that Federalists saw was yet another insurrection in Pennsylvania. Ultimately, Fries along with sixty others who had been with him during the standoff with Nichols were arrested and taken to Philadelphia where Fries was indicted for treason. Fries had able representation at his trial. His lawyers were William Lewis, the former District Judge, and Alexander James Dallas. Though the two counsels could not have been more different politically, and indeed had almost fought a duel, they were united in defending Fries. The first trial began in April 1799 in Philadelphia before Judge Peters and Supreme Court Justice James Iredell of North Carolina. Fries was convicted of treason by the jury. Nonetheless, before a death sentence could be imposed, it was brought to the Court’s attention that some of the jurors had talked during a recess in the trial about how “Fries and the other insurgents” should be hanged. Lewis, on behalf of his client, moved for a new trial based on juror bias. The Court agreed and granted the motion. The second trial took place in 1800 before Justice Samuel Chase of Maryland and Judge Peters. In a dramatic move, Lewis and Dallas resigned from the case in the midst of the proceedings because of the rulings and intemperance of Chase whom Peters had unsuccessfully attempted to moderate. While Chase and Peters offered to appoint new counsel, Fries declined the offer. He proceeded to represent himself. He was convicted by the jury of treason for the second time and sentenced to be hanged. Contrary to the unanimous recommendation of his cabinet and over the strong opposition of adherents of former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, President Adams pardoned Fries and the other individual who had been convicted. Capitalizing on his notoriety, Fries thereafter opened a tin-ware shop in Philadelphia and was said to have attained “a respectable fortune, and a respectable character.” The execution of Louis XVI, the onslaught of the Reign of Terror and the radical phase of the French Revolution, and the war between Great Britain and France in the 1790’s had their deep-felt effects on domestic politics in the United States. The Federalists coalesced in support of the British, while the Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, advocated a pro-French policy. What has sometimes been called this country’s quasi-war with France arose as part of this larger European conflict. These events were the backdrop for the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by Congress sitting in Congress Hall in Philadelphia and signed by President Adams in July 1798. The Federalists sought to bolster the Adams administration against the increasingly virulent verbal attacks by the Jeffersonian Republicans and the Republican press on its record, including its handling of relations with France. The key provision of the Sedition Act read: SEC. 2 .... That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish ... any false, scandalous, and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame [them], or to bring them ... into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them ... the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States ... then such person ... shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years. Truth was a defense in any prosecution. While the Act protected the President and Congress, it did not outlaw “false, scandalous and malicious writings” against the Vice- President, the office then held by Adams’ political rival, Thomas Jefferson. The Federalist administration of President Adams did not wait for the enactment of the Sedition Act to take legal action against its critics. It indicted Benjamin Franklin Bache, Benjamin Franklin’s grandson, in June 1798, for what it deemed the federal common law crime of sedition. Bache, a vociferous critic of the Federalists, was the publisher of the widely read Philadelphia newspaper known as the Aurora. For years, he had excoriated both George Washington and John Adams, accusing the latter on one occasion of being “blind, bald, crippled, toothless [and] querulous.” On June 26, 1789, United States Marshal Nichols arrested him on a warrant signed by Judge Peters. The indictment charged Bache with “libelling the President & the Executive Government in a manner tending to excite sedition and opposition to the laws, by sundry publications and re-publications.” Bache was brought before Judge Peters who released him on bail pending trial. His counsel, Alexander Dallas, had made it known that he would challenge any trial based on the existence of a federal common law crime, even though Peters had ruled in the Worrall case that such crimes exist. Bache’s trial in the Circuit Court, scheduled for October 1798, with all its potential legal and political ramifications, never took place much to the chagrin of the Federalists. Bache had died of yellow fever in September. Once the Sedition Act became law, the Government wasted no time in using it to bring indictments against its adversaries in the District of Pennsylvania and elsewhere. In total, fifteen indictments were handed down nationwide and ten cases went to trial between the passage of the Act in July 1798, and its expiration on the last day of the Adams administration on March 3, 1801. All ten resulted in convictions, fines, and jail terms. The Government’s focus on the alleged libels emanating from the Aurora did not end with the death of Bache. William Duane, who married Bache’s widow Margaret, continued the newspaper’s publication with its virulent attacks on the Federalists. After a jury acquittal in an earlier common law sedition case against him where Joseph Hopkinson, the son of Francis Hopkinson, had been appointed the special prosecutor, the Government indicted Duane in July 1799 under the Sedition Act. The indictment was based on an article in the Aurora that the British government had exercised undue influence over the State Department. Duane was brought before Judge Peters who released Duane on bond. The trial was scheduled for October before Peters and Justice Bushrod Washington in the Montgomery County Courthouse where the Circuit Court was sitting temporarily due to the yellow fever outbreak in Philadelphia. The trial, however, was delayed while awaiting the arrival of Justice Washington in Norristown for his circuit duties. Belatedly recognizing the difficulties with the case and recently aware that then Vice President John Adams had written a letter in 1792 making the same accusation of British influence at the State Department, the Government withdrew the indictment. No trial ever took place. Duane’s respite was temporary. He was indicted again for sedition on October 17, 1800, toward the end of the Adams Administration and appeared in Court that day before Justice Paterson and Judge Peters. The trial was postponed in order to provide Duane’s counsel time to obtain evidence for his defense. With the expiration of the Sedition Act and the inauguration of Thomas Jefferson as President in March 1801, the protracted effort to prosecute Duane ultimately came to an end. Not so fortunate was Thomas Cooper, an attorney and the editor of the Gazette in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. He was charged under the Sedition Act “with having published a false, scandalous and malicious attack on the character of the President of the United States [John Adams], with the intent to excite the hatred and contempt of the people of this country against the man of their choice.” He had castigated the Adams administration for the expense of a permanent navy, the existence of a standing army, and the fact the credit of the country was so weak as to require it to borrow money at 8% in time of peace. Justice Samuel Chase and Judge Peters presided over the trial, which began in April 1800. United States Attorney William Rawle was the prosecutor while Cooper represented himself. Chase dominated the courtroom. He demonstrated extreme bias in favor of the Government and his rulings at every turn prevented Cooper from being able to present his defense. In his charge to the jury, Chase declared, “if a man attempts to destroy the confidence of the people in their officers,” he undermines the “foundations of the government.” He further instructed the jury that Cooper was doing nothing less than attempting to “arouse the people against the President so as to influence their minds against him on the next election.” The jury found Cooper guilty. Chase sentenced him to six months in prison and imposed a $400 fine. Cooper’s conviction for seditious libel did not ruin his reputation or his career. In 1804, he was appointed as a Pennsylvania state judge. He later taught chemistry at Carlisle College (now Dickinson College) and the University of Pennsylvania and became President of South Carolina College. In 1850, with the benefit of hindsight and some fifty years after his trial, Congress voted to refund his $400 fine with interest to his heirs. Although it may seem surprising today, no challenge was ever made in any court to the constitutionality of the Sedition Act on free speech grounds. Chase’s total lack of impartiality and his intemperance during the Cooper and the second Fries trials were to play a role a few years later in his impeachment by the House of Representatives controlled by the Jeffersonian Republicans and in his subsequent trial in the Senate. In connection with its efforts to impeach Chase, a House Committee also investigated Peters, who had presided with Chase in both cases. Nonetheless, the Committee soon concluded that “no cause of accusation” existed against him. In 1801, not long after the second Fries trial and in the final days of his Federalist Administration, President John Adams signed a bill establishing six Circuit Courts with separate judgeships and expanding the jurisdiction of those courts to all types of cases authorized under Article III of the Constitution. The Act was quickly repealed once President Jefferson took office, and a new law was enacted in 1802. Although Congress had abolished the “mid-night” judgeships created by the Federalists, the Act of 1802 reauthorized the six circuits with Pennsylvania and New Jersey now placed in the new Third Circuit. It also allowed a District Judge to preside alone in a Circuit Court if a Supreme Court justice was not available. The supremacy of federal law was not always a universally accepted principle in Pennsylvania or elsewhere in the early nineteenth century even though Article VI, ¶2 of the Constitution declares: “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” A clash between federal power and state power came to a head in a case before Judge Peters. Gideon Olmstead and others had been captured by the British in 1778 and taken to Jamaica during the Revolution. Thereafter they were impressed to serve on the British sloop Active, which was taking supplies to the troops of King George III in New York. During the voyage to New York in September 1778, Olmstead and his associates seized control of the vessel and were sailing toward Egg Harbor, New Jersey, when an armed brig of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania took possession of it and brought it to the Port of Philadelphia. The Olmstead group as well as the Commonwealth and another party each claimed the vessel and its cargo as a prize in the state admiralty court. After a trial, the court ruled primarily in favor of Pennsylvania and awarded only a quarter of the prize to Olmstead and his associates. On appeal, a court of commissioners of appeals of the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation overturned the state court verdict. It held that the vessel and cargo were the exclusive prize of the Olmstead group. As the result of a series of circumstances, the portion of the prize money awarded originally by the state admiralty court to Pennsylvania and another claimant was not paid to Olmstead and his associates. Instead, the Pennsylvania state treasurer, David Rittenhouse, had in his possession certain certificates representing this prize money. In 1803, Judge Peters, in the exercise of the District Court’s admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, entered a decree requiring the Rittenhouse Estate, which held the certificates after the death of Rittenhouse, to deliver them to the Olmstead group. Throwing down the gauntlet, Pennsylvania passed a law requiring the certificate holders to turn them over to the Commonwealth. Ominously, the law also authorized the Governor “to protect the just rights of the state ... by any further means and measures that he may deem necessary for the purpose.” The Rittenhouse Estate, not surprisingly, when faced with these competing demands, refused both. Olmstead requested Judge Peters to enforce the Court’s order, but should Peters do so it was anticipated that Governor Simon Snyder would command the state militia to prevent the order from being carried out. Considering the seriousness of the situation, Peters declined to take any further steps until he had a ruling from the Supreme Court. A mandamus proceeding, that is, a proceeding to compel Judge Peters to act, followed. In United States v. Peters, the high Court granted the writ of mandamus directed to Judge Peters. Chief Justice Marshall made it clear that the “highest judicial authority of the nation” had held that the Confederation court of appeals had full authority to reverse the decisions of the state admiralty courts in prize cases. While regretting to have to rule in this matter, he stated that “it is a solemn duty,” and directed Judge Peters to enforce his order. Pennsylvania, however, was not mollified by the Supreme Court’s decision and appeared in no mood to comply. President James Madison finally persuaded the Governor to withdraw his threat of calling out the militia to prevent enforcement of Judge Peters’ order, and Olmstead and his associates finally obtained the certificates more than thirty years after the prize money had been awarded to them. As the years passed while Peters was serving as a federal judge, the population of both Philadelphia and Pennsylvania was rapidly expanding. According to the 1790 census, the City and County of Philadelphia had 82,852 residents while Pennsylvania’s population stood at 434,373. By 1820, both had grown significantly. That year’s census figures showed slightly more than 137,000 people living in Philadelphia and 1,049,393 in the Commonwealth. Recognizing this growth, Congress in 1818 divided the District of Pennsylvania into the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with court to be held at Philadelphia before Judge Peters, and the Western District with a new federal judge to.be appointed to sit in Pittsburgh. Congressman (later Judge) Joseph Hopkinson, at the behest of Judge Peters, had unsuccessfully opposed this division. In Peters’ view there was not enough judicial business in the western reaches of Pennsylvania for the creation of a new court. The smaller District over which Peters now presided consisted of twenty-six counties in the eastern half of the state. Judge Peters died in late August 1828, at his home, known today as Belmont Mansion. He was eighty-four years old and was buried in St. Peter’s Churchyard in Philadelphia. Born thirty-two years before the Declaration of Independence, he had engaged in distinguished public service during and after the Revolution. President Washington named him to the District Court where he presided for thirty-six years in times of war and peace, tumult and tranquility, during the terms of six presidents. For the first few years during which Peters sat on the bench, Philadelphia was not only the nation’s capital but also the capital of Pennsylvania. Even after the seat of the federal government moved to Washington and the state capital moved first to Lancaster and then to Harrisburg, the City and County of Philadelphia remained vibrant with a bustling port, extensive commerce, and the Second Bank of the United States. But that was not all Philadelphia was. It continued to have an abundant intellectual and cultural life, in which Francis Hopkinson, William Lewis, and Richard Peters had all actively participated. The famous portrait painter Gilbert Stuart quite aptly described Philadelphia of this era as the “Athens of America.” * * * Biographical Material 1. Re-appointment of Samuel Caldwell as Clerk of the Court by Judge Richard Peters dated February 1, 1792.
=== Joseph Hopkinson ===
Joseph Hopkinson Born: November 12, 1770, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Died: January 15, 1842, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Pennsylvania Received a recess appointment from John Quincy Adams on October 23, 1828, to a seat vacated by Richard Peters; nominated to the same position by John Quincy Adams on December 11, 1828. Confirmed by the Senate on February 23, 1829, and received commission on February 23, 1829. Service terminated on January 15, 1842, due to death. Education: University of Pennsylvania, A.B. 1786 Read law, 1791 Professional Career: Private Practice, Philadelphia and Easton, Pennsylvania: 1791-1814 U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania: 1815-1819 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1819-1820, 1823-1828 Private Practice, Bordentown, New Jersey: 1820-1823 State Assemblyman, New Jersey: 1821-1822 * * * Judicial Biography *At the time of Richard Peters’ death, John Quincy Adams was in his last months as President of the United States. Adams chose as the fourth judge of the court, and as Judge Richard Peters’ successor, Adams’ long time friend Joseph Hopkinson, a prominent Philadelphia lawyer and the son of Pennsylvania’s first District Judge, Francis Hopkinson and the grandson of Thomas Hopkinson, a colonial admiralty judge. Hopkinson brought “a tone of dignity, learning, and urbanity” to the Philadelphia legal community. He, like his father, was a Federalist in his political leanings. Such noteworthy figures as Chief Justice John Marshall as well as Justices Joseph Story and Bushrod Washington authorized laudatory letters to the president recommending the appointment of Hopkinson to the District Court. In his letter, Chief Justice Marshall wrote: . . . If I take the liberty to bring to your notice a person who stands high in his profession, as one well qualified to be his [Peters’] successor, I must hope to find an apology in my conviction of the importance you attach to the judicial department, and of your desire to fill all vacancies which may occur in it with gentlemen in all respects entitled to the public confidence. I have been long and intimately acquainted with Mr. Joseph Hopkinson, and think highly of his legal attainments, as well as his fitness in all other respects for the office. I have heard him argue several important causes in the Supreme Court of the United States, in which he always displayed accurate knowledge of his subject, and very considerable power of mind. I forbear to speak of him otherwise than professionally, because I believe he is personally known to you. President Adams gave Hopkinson a recess appointment to the Court in October 1828. His nomination, however, was not considered by the Senate until February 23, 1829, less than two weeks before Adams was to leave office and Andrew Jackson, Adams’ political adversary, was to succeed him. Not surprisingly, with a change of administration just over the horizon, a motion was made in the Senate to postpone consideration of the Hopkinson nomination to March 4, Inauguration Day, when his recess appointment would expire. Upon defeat of the motion, he was confirmed by a divided vote of 28 to 15, with one of the two Pennsylvania Senators voting against him. Several days later, President Adams sent Hopkinson a letter enclosing his commission. The President likened Hopkinson’s appointment to the historic appointment of Chief Justice Marshall by his father President John Adams in the final days of that administration in 1801: One of the last acts of my father’s administration was the transmission of a commission to John Marshall as Chief Justice of the United States. One of the last acts of my administration is the transmission of the enclosed commission * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. to you. If neither of us had ever done anything else to deserve the approbation of our country and of posterity, I would proudly claim it of both for these acts; as due to my father and to--your friend, J. Q. Adams. Born in Philadelphia on November 12, 1770, Hopkinson received his bachelor’s degree at what was then known as The University of the State of Pennsylvania (now the University of Pennsylvania). Thereafter, he read law under James Wilson and William Rawle and attended Wilson’s celebrated law lectures at the University of Pennsylvania in 1791. He engaged in private practice in Philadelphia and also in Easton, in Northampton County. After completing two terms in the United States House of Representatives (1815-1819), he moved to Bordentown, New Jersey, for a time in semi-retirement. He returned to Philadelphia in 1823 where he resumed his active law practice. As a young lawyer, he successfully represented Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a noted Philadelphia physician, in a libel action in the Pennsylvania courts against William Corbett, the publisher of the Porcupine Gazette. The jury found that Corbett had defamed Rush when Corbett disparaged Rush’s practice of bleeding patients during the several yellow fever epidemics in Philadelphia in the 1790’s. Later in his legal career, Hopkinson participated as part of Justice Samuel Chase’s defense team during his impeachment and his later trial in the Senate in 1804. Several of the Articles of Impeachment related to his actions at the Fries trial. Chase, a staunch Federalist, was acquitted. Hopkinson appeared as counsel in a number of cases before the United States Supreme Court. Among others, he was co-counsel with Daniel Webster in arguing and winning in 1819 a case upholding the original charter of Dartmouth College. He also represented the State of Maryland, the losing party, in McCulloch v. Maryland in which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the state’s tax on notes issued by the Bank of the United States. It was in the Court’s opinion in that case that Chief Justice Marshall penned the well-known words “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.” Hopkinson, in addition to his legal pursuits, was very active in the American Philosophical Society and the Philadelphia Academy of Fine Arts. He also served as a trustee of the University of Pennsylvania. Again, like his father, he was accomplished as a writer of both prose and poetry. His most famous composition, written in 1798, was the popular “Hail Columbia,” sung to the tune known as “The President’s March.” It was an encomium to George Washington and was designed as a patriotic response to counter those in America who made a point of singing the “Marseillaise” to demonstrate sympathy with the revolutionary events occurring in France. The types of cases heard by Judge Hopkinson did not differ markedly from those that came before Judge Peters, although, of course, the Sedition Act had long ago expired. Hopkinson sat on numerous admiralty and maritime suits, including those in which seamen sued for wages and those involving alleged maltreatment of seamen by ship captains. Based on notions of fairness and equity, he crafted the law in favor of the seamen to prevent abuses by their powerful officers. Other cases concerned the jurisdiction of United States courts over conduct on the high seas and claims for damages resulting from ship collisions. Bankruptcy matters also came before him. On one occasion, he presided over a lawsuit involving the issue of diplomatic immunity for a minister of the King of Denmark who was arrested and imprisoned for failure to pay a debt. Philadelphia was home to the Second Bank of the United States, headed by Nicholas Biddle. Cases involving bank notes and counterfeiting appeared on his docket. Judge Hopkinson, as had Judge Peters, recognized the importance of the separation of powers. He was careful not to encroach on the legislative sphere. In one decision, he stated: This is a case in which a court must be guarded to keep within the judicial pale; and not take a step into the legislative domain, under impulses given by the circumstances of the case. We must look closely and exclusively to what legislation has done on the subject, and be careful to do no more. . . . But the courts have never assumed the office of supplying legislative defects; and a judge should especially look to the limitations of his powers, when he approaches a case of evil aspect and bad fame. When sitting as a Circuit Judge, Hopkinson was often joined by Justice Henry Baldwin, a Pennsylvanian from Pittsburgh, appointed in 1830 by President Andrew Jackson to succeed Justice Washington. Hopkinson and Baldwin had served together in Congress but did not have the same close relationship as Hopkinson had had with his fellow Federalist and longtime friend Bushrod Washington. One case of note before Justice Baldwin and Judge Hopkinson involved a robbery. The stagecoach, during this era before the advent of the railroad, was a common means of transportation, not only for passengers but for the United States mail. Travel then, as is true now, was not always without incident. At 2:30 a.m. on December 6, 1829, a stagecoach left Philadelphia for Reading with a driver and one passenger beside him on the outside seat, nine passengers inside the coach, and bags of mail. Suddenly, along the route three highwaymen stepped out, pointed pistols at the driver, and ordered him to stop. The men extinguished the lamps on the coach by striking them with their firearms. In the darkness, after compelling the driver and the passenger beside him to climb down from their outside seat, they demanded that the other passengers exit the coach one by one and then robbed each of them. Next they proceeded to steal the contents of the mailbags, tie up the driver, and hitch the horses to a fence. During the course of the robbery, a conversation ensued between the driver and one of the robbers. The driver reported he was asked “whether I didn’t think it was a rough introduction.” The driver replied, “I thought it was.” When the robber further inquired whether the driver made his living by driving a stagecoach, he answered, “I did and it was a rather hard life too, the way I was used.” The robber responded, “This is the way we make our living, and it’s hard with us sometimes.” Two of the malefactors were indicted for robbery of the United States mail with the use of a dangerous weapon and for placing the life of the carrier in jeopardy “against the peace and dignity of the United States of America.” The United States Attorney was George Mifflin Dallas, later to be Vice-President of the United States under President Polk. The defendants also had distinguished lawyers, John Kane, who subsequently became a federal District Judge, and Joseph Ingersoll, later a Congressman and United States Minister to Great Britain. The defendants were convicted by a jury and all post-trial motions were denied. The Court rejected the defendants’ argument, among others, that the indictment had been deficient in failing to identify the county in which the offense occurred as was customary in England. The Court explained that it was sufficient, in accordance with the venue provision of the Sixth Amendment, that the trial took place in the state and the district, in this case the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where the crime was committed. One of the most significant cases decided by Judge Hopkinson was Wheaton v. Peters, a landmark decision in the field of copyright law. The plaintiffs were assignees of Henry Wheaton who had served by appointment of the Supreme Court as its third reporter of decisions from 1816 until 1827. Initially, Wheaton had received no compensation from the Government but made his money selling copies of the Supreme Court decisions, with notes and summaries, in volumes known as Wheaton’s Reports. Because this was not sufficient to make a living, the Court later paid him a salary. The complaint alleged that Wheaton had both a common law and a federal statutory copyright in the Wheaton Reports. Plaintiffs maintained that defendants, including Richard Peters, Jr., Wheaton’s successor as the Supreme Court Reporter and son of Judge Peters, were selling volumes entitled “Condensed Reports of Cases of the Supreme Court of the United States”' which contained the virtually identical reports of cases included in the first volume of Wheaton Reports. Plaintiffs sought an injunction to restrain defendants from continuing to sell their works. Hopkinson ruled that there was no common law copyright in the United States and that Wheaton’s assignees had not demonstrated an equitable right to relief under the copyright statute passed by Congress. In 1834, the Supreme Court reviewed Hopkinson’s decision on appeal. The Court agreed with him that no federal common law copyright existed, although it remanded on the issue of whether Wheaton had met all the requirements for a copyright under the Copyright Act. The Supreme Court then declared: “It may be proper to remark that the court are unanimously of opinion that no reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by this court; and that judges thereof cannot confer on any reporter any such right.” Thus, even if plaintiffs won on the statutory copyright claim, they could only prevail with respect to any summaries and indices and could not prevent others from publishing the opinions themselves. Hopkinson continued his interest and involvement in public affairs after he was appointed to the bench and apparently had the time to do so. In contrast to what would be permitted of a federal judge today, he was elected as a delegate from the City of Philadelphia to the Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention held intermittently from May 1837 into February 1838. One of the crucial issues it faced was whether state judges should continue to have the benefit of life tenure as provided in the Constitution of 1790, a document which William Lewis had had a hand in drafting. Hopkinson chaired the Convention’s Committee on the Judiciary. Despite a valiant effort on his part to retain life tenure for state judges, he was unable to hold back the populist Jacksonian tide. The delegates voted to change the state constitution to provide for appointment of the judges of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for fifteen-year terms and the judges of other courts for either ten or five-year terms. Hopkinson’s last reported decision, a maritime matter, was handed down in December 1841. A captain of a sloop sued for payment of additional wages for painting and scraping the vessel at the owner’s request. Based on the evidence and finding that these services did not customarily fall within the regular duties of a ship captain, Hopkinson entered a decree in his favor. Reflecting the less restrictive attitude in those days toward conflicts of interest, the record notes without fanfare that the judge’s son Oliver Hopkinson represented the captain. Joseph Hopkinson died in January 1842, after presiding as the Judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for over thirteen years. He was buried in the Hopkinson Cemetery in Bordentown. Like his three judicial predecessors, he was a leader not only in the legal community but also in the civic, cultural, intellectual and political life of Philadelphia and beyond. His death marked the end of the era of judges in this District who had grown up in eighteenth century America.
=== Archibald Randall ===
Archibald Randall Born: May 24, 1797, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Died: June 8, 1846, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Pennsylvania Nominated by John Tyler on March 3, 1842, to a seat vacated by Joseph Hopkinson. Confirmed by the Senate on March 8, 1842, and received commission on March 8, 1842. Service terminated on June 8, 1846, due to death. Education: Read law, 1818 Professional Career: Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1820-1842 Clerk, Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) Select Council: 1830-1833 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (Pennsylvania): 1834-1842 * * * Judicial Biography *At the time of Judge Joseph Hopkinson’s death in January 1842, John Tyler was President of the United States. Less than a year before, on April 4, 1841, he had succeeded William Henry Harrison upon the latter’s death after only one month in office. Harrison, the * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. victorious general at the Battle of Tippecanoe against the Shawnee Indians, and Tyler, a former Senator from Virginia, had run successfully together on the Whig ticket with the slogan “Tippecanoe and Tyler too.” Once in the White House, Tyler rejected some of the key Whig principles such as the party’s endorsement of a national bank, and as a result he earned the enmity of many Whigs who controlled Congress. Tyler’s appointment of a successor to Joseph Hopkinson did not go smoothly, at least at first. Initially, Tyler selected Horace Binney, a prominent Philadelphia lawyer, who was a Whig and former anti-Jacksonian congressman (1833-1835). His name had been mentioned years before as a possible Supreme Court nominee. In what seems like a rather unorthodox move, the President nominated Binney, and the Senate confirmed him for the District Court without having obtained his consent. When Secretary of State Daniel Webster forwarded to Binney his commission signed by the President, he declined the appointment. He was then sixty-two years old and had been retired from the practice of law. The President then turned to Thomas Bradford, another accomplished Philadelphia lawyer and a prominent Presbyterian layman, whose uncle William Bradford had been the Attorney General under President Washington and whose ancestors had been successful printers during the Revolutionary War era. Unfortunately for Bradford, he had spoken out publicly against the rechartering of the Bank of the United States which was supported by the influential Senator Henry Clay, among others. Consequently, the Whig-controlled Senate rejected him for a federal judgeship. On the third try, Tyler nominated Archibald Randall, who would become the fifth judge of the court. This time the President met with success. The Senate confirmed Randall in March 1842, five days after his nomination. Born in Philadelphia in 1797, he had practiced law since 1818, had been active in Democratic politics, and had served for a time as Clerk of Philadelphia’s Select Council. In 1834, he was named a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, a position he held until his appointment as a District Judge. Randall was involved in philanthropic causes, including the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons. At one point, he had responsibilities as a Director of the Philadelphia Schools. He was also the first Roman Catholic to sit on the bench of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It appears that Tyler, in thinking about the next presidential election, was attempting to solidify his support among the Irish community of Philadelphia. Within a month or so after Randall rook office, Justice Baldwin and he presided over the trial of Alexander William Holmes for manslaughter on high seas. It was a case fraught with difficult legal and moral issues. In March 1841, the ship William Brown left Liverpool bound for Philadelphia with seventeen crew members, sixty-five Scottish and Irish immigrants, and heavy cargo. During the voyage the ship hit an iceberg off the coast of Newfoundland and began to sink. Two smaller boats were lowered into the water. Some passengers and crew were able to scramble aboard while those not so fortunate went to their deaths on the William Brown. Thereafter, one of the smaller boats in the charge of Holmes, a crew member, began to leak as it was buffeted by a severe rainstorm and high waves. Finally, after twenty-four hours, the crew, including Holmes, threw overboard fourteen male passengers in order to save the boat from sinking and to prevent those remaining from perishing. Two women were also lost although it was not clear if they were tossed out of the boat. The next day, after the inclement weather had subsided, the survivors were rescued by a passing ship. At his homicide trial in Philadelphia, Holmes was described as an able, brave, and compassionate seaman. In a detailed charge to the jury, Justice Baldwin with the concurrence of Judge Randall explained the obligation of a sailor to a passenger. He instructed the jury that a sailor had no right to invoke the law of necessity as a defense unless all ordinary means of self- preservation were exhausted. He outlined the duties of a sailor to undergo whatever hazard is necessary to preserve the boat and passengers. When danger is extreme with destruction imminent and when time exists, the Court declared that the proper method for determining who should be thrown overboard is by casting lots, “the fairest mode, and in some sort, as on appeal to God, for selection of the victim.” The Court also recognized that homicide is “sometimes justifiable.” Finally, the Court concluded in its charge that the case “involved questions of the gravest consideration and . . . the facts, in some sort were without precedent.” The jury struggled with its decision and at one point advised the Court it was unable to agree. “With some difficulty” it ultimately returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter but recommended mercy. Holmes was sentenced to six months in prison in solitary confinement at hard labor at the Eastern Penitentiary of Pennsylvania and fined $20. While President Tyler refused to grant a pardon, the record states that the “penalty was subsequently remitted.” In late 1842, not long after the Holmes case was decided, Francis P. Kenrick, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Philadelphia, wrote a letter to the Board of Controllers of the public schools requesting that Catholic children be permitted to use their own Bible rather than the Protestant King James version and be excused from what in effect was Protestant religious instruction in the public schools. After months of correspondence between the Bishop and school officials, Protestant-Catholic friction escalated. In May 1844, an anti-Catholic riot broke out in the Kensington District of Philadelphia after outsiders allegedly disrupted a meeting being held by a group of Protestants. A second more serious riot erupted in the Southwark District of Philadelphia in July. In this instance, the militia had to be called out to quell the violence. After the May riot, a state grand jury was impaneled. It issued a report that was critical of “efforts of a certain portion of the community to exclude the Bible from our public schools.” It concluded that the riot had been caused after a “band of lawless irresponsible men, some of whom had resided in our country only for a short period,” had disturbed and fired upon those of the District of Kensington who sought “the peaceful exercise of the sacred rights and privileges guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution and laws of our State and Country. “This was a thinly veiled attack on the Irish Catholic community. Judge Randall chaired a meeting of Catholic citizens at St. Mary’s Cathedral on Fourth Street in June 1844 to prepare a public response to the grand jury report. The “Address,” which he signed and which was printed in the newspaper, criticized the grand jury for failing to call all witnesses and fully examine the circumstances as to what had occurred. Randall denied that the Catholic community ever sought to exclude the Bible from the public schools. He then wrote eloquently about religious freedom, the rights of minorities, and the Constitution: [T]hey [the Catholic community] limited their request to the liberty of using their own version [of the Bible], and did not in any way interfere with the use of the Protestant version by such as chose to adopt it. In this age and country, and especially in the city to which William Penn gave the name and impress of brotherly love, we presume it is unnecessary to put forward any plea in support of our constitutional and legal right to have our religious predilections respected. Freedom of conscience is a fundamental article of the social compact which we are bound to maintain, and we cannot consent to see it violated, in ourselves, or our fellow citizens. We appeal to all whether we do not scrupulously respect it in all the various relations of life. - - - We have heard it affirmed that because Catholics are a minority, they must submit to the regulations which the majority may please to adopt. We are willing that the principle should be applied to all things wherein public interest and order are concerned, saving always those principles and rights which the Constitution holds to be inviolable. We are the minority; and for us, therefore, does the Constitution exist. The majority need not its protection, for they have the power to take care of their own interests. Unless for the shield which the Constitution gives to those who are the smaller, and, therefore, the weaker party, this government would be a Despotism, for the governing power would be uncontrolled. To-day one class may be lashed by the tyrant of numbers, and to-morrow another may feel the scourge. No man, no sect, no party, would ever be safe. Peace and order would be destroyed, and soon the wreck of the Republic would add another to the many melancholy instances of the danger which always attends the conferring of unbounded power. In Randall’s day, the federal court was not the place to obtain redress against a school board in matters of Bible reading or religion. The First Amendment, which was ratified as part of the Constitution in 1791, provided that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” It was not until the third decade of the Twentieth Century that the Supreme Court held that these provisions of the First Amendment also applied to the actions of the states and their municipalities and school boards as a result of the post-Civil War Fourteenth Amendment. Thereafter, the Eastern District was destined to decide a number of significant cases on the issues of religious liberty and the separation of church and state. But all of this lay well into the future. On the bench, Judge Randall presided primarily over admiralty and maritime matters as well as criminal offenses committed at sea such as Holmes. He also adjudicated cases alleging violations of the postal laws. On one occasion he heard a lawsuit in which the Government sought penalties of $2,000 from a person for carrying mail for a fee on railroads and steamboats between Philadelphia and New York in competition with the Post Office. The jury found in favor of the United States. Judge Randall rejected the contention that the statute providing the Government with exclusive authority to establish and regulate post roads was unconstitutional. He cited Article I, § 8 of the Constitution which gives Congress the power “to establish Post Offices and Post Roads” and “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” Relying on Supreme Court precedent, he concluded that “the presumption is always in favor of the validity of the law, if the contrary is not clearly demonstrated.” When Judge Randall died in June 1846, only four years after he began his federal judicial service, a “Tribute of Respect” appeared in a local newspaper. It referred to him as “the Judge in Admiralty” and reported that the flags of all vessels in the port of Philadelphia had been flown at half mast in his memory.
=== John K. Kane ===
John K. Kane Born: May 16, 1795, in Albany, New York. Died: February 21, 1858, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Pennsylvania Nominated by James K. Polk on June 11, 1846, to a seat vacated by Archibald Randall. Confirmed by the Senate on June 17, 1846, and received commission on June 17, 1846. Service terminated on February 21, 1858, due to death. Education: Yale College, 1814 Read law, 1817 Professional Career: Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1817-1824, 1836-1845 State Representative, Pennsylvania: 1824-1825 Attorney/Board Member, Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company: 1825 – City Solicitor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1828-1830, 1832 U.S. Commissioner to settle claims with France: 1832-1836 Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: 1845-1846 * * * Judicial Biography *President James K. Polk, a Democrat, had taken office in March 1845, after having defeated Henry Clay, the Whig candidate. He chose John Kintzing Kane, as the sixth judge of the court, for the seat previously held by Judge Archibald Randall. Kane was born in Albany, New York, in 1795, the son of Elisha Kane, a successful merchant, and Alida Van Rensselaer, a member of one of New York’s old Dutch patroon families. After her death when their son was four years old, Elisha moved to Philadelphia where he remarried. John Kane later took as his middle name the maiden name of his step-mother. Following Kane’s graduation from Yale College, he read law under Joseph Hopkinson before the latter became a federal District Judge. He was admitted to the Bar in 1817 and two years later married Jane Leiper whose father was prominent in Philadelphia business and political circles. Thereafter, Kane was elected to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for a term, served as the City Solicitor of Philadelphia, and was chosen by President Andrew Jackson in the 1830’s as one of the United States Commissioners to settle claims against France for attacks on American shipping during the Napoleonic era. At this time, his cousin Elias Kane was a United States Senator from Illinois. While originally a Federalist, John Kane had become an active member of the Democratic party and partisan of Jackson after John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay allegedly made a “corrupt bargain” to deprive Jackson of the Presidency when the election of 1824 was thrown into the House of Representatives. During the 1844 presidential campaign, Kane was a strong supporter of and advisor to Polk. In 1845, Governor Francis Shunk appointed him the Attorney General of Pennsylvania. While holding this office, he prosecuted those who were arrested during the anti-Catholic riots in the Kensington District of Philadelphia during the mid-1840’s. In addition to his political activity and public service, Kane, like his predecessors, had a wide range of interests. He served for many years as an officer of the American Philosophical Society and as its president for the last year of his life. He also sat on the boards of a canal company and a bank, held various offices in the Presbyterian Church, and was a vice-president of the Pennsylvania Institution for the Instruction of the Blind. During the time he was a judge, he and his family lived in center city Philadelphia in the winter and in the summer at a home he had built in the outskirts of Philadelphia County called Fern Rock. In the first part of the nineteenth century, nepotism was an accepted Government employment practice. At Kane's installation as a federal judge in June 1846, his commission was read by the Court Clerk, who was Francis Hopkinson, Esquire, the grandson and namesake of the first District Judge. He had been appointed to this position by his father, Judge Joseph Hopkinson. Not long thereafter, Kane took the same course and replaced Hopkinson as the Clerk with his own son, Thomas L. Kane. Consideration of family relationships was nothing * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. new in the appointment of court clerks. In 1798, Judge Peters had hired David Caldwell as the clerk to succeed his father Samuel Caldwell after the latter’s death. The rules of conduct for judges were different then than they are now. The strict separation of judges from politics was not required in the mid-nineteenth century. At the urging of Vice-President George Mifflin Dallas, a fellow Pennsylvanian, Kane organized a rally in Philadelphia in 1847 on behalf of the Polk Administration to support the war with Mexico. One of the first cases Judge Kane encountered on his docket was an unfinished criminal matter. A jury had found a seaman named Harding guilty of murder of the second mate on the barque Cactus at a trial before Justice Baldwin and Judge Randall, while two other seamen, Grimes and Williams, had been found guilty of manslaughter. The defendants had filed post- trial motions in which, among other arguments, they maintained that the evidence was insufficient for conviction. Before the Court could rule on the motions, Justice Baldwin had died. Judge Randall was about to decide the issue when he suddenly became ill and also died. Complicating matters further was the fact that there was no verbatim trial transcript. All that existed, according to Judge Kane, were notes of the prosecutor and “the columns of an irresponsible newspaper, that gives sometimes the language of the witness, sometimes its import, and sometimes the reporter’s opinion of its value, these, and nothing more, are to form the basis of our judicial action.” Justice Robert C. Grier, who had replaced the deceased Justice Baldwin as the Circuit Justice, deferred to Judge Kane with respect to the post-trial motions. In his opinion, Judge Kane explained that “To my mind, the principle of the law is clear. The defendant, before sentence can be pronounced on him, has a right to the judicial determination of his guilt by the Court, as well as by the jury. If the verdict does not satisfy the conscience of the judge, the prisoner is entitled to a new trial.” While there was some indication about how Judge Randall had intended to rule if he had lived, Judge Kane rejected the notion of relying on what he had learned in this regard. He reasoned that “a judge’s opinions became operative only when they are solemnized by their assertion from the bench.” After reviewing the American and English precedents, Judge Kane, with the concurrence of Justice Grier, exercised the Court’s discretion to grant a new trial for all three defendants. At the retrial, Harding and Grimes were convicted of manslaughter and Williams was acquitted. There are times in the life of a judge when he or she is called upon to enforce a statute or adhere to a Supreme Court decision which is unpopular with a significant segment of the community. Judge Peters presided over prosecutions under the Sedition Act of 1798, a statute with which he was in sympathy. Some 50 years later, Judge Kane faced an even more controversial and challenging set of circumstances. As sectional antagonism increased over slavery in the later 1840's, Congress ultimately enacted a series of statutes, signed by President Millard Fillmore, known as the Compromise of 1850. Among this legislation was the Fugitive Slave Act, which was designed to placate Southern slave owners who wanted more effective assistance from the federal government to recover their slaves who fled to the North and freedom. Judge Kane sat in a particularly difficult milieu in Pennsylvania with its history of hostility to slavery. There was a strong Quaker presence which had long opposed human bondage. As previously noted, in 1780, taking the lead among the states, Pennsylvania had enacted a law, drafted by William Lewis, that provided for the gradual abolition of slavery in the Commonwealth. In 1826, the General Assembly approved an Act making it a crime, punishable by a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of seven years and a maximum term of twenty- one years as well as confinement at hard labor, for taking or carrying away by force and violence any Negro or mulatto to a place outside the Commonwealth with the intent to sell, detain or keep such person as a slave. In 1847, after the United States Supreme Court had declared the 1826 law unconstitutional, the General Assembly enacted the Liberty Law which, among other provisions, made a slave free once he or she stepped onto Pennsylvania soil. Yet, many leading citizens of Philadelphia had married into Southern families and had commercial ties with and sympathy for the South. The textile industry in Philadelphia depended on Southern cotton. While the Underground Railroad existed in Philadelphia, bias against free people of color was commonplace among the general population. The Fugitive Slave Act provided for the appointment of commissioners to aid in the arrest, capture and return of runaway slaves. It authorized owners to obtain arrest warrants for their slaves and to seize and arrest them without a warrant if it could be done without breach of the peace. The slaves were then to be taken before a judge or commissioner whose duty it was to hear and determine the case of a claimant in a summary manner and upon satisfactory proof “by deposition or affidavit.” Once the Court issued a certificate of ownership, a claimant was allowed to use “such reasonable force and restraint as may be necessary” to return the slaves to the state or territory from which they had fled. Significantly, the fugitive slaves were not allowed to tell their side of the story at any trial or hearing. The statute specifically prohibited their testimony from being admitted into evidence. With respect to compensation, the commissioners and Deputy United States Marshals were to be paid more if the fugitive was returned to slavery after a hearing than if the claimant- slave owner was unsuccessful. Finally, the Act made it a crime for anyone to prevent the arrest of a fugitive, to harbor or conceal a fugitive, or to refuse to aid the government when called on by a Deputy United States Marshal in procuring an arrest of a fugitive. The fugitive slave cases defined the remaining years of Judge Kane’s tenure on the bench. One of the most highly publicized cases arose out of an incident that occurred in Christiana, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania in September 1851. A slave owner from Maryland named Gorsuch had obtained from a United States Commissioner a warrant to arrest certain of his slaves who had fled across the border to Christiana. Gorsuch arrived with a number of others, including a Deputy United States Marshal, at the house where they were being harbored. The slaves refused to come out despite a “promise” they would be treated fairly. While in the vicinity, the defendant Castner Hanway, a Caucasian, explicitly rejected the request from the Deputy Marshal to assist in the apprehension of Gorsuch’s slaves. He asserted that the slaves had a right to defend themselves and that he was opposed to the Act of Congress under which they were being seized. Ultimately, the slaves, together with some of a group of about 150 Blacks who had gathered, fired weapons at those who attempted to seize them. A gun battle erupted and Gorsuch was killed. Numerous indictments followed both in the federal and state courts. Reflecting the temper of the times and the passions that the Christiana Riot, as it came to be known, had generated, Hanway was indicted for treason and tried before Justice Grier, Judge Kane, and a jury. Thaddeus Stevens, the Whig and later Radical Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania, headed the defense team. The prosecutors included not only John W. Ashmead, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, but also James Cooper, one of Pennsylvania’s senators. Because of the insistence of Maryland’s Governor, the Maryland Attorney General, Robert J. Brent, also actively participated in representing the federal Government. Attending the trial in the crowded courtroom was Lucretia Mott, the Quaker abolitionist and a leader of the nineteenth-century women’s rights movement. The indictment charged that: Hanway, wickedly intending and devising the peace and tranquility of the United States to disturb, and prevent the execution of the laws thereof, to wit, “An act, &c.,” and another act, supplementary to the same, passed on the 18th September 1850, did on the 11th of September 1851, wickedly and traitorously intend to levy war against the United States. In the charge to the jury, Justice Grier, with the concurrence of Judge Kane, expressed the Court’s view of the facts “without desiring to invade the prerogatives of the jury in judging the facts of this case.” The Court conceded that Hanway’s conduct did not constitute treason by levying war against the United States. On the other hand, it was quick to advise the jury that it disapproved of resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act: The act of 1850, passed to secure them [the people of Maryland] in the enjoyment of their acknowledged rights, had been received with a shout of disapprobation, in certain parts of the country. Meetings had been held in many places in the North, denouncing the law, and advising a traitorous resistance to its execution; conventions of infuriated fanatics had incited to acts of rebellion, and even the pulpit had been defiled with furious denunciations of the law, and exhortations to a rebellious resistance to it. The government was perfectly justified in supposing that this transaction was but the first overt act of a treasonable conspiracy extending over many of the Northern states to resist by force of arms the execution of this article of the constitution and the laws framed in pursuance of it. In making these arrests, and having this investigation, the officers of government have done no more than their strict duty. The activity, zeal, and ability which have been exhibited by the learned attorney of the United States in endeavoring to bring to condign punishment the perpetrators of this gross offence, are deserving of all praise. The jury accepted the Court’s view of the evidence and found the defendant not guilty of treason. The abolitionists were elated and the partisans of slavery were outraged. In another high profile case, John Wheeler, a North Carolinian and the United States Minister to Nicaragua, was passing through Philadelphia to New York in 1855 with his slave Jane Johnson and her two children. While they were on a steamship awaiting departure from Philadelphia, one Passmore Williamson, a Quaker and an abolitionist, boarded the vessel. He inquired of Johnson whether she desired to be free and received an affirmative answer. He then separated her and her children from Wheeler, took them ashore, and. released them. A habeas corpus proceeding followed in which Judge Kane ordered Williamson, a friend of Kane’s son Thomas, to produce the bodies of the slaves. When he failed to do so, Judge Kane jailed him for contempt at Moyamensing Prison. After much legal wrangling, Williamson was freed but only after 100 days of confinement. This decision to imprison Williamson caused much public uproar and even calls for Kane’s impeachment. In one of his opinions in this case, he expounded at length his views, undoubtedly commonly held at the time, about slavery. He began with the proposition that the United States Constitution recognized slaves as property. According to Judge Kane, it secured the rights to slave property to the same extent as it protected other property. He then acknowledged, “We revolt in Pennsylvania, and honestly no doubt, at this association of men with things as the subjects of property . . . “ Yet, he noted that even in Pennsylvania Blacks were denied political rights. Quoting from the late Justice Baldwin, he wrote that the right of the master to the services of a slave was no different than the right of a parent to the services of his minor children. If it was unjust and oppressive to have property in human beings for life, “the sin is on the makers of laws which tolerate slavery” and not on those who honestly acquire slaves. To blame the latter is “the rankest injustice towards our fellow men.” Judge Kane’s ambivalence about slavery was evident, but in the end he adhered to the principle that the law must be obeyed, however distasteful: The only permanent danger is in the indulgence of the humane and benevolent feelings of our nature, at what we feel to be acts of oppression towards human beings, endowed with the same qualities and attributes as ourselves, and brought into being by the same power which created us all; without reflecting, that in suffering these feelings to come into action against rights secured by the laws, we forget the first duty of citizens of a government of laws, obedience to its ordinances. In November 1855, after his release, Williamson lost no time in suing Judge Kane in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County for damages for false imprisonment. The case was still pending when Kane died several years later and only then was it dismissed. The federal government had rebuffed all of Kane’s efforts to obtain reimbursement from it for the expenses of his defense. The records of the Eastern District reflect that Judge Kane presided over numerous other fugitive slave cases during his years on the bench. Sometimes the fugitives were returned to the South and other times they were not. In some instances the identification of the slave was a thorny issue as in the case of one Henry Garnet. In all instances, moral issues were clearly present. He wrote to one of his sons that in Pennsylvania the Fugitive Slave Act “has been carried out firmly and honestly.” During the time Kane sat as a federal judge, his son Robert Patterson Kane was a practicing attorney. The court records identify him as representing parties in lawsuits over which his father presided. He was defense counsel for some of the Blacks in state trials arising out of the Christiana Riot and also represented the fugitive slave Henry Garnet in another case. No one seemed to have raised any concern about the close familial relationship between the Judge and the lawyer for a litigant before him. Judge Kane had appointed another son Thomas Kane not only as the court clerk but also as a commissioner under the Fugitive Slave Act. Thomas soon resigned the latter position as an act of conscience. He, like his brother Robert, was a vocal opponent of slavery and on the eve of the Hanway trial delivered “six superior turkeys” and a pound cake to the prison for Hanway and other prisoners to enjoy. He even went so far as to aid runaway slaves by using the family home at Fern Rock as a way station. Incensed by his son’s indignant letter of resignation as a United States Commissioner, the judge ruled him in contempt and sentenced him to prison, but Supreme Court Justice Grier quickly overturned the order. The record is unclear whether Thomas Kane ever served any time behind bars. In addition to issues concerning fugitive slaves, Judge Kane presided over a trial of a sea captain named Darnaud who was indicted for engaging in the slave trade on the high seas, a capital offense. In his charge to the jury, Kane explained that unlike piracy which was against the law of nations and punishable by all countries regardless of the citizenship of the pirates, trading in slaves on the high seas was legal under the laws of many countries, although not under the laws of the United States. Consequently, the defendant could be convicted only if the vessel involved was owned in whole or in part by an American citizen or the sea captain himself, was an American citizen and had the intent to engage in the slave trade. The indictment charged that Darnaud had captained the Grey Eagle which had picked up Blacks on the coast of Africa and had confined them with the intent to sell them as slaves. Because the evidence was equivocal on the ownership of the vessel and there was strong evidence that Darnaud was a French rather than an American citizen, Judge Kane cautioned the jury particularly in light of the “awful and solemn consequences to the defendant” that it may only find the defendant guilty if it did so beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Until 1854, the County of Philadelphia consisted of more than two dozen townships, boroughs, and districts in addition to the City of Philadelphia whose boundaries at that time encompassed only the area between Vine and South Streets from the Delaware River on the East to the Schuylkill on the West. In 1854, the Pennsylvania General Assembly consolidated the City and County, making the two jurisdictions co-terminus. With this consolidation, the District Court moved out of Independence Hall where it had sat since 1830. In June 1854, the Government leased for the Court the ground and second floors of the Hall of the American Philosophical Society situated immediately south of Philadelphia’s City Hall on the west side of Fifth Street. The space had previously housed the offices of the City’s Mayor, among others. Undoubtedly, Judge Kane was instrumental in bringing about this contractual arrangement since at the time he was also the vice-president of the Society. In 1856, the government offered to purchase the Hall and its lot for the Court for $78,000, but because of a deed restriction, the United States Attorney General refused to approve the acquisition. This space continued to be leased for the Court until 1863. Judge Kane died in Philadelphia in February 1858 some three years before the beginning of the Civil War. His judicial career was the subject of much controversy. His decision to jail Williamson for contempt had inflamed a large segment of the community in the North. According to a local newspaper, “The manner in which he discharged his judicial duties has caused much excited discussion, and Judge Kane has been denounced as tyrannical and arbitrary. But of his legal acquirements, there could not be two opinions. He was both a ripe scholar and an able lawyer. In the social relations he was perfectly exemplary . . . His manners were those of a finished gentleman.” Another newspaper commented, “His judicial career was chiefly distinguished by a decision which excited, at the time it was given, the keenest controversy, and the principles involved in which, applied on a larger scale, are now agitating the whole country to its very foundation.” Judge Kane did not live long enough to know about the later achievements of his sons Thomas and Robert. For a time, Robert served as Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District and became a Colonel in the Union Army during the Civil War. Thomas was also commissioned a Union officer. He was wounded twice, taken prisoner, exchanged, cited for gallantry at Gettysburg, and finally breveted a Major General. Francis Fisher Kane, the judge’s grandson and Robert’s son, would be appointed by President Woodrow Wilson in 1913 as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
=== John Cadwalader ===
John Cadwalader Born: April 1, 1805, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Died: January 26, 1879, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Pennsylvania Nominated by James Buchanan on April 19, 1858, to a seat vacated by John K. Kane. Confirmed by the Senate on April 24, 1858, and received commission on April 24, 1858. Service terminated on January 26, 1879, due to death. Education: University of Pennsylvania, B.A. 1821 Read law, 1825 Professional Career: Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1825-1855 Solicitor, Bank of the United States, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1830 Vice Provost, Law Academy of Philadelphia: 1833-1853 Pennsylvania State Militia Captain, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: 1844 U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania: 1855-1857 * * * Judicial Biography *Judge John K. Kane was succeeded by John Cadwalader, who was selected as the seventh judge of the Court in April 1858, by President James Buchanan. Cadwalader, who was born in 1805, came from a distinguished Philadelphia family and was known to the President. His grandfather, also named John Cadwalader, had served as an officer under George Washington during the Revolutionary War. His brother, George, was a lawyer and a General in the Pennsylvania militia. After his graduation from the University of Pennsylvania in 1821, the future judge studied law under Horace Binney, who had declined an appointment by President Tyler to the District Court. Cadwalader’s first wife was Binney’s daughter. Following admission to the bar, he soon developed a lucrative practice. At one point he was a solicitor to the Bank of the United States. He was elected as a Democrat to the House of Representatives from Philadelphia and served one term (1855-1857). Choosing not to seek reelection, he returned to private practice, and a year later President Buchanan nominated him to the Eastern District. He was confirmed shortly thereafter. In the years immediately prior to and following the death of Judge Kane, sectional rhetoric and strife continued to escalate at a quicker and quicker pace. In March 1857, the Supreme Court handed down its infamous Dred Scott decision, in which Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney declared that a Black person could not be a citizen of the United States or any state under the Constitution. In 1859, John Brown and his small band of militant abolitionists raided the federal armory at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia. They were quickly captured and then hanged. The election of Abraham Lincoln as the President of the United States in November 1860 precipitated the rupture between the North and South, and before that year had come to a close, South Carolina had seceded from the Union. Against this ever more inflamed background, Judge Cadwalader, like his predecessor Judge Kane, encountered fugitive slave cases on his docket. In 1860, he had before him the criminal trial of Jeremiah Buck who had attempted to free a fugitive slave in the custody of Deputy United States Marshals. At a prior hearing at the American Philosophical Society Hall where the Court was sitting at that time, Judge Cadwalader had issued a certificate under the Fugitive Slave Act which allowed a claimant to remove a fugitive slave from Pennsylvania. Once the judge had handed down his ruling in the packed courtroom where the Marshal had excluded virtually every Black person allegedly for security reasons, the fugitive was led out of the Fifth Street doorway of the building. He was placed in a carriage with several deputy marshals inside and a deputy marshal on the outside seat beside the driver. As the carriage moved north toward Chestnut Street, efforts were made by some of the gathered crowd to impede its movement. The horses pulling the carriage increased their speed and were able to proceed several blocks westward on Chestnut Street when Buck, “violently excited and exerting great strength” along with others, seized and * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. held the heads of the horses and forced them onto the sidewalk against an iron awning post. At that point, a little beyond Seventh Street and about sixty yards from the courthouse, Buck was arrested by a Philadelphia police officer. Judge Cadwalader, after reviewing the relevant law for the jury, suggested that it should find Buck guilty of attempting to rescue a fugitive slave from official custody. Following the judge’s suggestion, the jury did precisely that. Shortly thereafter, in early 1861, Abraham Lincoln, the President-elect, made his way by train from Illinois to Washington for his inauguration as the secessionist crisis beckoned. Taking a circuitous route through the Northern states, he stopped in a number of cities, including Philadelphia where he was warmly greeted. To great applause, he delivered a few remarks inside of Independence Hall before the members of the Select and Common Councils of the City on Washington’s birthday, February 22. He then proceeded outside to raise an American flag. His remarks to the council members began: I am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standing here in the place where were collected together the wisdom, the patriotism, the devotion to principle from which sprang the institutions under which we live. Those institutions, which included the federal courts, would be challenged mightily after Lincoln took the oath of office on March 4. In the early morning hours of April 12, 1861, Confederate batteries, under the command of General Pierre G.T. Beauregard, opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. Major Robert Anderson and his small Union garrison surrendered thirty-three hours later. President Lincoln immediately called for the states to supply 75,000 militiamen to suppress the rebellion. He also proclaimed a blockade of southern ports, and as a result ships attempting to enter or leave those ports were seized. Actions were then instituted in the various federal courts sitting in admiralty to determine whether these ships and their contents should be condemned as prizes of the United States. The legality of the blockade, which was a major wartime strategy of the Lincoln Administration, would soon be tested. In May 1861, within weeks after the blockade was proclaimed, a government frigate captured a vessel, The Parkhill, off the coast of Charleston, South Carolina, on a voyage from Liverpool. The vessel was brought to Philadelphia for a determination by Judge Cadwalader whether it should be condemned on behalf of the United States. The libel filed by the Government contended that the ship attempted to avoid the blockade and was “the property of insurgents, traitors, and public enemies.” The owners, residents of South Carolina, sought the return of their property. Judge Cadwalader, in his opinion, recited the recent history of the insurgency. He recounted that in December 1860, South Carolina at a convention had “proclaimed her independence of the constitutional government of the United States. This revolutionary attempt has been followed by similar acts of such conventions in 10 other states” and “[a] revolutionary constitutional confederation has been organized in them.” He observed that the laws of the United States were not presently enforceable anywhere in nine of the eleven Confederate states including South Carolina and were enforceable only in limited places in the other two, that is, in the Western District of Virginia and the Eastern District of Tennessee. His opinion proceeded to detail the English and American precedents on the seizure of vessels as prizes during times of war between nations as well as during civil wars and other hostilities. Upon completion of his erudite review of the law, Judge Cadwalader held that the Government properly seized the vessel as a prize because of the existence of hostilities with South Carolina. Since The Parkhill’s destination was Charleston, it did not matter whether the owners were loyal to the United States. He rejected the argument that the seizure was illegal because the Congress has “not legislated upon the existing war” and “the president alone had directed and regulated the prosecution of hostilities.” When the courts cannot function and the Marshal cannot execute process, he wrote, “a state of war exists” and the President has a duty “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The Government retained The Parkhill and its contents as a prize, and the claim of the owners was rejected. In the summer of 1862, Justice Robert Grier, sitting as the Circuit Justice in Philadelphia, sustained a decision of Judge Cadwalader which upheld the Government’s right to seize and retain as prizes ships and cargo belonging to citizens of states in rebellion even though the owners were not attempting to aid the rebellion. The Philadelphia Public Ledger reported that “Judge Grier’s opinion is the more important from the fact that it is the first given by a member of the Supreme Court.” Thereafter, the constitutionality of the blockade reached the Supreme Court in four consolidated cases involving vessels condemned in the District Courts in Boston, New York, and Key West. It was Justice Grier who wrote the 5 to 4 decision in March 1863 which held that President Lincoln’s blockade of the Confederate ports during the insurrection was constitutional and that even if some defect existed as to what he had done, the blockade had been ratified by Congress. Some have considered the Supreme Court’s decision in the Prize Cases to be the most crucial that it rendered during the Civil War. In the same year that Judge Cadwalader decided The Parkhill seizure, he ruled on another case involving a military incident that had occurred in the South. Charles Greiner, a Philadelphian, was engaged in agricultural pursuits in Georgia. In January 1861, several months before the surrender of Fort Sumter, he was a member of an artillery company in that state which seized Fort Pulaski from the United States without resistance, garrisoned it for a time; and then turned it over to the state authorities. Within a few months thereafter, Greiner returned to Philadelphia to visit with his wife and child. While here, he was charged with treason by levying war against the United States. Under the Constitution, an accused is entitled to a speedy trial by a jury in the state and district where the crime was committed. Because the federal court was not open in Georgia, Greiner could not be sent there for trial. Nor did anyone know in mid-1861 when it would again be functioning. The question before the Eastern District was whether Greiner should be held in custody until that future day arrived or instead be admitted to bail in the meantime. After consulting with Justice Grier, Judge Cadwalader allowed Greiner to remain free, although on bail of $10,000. Under the circumstances presented, where pretrial imprisonment could be lengthy, he expressed great concern that an order of commitment “would be a dangerous precedent.” The imprisonment of civilians during the Civil War was not always the result of judicial process. In late April 1861, shortly after taking office, President Lincoln, relying on his constitutional power as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, authorized General Winfield Scott or a subordinate officer to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus if necessary for the public safety “at any point on or in the vicinity of the military line which is now used between the City of Philadelphia and the City of Washington via Ferryville, Annapolis City and Annapolis Junction.” The ancient writ of habeas corpus allows the courts to decide whether a person was being legally detained. The Constitution, recognizing its significance, provides that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” In August 1861, without specifically mentioning habeas corpus, Congress ratified all acts and orders of the President relating to the military since his inauguration. Lincoln thereafter suspended habeas corpus from time to time in various parts of the country. In early August 1862, Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, acting for the President, suspended the writ nationwide. In September 1862, the President himself issued a nationwide suspension order. It declared that “all persons guilty of any disloyal practice shall be subject to martial law.” With the writ’s suspension, civilians were sometimes arrested and imprisoned without the involvement of the courts for speech that was viewed to be inimical to the war effort. Probably the most highly publicized incident arose out of the seizure of former Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio. Another such incident occurred in Philadelphia in which Charles Ingersoll, a successful lawyer and leading citizen, was the target. He was the grandson of Jared Ingersoll, a signer of the Constitution and a former United States Attorney, and the son of Charles Jared Ingersoll, a renowned lawyer and a longtime member of Congress. Charles Ingersoll, who was married to the daughter of a former Tennessee Senator, defended slavery and was an arch foe of the abolitionists. He blamed the intransigence of the North and the Lincoln Administration for the South’s secession and the Civil War. In August 1862, he spoke at a large rally in Philadelphia where he denounced the Lincoln Administration and its conduct of the war. He urged a vote for the Democratic ticket in the fall election and accused the Lincoln Administration of corruption and profiteering. Two days later, the local Provost Marshal arrested him. Upon being released on bail, he was taken into custody by the United States Marshal who held him pursuant to a standing order of the War Department which had authorized the arrest of anyone who, among other misdeeds, “give[s] aid and comfort to the enemy.” Ingersoll petitioned Judge Cadwalader for a writ of habeas corpus, and Cadwalader thereupon ordered him to be brought before the Court for a determination as to whether he was being held lawfully. Counsel for the Marshal argued that he did not have to produce Ingersoll because the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus had been suspended. Cadwalader postponed the hearing for a day but warned the Marshal not to remove Ingersoll outside of the jurisdiction. The Marshal, in the meantime, had been commanded to take Ingersoll to Washington for confinement in the Old Capitol Prison. Before any removal of Ingersoll had taken place and before any critical confrontation between the executive and judicial branches of government erupted, Secretary of War Stanton learned of the arrest and defused the situation by directing Ingersoll to be released. Consequently, Judge Cadwalader never had to resolve this potentially explosive issue. In addition to the important constitutional question involved, this case illustrates the often close web of personal relationships that existed among the leading families in Philadelphia in this era. Judge Cadwalader, Ingersoll, Ingersoll’s father, and one of Ingersoll’s attorneys Peter McCall were all fellow parishioners at Philadelphia’s Christ Church. The Ingersoll case also had a familial twist for Judge Cadwalader. A year or so before the arrest of Ingersoll, the Judge’s brother George Cadwalader, a Philadelphia lawyer and a Brevet Major General, had played a leading role in a similar habeas corpus matter. In May 1861, shortly after Lincoln had authorized the suspension of habeas corpus in the area between Philadelphia and Washington, John Merryman was arrested at his home north of Baltimore for “acts of treason” as a Lieutenant in the rebel forces. He was taken to Fort McHenry which happened to be under the command of Brevet Major General Cadwalader. Attorneys for Merryman sought and obtained a writ of habeas corpus from the aged Chief Justice Taney, an appointee of President Andrew Jackson. The writ was served on General Cadwalader who was ordered to produce Merryman in court. Cadwalader, through a representative, respectfully requested a postponement until he received further instructions from the President. Refusing to defer, Taney again ordered Merryman to be produced. Cadwalader refused to do so. In a Baltimore courtroom in which both Cadwalader and Merryman were absent, Taney, describing himself as “Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States at chambers,” quickly proceeded to hand down his decision. He declared that only Congress could suspend habeas corpus and that the President had violated the Constitution in doing so without Congressional approval. Taney directed that Merryman be freed. Lincoln and Cadwalader declined to comply. Nonetheless, like Ingersoll, Merryman was released at the direction of the Secretary of War, but in his case after a few weeks of confinement. Although Merryman was then indicted for levying war against the United States, he was granted bail and the charges were ultimately dismissed. The intervention of the Secretary of War in the Merryman case and later in the Ingersoll case averted a serious clash between the President and the federal courts over habeas corpus. In particular, it enabled Judge Cadwalader to avoid the need to decide whether to follow Chief Justice Taney’s ruling in Merryman in which the judge’s brother was a principal player. On a personal level, a potentially difficult issue between Judge Cadwalader and his brother was obviated. Habeas corpus as a significant constitutional issue faded from view in the Eastern District as of March 1863, when Congress ratified the President’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and empowered him to suspend the writ anywhere in the nation “during the present rebellion . . . whenever, in his judgment, the public safety may require it.” On the same day in March 1863, Congress also enacted a national draft. Cases involving conscription, enlistment, and desertion thereafter appeared on Judge Cadwalader’s docket. He discharged one soldier, James Burke, on petition of his mother, because the soldier had enlisted at the age of seventeen without her consent. Frederick Stingle, a married man over thirty-five years old who had been drafted in violation of law, was also released from military service. In another case, Cornelius McCall had allegedly been drafted and had failed to appear at the Montgomery County Courthouse for induction at the appointed time. He was charged with desertion. Judge Cadwalader freed him after finding that the military enrollment list had misstated his first name. In Antrim’s Case, W.H.H. Antrim claimed he was entitled to a draft exemption as the only son of a widow dependent for support on his labor. He lost before a three-person local commission, known as the Board of Enrollment. After he reported for duty and received his uniform, he filed a habeas corpus petition before Judge Cadwalader in which he sought to be discharged. The Board which had decided against Antrim consisted of three members: its president who was the Provost Marshal of the district with the rank of a Captain of Cavalry; the local surgeon whose duty it was to examine those drafted to determine whether they were fit to serve; and a citizen-at-large. The crucial question was whether the Court had jurisdiction in a habeas corpus proceeding to decide whether the decision of a local Board of Enrollment denying a draft exemption could be reviewed by a court when the draft law provided that the Board’s decision was final. Judge Cadwalader held that he did have jurisdiction. Interpreting the law to give the Board’s decision finality without judicial review, said Judge Cadwalader, would render it unconstitutional as vesting judicial powers in a body whose decision-makers were not judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Finally, he rejected the argument that the writ of habeas corpus had been suspended with respect to draft cases such as this. Not all cases before Judge Cadwalader during the Civil War involved war related issues. In 1861, for example, he decided a lawsuit brought by the well-known actress Laura Keene who claimed certain rights in the British comedy Our American Cousin. Unbeknown to him or anyone else at the time, both the actress and the play were later to make a cameo appearance on the stage of American history. On the evening of April 14, 1865, President and Mrs. Lincoln were attending a performance of Our American Cousin featuring Keene at Ford’s Theater when John Wilkes Booth fired his fatal shot. According to Judge Cadwalader’s findings in the lawsuit before him, the play was written in England in 1852 by a man named Tom Taylor. In 1858, after a rewriting of the manuscript, Taylor transferred all rights to it to Keene, who at the time was a lessee and proprietor of a theater in New York. It was first performed there in October 1858, where it met with great success. Although Keene was willing to grant the defendants William Wheatley and John Sleeper Clarke the right to perform the play in Philadelphia for a fee, they decided to go forward without any agreement with her. They asserted in their defense that they had legally obtained a copy of the play from the former wife of an English actor. Defendants repeatedly performed the play thereafter in Philadelphia with profitable results. Judge Cadwalader first decided that Keene had no federal statutory copyright in the manuscript. Nonetheless, he exercised his “general equitable jurisdiction” as the citizenship of the parties was diverse. He ruled that Keene had literary proprietorship in Our American Cousin and was entitled to a decree against defendants. After the matter of damages was referred to a master, she was ultimately awarded $500. During this period and up until July 1, 1863, the American Philosophical Society Hall continued to be leased for the use of the Eastern District, although the Court had vacated the premises before that time. The minutes of the Society reflect that in June the Court sought permission to remove its papers from the Hall’s “N.E. attic.” In February 1863, in the midst of the Civil War, a new Post Office and Courthouse costing $60,000 was dedicated. It was located on the south side of Chestnut Street east of Fifth Street, less than a block from the American Philosophical Society Hall and next to what had been the Second Bank of the United States. A wing extended south to Library Street. The new structure contained marble floors and steam heat and was the first building constructed in Philadelphia specifically to house a federal court. Many dignitaries including Postmaster General Montgomery Blair, Secretary of Interior John Usher, and Governor Andrew Curtin, were present for the festivities which featured a band, a dinner, and the unfurling with great fanfare of an American flag from a rooftop staff. The second floor of the wing that bordered on Library Street provided accommodations for the Court, which moved into that space in May 1863. A contemporary newspaper article commented, “The whole arrangement tends to the comfort and will meet the wants of the Post Office as well as the United States Courts, in an admirable manner, there being convenience within the structure for both departments.” It was here that Judge Cadwalader sat for his remaining years on the bench. In the fall of 1868, he was called upon to decide who was the rightful United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In doing so, he was confronted with the then highly publicized Tenure of Office Act, which the Radical Republican Congress had passed over the veto of President Andrew Johnson in 1867. It was designed to curb the power of the President by limiting his right to dismiss certain high level government officials, including cabinet members, without the advice and consent of the Senate. When Johnson “suspended” Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton without the Senate’s approval in the summer of 1867, Johnson’s conduct in allegedly violating the Tenure of Office Act was made one of the subjects of the Articles of Impeachment voted against him by the House of Representatives. Johnson’s trial in the Senate, which resulted in his acquittal by one vote, had ended in May 1868. In April 1868, while the Senate was in session, President Johnson had nominated John P. O’Neill as the new United States Attorney. The Senate adjourned in July without acting on the nomination. In August, Johnson gave O’Neill a recess appointment to the position with his commission to expire at the end of the next session of the Senate. Charles Gilpin, who had previously been appointed the United States Attorney by President Lincoln, contested O’Neill’s right to the office. Gilpin’s four-year term had come to an end on March 15, 1868, but he had continued to serve. Gilpin contended that his term as the United States Attorney was extended under the Tenure of Office Act since the Senate had not concurred in his being replaced. Judge Cadwalader rejected the argument on the ground that the Act specifically exempted from its grasp those offices for which the law provided a specific term. This, however, did not mean vindication for O’Neill. Cadwalader ruled that he too was not entitled to the office because the Constitution allows the President to make recess appointments only when the vacancy occurs while the Senate was not in session. At the time Gilpin completed his four-year term on March 15, 1868, the Senate was sitting. Nonetheless, Cadwalader recognized O’Neill’s right to act, not as the United States Attorney as such, but rather under the instructions and authorization of the Attorney General. The Civil War, among many other consequences, had severely disrupted everyday commercial activities between the North and the South. Once the conflict ended in the spring of 1865, federal courts were often called upon to untangle what it had wrought. In 1847, a man named Henry Bird, a resident of Virginia, had purchased an insurance policy on his life from the Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company in Philadelphia. He had dutifully paid the annual premiums until 1861 when hostilities prevented him from continuing to do so. Penn Mutual declared the policy lapsed, and in correspondence with the policyholder after the war refused to change its position. Bird brought suit in the Eastern District for an order to allow him to pay the unpaid premiums, to have the policy declared in force, and to obtain an accounting of any dividends due. Based upon equitable considerations due to impossibility, Judge Cadwalader found in his favor and ordered reinstatement of the policy on payment of the premiums and an accounting with respect to dividends. In the years after the Civil War, the calendar of Judge Cadwalader contained a wide variety of other cases reflecting the fact that Philadelphia was a major railroad and banking center as well as an important port. In 1876, the nation’s centennial year, it was estimated to have a population of 817,000 and was the second largest city in the United States behind New York. The railroads were no strangers to the courtroom. Taxation of banks and the right to engage in banking also came before the Court. Disputes continued to arise in admiralty. Among them were cases involving the licensing of a vessel, the delay in the delivery of a cargo of goat skins originating in Trieste, and the delivery of a wet potato shipment after a long tumultuous voyage. Harkening back to the days of the Whiskey Rebellion and Judge Peters, the Government instituted a proceeding before Judge Cadwalader to seize equipment used for the production of distilled spirits. It did so because of the failure of the distiller to pay certain taxes due on his whiskey. This time, however, the flames of rebellion were not ignited. One of the most far-reaching results of the Union victory in the Civil War was the ratification of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. These amendments abolished slavery, declared former slaves to be citizens, prohibited a state from depriving a citizen of life, liberty, or property without due process or of the equal protection of the laws and from denying the right to vote on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude. The Fugitive Slave Act, which Judges Kane and Cadwalader had expended so much time and energy to enforce, was now a dead letter. Congress undertook the Reconstruction of the South and expanded the reach of the federal government in the process. From now on, it would be the United States is, not the United States are. During Reconstruction, Congress granted the federal trial courts for the first time general jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law. No longer would such suits be relegated to the state courts. As Felix Frankfurter and James Landis wrote many years ago, the Judiciary Act of 1875 now made the federal courts “the primary and powerful reliances for vindicating every right given by the Constitution, the laws, and treaties of the United States.” Judge Cadwalader died in Philadelphia in January 1879, less than four years later and after almost twenty-one years on the bench. He had lived through and had weathered the most momentous events in American history since the creation of the federal courts. A newspaper article at the time of his death recorded, “He was loved and respected by all with whom he came in contact, and he dies leaving an illustrious name.” A marble tablet, containing a bronze frieze of his profile, was commissioned and remains to this day on the third floor of the present courthouse. It reads: JOHN CADWALADER JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FROM APRIL 24TH 1858 UNTIL HIS DEATH JANUARY 26TH 1879 _______ PACE AC BELLO INTER CIVES ET INTER GENTES SALVA JUSTITIA PATRIA SALVA JUS DIXIT (ENGLISH TRANSLATION:) IN PEACE AND WAR BETWEEN CITIZENS AND BETWEEN NATIONS SAVE JUSTICE SAVE COUNTRY THE LAW SAID
=== William Butler ===
William Butler Born: December 2, 1822, in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Died: November 2, 1909, in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Rutherford B. Hayes on February 12, 1879, to a seat vacated by John Cadwalader. Confirmed by the Senate on February 19, 1879, and received commission on February 19, 1879. Service terminated on January 31, 1899, due to retirement. Education: Read law, 1845 Professional Career: Private Practice, West Chester, Pennsylvania District Attorney, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: 1856-1859 President Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania: 1861-1879 * * * Judicial Biography *In February 1879, as the ninetieth anniversary of the establishment of the federal courts was approaching, President Rutherford B. Hayes chose William Butler to succeed Judge Cadwalader as the District’s eighth judge and the first who was not a resident of Philadelphia County at the time of his appointment. Butler was born in 1822 into an old Chester County family which had been in Pennsylvania since the seventeenth century. One of his ancestors on his mother’s side had been a member of the Province’s first Assembly established by William Penn. His brother was the State Treasurer in the early 1880’s. After initially working as a printer’s apprentice and newspaper publisher, Butler shifted careers and read law. Admitted to the Chester County Bar in 1845, he thereafter served as the County’s District Attorney from 1856 through 1859. In 1861 he was elected to the Court of Common Pleas and was in his second term when named to the federal bench. In 1873, he was the favorite son from the eastern part of the Commonwealth for a seat on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court but lost out for the nomination at the Republican state convention. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on his induction as a federal judge, which was attended by United States Supreme Court Justice William Strong. The article described Butler in glowing terms: Judge Butler is not only a learned, experienced jurist, but his whole social and judicial life has been so pure and elevated as to render his transfer to the presidency of our District Court a matter of common congratulation. There is nothing so desirable in government as a wise and pure judge, and nothing so much to be deplored as an unwise or impure one. Judge Butler’s promotion to the bench of the United States District Court is an assurance that the law there will be well and justly administered. When Butler was sworn into office, the Court was continuing to sit in the Library Street Courthouse built during the Civil War. Within a few years, however, the Court would have yet another new home. In 1872, the University of Pennsylvania vacated its property a few blocks away on the west side of Ninth Street between Market and Chestnut Streets and moved to its more spacious campus in West Philadelphia. The Government, having purchased the property, constructed a large five-story granite Courthouse and Post Office on the site with the main post office on the first floor and the Court on the second. It was designed in the French Second Empire style and was completed in 1884. On the cornice high above the entrance on Ninth Street stood a large allegorical sculpture in marble entitled “Law, Prosperity, and Power” by Daniel Chester French. He later sculpted the widely acclaimed statue of Abraham Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. The new edifice exhibited a far grander appearance than its more modest predecessor and evidenced the wider role that the federal courts were destined to play in American life. Nonetheless, the building would be dwarfed by Philadelphia’s new City Hall which was being erected in the same architectural style at Broad and Market Streets. This elegant structure with its tower topped with Alexander Calder’s statue of William Penn would occupy an entire block and contain not only a number of large courtrooms for the various state trial courts serving Philadelphia County but also a courtroom to accommodate the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Butler’s judicial responsibilities after the move into the new courthouse extended for a time beyond the boundaries of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In the 1880’s, the New Jersey District Judge, John T. Nixon, was unable to fulfill his duties because of age and failing health. Third Circuit Judge William McKennan named Butler along with District Judge Leonard Wales of Delaware to travel into their neighboring district to assist with its workload. Butler and Wales did so from 1886 to 1889. This was to be the first of many future temporary assignments of Eastern District judges to other venues. Due to the increased volume of litigation, Congress in 1891 created a separate Circuit Court of Appeals for each circuit. Appeals in the first instance from the federal trial courts would now be heard by these new tribunals. Each Circuit Court of Appeals was initially authorized two Circuit Judges to sit in panels of three with either a District Judge or a Supreme Court Justice. Since 1866, the Third Circuit has included Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. The old circuit trial courts created in 1789 languished until 1911 when Congress finally abolished them. From that point on, the District Court was the place where federal trials would be held. Congress was also active in other spheres. In 1890 it passed the Sherman Act which would significantly add to the judicial workload in the years ahead. This landmark legislation was enacted in order to rein in America’s powerful monopolies and business trusts. It declared illegal “every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations.” Congress enacted the law pursuant to its power under Article I, § 8 of the Constitution “To regulate Commerce . . . among the several States, . . . “ The most well-known case over which Judge Butler presided while on the federal bench was United States v. E.C. Knight Co., an antitrust action under the Sherman Act that ended up in the Supreme Court. The Government filed this equitable action in the Eastern District against five sugar refining companies. It sought the cancellation of certain contracts the defendant American Sugar Company had signed with the other four corporate defendants, all of which were based in Philadelphia. The Government contended that the contracts violated the Sherman Act in that they were the result of a conspiracy or combination to monopolize or restrain interstate commerce. The evidence established that the four Philadelphia companies produced 33% of the refined sugar in the United States in 1892 and that the American Sugar Company had purchased the stock of each of those companies, although apparently without any concert of action among the four. Nonetheless, as a result of these contracts, American Sugar now controlled virtually all of the refining and sale of sugar in the United States. Judge Butler conceded that the conduct of American Sugar “tends” to the result of a commercial monopoly but found that no monopoly had been established. He concluded that for purposes of the Constitution and the Sherman Act, manufacturing was distinct from commerce and that nothing American Sugar had done in buying its competitors constituted interstate commerce. As he explained, “The contracts and acts of the defendants related exclusively to the acquisition of sugar refineries and the business of sugar refining, in Pennsylvania. They have no reference and bear no relation to commerce between the states or with foreign nations.” Judge Butler further noted that simply because a contract may “incidentally affect” interstate commerce was not enough to allow Congress to regulate it. The newly created Court of Appeals affirmed as did the Supreme Court in an opinion by Chief Justice Melville Fuller. The High Court took the same narrow view of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and the Sherman Act as had Judge Butler and the Court of Appeals. Correctly foreseeing the future decisions of the Supreme Court, Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented. In the early Twentieth Century, the Supreme Court overturned Knight and adopted a more expansive understanding of what constitutes interstate commerce. The issue of interstate commerce appeared in another context before Judge Butler. This time it involved the telegraph which by the 1880’s had become a widely used means of communication throughout the country. The City of Philadelphia had imposed on Western Union Telegraph Company what the City characterized as a license fee to defray the cost of inspecting Western Union’s telegraph poles and wires. The fee amounted to $16,000 per year. When the company refused to pay, the City sued it in the Court of Common Pleas. Western Union removed the case to the federal court because of the parties’ diversity of citizenship and argued that the amount being extracted was tantamount to an unconstitutional tax. While the City won before the jury, Judge Butler entered judgment for Western Union. He found that it was only necessary for the City to expend up to $3,500 for its supervisory activities to ensure public safety. The exorbitant fee charged by the City, Judge Butler held, was in reality a tax which affected telegraphic communications across state lines in violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The assassination of President James A. Garfield by Charles Guiteau, a disappointed office seeker, in 1881 provided the impetus for the passage of the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883, after years of failed efforts. Up to that time, patronage was the path to government employment. By the mid-l890’s, some 86,000 federal jobs were covered by the merit system administered by the Civil Service Commission. Perhaps inevitably, with written applications and qualifying examinations, cheating would sometimes occur and with cheating would come criminal indictments in the District Court. Judge Butler presided over such a case. A person named Henry Bunting applied for a government clerkship, completed a sworn application, and was notified in due course to present himself for an examination. Instead of doing so, an impersonator, John Delany, appeared in his place and answered written questions about Bunting and signed Bunting’s name. Delany was recognized, and he and Bunting were arrested. Both pleaded guilty after being indicted for defrauding the United States. Bunting was sentenced to three months in the Philadelphia County Prison and Delany to two months. Judge Butler, as had all his predecessors, continued to deal with admiralty cases, including those involving ship collisions, maritime insurance disputes, deductions from seamen’s pay, and the disciplining of seamen. In 1899, after two decades on the bench, Butler retired and lived for another ten years. He passed away on November 2, 1909 in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Except for Judge Lewis who had resigned in 1792, all his predecessors on the District Court had died in office. Butler took advantage of legislation approved by Congress in 1869 which for the first time allowed any federal judge who had attained the age of seventy and had at least ten years of service to retire and received for the rest of his life the same salary he was receiving at the time of his retirement.
=== John B. McPherson ===
John B. McPherson Born: November 5, 1846, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Died: January 20, 1919, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Pennsylvania Nominated by William McKinley on February 28, 1899, to a seat vacated by William Butler. Confirmed by the Senate on March 2, 1899, and received commission on March 2, 1899. Service terminated on April 8, 1912, due to appointment to another judicial position. Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Nominated by William H. Taft on March 16, 1912, to a seat vacated by William Mershon Lanning. Confirmed by the Senate on April 3, 1912, and received commission on April 3, 1912. Service terminated on January 20, 1919, due to death. Education: College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), A.B., 1866 College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), A.M., 1869 Read law, 1870 Professional Career: Private Practice, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania : 1870 - District Attorney, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania: 1874-1877 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania: 1882-1899 Instructor, University of Pennsylvania: 1890 - * * * Judicial Biography *After Judge William Butler’s retirement, President William McKinley chose John Bayard McPherson as the ninth judge of the Court. McPherson was born in Harrisburg in 1846. He was graduated from the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) in 1866 and then read law. He served as District Attorney of Dauphin County from 1874 to 1877. Thereafter, he sat as a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin and Lebanon Counties until his appointment to fill Judge Butler’s vacancy. Following his move to Philadelphia to undertake his duties on the federal bench, the University of Pennsylvania Law School engaged him as part- time lecturer on the subject of evidence. Both Penn and Princeton later awarded him an honorary LL.D. In 1912, President William Howard Taft tapped him for the Circuit Court of Appeals where he remained until his death in January 1919 after a long illness. McPherson was a Presbyterian and a member of a scholarly group known as the Shakespeare Society. In 1901, shortly after McPherson became a District Judge, Congress carved the Middle District of Pennsylvania out of portions of the Eastern and Western Districts. By this time, the population of Philadelphia had grown to almost 1,300,000 and that of Pennsylvania to over 6,300,000. The Eastern District, which had heretofore encompassed the eastern half of the Commonwealth, was now reduced in area to include only ten counties of Southeastern Pennsylvania: Berks, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Lancaster, Lehigh, Montgomery, Northampton, Philadelphia and Schuylkill. While the geographic size of the Eastern District decreased, its complement of judges was soon to increase. In 1904, Congress added a second judgeship. By the early 1900’s, the Court was seeing more and more cases arising under recently enacted federal legislation. In addition to the Pendleton Act and the Sherman Act, Congress had passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, as a result of the hundreds of thousands of Chinese laborers who had emigrated to the West Coast, primarily to help construct the railroads and to find employment as gold miners, farm laborers, and small businessmen. The act was renewed in 1892 and again in 1902. Xenophobia was not confined to the West. Judge McPherson had before him in 1909 an indictment of the master of a British steamship for landing or permitting the landing at the Port of Philadelphia of the vessel’s Chinese Chief Cook. The judge ruled that under the statute the defendant could only be found guilty if he knowingly attempted or knowingly permitted the Chief Cook to land. Since the indictment was deficient in this regard, it was dismissed. Federal courts in the Progressive Era of the early twentieth century, were also dealing for the first time with health and safety laws enacted by Congress. In a proceeding initiated by the government, Judge McPherson condemned a shipment of decomposed black olives from Greece under the Food and Drug Act of 1906. * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. McPherson also had on his docket an action by the Government to condemn certain bottles of gin for being mislabeled “London Dry Gin” when the gin had not been distilled in London but rather in the United States. The jury found in answer to special interrogatories that no mislabeling had occurred since London Dry Gin was a “distinct kind of gin,” its place of production or manufacture was irrelevant, and the maker had no intent to deceive or mislead. In reversing that verdict, the Court of Appeals held that the intent of the maker was not pertinent and ordered a new trial. Judge McPherson was appointed a judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1912. He passed away on January 20, 1919 in Philadelphia.
=== James B. Holland ===
James B. Holland Born: November 14, 1857, in Gwynedd Township, Pennsylvania. Died: April 24, 1914, in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Theodore Roosevelt on April 14, 1904, to a new seat authorized by 33 Stat. 155. Confirmed by the Senate on April 19, 1904, and received commission on April 19, 1904. Service terminated on April 24, 1914, due to death. Education: Read law, 1887 Professional Career: Clerk of County Commissioners, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania : 1882-1887 Private Practice, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: 1887-1904 Solicitor, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: 1887-1893 District Attorney, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: 1893-1896 U.S. Navy: 1898-1900 U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 1900-1904 * * * Judicial Biography *In 1901, Congress carved the Middle District of Pennsylvania out of portions of the Eastern and Western Districts. By this time, the population of Philadelphia had grown to almost 1,300,000 and that of Pennsylvania to over 6,300,000. The Eastern District, which had heretofore encompassed the eastern half of the Commonwealth, was now reduced in area to include only ten counties of Southeastern Pennsylvania: Berks, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Lancaster, Lehigh, Montgomery, Northampton, Philadelphia and Schuylkill. While the geographic size of the Eastern District decreased, its complement of judges was soon to increase. In 1904, Congress added a second judgeship. Rival candidates vied to fill this new seat. Pennsylvania’s two Republican Senators Matthew S. Quay and Boies Penrose supported United States Attorney James Buchanan Holland while several Court of Appeals judges, District Judge John McPherson, and some “influential men” identified with the University of Pennsylvania had endorsed another individual for the position. Quay and Penrose were powerful figures who together controlled the Republican Party in Pennsylvania. Attesting to the leading roles they played on the political stage, a statue of Quay stands in the Rotunda of the State Capitol in Harrisburg, while a statue of Penrose is situated nearby on the capitol grounds. Not unexpectedly, President Theodore Roosevelt nominated Holland as the tenth judge to serve on the court. He was confirmed on April 19, 1904. Holland was born in Montgomery County in 1857. Starting his work life as a laborer, he later became a school teacher and then a lawyer. Like all his judicial predecessors, he had been active in politics, in his case with the Republican Party, and had engaged in extensive public service. His resume included service as the Clerk of the Montgomery County Commissioners, the County Solicitor, and from 1893 to 1896 the County District Attorney. On one occasion when Senator Quay was in political “peril,” it is said that Holland, the Republican party chairman in Montgomery County, “restored his supremacy.” He interrupted his political career to become a Naval officer during the Spanish-American War. As a result of the sponsorship of Quay and Penrose, he held the office of United States Attorney for the Eastern District from 1900 until his appointment as a federal judge. As always, cases involving state law where the parties were of diverse citizenship made up a portion of the court’s calendar. Judge Holland tried a public accommodations case in 1910 that had nothing to do with race, gender, religion, national origin, age, sexual orientation, or disability. A champion light-weight prize fighter, Oscar “Battling Matthew” Nelson, who had won nearly 100 pugilistic contests, had checked into the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia but was refused lodging when it was learned what he did for a living. Boxing at that time was a criminal offense in Pennsylvania and other states although the record is silent as to whether Nelson had engaged in any prize fights here. Although Pennsylvania law required an innkeeper * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. to receive all travelers if a room was available, it also authorized the refusal to accommodate a person if the innkeeper had “good reason.” Judge Holland charged the jury that the hotel was under no duty to accommodate Nelson if he was not a reputable person or not a law abiding citizen because of engaging in an unlawful business or occupation. The jury found that the hotel was within its rights not to lodge him. Holland died in office on April 24, 1914, at the age of fifty-seven. After his death, a newspaper article described his judicial career in laudatory terms. According to a eulogist, one of his praiseworthy traits was his willingness to reverse himself if he thought he had committed error. The eulogist is reported to have said of Judge Holland, perhaps with a touch of hyperbole: His greatness of mind as a judge . . . was shown in the calmness and frankness with which he would reverse his own decisions upon ground of reason shown with a freedom from vanity and acknowledgment of fallibility equal to George Washington’s.
=== J. Whitaker Thompson ===
J. Whitaker Thompson Born: August 19, 1861, in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. Died: January 7, 1946, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by William H. Taft on June 5, 1912, to a seat vacated by John B. McPherson. Confirmed by the Senate on June 16, 1912, and received commission on July 16, 1912. Service terminated on February 3, 1931, due to appointment to another judicial position. Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Nominated by Herbert Hoover on December 4, 1930, to a new seat authorized by 46 Stat. 538. Confirmed by the Senate on January 22, 1931, and received commission on January 29, 1931. Assumed senior status on May 1, 1938. Service terminated on January 7, 1946, due to death. Education: University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), LL.B., 1887 Professional Career: Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 1900-1904 U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 1904-1912 * * * Judicial Biography *Upon Judge John McPherson’s induction as a Court of Appeals judge in 1912, President William Howard Taft turned to Joseph Whitaker Thompson as McPherson’s replacement on the District Court. Thompson had been an Assistant United States Attorney under Holland and had followed him as United States Attorney after Holland was appointed as a District Judge in 1904. Both men would again be colleagues for the short time before Holland’s death. Thompson was the eleventh person to serve on the court. The son of a Methodist minister, Thompson hailed from Stroudsburg, Monroe County, Pennsylvania where he was born in 1861. He received both his bachelor’s and law degrees from the University of Pennsylvania. Following law school, he joined the law firm of his cousin Samuel Whitaker Pennypacker. The latter became Governor of Pennsylvania in 1903 with the help of Senator Quay, who also happened to be Pennypacker’s cousin. Thompson was involved in Republican politics and served as a trustee of the University of Pennsylvania. He remained a District Judge until January 1931. At that time, the Senate confirmed him as a judge of the Court of Appeals on the nomination of President Herbert Hoover. Thompson was the first federal judge in the Eastern District to have been graduated from law school. All his predecessors were admitted to the Bar after reading and studying law under an experienced practitioner. A statute passed by Congress during the Progressive Era of the early twentieth century was the Mann Act which made it illegal to transport any person across state lines with the intent that such person engage in prostitution. Defendant Evan Gwynne was indicted for taking Anna Ward from Philadelphia to Baltimore for that illicit purpose. The case, which was heard by Judge Thompson shortly after he joined the bench, had a highly unusual twist. After the alleged offense occurred but before the trial, Gwynne and Ward were married. Gwynne’s counsel objected at trial to the Government’s calling his wife as a witness against him. Judge Thompson overruled the objection, and Gwynne was convicted. Gwynne then filed a motion for a new trial and upon further consideration, Thompson granted the motion. He noted that the admission of testimony in criminal cases in federal court is governed by state law as it existed when the Judiciary Act of 1789 was passed. It was well settled at the time that a wife was not a competent witness against a husband except in circumstances involving violence against the wife. Here, however, even assuming that the crime was one of violence, Ward was not Gwynne’s wife at the time the crime was committed. Thompson held that the exception allowing a wife to testify applies only when injuries are inflicted or threatened during the marital relationship. Accordingly, he concluded he should not have compelled her to testify against her husband. While the government argued that such a * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. ruling would allow a defendant to marry the woman who may be the only witness against him and thus avoid conviction, the judge responded that it was for Congress and not the Court to change the law in this regard. Many antitrust actions were filed in the Eastern District. In 1915, Judge Thompson presided over the vigorously contested case of Bluefields Steamship Co. v. United Fruit Co. involving an alleged monopoly and restraint of trade in the importation and distribution of bananas from Nicaragua into the United States. Plaintiff sought $5,000,000 in damages which would be trebled under the Sherman Act if it were to win the lawsuit. That was a huge sum of money in those days. The jury trial, which lasted from the beginning of November 1915 to the end of January 1916, was the longest of its kind in the Eastern District up to that time. A defense verdict resulted, and it was affirmed on appeal. Judge Thompson, like Judge Butler before him, was assigned to preside outside the Eastern District but in this instance for one specific case. In 1917, he was designated to sit in the District Court of Delaware to decide DuPont v. DuPont, a high profile, contentious, and complex corporate litigation pitting members of the DuPont family against one another for control of E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. The Delaware District Judge had recused himself because of familial relationships with both sides of the dispute. Judge Thompson decided the case without a jury, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in all essential respects. During this period, events in Europe were entangling the United States. World War I had begun in August 1914, shortly after the assassination in Sarajevo of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. The United States remained neutral, although not unaffected, until Germany made its fateful decision in early 1917 to undertake unrestricted submarine warfare with attacks on all sea traffic, including American merchant ships, around Great Britain, France, Italy, and the Eastern Mediterranean. On April 6, at the urging of President Wilson, Congress declared war against Germany. Congress enacted the Selective Service Act shortly thereafter in May. The Espionage Act followed and became law on June 15, 1917. Philadelphia area industries became involved in the war effort. The Cramp Shipyard built torpedo boat destroyers, Midvale Steel manufactured guns for destroyers, and Baldwin Locomotive Works produced artillery shells and railroad gun- mounts. While there was a ground swell of patriotic fervor, the Socialist Party and others opposed conscription and the war effort. The District Court would soon be drawn into this clash. In the midst of the war, Charles T. Schenck, the General Secretary of the Socialist Party in Philadelphia, directed that a circular be printed and distributed through the mail to men who had been drafted. The circular compared conscription with slavery outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment and declared “Do not submit to intimidation” although urging only peaceful measures such as petitioning to repeal the draft law. It called the draft the work of “cunning politicians and a mercenary capitalist press,” promulgated “in the interest of Wall Street’s chosen few.” It denied the power of the Government to order citizens to “foreign shores to shoot up people of other lands.” Schenck and others were indicted for conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act. Schenck was charged with causing and attempting to cause insubordination in the armed forces of the United States and obstruction of recruiting and enlistment when the United States was at war with the German Empire. He was also indicted for mailing prohibited material. The United States Attorney at the time was Francis Fisher Kane, the grandson of the John Kane, who had been the Judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania from 1846 to 1858. The jury convicted Schenck and codefendant Dr. Elizabeth Baer, but Judge Thompson directed the jury to acquit three others for insufficient evidence. Thereafter, the post-trial motions of the two remaining defendants claiming lack of evidence were denied. However, at sentencing, he commented that Schenck and Baer were really minor players and imposed on them prison terms of only six months and ninety days, respectively. The defendants remained free pending appeal. Judge Thompson’s opinion denying the post-trial motions makes no reference to free speech. However, this issue was at the heart of the decision of the Supreme Court which agreed to hear the matter. Indeed, it was the first significant case in which the Supreme Court had construed the clause of the First Amendment prohibiting Congress from making any law “abridging the freedom of speech.” In unanimously upholding the convictions, the Court through Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes determined that Schenck intended his mailings to influence people to obstruct the draft. Holmes then wrote these oft-quoted words: We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. . . . The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. Judge Thompson was nominated by President Herbert Hoover to be a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1930 and was confirmed by the United States Senate on January 29, 1931. He assumed senior status on May 1, 1938. His service on the Third Circuit terminated on January 7, 1946 due to his death in Philadelphia, at the age of 84.
=== Oliver B. Dickinson ===
Oliver B. Dickinson Born: September 25, 1857, in Dayton, Ohio Died: September 16, 1939, in Chester, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Woodrow Wilson on March 31, 1914, to a new seat authorized by 38 Stat. 283. Confirmed by the Senate on April 28, 1914, and received commission on April 28, 1914. Service terminated on September 16, 1939, due to death. Education: Bucknell University, 1877 Read law, 1878 Bucknell University, A.M., 1903 Professional Career: Private Practice, Chester, Pennsylvania: 1878-1914 * * * Judicial Biography *In February 1914, Congress created a temporary judgeship for the Eastern District with the proviso that the next vacancy on the Court would not be filled. This brought the number of authorized judgeships in the District, at least for a time, to three. Several hopefuls for the * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. position quickly emerged, some of whom had important political sponsors. Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman A. Mitchell Palmer, who would later serve as President Woodrow Wilson’s Attorney General, pressed hard for the appointment of William A. Carr, a Philadelphia lawyer. Carr was also supported by Common Pleas and Municipal Court judges as well as “over a thousand lawyers in the city.” A state court judge in Schuylkill County and one in Berks County also had political endorsements. Finally, there was Oliver Booth Dickinson, a leading lawyer in Chester, Delaware County, who had a group of friends urging his selection. One of the points made in favor of Carr was his residence in Philadelphia. It would be easier, so the argument went, to obtain emergency orders from Carr when the Court was out of session than it would be from a judge who lived in one of the outlying counties. The decision was in the hands of Attorney General James C. McReynolds who would make a recommendation to President Wilson. Despite the strong political support for Carr, McReynolds urged Dickinson’s appointment, and the President thereupon nominated him for the new seat on March 31, 1914. Dickinson was born in 1857 in Dayton, Ohio. When he was five years old, his family moved to Marcus Hook where his father, a Baptist minister, had accepted a pastorate. Dickinson remained a resident of Delaware County for the rest of his life. He attended Lewisburg College (now Bucknell University) but left in his junior year because of the death of his father. Some years later, the college conferred on him an honorary Master’s Degree. He read law under his brother, who was a lawyer, and was admitted to the Bar in 1878. He was a generous contributor to the Democratic Party and participated as a delegate at its 1892 national Convention which nominated Grover Cleveland for President. Twice he was a candidate for a Common Pleas judgeship on the Democratic ticket, and twice he was defeated in overwhelmingly Republican Delaware County. His interests extended beyond politics. He served as a trustee of Crozer Theological Seminary, the J. Louis Crozer Home and Hospital, the Y.W.C.A. of Chester, and the Pennsylvania Military College. There was great demand for him as a public speaker. Dickinson was the first District Judge who had not held prior elected or appointed public office and was the last who never attended law school. Dickinson was confirmed by the Senate on April 28, 1914 as the twelfth person to serve on the court, four days after Judge Holland died. Consequently, the Eastern District’s complement of judges did not increase to three as anticipated but remained at two until another temporary judgeship was created in the 1920’s. Known for his witticisms both on and off the bench, he served as a District Judge for twenty-five years. At the time of his death in September 1939 at the age of eighty-one, he was one of the oldest active judges in the federal system. Some jurists display their own distinctive habits or customs in the courtroom. Dickinson was one of them. He did not remain seated during Court proceedings but was known to pace back and forth on the bench. When he was presiding over an admiralty case, he hung a silver oar, the traditional symbol of the authority of the admiralty court, in the front of the bench and would begin the day with the phrase, “May there be no moaning at the bar when I put out to sea.” Apparently, at some later time, a brass oar came to replace the silver oar in the Eastern District. Unhappily, both the silver and brass oars have disappeared, and with their disappearance a venerable tradition dating back at least to the reign of Elizabeth I has vanished from the Court. From the earliest days of the republic, federal courts have had jurisdiction over cases involving the mails, pursuant to the power given to Congress under the Constitution “to establish Post Offices and post Roads.” Sometimes the cases involved theft of the mail, sometimes unauthorized competition with the delivery of the mail by the Post Office, and sometimes the use of the mails for fraudulent purposes. In a prosecution before Judge Dickinson in 1915, W.O. Smith, a physician specializing in the treatment of nervous diseases, was charged with the fraudulent use of the mails. The evidence established that he would promote his medical expertise to his victims through the mail and obtain statements of their symptoms. Once received, he would inform them that they had “serious ailments and in dire need of medical attention” even though they were in normal health. As the final step in the scheme, he induced those duped to forward him money purportedly for treatment. The jury found the defendant guilty, and Judge Dickinson sentenced him to pay a fine. During World War I, five individuals who were involved with the German language newspapers Philadelphia Tageblatt and the Philadelphia Sonntagsblatt were indicted and convicted before Judge Dickinson under the Espionage Act for conspiracy and for the substantive acts of promoting the success of the Imperial German Government, obstructing recruitment and enlistment in the United States military, and making false statements intended to promote the success of the nation’s enemies as a result of articles and editorials appearing in their newspapers. All defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. Although emphasizing the constitutionality of the Espionage Act, the Court reversed the convictions of two of the defendants for lack of evidence. It sustained the convictions of the remaining three. Whenever the country is at war, there are always some who seek to evade any draft law or who desert their military posts. World War I was no exception. The most notorious cases in the annals of Philadelphia in that era involved Grover Cleveland Bergdoll, his brother, Erwin Rudolph Bergdoll, and their mother, Emma C. Bergdoll, the widow of a wealthy brewer Louis Bergdoll Jr. All three became well known to the District Court and to the public-at-large. The family at one time resided in Philadelphia in a large house on North 29th Street and then in a thirty-two room mansion at 52nd Street and Wynnefield Avenue known locally as “The Castle.” In his youth Grover Bergdoll drove fast cars, had numerous minor brushes with the law, and flew his Wright Brothers biplane over Philadelphia and to Atlantic City. In 1914, at the outbreak of World War I in Europe, he approached the German consul in Philadelphia and offered to serve as an aviator for Germany. He was turned down. In August 1917, Grover received a notice to report for a physical examination pursuant to the Selective Service Act but failed to appear on the appointed date. In July 1918, he was mailed a notice of induction into the Army which he ignored. Grover had fled. He traveled to the Midwest, Southwest and the South as well as to Maryland and always was able to stay a step ahead of federal agents. He even returned to his home in Philadelphia on occasion. With a flair for the dramatic, he taunted federal authorities by sending post cards to his local draft board and others from various places he had been and by writing a letter to the Public Ledger. Agents searched the family home from time to time on tips that he was hiding there. Once his mother, with a pistol in hand, barred their entrance. Finally, in early 1920, during a search of the house, Grover was arrested while hiding under pillows in a window seat. He was court-martialed and sentenced to five years imprisonment at Governor’s Island in New York. In the meantime his brother Erwin also failed to appear for his physical in 1917 and absconded. Like Grover, he did not report when later called for military duty. After being a fugitive for two years, sometimes with Grover, he surrendered to authorities in August 1920. He was promptly court-martialed and sentenced to a term of four years imprisonment at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. At Christmas 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt issued a general pardon of 1,500 persons convicted of evading service in World War I. Elwin Bergdoll, but not Grover, had his full rights of citizenship restored. The incredible story of Grover Bergdoll played out in the headlines for several more decades. In 1920, not long after his court-martial, his lawyers persuaded the War Department to furlough him from Governor’s Island for three days to locate $105,000 in gold that he said he had buried in Maryland. When on furlough he made an overnight visit under guard to his mother’s home in Philadelphia before the scheduled journey to Maryland to unearth the treasure trove. During his stay, he escaped in a waiting car with the help of a friend and fled to Canada. He promptly sailed to Liverpool and then made his way to Germany’s Black Forest, where he had relatives. Two unsuccessful attempts to kidnap and transport him to the United States took place. In the midst of one attempt, he shot and killed one of his assailants. He married a German woman with whom he fathered a number of children. There is evidence he slipped back into the United States undetected in 1929. His wife and children arrived separately, and they all lived at 52nd and Wynnefield with Emma Bergdoll while Grover always remained out of sight. They departed for Germany in 1934. Before doing so, Grover retrieved the pot of gold which had been hidden all along in the house and not in Maryland. After only a short time in Germany, his family again returned to Philadelphia. He purportedly traveled back into this country secretly and remained hidden in his mother’s home as his children attended school in Philadelphia. In the 1930’s, his wife and mother sought and failed to obtain clemency for him from President Franklin Roosevelt. He quietly sailed back to Germany in 1938. As World War II approached and after being a fugitive for nineteen years, he decided it was time to accept his fate and traveled back to the United States in 1939 after notifying the authorities. He was immediately taken into custody and again court-martialed. Three years were added to his previous five year sentence. He was paroled from custody at Fort Leavenworth in 1944. Grover, his wife, and family lived in the Philadelphia suburbs for a number of years and then moved to Virginia. Death came to him in a psychiatric hospital in Richmond in 1966 at the age of seventy-two. After Grover’s daring escape and flight in 1920, Emma Bergdoll, an American citizen who had been born in Germany, and several others, including her son Charles, were tried before Judge Dickinson and a jury in the Eastern District on a number of charges including conspiracy to aid Grover and Erwin in deserting the United States Army. She and her co-defendants were all convicted at the trial closely followed by the news media. Grover had also been indicted but was not tried because he was a fugitive. At the time, there was still significant anti-German sentiment. Nonetheless, at her sentencing in May 1921, Judge Dickinson showed sympathy for a mother in her predicament. He sentenced her to imprisonment for a year and a day and fined her a total of $7,000 on two indictments but ordered that if the fines were paid promptly, the prison sentence would be remitted. Judge Dickinson told her, “Perhaps the severest punishment you, as a mother, can feel, is that the disgrace into which you came has been brought upon you by your own sons.” While acknowledging her guilt, he added, “No one would wish to see a mother sent to jail for merely helping her sons, guilty as they were.” She timely paid the fines, but under protest, and then appealed her sentence. The Court of Appeals held that her payment of the fines was voluntary and that as a result her appeal was moot. Emma Bergdoll’s interaction with the Court continued well into the 1920’s and 1930’s. In 1926, Judge Dickinson found in her favor in a lawsuit she brought against the Alien Property Custodian to recover $500,000 which the Custodian had seized from her on the ground that the property belonged to her son, Grover Bergdoll. She was also vindicated in refusing to turn over to the Custodian an additional $439,000 which the Custodian claimed was the property of her son Grover. Judge Dickinson called her “a foolish mother” but then commented, “Many of us, however, have reason for gratitude for that folly of motherhood which sees the promise of good in sons to which other and wiser eyes are blind . . .” Not all her lawsuits resulted in her favor. In the 1930’s the Court denied her request to return to her “The Castle” at Fifty-second Street and Wynnefield Avenue, which, the Court found, had rightly been seized by the Government since she had deeded it to Grover, who had forfeited his ownership as a fugitive from justice. Nonetheless, she was not presently to be evicted. She died in the Philadelphia suburbs in December 1944, shortly after Grover was paroled. As for Grover, back in August 1918, this Court had issued a bench warrant for his arrest as a result of his failure to appear for a physical examination for the military. As noted, he had been indicted along with his mother in 1920, but was never tried in the Eastern District because he was a fugitive at that time. Again in August 1938, a bench warrant was issued, but it was nol prossed, that is, dismissed in 1941. During prohibition, he asserted the position that only “dry” agents were authorized to enforce the law with legal methods. He died on September 16, 1939 at the age of 81, in Chester, Pennsylvania.
=== Charles L. McKeehan ===
Charles L. McKeehan Born: March 29, 1876, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: March 23, 1925 Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Warren G. Harding on January 30, 1923, to a new seat authorized by 42 Stat. 837. Confirmed by the Senate on February 9, 1923, and received commission on February 9, 1923. Service terminated on March 23, 1925, due to death. Education: University of Pennsylvania, A.B., 1897 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), LL.B., 1900 Professional Career: Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1900-1923 U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel: 1917-1919 * * * Judicial Biography *The sudden death of long-time Senator Boies Penrose on December 31, 1921 had a number of important political consequences, including an effect on future judicial appointments. Governor William Sproul, a Republican, chose patrician George Wharton Pepper, a * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. distinguished Philadelphia lawyer, to fill the vacancy in the United States Senate, and State Senator Edwin H. Vare and his younger brother Congressman William S. Vare took over from Penrose as the bosses of the Philadelphia Republican organization. Pepper was elected in the fall of 1922 to complete the little more than four years remaining in Penrose’s term. The Vares eyed him with suspicion. Pepper refused to surrender his independence on appointments but was willing to consult with the organization on certain patronage matters. Nonetheless, he made it clear that federal judgeships were off limits. Edwin Vare had warned Pepper at a meeting, “ . . . there’s something I think you should know. It is that with our power over the organization we can send anybody we want to the United States Senate - - anybody.” It was not an idle boast. Pepper defied the Vares in recommending to President Warren Harding the nomination of his friend Charles Louis McKeehan, who had no political organization support, for the temporary judgeship that had been created for the Eastern District in September 1922. The President thereafter sent McKeehan’s name to the Senate. He was confirmed in February 1923. McKeehan was the thirteenth judge to serve on the court. Born in 1876 in Philadelphia, McKeehan was the son of a lawyer. He obtained his undergraduate degree from the University of Pennsylvania where he was President of his class and later his law degree from the same institution. As a law student, he spent time in the office of George Wharton Pepper, who in effect acted as his preceptor. He volunteered for military service at the outbreak of World War I, even though he was over forty years old. Although refused permission to serve in combat because of a recent appendectomy, he held non-combatant positions in the Army and achieved the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. During his legal career, he and Owen J. Roberts, later a Justice of the United States Supreme Court, were law partners. McKeehan also taught negotiable instruments and contracts at Penn Law School. From the time of its inception in 1902 until his appointment to the bench, he was the Secretary of the Board of Law Examiners, which had responsibility for examination and admission of lawyers to the Pennsylvania Bar. When not engaged in professional pursuits, he often sailed a small boat at Barnegat Light, New Jersey, where he had a summer home. Like Pepper, he was an active Episcopal churchman. McKeehan was also a member of the Executive Committee of the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment. Needless to say, this was a problem for someone who was going to be required to enforce the prohibition era Volstead Act as a federal judge. Before his confirmation, Pepper and the Anti-Saloon League worked out an agreement that McKeehan would issue a statement that he would uphold the Prohibition Amendment and related laws. He did so and thereafter was approved by the Senate. He died in March 1925, at the age of forty- eight after only two years on the bench. His funeral was attended by hundreds of leading citizens, including Senator Pepper, ex-Governor Edwin Stuart, and numerous judges and members of the bar. With his death, his temporary seat was not to be filled, and the Court, which consisted of three judgeships at this point in its history, continued to function with his two older colleagues, J. Whitaker Thompson and Oliver B. Dickinson.
=== William H. Kirkpatrick ===
William H. Kirkpatrick Born: October 2, 1885, in Easton, Pennsylvania Died: November 28, 1970, in Cumberstone, Maryland Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Calvin Coolidge on March 3, 1927, to a new seat authorized by 44 Stat. 1347. Confirmed by the Senate on March 3, 1927, and received commission on March 3, 1927. Served as chief judge, 1948-1958. Assumed senior status on May 1, 1958. Service terminated on November 28, 1970, due to death. Education: University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School) Lafayette College, A.B., 1905 Professional Career: Private Practice, Easton, Pennsylvania: 1908-1918; 1923-1927 U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel, World War I U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania: 1921-1923 * * * Judicial Biography *In 1926, William Vare put into action his late brother’s warning to Senator George Wharton Pepper (see Judicial Biography of Charles L. McKeehan). Vare ran against the defeated Pepper and Governor Gifford Pinchot in the three-way Republican primary for the United States Senate by carrying only two of Pennsylvania’s sixty-seven counties, Philadelphia and Dauphin. Vare went on to win the general election against his Democratic opponent. In the last days of his term which was scheduled to end on March 4, 1927, Pepper succeeded in having Congress add a new permanent judgeship for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He sought to have William Huntington Kirkpatrick named to fill the seat before Vare, who had a different candidate in mind, took office. At Pepper’s request, President Calvin Coolidge nominated Kirkpatrick but did not do so until March 3, when the Act creating the new judgeship took effect. It was the day before Pepper’s term was to expire. Since the Judiciary Committee was not scheduled to meet on the eve of adjournment, Pepper persuaded the Chairman of the Committee, Senator George Norris, to poll the members, all of whom gave their approval of the nominee. Norris, in a closed Executive Session of the Senate, then asked the Vice-President for immediate consideration, which was granted. A unanimous affirmative vote was obtained, and Kirkpatrick was confirmed, literally at the eleventh hour as the fourteenth judge to serve on the court. Such a speedy confirmation process would be impossible today. Kirkpatrick was born in 1885 and grew up in Easton in Northampton County. His father had served as a state court judge, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania in the late 1880’s, and later as a Congressman. After being graduated from Lafayette College, Kirkpatrick attended the University of Pennsylvania Law School for a year where he impressed one of his professors, George Wharton Pepper. He served as a Judge Advocate in the Army during World War I with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. He then returned to private practice in Easton. Following in his father’s footsteps, he was elected to Congress on the Republican ticket for one term (1921-1923) representing Carbon, Monroe, and Northampton Counties. He was defeated for re- election in the Republican primary and resumed his law practice until sworn in as a federal judge. In the 1940’s, Kirkpatrick was president of the Board of Trustees of his alma mater Lafayette College. Finding golf too slow a sport, he turned to hiking, a swifter form of recreation. Kirkpatrick’s tenure on the Court lasted for many years and during that time he was invariably seen on the bench wearing his trademark green eyeshade and heard speaking in a casual “country boy style.” Unlike many judges, he enjoyed patent cases and frequently sat by designation on the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (now known as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) in Washington. He was a member of the Scotch-Irish Society, St. Andrew’s Society, Union League and the Annapolitan Club of Annapolis, Maryland. * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. Judge Kirkpatrick died at age eighty-five on November 28, 1970, at his summer home in Cumberstone, Maryland. He had two sons, the late Miles W. Kirkpatrick, a Philadelphia and Washington lawyer and former Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, and William S. Kirkpatrick, II of Cumberstone, four grandchildren, and two great grandchildren. His wife, Mary Stewart Wells Kirkpatrick, to whom he was married in 1913, predeceased him in 1968. His tenure on the federal bench lasted a total of forty-three years, one of the longest in the court’s history. * * * Biographical Materials 1. 2. 3. Transcript of Panel Discussion Concerning Honorable William H. Kirkpatrick held in a session of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 27, 2001 in Easton, Pennsylvania. Memorial Remarks presented before a session of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County concerning Honorable William H. Kirkpatrick by John Francis Goldsmith, Esq. on June 14, 1971. Response on behalf of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County concerning Honorable William H. Kirkpatrick by Honorable Richard D. Grifo, on June 14, 1971.
=== George A. Welsh ===
George A. Welsh Born: August 9, 1878, in Bay View, Maryland Died: October 22, 1970, in Media, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Herbert Hoover on April 14, 1932, to a seat vacated by J. Whitaker Thompson. Confirmed by the Senate on May 19, 1932, and received commission on May 20, 1932. Assumed senior status on August 29, 1957. Service terminated on October 22, 1970, due to death. Education: Philadelphia Law School of Temple College, LL.B., 1905 Professional Career: Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1905-1923 Secretary, Mayor John Weaver, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1905-1906 Assistant City Solicitor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1906-1907 Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1907-1922 U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania: 1923-1932 * * * Judicial Biography *In 1931, President Herbert Hoover named J. Whitaker Thompson to the Court of Appeals. This left a vacancy to be filled on the Eastern District. George Wharton Pepper, now the former Senator and more recently the Chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association, no longer was picking judges as he had done in the cases of Charles McKeehan and William Kirkpatrick. The process this time did not move as expeditiously as it had in the 1920’s. Instead, a prolonged deadlock existed between Republican Senators David A. Reed and James J. Davis who supported Philadelphia Congressman George A. Welsh and Philadelphia Republican organization head William S. Vare who supported a local lawyer, I. Gordon Foster. The newspapers reported on various deals purportedly in the making. The President deferred any nomination while the impasse continued. In April 1932, Vare finally threw his support to Welsh. President Hoover nominated him shortly thereafter, and he was confirmed in May. George Austin Welsh was an interesting and colorful figure who sat on the Court for thirty-two years. As one of his colleagues recalled, “he had the most charming appearance and manner that you’ll ever want to see . . . he loved people.” Born on a farm in Maryland in 1878, he arrived in Philadelphia at the age of nine. In the late 1890’s, he became an amateur featherweight boxing champion who fought matches not only in Philadelphia but also in New York City’s Madison Square Garden. In his sixties, Welsh was taking marathon bicycle vacations and often walked the fifteen miles from his home to the courthouse. He earned his law degree from Temple University in 1905, later became a vice president and trustee of his alma mater, and received an honorary LL.D. in 1939. As a young man, he quickly immersed himself in Republican politics. His career included service as the Secretary to Mayor Samuel H. Ashbridge, as well as stints as an Assistant City Solicitor and an Assistant District Attorney, and for ten years he sat as a member of the Philadelphia Board of Education. He was a Congressman from West Philadelphia from 1923 until his appointment as a federal judge in 1932. Among his other activities, he was a Mason. Shortly after his appointment, Welsh eyed a return to the political stage. While remaining on the bench, he ran for the Republican nomination for Governor in the spring primary of 1934 but lost decisively to Pennsylvania Attorney General William A. Schnader. It came as no surprise that Welsh believed that a jurist should have a political background, in order to be able to function as a “human judge on the federal courts.” He would be the last Republican to be seated on the Court until 1954. From time to time, a judge is called upon to decide a case where one of the parties belongs to a reviled political group and the court of public opinion has prejudged the matter. One such case was Reeve v. Howe, in front of Judge Welsh in 1940 on the eve of America’s entry into World War II. A special investigator of the House Un-American Activities Committee * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. headed by Congressman Martin Dies had conducted a search and seizure at the office of the Communist Party in Philadelphia. Various Communist officials brought suit to quash the warrant obtained from a local magistrate and to recover the records and other property seized. The case aroused intense comment from high public officials and widespread discussion in the press. Judge Welsh noted he had received hundreds of letters at his chambers. Nonetheless, he made it clear he would not be swayed by the passions of the moment which he said had been stirred up “due to existing world conditions.” In his Opinion, he asserted, “It just so happens that the aggrieved parties in this case are apparently very much in the minority in our country. But their rights which they claim were invaded are rights that are sacred to all of us.” He found that the affidavit in support of the warrant was defective as without probable cause required by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. He emphasized that the right to be free of an unreasonable search and seizure stands upon “a parity today with freedom of religion, of speech, of the press and of assembly as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.” He warned, “Let the seal of judicial approval be placed upon such Constitutional violations and liberty of the person, and liberty of religious and political thought and action will have vanished from our land.” In Judge Welsh’s obituary in The New York Times thirty years later, this decision was remembered. Judge Welsh, who was born on a farm, had to decide a matter involving tomatoes. Campbell Soup sued a number of farmers who in this case allegedly breached their contracts to sell it tomatoes for canning at fixed prices. Campbell had the capacity to process 250,000 5/8 bushels of tomatoes a day and had a “carefully devised schedule” for receipt of “a steady flow” of “highly perishable” tomatoes during the seven to eight week canning season. To facilitate crop production, Campbell sold the farmers special varieties of tomato plants “most suitable for its canning purposes” and provided free soil analysis and technical advice to farmers who entered contracts with it. Sales of its tomato products to consumers amounted to millions of dollars each year. Judge Welsh found that defendant farmers had exclusive contracts with Campbell but instead were selling their tomatoes to other buyers in violation of their agreements. Judge Welsh determined the contracts here were fair and beneficial to both sides. Because Campbell was suffering irreparable harm and had no adequate remedy at law, he entered a permanent injunction requiring defendants to honor their promises. In 1957 Judge Welsh took senior status. His service on the Court terminated on October 22, 1970, due to his death at the age of 92, in Media, Pennsylvania, where he resided.
=== Albert B. Maris ===
Albert B. Maris Born: December 19, 1893, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: February 7, 1989, in Lansdale, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Franklin D. Roosevelt on June 18, 1936, to a new seat authorized by 49 Stat. 1523. Confirmed by the Senate on June 20, 1936, and received commission on June 22, 1936. Service terminated on June 27, 1938, due to appointment to another judicial position. Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Nominated by Franklin D. Roosevelt on June 14, 1938, to a seat vacated by Victor Baynard Woolley. Confirmed by the Senate on June 16, 1938, and received commission on June 24, 1938. Assumed senior status on December 31, 1958. Service terminated on February 7, 1989, due to death. Other Federal Judicial Service: Judge, Emergency Court of Appeals: 1942-1962 Chief Judge: 1943-1962 Education: Temple University School of Law (now James E. Beasley School of Law), LL.B., 1918 Drexel Institute of Art, Science and Industry, 1926 Professional Career: U.S. Army Private: 1918 Assistant Secretary, Proportional Representation League, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1918- 1919 Legal Staff Member, Bureau of Municipal Research, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1919 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1919-1936 Editor, The Legal Intelligencer: 1935-1936 Adjunct Professor of Law, Temple University Law School: 1941-1955 * * * Judicial Biography *In 1936, Democratic Senator Joseph F. Guffey, elected in 1934 as an ardent New Dealer, was instrumental in effecting the addition of a temporary judgeship for the Eastern District. On the recommendation of the Senator, President Franklin D. Roosevelt nominated Albert Branson Maris of Delaware County to fill the position. At a testimonial dinner in honor of Maris at the time of his confirmation, one of the speakers was Guffey, who declared, “I have known Albert Maris for sixteen years. He was the chief legal advisor to the Democratic state committee, and we always found his judgment to be good and his advice to be sound, and that was why he was appointed to the judgeship.” Guffey then predicted, “You [Maris] are destined to have a fine judicial career, and this is just the first step in your advancement toward great honors.” The Senator’s words turned out to be prescient. The family of Albert Maris had been in Pennsylvania since the days of William Penn. One of his ancestors had arrived in 1683, served as a justice in Chester County, and sat as a member of the Provincial Assembly and Provincial Council. Maris, who was born in 1893, served in the Army in World War I. He first obtained a law degree from Temple University and thereafter an engineering degree from Drexel Institute of Technology. Like all judges up to that time, he had been active in politics. The voters elected him as the auditor of the Borough of Yeadon in the 1920’s. In 1928, his try for higher office as the Democratic candidate for the state Senate from Delaware County ended in defeat, but he was a member of the Yeadon Borough council when appointed to the federal bench. In the 1920’s, he chaired the County’s Democratic Party. He practiced law in Philadelphia and was the presiding clerk of his Monthly Meeting of the Society of Friends. Maris was a “softspoken, gentle, thoughtful Quaker with a deep sense of basic fairness in all his judicial dealings.” His time on the District Court, however, was brief. In 1938, President Roosevelt appointed him to the Court of Appeals. Well-versed in the law and procedure, Maris was a member of various Judicial Conference Committees over the years and had a major responsibility in the much needed recodification of both the Criminal and Judicial Codes in 1947 and 1948. He was also selected as the codifier and draftsman of much of the Revised Organic Act of 1954 of the Virgin Islands. Not surprisingly, he was the first recipient of the prestigious * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. Devitt Award for his significant contributions to the administration of justice, the advancement of the rule of law, and the improvement of society as a whole. The Court, in the 1930’s, had on its docket cases involving business insolvencies and bankruptcy reorganizations. Judge Maris decided an action brought by the Trustees of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church as a general creditor of Northwestern National Bank in Philadelphia which had become insolvent and was under a conservatorship. In addition to legal actions concerning new technologies, the court continued to grapple with the age-old questions involving the rights of minorities and unpopular causes. In late 1937, as fascism and communism were on the ascent in parts of Europe, a very significant case came before the District Court. It involved the requirement that public school children salute the flag. Walter Gobitis, a Jehovah’s Witness, filed suit on behalf of himself and his two children who had been expelled from the Minersville Public School in Schuylkill County after refusing as a matter of religious conscience to participate in this daily exercise mandated by the local School Board. Gobitis asserted that saluting the flag would cause his children to deny the supremacy of God and to bow down to a graven image in violation of the first two of the Ten Commandments set forth in the Twentieth Chapter of the Book of Exodus. Judge Maris denied a motion to dismiss the complaint. In concluding that a cause of action had been stated, he declared, “In these days when religious intolerance is again rearing its ugly head in other parts of the world, it is of the utmost importance that the liberties guaranteed to our citizens by the fundamental law be preserved from all encroachment.” Judge Maris thereafter granted an injunction compelling school officials to readmit the Gobitis children. He ruled that the students’ freedom of religion under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution had been violated. While he conceded that he found “it difficult to understand the plaintiffs’ point of view,” he explained: Upon such a foundation of religious freedom our Commonwealth and Nation were built. We need only glance at the current world scene to realize that the preservation of individual liberty is more important today than ever it was in the past. The safety of our nation largely depends upon the extent to which we foster in each individual citizen that sturdy independence of thought and action which is essential in a democracy. The loyalty of our people is to be judged not so much by their words as by the part they play in the body politic. Our country’s safety surely does not depend upon the totalitarian idea of forcing all citizens into one common mold of thinking and acting or requiring them to render a lip service of loyalty in a manner which conflicts with their sincere religious convictions. Such a doctrine seems to me utterly alien to the genius and spirit of our nation and destructive of that personal liberty of which our flag itself is the symbol. Although the Court of Appeals affirmed, the Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Felix Frankfurter, reversed over the dissent of Justice Harlan F. Stone. The School District’s expulsion of the Gobitis children was sustained. The Supreme Court, which ruled shortly before the United States entered World War II, held that compulsory saluting of the flag did not abridge the freedom of religion under the Constitution and was simply an allowable policy decision made by the School Board to promote patriotism. Within several years, however, the Supreme Court thought better of its decision. It reversed itself in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. Judge Maris, at last, was vindicated. Judge Maris died on February 7, 1989, at the age of 95 in Lansdale, Pennsylvania. He elected senior status as an appeals court judge in 1958 but continued to handle appeals until his passing. He served occasionally as a special master for the Supreme Court to decide such matters as land and water disputes between states and the federal government.
=== Harry E. Kalodner ===
Harry E. Kalodner Born: March 28, 1896, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: March 15, 1977, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Received a recess appointment from Franklin D. Roosevelt on July 6, 1938, to a seat vacated by Albert B. Maris; nominated to the same position by Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 5, 1939. Confirmed by the Senate on March 30, 1939, and received commission on May 4, 1939. Service terminated on September 4, 1946, due to appointment to another judicial position. Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Nominated by Harry S. Truman on May 21, 1946, to a seat vacated by Charles Alvin Jones. Confirmed by the Senate on July 25, 1946, and received commission on July 27, 1946. Served as chief judge, 1965-1966. Assumed senior status on October 3, 1969. Service terminated on March 15, 1977, due to death. Education: University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), LL.B., 1917 Professional Career: U.S. Army, JAG Department, World War I Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1917-1935 Staff Member, Philadelphia North American: 1919-1925 Financial and Political Editor, Philadelphia Record: 1928-1934 Secretary of Revenue, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: 1935 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (Pennsylvania): 1936-1937 Member, Judicial Conference of the United States: 1966 Other Nominations/Recess Appointments: Nominated to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, May 7, 1946; nomination withdrawn by President, May 21, 1946. * * * Judicial Biography *When Judge Albert B. Maris was elevated to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, President Franklin D. Roosevelt selected Harry Ellis Kalodner to succeed Maris. Born in Philadelphia to Jewish immigrant parents, he was selling newspapers at age thirteen on the ferries between Philadelphia and Camden. Upon being graduated from South Philadelphia High School at age sixteen, he entered the University of Pennsylvania Law School without having attended college. After graduation in 1917, he served in the Army in World War I. In addition to engaging in private practice, Kalodner was a newspaper reporter, first with the Philadelphia North American and then with the Philadelphia Record where for a few years he was the Financial and Political Editor. Two Pulitzer Prize Honorable Mentions were awarded to him in the 1930’s for stories on corruption in Philadelphia city government and on a fraudulent securities scheme. As a reporter, he was not easily deterred from ferreting out a story. On one occasion, he was eager to attend a “top-secret” meeting of the shareholders of the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, the corporation that owned and operated the City’s buses and trolleys. Reporters, however, were barred. To circumvent this impediment, Kalodner quickly sought out a broker from whom he purchased two shares of the company’s preferred stock. He was admitted to the meeting as a shareholder and then wrote his exclusive story. When George H. Earle III ran as Democratic candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania in 1934, Kalodner acted as his campaign manager. When Earle was elected over William Schnader, Kalodner joined his cabinet as Secretary of Revenue but resigned after only a few months to become a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. After two years in that position, President Roosevelt, on the recommendation of Senator Guffey, chose him for the open seat on the District Court. Kalodner remained on the Court until 1946 when President Truman named him to the Court of Appeals. Throughout the years, he was active in Jewish service organizations and was a trustee of Yeshiva University. In his political leanings, Kalodner was a fervent supporter of Roosevelt and the New Deal. When time permitted, he enjoyed an outing at the race track. * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. The Court, in the 1930’s, had on its docket cases involving business insolvencies and bankruptcy reorganizations. Judge Kalodner presided over the reorganization of the Philadelphia and Reading Coal & Iron Company with assets having a book value of $94,219,000. The reach of the government during World War II seemed to penetrate into every facet of the economic life of the nation. Indeed, the government was even concerned about an adequate supply and the equitable distribution of a type of tobacco known as cigar filler type 41. It obtained an injunction from Judge Kalodner to stop violations of an order of the War Food Administrator related to this product. As part of its decision, the Court declared void certain contracts under which Lancaster County tobacco growers agreed to sell their crop to a cigar company which processed and packaged tobacco. Probably the most well-known case in legal history involving a discovery dispute under the new Rules of Civil Procedure enacted in 1938, arose out of this District. In February 1943, five seamen had drowned when the Tug J.M. Taylor capsized in the Delaware River near Philadelphia. The widow of one of those seamen filed a lawsuit, Hickman v. Taylor, against the tug’s owners for damages under the Jones Act for his wrongful death. During discovery, plaintiff served interrogatories asking whether any statements had been made by members of the crew of the sunken tug. If the answer was in the affirmative, plaintiff sought “exact copies of all such statements if in writing” and “the exact provisions of any . . . oral statements or reports.” The defendants through their counsel, Samuel B. Fortenbaugh, Jr. objected on the ground that the interrogatories called for “privileged matter obtained in preparation for litigation.” Fortenbaugh, as counsel for the tug owner, had interviewed and taken written signed statements from four surviving crew members shortly after the incident. He also had conducted and made memoranda of interviews of other individuals who he believed had relevant information. Plaintiff moved to compel defendants and attorney Fortenbaugh to produce the requested information when they refused to do so voluntarily. Recognizing the precedent-setting nature of the motion, the entire District Court consisting of Judges Kirkpatrick, Welsh, Kalodner, Bard and Ganey, heard the matter. In July 1945, the Court ordered defendants and Fortenbaugh to produce the written statements and other information requested. The Court reasoned that: The guiding principle is the broad conception of the Rules that discovery of all matters relevant to a suit should be allowed to the fullest extent consistent with the orderly and efficient functioning of the judicial process. Fortenbaugh and the defendants refused to obey the order on the ground that it went beyond the scope of permissible discovery under the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, they were found guilty of contempt and sentenced to jail until they complied. Fortenbaugh immediately filed a Notice of Appeal, and the order to report to jail was held in abeyance. This distinguished member of the Bar would not be wearing prison garb, at least not until the matter was finally resolved. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed. It held that the “memoranda of talks with witnesses, signed statements made by witnesses, the lawyer’s recollection of talks with witnesses,” were in effect “work product of the lawyer” and protected from discovery. The Supreme Court, after first denying a petition for a writ of certiorari, reconsidered and accepted the case even though it involved the type of question not ordinarily arousing the curiosity or interest of the justices. The Court characterized the new discovery rules as “one of the most significant innovations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Now parties were able “to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial” and “civil trials in the federal courts no longer need be carried on in the dark.” While the Court acknowledged that the rules needed to be accorded “a broad and liberal treatment,” there were limits. It held that the memoranda and other information sought from Samuel Fortenbaugh did not have to be handed over because no “necessity or justification” had been established under the particular circumstances as the witnesses and their testimony were equally available to the plaintiff. In affirming the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court concluded: When Rule 26 and the other discovery rules were adopted, this Court and the members of the bar in general certainly did not believe or contemplate that all the files and mental processes of lawyers were thereby opened to the free scrutiny of their adversaries. And we refuse to interpret the rules at this time so as to reach so harsh and unwarranted a result. Many a court and trial lawyer in the Eastern District and elsewhere have cited this case during the course of discovery disputes over attorney work product and have had to wrestle with its meaning and implications. In the mid-1960’s, one of the first successful poverty law cases decided by the Supreme Court arose out of the Eastern District. A class action challenged the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania law requiring welfare recipients to have resided in the Commonwealth for a year immediately preceding their application for benefits. A three-judge court consisting of District Judge Joseph Lord, District Judge Michael Sheridan of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and Circuit Judge Harry Kalodner heard the matter. The Court, over the dissent of Judge Kalodner, held that the one-year waiting period had no legitimate purpose and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Although noting that there is no constitutional right to receive public welfare, it decided that it was arbitrary to draw a distinction between those who had been residents in the state for at least a year and those who had lived in the state for a shorter time. The Court also concluded that the statute had the prohibited effect of inhibiting the movement of indigent persons from other states into Pennsylvania. In the Court’s opinion, Judge Lord declared, “The right to travel freely without deterrence is inherent in the notion of a unified nation, and no State may exclude citizens migrating from other States, whatever the reason for the migration.” The Supreme Court affirmed. It agreed that the Equal Protection Clause and the fundamental right to travel voided the Pennsylvania law as well as similar laws of Connecticut and the District of Columbia. Judge Kalodner served as a district judge from 1938 to 1946 and served on the appeals court from 1946 until his death on March 15, 1977 in Philadelphia at the age of 80.
=== Guy K. Bard ===
Guy K. Bard Born: October 24, 1895, in Lincoln, Pennsylvania Died: November 23, 1953, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Received a recess appointment from Franklin D. Roosevelt on December 20, 1939, to a seat vacated by Oliver B. Dickinson; nominated to the same position by Franklin D. Roosevelt on April 4, 1940. Confirmed by the Senate on April 24, 1940, and received commission on April 29, 1940. Service terminated on July 16, 1952, due to resignation. Education: Franklin and Marshall College, A.B., 1916 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), LL.B., 1922 Professional Career: Teacher, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania: 1911-1912 Principal, Warwick Township High School, Lititz, Pennsylvania: 1913-1915 Supervising Principal, Ephrata, Pennsylvania Schools: 1916-1918 U.S. Army: 1918-1919 Democratic Committee of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania; Secretary: 1920-1924; Chairman: 1925-1934 Private Practice, Lancaster, Pennsylvania: 1922-1939 Special Assistant to the Attorney General of United States: 1934-1937 U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 1937 Member, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission: 1937-1938 Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: 1938-1939 Private Practice, Pennsylvania: 1952-1953 * * * Judicial Biography *Following the death in 1939 of Judge Dickinson, a Woodrow Wilson appointee, President Franklin D. Roosevelt replaced him with Guy Kurtz Bard of Lancaster County, on the recommendation of Senator Joseph F. Guffey. Bard held an undergraduate degree from Franklin & Marshall College and was a teacher and principal before earning his law degree at the University of Pennsylvania. Like Judges Maris and Kalodner, he was a veteran of World War I and was quite active in Democratic politics. He was the unsuccessful Democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor in 1930, but two years later was a delegate to the Democratic Convention in Chicago which nominated Franklin Roosevelt. As a member of the Convention’s Platform Committee, he drafted the party plank urging the repeal of Prohibition. Upon Roosevelt’s election, he became an Assistant United States Attorney and later the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He resigned to become a member of the state Public Utility Commission and thereafter was appointed by Governor Earle as the Commonwealth’s Attorney General. Bard received a recess appointment to the federal bench in 1939 and was confirmed in 1940. In 1952, he opted to run for political office, as had Judge Welsh back in 1934. He won the contested Democratic nomination for the United States Senate but did not resign from the bench until July 16, 1952, several months after the primary. Running for office while remaining a federal judge would not be countenanced today under the current Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Bard was defeated in the November general election by the incumbent Senator Edward Martin and died a year later. The 1930’s and 1940’s were the era of the radio, which provided information and entertainment for countless listeners. It is not surprising that the use of this medium became the subject of lawsuits. In a case in front of Judge Bard, the National Association of Performing Artists sued the William Penn Broadcasting Co. and its program advertisers for broadcasting phonograph records of Fred Waring and others without the consent of the performers. While Judge Bard agreed that the station may be restrained if a notice of restriction was placed on the record, he concluded that the advertisers were improper defendants since they had no role in determining what records were to be played. Judge Bard presided over the case of Stork Restaurant, Inc. v. Marcus, in which owners of the Stork Club, the famed New York night club patronized by a variety of celebrities, sued the defendant who ran a “Stork Club” in Philadelphia. Plaintiff claimed trademark infringement and unfair competition. After a trial, Judge Bard entered an injunction restraining the operator of the Philadelphia establishment from using that or any similar name. Those in the city who enjoyed frequenting this restaurant because of its fancy appellation now had to find another place to dine. * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. The Campbell Soup Company, a leading producer of canned soups located in Camden, New Jersey, sued two farmers who grew various crops, including carrots, on their farm in Upper Dublin Township, Montgomery County. Campbell alleged that the farmers had agreed to sell it all “the Chantenay red cored type” carrots that grew on fifteen acres of their land. Instead, according to Campbell, defendants had sold sixty-two tons of these carrots to a third defendant and held the remainder of their crop in storage. Campbell sought a preliminary injunction from Judge Bard to enjoin defendants from delivering such carrots to anyone but it and to order defendants to turn over all such carrots in their possession. The record established that this variety of carrot was an ingredient in fifteen of the twenty-one soups then manufactured by Campbell and had a special blunt shape making it easier to process than other varieties. After hearing much about carrots and the production of soups, Judge Bard, who was from rural Lancaster County, conditionally denied the preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed. It recited the harsh contractual terms Campbell had imposed on the farmers and concluded “that a party who has offered and succeeded in getting an agreement as tough as this one is, should not come to a chancellor and ask court help in the enforcement of its terms.” Following his resignation from the court, and his subsequent unsuccessful campaign for the U.S. Senate, he returned to the private practice of law from 1952 to 1953. He died at the age of 58 on November 23, 1953 in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
=== J. Cullen Ganey ===
J. Cullen Ganey Born: April 22, 1899, in Phillipsburg, New Jersey Died: February 7, 1972, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Franklin D. Roosevelt on June 11, 1940, to a new seat authorized by 54 Stat. 219. Confirmed by the Senate on June 13, 1940, and received commission on June 19, 1940. Served as chief judge, 1958-1961. Service terminated on August 30, 1961, due to appointment to another judicial position. Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Nominated by John F. Kennedy on August 3, 1961, to a new seat authorized by 75 Stat. 80. Confirmed by the Senate on August 15, 1961, and received commission on August 15, 1961. Assumed senior status on August 15, 1966. Service terminated on February 7, 1972, due to death. Education: Lehigh University, LL.B., 1920 Harvard Law School, LL.B., 1923 Professional Career: Private Practice, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania: 1923-1937 U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 1937-1940 Member, Judicial Conference of the United States: 1959-1961 * * * Judicial Biography *President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s final appointee to the Eastern District was James Cullen Ganey in 1940. He was born in 1899 in Phillipsburg, New Jersey and grew up in Bethlehem, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. After obtaining his undergraduate degree from Lehigh University and his law degree from Harvard, he practiced law in Bethlehem. During this time, he served for six years as the Democratic Party Chairman of Northampton County. A political ally of Senator Joseph F. Guffey, he was named as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District in 1937 to succeed Guy Bard. In his demeanor, he was jovial and featured a broad smile. He was a delightful raconteur. Much of his time off the bench was spent in helping youth as Chairman of the Board of the Sandlot Sports Association. His trademark was a large gold watch chain which he wore across his chest in his vest. Ganey’s approach to life was “do the best you can and don’t give yourself ulcers over it.” He enjoyed the racetrack and from time to time joined Judge Kalodner at that venue. With Roosevelt’s appointments of Judge Kalodner, who was Jewish, and Judge Ganey, who was a Roman Catholic, the District Court at last became religiously and ethnically diverse. A court, in times of war, sometimes encounters the clash between Presidential or military authority and the claimed constitutional rights of a citizen, often one who is unpopular. Judge Ganey faced such a challenge during World War II when a naturalized United States citizen, Karl Scherzberg, was excluded by a military order from the Eastern Seaboard, including certain counties of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, even though he had not committed any act subjecting him to prosecution. The case illustrates contrasting attitudes in America at that time between Japanese-Americans as a group and German-Americans as a group. Scherzberg sought an injunction to prevent his exclusion. The evidence at the hearing showed that he had been born in Germany, maintained close ties to that country, had traveled there several times as late as 1939, had sent his sons there for education, had purchased a home in Bavaria in the 1930’s, cheered the British defeat at Dunkirk, was a known Nazi sympathizer, and had sent contributions to German prisoners of war. While recognizing the cogency of the Government’s argument, Judge Ganey granted the injunction requested by Scherzberg on the ground that the exclusion order had no rational basis. By this time, the orders removing those of Japanese ancestry from certain areas of the West coast were in effect. In Judge Ganey’s view, the treatment of those American citizens resulted from “all the attendant circumstances which were then existent [sic] on the Pacific Coast by reason of the racial problem there involved.” In contrast, with respect to Scherzberg, a person of German ancestry, only an “individual exclusion program” was at issue and “every normal phase of civilian life was being engaged in” on the Eastern Seaboard. According to Ganey, the Government had simply not shown “some immediacy of danger to the welfare of the country” so as to allow the military to exclude Scherzberg. * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. In one case, a complaint was filed for unfair competition by one Philadelphia area bubble gum manufacturer against another. The plaintiff, which produced “Blony” bubble gum, sued a competitor that made gum with the name “Bubly,” an allegedly inferior product similar in shape and wrapping to the former. According to the complaint, “At least 6,000,000 children in the United States buy and chew Blony, and for the last few years over 100,000,000 pieces have been sold annually.” Plaintiff contended that school-age-children were now being unfairly confused when purchasing their bubble gum. The case was tried non-jury before Judge Ganey who found for the defendant on the ground that no likelihood existed that the public would confuse the defendant’s product with the plaintiff’s product. He ruled that the color scheme of the wrapping, the ends of the wrapping, and the printing were sufficiently different so as to deny plaintiff any relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed but on a different ground. It held that even if the products were indistinguishable in appearance, plaintiff had not proven that its Blony bubble gum was associated in the public mind with it as the manufacturer or that defendant had claimed its imitating product as being made by plaintiff. As far as is known, millions of happy children, oblivious of the lawsuit, continued to chew their bubble gum as in the past. In the midst of the Cold War and the tirades of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, a highly publicized trial of nine admitted Communists took place in this Court in United States of Kuzman. The nine were indicted for conspiracy to advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and violence in violation of the Smith Act. Recognizing the unpopularity of the defendants, the Philadelphia Bar Association, under the leadership of its Chancellor Bernard G. Segal, passed a resolution that it would support any lawyer who agreed to represent them and would strive to educate the public on the “rights and duties of a lawyer in representing any client regardless of the unpopularity of the client or the cause.” No lawyer appeared to be persuaded by the resolution by the time defendants pleaded not guilty without the presence of counsel in September 1953. Thereafter, Thomas McBride, an eminent Philadelphia lawyer and later a justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, stepped forward. With the encouragement of Bernard Segal, other lawyers were recruited to represent the defendants, including Joseph S. Lord III, who subsequently was appointed as a District Judge. Lawyers were found who acted courageously and in the best tradition of the bar. Jury selection before Judge Ganey began on March 22, 1954. The trial lasted for seventy-one days, making it the longest criminal jury trial in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania up to that time. Although the defendants conceded they were Communists, they denied that they had committed any acts which constituted a violation of the Smith Act. Carloads of books, pamphlets, and other publications were brought into the courtroom and read to the jury. There were witnesses who testified about the doctrines espoused by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. At the end of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty against all nine defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals, speaking through Judge Hastie, explained: . . . a Smith Act conspiracy is proved only if the government can show a conspiracy to teach people to take concrete action toward the violent overthrow of the existing government as soon as possible. . . . Moreover, the [Supreme] Court indicates that an individual defendant cannot be convicted of willful and knowing adherence to such a Smith Act conspiracy unless something said by him or communicated to him shows his understanding that, beyond endorsing the idea and objective of violent overthrow of the existing government, particular action to that end is projected and is to be advocated. The Government conceded on appeal that it had not proven a crime as to two of the nine defendants under this standard, and the Court of Appeals ordered a judgment of acquittal to be entered as to them. It also ordered judgments of acquittal as to two others because of lack of evidence. With respect to the remaining five defendants, the Court denied their motion for judgment of acquittal but granted each of them a new trial. In doing so, it admonished the Government that its evidence must meet the appropriate legal requirements. When the case returned to the District Court, the Government decided not to proceed with any further prosecution. The story of this long, highly charged criminal proceeding ended in 1957 without any convictions. No further prosecutions of this kind took place in the Eastern District. In 1958 Chief Judge Kirkpatrick stepped down as the first Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania when Congress passed a statute prohibiting anyone from holding that position upon attaining the age of seventy. Kirkpatrick at that time was seventy-three and had served as the Chief Judge for ten years. J. Cullen Ganey followed him as the Court’s second Chief Judge. Probably the most significant antirust matter in the 1950’s anywhere in the country, was what came to be known as the “Electrical Equipment Antitrust Cases,” in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. They surely constituted the most complex litigation the District had encountered in its history. In 1959, Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver, after a series of Senate Committee hearings, requested the Justice Department to look into the pricing of heavy electrical equipment purchased by the Tennessee Valley Authority. Out of this request arose a prolonged and intensive investigation by federal grand juries in Philadelphia. When word leaked out that a significant grand jury witness had disclosed critical information about the conspiracy, the dam of resistance broke and others came forward. The conspiracy, it turned out, operated at the pinnacle of corporate power. By October 1960, indictments had been handed down in this Court against twenty-nine manufacturers of heavy electrical equipment, including General Electric and Westinghouse, and forty-five of their executives. The indictments charged the defendants with a massive conspiracy to fix prices and allocate markets in twenty separate product lines in violation of the Sherman Act. All except one executive whose case was dismissed promptly pleaded guilty or nolo contendere, and in February 1961, Chief Judge Ganey imposed sentence. He ordered heavy fines to be paid by all the corporations and forty-four executives. What was even more shocking and unprecedented, he sentenced seven executives to thirty days in jail, and twenty-one others to suspended prison sentences with five years’ probation at a time when the law deemed the crime to be only a misdemeanor with a maximum jail term of a year. It was reported that when the executives were serving their prison sentences at the Montgomery County Prison Farm, the President of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers sent each of them the game of Monopoly as a gift. Judge Ganey was elevated to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in August of 1961. He assumed senior status there on August 15, 1966. His service on the Court of Appeals was terminated on February 7, 1972, when he died in Philadelphia. * * * Biographical Materials 1. 2. 3. Memorial remarks concerning Judge J. Cullen Ganey by Lewis R. Long, Esq., at a session of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County held on October 23, 1972. Memorial remarks concerning Judge J. Cullen Ganey by Michael C. Schrader, Esq., at a session of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County held on October 23, 1972. Transcript of Memorial Service for Honorable J. Cullen Ganey on June 21, 1972 held by the Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
=== James P. McGranery ===
James P. McGranery Born: July 8, 1895, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: December 23, 1962, in Palm Beach, Florida Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Harry S. Truman on July 31, 1946, to a seat vacated by Harry E. Kalodner. Confirmed by the Senate on July 31, 1946, and received commission on August 7, 1946. Service terminated on May 26, 1952, due to resignation. Education: Temple University School of Law (now James E. Beasley School of Law), LL.B., 1928 Professional Career: U.S. Army Observation Pilot, Air Corps: 1917-1919 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1928-1937 U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania: 1937-1943 Assistant to the Attorney General of the United States: 1943-1946 Attorney General of the United States: 1952-1953 Private Practice, Washington, DC: 1954-1962 * * * Judicial Biography *In 1946, President Harry S. Truman chose James Patrick McGranery to fill the vacancy created by the move of Judge Kalodner to the Court of Appeals. Born in South Philadelphia in 1895, McGranery was an observation pilot in the First World War. He worked his way through Temple Law School and became active in Democratic politics in Philadelphia at a time when the party’s fortunes were at a low ebb. He was in private practice until he was elected to Congress from Philadelphia’s Second Congressional District as a New Deal Democrat in 1936. He remained a Representative until 1943 when President Roosevelt named him an Assistant Attorney General under Attorney General Francis Biddle, a fellow Philadelphian. McGranery helped to streamline the Department of Justice. In early 1946, President Truman awarded him the Medal of Merit in appreciation for his administration of the Selective Service Act. A few months later, the President elevated him to a federal district judgeship. In 1952, in the last months of his administration, Truman selected him to be the Attorney General. How that appointment came about in a phone call from President Truman to McGranery has been recounted by McGranery’s son: Truman: McGranery: Truman: Jim, I just fired McGrath and I want you to come to Washington to be the Attorney General. Boss [as he always called the President] I am flattered, but it’s a big decision and I’ll have to take some time and talk to Regina [McGranery’s wife] about it. I want you to take all the time that you and your wife require, but in 20 minutes I’m announcing that you’re my Attorney General! During McGranery’s short tenure as Attorney General, the United States filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in support of appellants who sought to overturn the “separate but equal” system of public schools in Brown v. Board of Education. McGranery was an active Roman Catholic layman. For his service to the Church, Pope Pius XII honored him as a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Gregory the Great. While still on the District Court bench, Judge McGranery confronted an unusual situation in a criminal case before him. Edward Turner, who had been indicted for sending obscene materials through the mails, had engaged Philadelphia Congressman Earl Chudoff as his attorney. Chudoff announced to Judge McGranery that his client would ask to plead not guilty “temporarily” while he, Chudoff, discussed the matter with the Postal Inspectors and the United States Attorney’s Office. Judge McGranery chided Chudoff, “Don’t you know that in your * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. position as a Congressman you are not permitted to do that?” Chudoff replied that he did not know that. The judge refused to take the plea. According to the judge, himself a former Congressman, it was a criminal offense for a Representative to discuss with any agency of the United States a matter for which he was being separately compensated. Chudoff countered by petitioning the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus or in the alternative for a writ of prohibition to permit him to appear and represent Turner. In the meantime, while the matter was pending in the appellate court, Turner, represented by Chudoff, entered a plea of guilty before Judge Welsh, also a former Congressman. The Court of Appeals thereupon dismissed the petition as moot without ruling on the merits. History does not record Judge McGranery’s reaction to this turn of events. The Eastern District faced several high profile cases in the 1950’s against the backdrop of the Cold War. One such case, involving Harry Gold, played out not only here but also in the Southern District of New York. Gold was born in Switzerland but grew up in a poor working class home in Philadelphia. After his graduation from South Philadelphia High School, he attended the University of Pennsylvania for several semesters and then took night courses in chemistry at Drexel Institute of Technology. He was employed at one point as a laboratory chemist for a local sugar company and later as a biochemist at the Philadelphia General Hospital. In 1935, he was recruited into a Soviet front company for industrial espionage and later became part of the Soviets’ atomic spy ring for which he was awarded the Red Star medal. As a result of disclosures made by the German-born, British Scientist Klaus Fuchs after his arrest as a Soviet spy, Gold was identified as the courier who carried information to an official at the Soviet embassy. Gold’s arrest in Philadelphia in May 1950 was the top news story that day throughout the United States. A banner headline in The Philadelphia Inquirer declared, “Chemist Arrested Here as Atomic Spy, Gave Fuchs' Stolen Secrets to Reds.” Thousands later gathered at the courthouse to obtain a brief look at the atomic spy. Once taken into custody, Gold was totally cooperative with the FBI and implicated Julius and Ethel Rosenberg who were later indicted and convicted in the Southern District of New York of conspiracy to commit espionage for transmitting to the Soviet Union documents related to the national defense of the United States. They were sentenced to death and executed. Gold was an unindicted co-conspirator in that case. He also faced his own indictment, which was originally filed in the Eastern District of New York but later transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Gold was charged with “conspiring, while the United States was at war, to communicate, deliver or transmit to a foreign government, to wit: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and representatives and agents thereof, documents, writings, etc., relating to the national defense, with intent or reason to· believe that it was to be used to the advantage of a foreign nation.” The case was assigned to Judge James McGranery. Gold, who was without economic resources, requested Judge McGranery to appoint an attorney to represent him. Those were the days before an impecunious criminal defendant had a constitutional right to have court-appointed counsel. Recognizing the gravity of the matter, the judge called on John D.M. Hamilton, a distinguished member of the Philadelphia Bar, to serve as Gold’s attorney. Hamilton agreed to the representation of this highly unpopular client although many of his law partners at Pepper, Bodine & Stokes were not particularly happy about it. At Hamilton’s urging, the judge also named Hamilton’s young associate Augustus Ballard to assist him. McGranery issued a statement about his appointment of counsel: Because of the gravity of the charge and its possible far reaching international implications, it behooves the court to appoint a lawyer whose patriotism would be above reproach, who has public confidence and the respect of the Court, and a deep understanding of the Anglo-Saxon principles as stated in our Constitution of every defendant having the right to be represented by counsel of his choice. With all these factors in mind, the Court could think of no one at the Philadelphia bar who more fittingly fits into that description than Mr. John D. M. Hamilton, who is a law partner of former Senator George Wharton Pepper, the dean of the Philadelphia bar. Mr. Hamilton has consulted with the defendant, Harry Gold, at my invitation and has agreed to accept this appointment of him as official counsel for Gold in the public interest, for which the court is grateful to Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton has suggested that I name, together with him, Mr. Augustus S. Ballard as associate counsel. Mr. Ballard is a young man at the bar in whom the Court has explicit confidence and I am delighted to name him as associate counsel as Mr. Hamilton has requested. Hamilton, a native of the Midwest, had been a friend of Governor Alf Landon of Kansas and the Chairman of the Republican National Committee in the mid-1950’s. He had become acquainted with George Wharton Pepper at this time and had later joined his law firm in Philadelphia. While Hamilton and Ballard were prepared to assist Gold in presenting a vigorous defense, he decided to make a full confession and plead guilty. Gold, however, made it clear he would never enter a plea of guilty to any indictment charging him with intending to injure the United States, and he was not charged with any such crime. Assuring himself that Gold had not been coerced and that his confession was voluntary, Judge McGranery accepted his guilty plea in July 1950. The Government sought a sentencing delay until early in 1951 to allow for additional investigations to occur, but Judge McGranery, after stating he had spoken to FBI Director Herbert Hoover about any need for additional time, refused to postpone the matter that long. Whether by accident or design, he scheduled the sentencing for December 7, 1950, the ninth anniversary of the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor. At the hearing, in a packed courtroom at Ninth and Market Streets, United States Attorney Gerald Gleeson described Gold’s life as a spy and his role in passing valuable information to the Russians. The FBI agent in charge of the case also testified. Hamilton’s turn was next. He made an extensive argument on Gold’s behalf which McGranery characterized as “one of the most brilliant” he had ever heard. In response to the Court’s inquiry, Gleeson recommended a twenty-five-year sentence as a fit punishment for Gold’s nefarious crime. At that point, McGranery announced he wanted to reflect on the matter and would reconvene the hearing on Saturday morning, December 9. Gold himself addressed the Court at that weekend session. He ended his allocution with these words: “I have tried to make the greatest possible amends by disclosing every phase of my espionage activities, by identifying all of the persons involved, and by revealing every last scrap, shred, and particle of evidence.” After noting he had considered the “cogent and analytical statement” of Hamilton, Judge McGranery rejected the Government’s recommendation for a twenty-five-year sentence and instead imposed a sentence of thirty years “to deter others in the future from the commission of similar offenses.” Gold thereafter testified as a Government witness at the Rosenberg trial in New York and was then incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, where he was a model prisoner. He was paroled in May 1966, with the help of Hamilton and Ballard after serving fifteen years of his sentence. Ballard was present to meet him at Lewisburg when he was released. Gold died in Philadelphia in 1972 out of the public eye during an unsuccessful heart operation. Neither Hamilton nor Ballard ever received a penny for representing him. Judge McGranery resigned from the Court on May 26, 1952 to serve as Attorney General of the United States, where he served from 1952 to 1953. Following his service as Attorney General, he returned to the private practice of law. He passed away on December 23, 1962 in Palm Beach, Florida.
=== Frederick V. Follmer ===
Frederick V. Follmer Born: December 13, 1885, in Milton, Pennsylvania Died: May 3, 1971, in Milton, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Harry S. Truman on July 31, 1946, to a new seat authorized by 60 Stat. 654. Confirmed by the Senate on July 31, 1946, and received commission on August 7, 1946. Service terminated on June 1, 1955, due to reassignment. Judge, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Harry S. Truman on July 31, 1946, to a new seat authorized by 60 Stat. 654. Confirmed by the Senate on July 31, 1946, and received commission on August 7, 1946. Service terminated on June 1, 1955, due to reassignment. Judge, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Harry S. Truman on July 31, 1946, to a new seat authorized by 60 Stat. 654. Confirmed by the Senate on July 31, 1946, and received commission on August 7, 1946. Served as chief judge, 1962. Assumed senior status on December 30, 1967. Service terminated on May 3, 1971, due to death. Education: Bucknell University, A.B., 1906 Harvard Law School, LL.B., 1909 Professional Career: Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1910-1935 Assistant District Attorney, Northumberland County, Pennsylvania: 1911-1914 U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania: 1935-1946 Miscellaneous Information: The act of July 24, 1946, 60 Stat. 654, authorized one judgeship to serve the Eastern, Middle and Western Districts of Pennsylvania. The act of February 10, 1954, 68 Stat. 8, assigned this judgeship to the Middle District of Pennsylvania exclusively. * * * Judicial Biography *In April 1945, just as World War II was nearing an end, President Roosevelt died, and Vice-President Harry S. Truman succeeded him. During his time in office, Truman named three judges to this Court plus an additional judge who was initially designated to sit in the Eastern, Middle and Western Districts of Pennsylvania. President Truman first selected Frederick Voris Follmer, the eleven-year United States Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to the newly created “floating” judgeship encompassing all three districts within the borders of the Commonwealth. A native of Northumberland County, he was graduated from Bucknell University and Harvard Law School. In 1955, he opted to sit exclusively in the Middle District where he later served as Chief Judge from 1962 to 1967. Judge Follmer assumed senior status on December 30, 1967 in the Middle District. His service there terminated on May 3, 1972 to due his death in Milton, Pennsylvania, at the age of 85. * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press.
=== Thomas J. Clary ===
Thomas J. Clary Born: August 31, 1899, in Seneca Falls, New York Died: August 1, 1977, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Received a recess appointment from Harry S. Truman on October 21, 1949, to a new seat authorized by 63 Stat. 493; nominated to the same position by Harry S. Truman on January 5, 1950. Confirmed by the Senate on March 8, 1950, and received commission on March 9, 1950. Served as chief judge, 1961-1969. Assumed senior status on March 1, 1969. Service terminated on August 1, 1977, due to death. Education: Cornell University, A.B., 1920 Georgetown College Law School (now Georgetown University Law Center), LL.B., 1924 Professional Career: Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1924-1949 Member, Judicial Conference of the United States: 1966-1968 Other Nominations/Recess Appointments: Nominated to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, October 15, 1949; no Senate vote. * * * Judicial Biography *In 1949, President Harry S. Truman nominated Thomas J. Clary, who had been active for years in Democratic politics in the 22nd Ward in Philadelphia, to fill a new seat on the Court. born in Seneca Falls, New York in 1899, he earned his undergraduate degree from Cornell University and his law degree from Georgetown University. Following his defeat in 1941 for a judgeship on the Court of Common Pleas in then Republican-dominated Philadelphia, he worked as an Assistant United States Attorney from 1944 until he resigned in 1947 to run unsuccessfully for Philadelphia District Attorney. Richardson Dilworth, who headed the Democratic ticket that year as his party’s candidate for Mayor, was also beaten. Clary was a founder of the Lawyers’ Reference Service of the Philadelphia Bar Association. While he was “a very dour looking man with a perpetual frown,” he was actually “a very soft guy at heart” who was “a very lenient sentencer.” He was “firm, at times rough, but always fair.” His portrait is among those hanging in the Ceremonial Courtroom of the present courthouse. It is distinct from all the others. As he wished, it starkly portrays the loneliness of one who has responsibility for sitting in judgment in a court of law. Cases involving the draft and the Selective Service Act continued to appear on the Court’s docket after the close of World War II. One such action evidenced the early stirring of the civil rights movement in Philadelphia. In 1948, DeVreaux Tomlinson, an African-American, refused to present himself for a physical examination after being directed to do so by his draft board. Thereafter, he was ordered to appear for induction and again refused to comply. He was part of a group of 692 African-Americans and White Americans who had collectively advised the Secretary of Defense and all the Philadelphia Draft Boards that they would not report for induction if they were assigned to segregated military installations. Tomlinson’s draft board advised him that it had no jurisdiction over his duty station after he was inducted. Tomlinson was indicted and found guilty by a jury for failing to appear for induction. In his post-trial motions, he contended that the notice of induction violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. Judge Clary denied the motions. He explained that the draft board had no control over where and under what conditions an inductee serves in the military and that it would be mere speculation for the Court to make any such determination. At this juncture, the issue of discrimination was hypothetical. Judge Clary cited the well-established principle that courts will determine constitutional questions “only on specific and concrete problems presented in the facts of a particular case.” In the background was President Truman’s Executive Order to desegregate the military which was still in the process of implementation when the Tomlinson trial took place in January 1950. Although Judge Clary did not mention the Order, Truman had issued it shortly before the November 1948 election. It provided: “There will be equality of treatment and opportunity for * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. all persons in the armed forces.” The President directed it to be “put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.” By 1951, segregation in this sphere of American life had virtually disappeared. It was at this point that Tomlinson appeared before Judge Clary for sentencing. On January 18, 1951, shortly after filing his opinion denying Tomlinson’s post-trial motions, Judge Clary suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation “to terminate upon [his] induction into the Armed Forces of the United States.” Tomlinson apparently was now prepared to serve as separation of the races in the military had become a thing of the past. In late 1968, in a case originally before Judge Clary, the Court of Appeals sitting en banc, overturned prior precedent with its ruling that the practice of manufacturing diversity with non- resident plaintiffs was forbidden under a federal statute which states that “a district court shall not have jurisdiction in which a party has been improperly or collusively . . . joined to invoke the jurisdiction of such court.” Thus, the citizenship of the child or incompetent who was injured or the person who had died would now be determinative. Henceforth, the name of the omnipresent Stella McSparran was seen no more on the caption of newly filed complaints. The Court was still using the time-honored master calendar system in the 1960’s. Under it, each judge was scheduled for certain weeks of the year for criminal trials, civil trials, discovery and other pretrial motions, settlement conferences, and time in chambers. The trial periods for each judge did not usually extend more than two or three weeks at a time. The same judge would not be responsible for a case from beginning to end. Instead, one judge might decide a discovery dispute or a motion to suppress evidence, another the motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, still another would preside over any settlement conference, and finally a different judge would try the case, depending on when a particular event in the life of a case occurred and what judge happened to be assigned to deal with such matters. There was no overarching scheduling order setting deadlines for the various phases of a case, and cases sometimes languished for want of judicial oversight. In the late 1960’s, the Federal Judicial Center persuaded Chief Judge Clary to experiment with an individual calendar system for both criminal and civil cases. In contrast to the then current practice, the proposed system called for a case to be assigned to a judge at random when it was first filed with that same judge presiding over the matter for all purposes until its conclusion. The judge would set deadlines, resolve all motions, have responsibility for case management, and try the case if necessary. Those advocating this change argued that cases would move toward trial and be resolved much more expeditiously than under the master calendar system. Two of the newer judges, John Fullam and Charles Weiner, agreed to participate in a pilot program. In due course, it was apparent that efficiency and backlog reduction were the clear result. Making the conversion applicable to all judges, however, was hotly contested. By the time the matter was ripe for decision, John Lord had succeeded Thomas Clary as Chief Judge. Following a vigorous discussion at a judges’ meeting on June 25, 1969, in Courtroom #11 in the Courthouse at Ninth and Market Streets, Chief Judge John Lord cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of a court-wide individual calendar system. It took effect on January 1, 1970. As a result, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania became one of the first of the District Courts throughout the country to make this monumental shift. It remains in effect today and constitutes one of the most important administrative reforms in the history of the Court. In the 1960’s, Chief Judge Clary initiated the custom of a weekly judges’ luncheon at the dining room of Gimbels or Strawbridge & Clothier, two nearby department stores. Court business was often transacted. A judges’ dining room was designated in the present courthouse in Philadelphia when it was constructed in the mid-1970’s so that what was a weekly occasion off-site became a more convenient everyday event for those who wished to participate. The room contains a long table where judges eat their lunches purchased from the courthouse cafeteria or bought elsewhere. The conversation which takes place is always lively and spontaneous. It varies from day to day and even minute to minute. The dialogue ranges from current or historical events to sports to light banter to fond remembrances of departed colleagues to repetition of often-told stories. Sometimes the talk turns to legal subjects such as recent Supreme Court or Court of Appeals decisions or to a knotty issue that a judge faces or some noteworthy encounter that may have occurred that morning in the courtroom. At other times, of course, the main happening is the celebration of a judge’s birthday. One thing that is not done at lunch is the transaction of Court business. Above all, the noontime repast in the judges’ dining room for those in attendance is a welcomed interlude for fellowship and relaxation during the busy day. Indeed, it is the catalyst for a collegial Court. Judge Clary passed away on August 1, 1977 in Philadelphia, at the age of 78. * * * Biographical Materials 1. Biographical information.
=== Allan K. Grim ===
Allan K. Grim Born: October 15, 1904, in Kutztown, Pennsylvania Died: December 7, 1965, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Received a recess appointment from Harry S. Truman on October 21, 1949, to a new seat authorized by 63 Stat. 493; nominated to the same position by Harry S. Truman on January 5, 1950. Confirmed by the Senate on April 4, 1950, and received commission on April 7, 1950. Assumed senior status due to certified disability on November 1, 1961. Service terminated on December 7, 1965, due to death. Education: Swarthmore College, A.B., 1924 Harvard Law School, LL.B., 1929 Professional Career: Private Practice, Reading, Pennsylvania: 1929-1949 Chairman, Berks County (Pennsylvania) Democratic Party Committee: 1940-1944 Other Nominations/Recess Appointments: Nominated to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, October 15, 1949; no Senate vote. * * * Judicial Biography *In 1950, President Harry S. Truman appointed Allan K. Grim, who was born in 1904 in Kutztown, Berks County. He was a graduate of Swarthmore College and Harvard Law School. Upon being confirmed to the bench, he wrote President Truman, “It has always seemed to me that a district court judgeship is about the finest position to which a lawyer can aspire. Naturally, my feeling of gratitude is very great. I hope that I shall fill the position so well that I will be a credit to you and the Democratic Party.” By the 1950’s, television was augmenting, if not superseding, radio as the medium for entertainment. At this time, the Government filed an antitrust action in the Eastern District in which it contended that the contract between the National Football League and its teams restricting television broadcasting of certain games was an illegal restraint of trade in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. Defendants raised the argument that football was not interstate commerce so as to subject it to the antitrust laws. Judge Grim decided that even if defendants were correct about the game of football, restrictions on television broadcasting constituted interstate commerce. Quoting a Supreme Court precedent, he wrote, “If it is interstate commerce that feels the pinch, it does not matter how local the operation which applies the squeeze.” He further explained that all contracts in restraint of trade are not illegal, only those that unreasonably restrain trade. In the end, Judge Grim, with one exception, threw out all limitations imposed by the National Football League on the televising of games. He left in place only the prohibition against the televising of out-of- territory games into the territory of a team that was playing a game at home at that same time. He explained that that narrow exception protected weaker teams against the simultaneous broadcasting of games of superior teams. The rights of prisoners were also beginning to be litigated in the federal courts in the 1960’s. One early case involved Richard J. Mayberry, who had been convicted in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas of armed robbery of a dry cleaning establishment and sentenced to state prison. In order to aid him with his appeals, Mayberry bought a copy of the Rules of the Supreme and Superior Courts of Pennsylvania. After the prison authorities confiscated these materials as contraband, he brought a civil rights action in this Court. Judge Grim ruled in Mayberry’s favor. The judge wrote that reasonable access to the court is guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the right at least included reasonable access to the Rules of Procedure. As events turned out, Mayberry would have extensive need of the Rules and other law-related tomes. In the ensuing years, Mayberry became a notorious figure in the courts of the Commonwealth. He was convicted of prison breach and holding hostages in a state penal institution in Western Pennsylvania. At his trial in the Common Pleas Court of Allegheny * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. County, while representing himself, he continually insulted the judge and at times had to be gagged and removed from the courtroom because of his disruptive behavior. The judge sentenced him to eleven years to twenty-two years for criminal contempt, in addition to his lengthy sentences on the underlying charges. His case ended up in the United States Supreme Court, which vacated his contempt sentence and remanded for further proceedings. In another instance, he was convicted of perjury in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. At that trial, again representing himself, he acted in a contumacious and insulting manner, which included hurling a book at Judge Leo Weinrott. His five-year sentence for contempt was upheld by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In addition to his activity in the state criminal courts, he litigated in the federal courts the issue of his state prison conditions. Judge Grim was the first resident from Berks County appointed to serve as a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He was recommended by United States Senators Francis J. Myers, a Democrat and Edward Martin, a Republican. When he took his seat on the bench, he joined six other judges, for a total of seven members at that time on the Eastern District bench. Judge Grim was born in Maxatawny Township, Kutztown, on October 15, 1904, the second child of five children of Dr. James S. Grim, the head of the science department for more than 45 years at Kutztown University, and Nettie Kuhn Grim, a graduate of Wilson College and a native of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. He attended and graduated from Keystone Normal School in 1921 at the age of 16, and went on to study at Swarthmore College where he played on the lacrosse team and was a member of the Delta Upsilon Fraternity. After graduating from college, he taught for two years at the Douglas and Weiser Junior High School, now known as Northwestern Junior High School in Reading. He practiced in Reading, Berks County, being admitted to the Berks County Bar in September 1929. He joined the Reading firm of Stevens & Lee. As a young partner at Stevens & Lee, he became active in Democratic party politics in Reading and served as solicitor to a number of local municipalities. He became Chairman of the Berks County Democratic party in 1940, a position which gave him the opportunity to become a delegate to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s presidential nominating convention that same year in Chicago. He attended the presidential nominating convention again as a delegate in 1944 and at that time met FDR’s vice presidential nominee, Harry S. Truman. After the death of President Roosevelt, he was a delegate to the 1948 convention that nominated Truman for the presidency. Truman later remembered Grim, and appointed him to one of the two new vacancies created by congressional legislation of 1949 expanding the Eastern District of Pennsylvania bench from five members to seven members. Judge Grim assumed senior status due to a certified medical disability on November 1, 1961. He died at the age of 61 on December 7, 1965 while walking in downtown Philadelphia. He was married to Ruth S. Ackerman, a school teacher and daughter of the superintendent of schools of Bangor, Northampton County. She passed away in 2009. They had five children: Dr. James S. Grim, Allan K. Grim, Jr., Esq., Robert P. Grim, Esq., George L. Grim and Dr. Virginia Susan Grim.
=== John W. Lord, Jr. ===
John W. Lord, Jr. Born: December 19, 1901, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: May 16, 1972, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Dwight D. Eisenhower on March 29, 1954, to a seat vacated by James P. McGranery. Confirmed by the Senate on May 18, 1954, and received commission on May 20, 1954. Served as chief judge, 1969-1971. Assumed senior status on December 19, 1971. Service terminated on May 16, 1972, due to death. Education: Temple University School of Law (now James E. Beasley School of Law), LL.B., 1928 Professional Career: Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1928-1954 Professor of Law, Temple University: 1938-1954 Deputy Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: 1939-1946 State Senator, Pennsylvania: 1947-1951 City Councilman, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1952-1954 * * * Judicial Biography *In January 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower, the victorious World War II General, became the first Republican President in twenty years and held office for two terms. The appointment of a number of Republican judges to the Eastern District was on the horizon. President Eisenhower’s first nomination came about in 1954 when he selected John Whitaker Lord, Jr., to fill the seat previously held by Judge McGranery, who had resigned in 1952 to become President Truman’s Attorney General. Lord was supported by Senator Edward Martin, who had recently won re-election by defeating Guy Bard. In less than two months after his name was submitted to the Senate, Lord was confirmed and sitting as a judge. He was an extremely affable individual and during his years on the bench was well-known for his accommodation of lawyers. Born in 1901 and a native of the Germantown section of Philadelphia, Lord was graduated from Temple Law School in 1928. Thereafter he became a partner at what is now known as White & Williams and taught part-time at his alma mater. He was also active in Republican politics. For a number of years, he held the position of Deputy State Attorney General. He won election as a state senator from the Northwest section of Philadelphia in 1946 but was unsuccessful in his bid for a second term in 1950 as the city was becoming increasingly more Democratic. In the spring of 1951, the voters of Philadelphia adopted a new Home Rule Charter which guaranteed two of the seven at-large seats on City Council to the minority party. Lord was elected in the fall as one of the two Republican councilmen at-large as the reformed Democratic ticket was being swept in office. Joseph S. Clark became the first Democratic mayor in sixty- seven years, and Richardson Dilworth won as the District Attorney. Throughout his political career, Lord was greatly aided by his dynamic wife Lilias who was a leader in Republican women’s circles and whose trademark was her large hats. In the late 1960’s, the Federal Judicial Center persuaded the Court to experiment with an individual calendar system for both criminal and civil cases. In contrast to the then current practice, the proposed system called for a case to be assigned to a judge at random when it was first filed with that same judge presiding over the matter for all purposes until its conclusion. The judge would set deadlines, resolve all motions, have responsibility for case management, and try the case if necessary. Those advocating this change argued that cases would move toward trial and be resolved much more expeditiously than under the master calendar system. Two of the newer judges, John Fullam and Charles Weiner, agreed to participate in a pilot program. In due course, it was apparent that efficiency and backlog reduction were the clear result. * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. Making the conversion applicable to all judges, however, was hotly contested. By the time the matter was ripe for decision, John Lord had succeeded Thomas Clary as Chief Judge. Following a vigorous discussion at a judges’ meeting on June 25, 1969, in Courtroom #11 in the Courthouse at Ninth and Market Streets, Chief Judge John Lord cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of a court-wide individual calendar system. It took effect on January 1, 1970. As a result, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania became one of the first of the District Courts throughout the country to make this monumental shift. It remains in effect today and constitutes one of the most important administrative reforms in the history of the Court. Judge Lord served as Chief Judge from 1969 to 1971, and assumed senior status on December 19, 1971. He served in that capacity until his death on May 16, 1972 at the age of 70, while attending a Temple Law School alumni dinner in Philadelphia.
=== Francis L.Van Dusen ===
Francis L. Van Dusen Born: May 16, 1912, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: May 26, 1993, in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Dwight D. Eisenhower on May 20, 1955, to a seat vacated by Guy K. Bard. Confirmed by the Senate on July 29, 1955, and received commission on August 1, 1955. Service terminated on June 27, 1967, due to appointment to another judicial position. Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Nominated by Lyndon B. Johnson on January 16, 1967, to a seat vacated by James Cullen Ganey. Confirmed by the Senate on June 12, 1967, and received commission on June 12, 1967. Assumed senior status on May 16, 1977. Service terminated on May 26, 1993, due to death. Education: Princeton University, A.B., 1934 Harvard Law School, LL.B., 1937 Professional Career: Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1937-1941; 1945-1955 Attorney, Office of Administrator of Export Control: 1941 Senior Attorney, Office of Production Management: 1941-1942 Senior Attorney, War Production Board: 1942 U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander: 1942-1945 Other Nominations/Recess Appointments: Nominated to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, March 29, 1954; no Senate vote. * * * Judicial Biography *At the same time as John W. Lord, Jr. was nominated, President Eisenhower also chose Francis Lund Van Dusen of Montgomery County, a Republican, to succeed Judge Bard, who as previously noted had resigned in 1952 to run for the United States Senate. Van Dusen came from a family of prominent attorneys. His father Lewis H. Van Dusen had presided as the President Judge of the Orphans’ Court of Philadelphia County, and his brother Lewis was a leading lawyer in the City who served a year as Chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association. After Francis Van Dusen was graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Law School, he practiced law in Philadelphia before heading to Washington to work for a variety of war-related boards. During World War II, he became a naval officer. He had returned to his law firm, then known as Barnes, Dechert, Price, Myers, and Rhoads, when he was nominated for the District Court. Van Dusen’s confirmation did not move nearly as quickly or easily as that of John Lord. In fact, it was delayed until mid-1955, more than a year after he was first nominated. While Van Dusen’s chief backers were Congressman Hugh Scott of Philadelphia and the American Bar Association, initially he did not have the endorsement of Lloyd Wood, the Montgomery County Republican Chairman and former Lieutenant Governor, or more importantly, the critical support of Senator Martin and Senator James Duff. Not until Martin finally withdrew his opposition was Van Dusen confirmed. Once on the bench, Judge Van Dusen and Judge C. William Kraft, Jr., with the approval of Chief Judge Kirkpatrick, totally revised the Court’s local rules which had not been updated since 1913. Judge Van Dusen presided over a precedent-setting case involving the issue of venue, that is, the proper district where a lawsuit is to be heard. On October 4, 1960, an Eastern Airlines plane on a flight from Boston to Philadelphia crashed into Boston Harbor shortly after take-off from Logan Airport. Over 150 passengers were killed or injured. Fifty-five diversity cases were brought in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania while others were instituted in the District of Massachusetts. The defendants moved to transfer to the federal court in Massachusetts the cases filed here under the widely used federal change-of-venue statute. Judge Van Dusen granted the motion as to the wrongful death cases “for the convenience of parties and * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. witnesses, in the interest of justice.” Since the decision was not immediately appealable, the plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus or prohibition against Judge Van Dusen in the Court of Appeals to compel him to vacate his order. Underlying this heated legal struggle over the location of the trials was a much more consequential practical issue. Massachusetts law at the time capped the damages in a wrongful death action at $20,000 while Pennsylvania law had no such arbitrary limitation. The Court of Appeals held that Judge Van Dusen had erred in transferring these cases. The Supreme Court thereupon granted the defendants’ petition for a writ of certiorari. The high Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded to the District Court for further consideration in light of its construction of the venue statute. This, however, was not the most noteworthy aspect of its decision. In this case known as Van Dusen v. Barrack, the Supreme Court ruled that even if the cases were ultimately transferred, the substantive law of the state of the transferor court, here the law of Pennsylvania with no cap on damages, would be applicable rather than that of Massachusetts. This decision had broad ramifications, for now the law of the state where any diversity action was originally filed would apply even if a change of venue was later granted. In 1967, he was appointed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals by President Lyndon B. Johnson. He assumed senior status on May 16, 1977, and retired from the Appeals Court in 1990. He died at his home in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania on May 26, 1993, at the age of 81.
=== C. William Kraft, Jr. ===
C. William Kraft, Jr. Born: December 14, 1903, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: January 18, 2002, in Key Biscayne, Florida Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Received a recess appointment from Dwight D. Eisenhower on August 12, 1955, to a new seat authorized by 68 Stat. 8; nominated to the same position by Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 12, 1956. Confirmed by the Senate on March 28, 1956, and received commission on March 29,1956. Assumed senior status on November 11, 1970. Service terminated on January 18, 2002, due to death. Education: University of Pennsylvania, A.B., 1924 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), LL.B., 1927 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), J.D., 1930 Professional Career: Private Practice, Media, Pennsylvania: 1927-1955 District Attorney, Delaware County, Pennsylvania: 1944-1952 Other Nominations/Recess Appointments: Nominated to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, May 20, 1955; no Senate vote. * * * Judicial Biography *Eisenhower’s third appointment went to C. William Kraft, Jr., of Delaware County to fill a new judgeship Congress had created for the Eastern District. He was given a recess appointment in August 1955, and was confirmed in March 1956. Kraft was born in the Brewerytown neighborhood of Philadelphia in 1903, but his family moved to Delaware County when he was five. He received both his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Pennsylvania. His leadership ability and political skills developed early in life. At the age of seventeen, while he held a summer job as a marble setter’s helper, he was elected vice president of the local union to which the marble setters belonged. At the age of twenty-one, having already become involved in Republican politics, he was elected a councilman in the Borough of Clifton Heights where he served two terms. Kraft was engaged for ten years as an assistant district attorney. He moved on to higher office as Delaware County’s District Attorney from 1944 to 1952 and then returned to full time private practice. Senator James H. Duff recommended him to President Eisenhower for the position of United States Attorney when the President first took office. Upon consulting with Gerald Gleeson, a former United States Attorney, Kraft decided he would not enjoy having to deal with the bureaucrats in Washington. He also had misgivings about the pay cut he would suffer if he left his law practice. Consequently, he declined the offer. Several years later, he was approached about accepting a federal judgeship. He agreed to do so only after a candidate supported by Senator Edward Martin and a different candidate supported by Senator Duff both failed to make it through the evaluation process and after being assured that Congress was about to enact a substantial pay raise for judges. Once on the bench, he and Judge Van Dusen, with the approval of Chief Judge Kirkpatrick, totally revised the Court’s local rules which had not been updated since 1913. Judge Kraft also had strong views about opinion writing. In an interview long after he had retired, he reiterated the importance of “very short, well-reasoned opinions,” and stressed “the shortness thereof I would commend to the attention of many of the judiciary today whose inclination toward verbosity seems at times to be getting a bit out of hand.” By common consent, he was considered one of the best trial judges ever to sit on the Court. In 1961, Fortune magazine carried an article entitled “The Crisis in the Courts.” It painted a gloomy picture primarily of state courts because of their large backlog of untried civil cases, their lack of innovation, and their judges who were the product of machine politics and not merit selection. It also mentioned one federal court (not the Eastern District) which had had a huge backlog until decisive action was taken by an out-of-district judge appointed to deal with the situation. Yet, the article noted signs for optimism. It singled out six federal and six state * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. judges for praise, calling them “a Blue-ribbon jury of American judges.” Included in this illustrious group was Judge Kraft about whom it was stated, “C. William Kraft, fifty-seven, ex- district attorney, rated a political appointee in 1955, has won the Philadelphia bar’s respect for cutting through complex cases.” During the 1950’s, as had occurred in the 1940’s and would continue into the 1960’s, there was continual antitrust litigation in this District over control, distribution, and bookings for theatrical productions and movies in theatres in Philadelphia. Goldlawr, Inc., controlled by magnate William Goldman, was in the general theatrical and amusement business including the presentation of legitimate attractions and motion pictures. In 1956 and 1957, it sued a number of entities and individuals alleging conspiracy in restraint of trade. Judge Kraft presided over the cases for more than ten years. While the defendants ultimately conceded that they had maintained monopolistic control of the legitimate theater business at one time, Judge Kraft found, after a non-jury trial, that it had ended years before in 1950. He entered judgment for the defendants. In a case involving the First Amendment, Edward Schempp and his wife Sidney Schempp, who were Unitarians, sued the School District of Abington Township, Montgomery County where their children attended school. They sought to enjoin as unconstitutional the daily reading of ten verses of the Bible by a teacher or student as required by Pennsylvania law. The case was heard by a three-judge panel consisting of District Judges Kirkpatrick and Kraft and Circuit Court Chief Judge John Biggs. At that time, the law mandated that two District Judges and one Circuit Judge preside over an action where the constitutionality of a state statute was challenged. The Court unanimously agreed that the statute violated both the Establishment of Religion Clause and the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment as applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. As Chief Judge Biggs stated in the Court’s opinion, “Whether or not mere reading of the Bible, without comment, is a religious ceremony, a state supported practice of daily reading from that essentially religious text in the public schools is, we believe, within the proscription of the First Amendment.” Pennsylvania, however, did not give up easily. The General Assembly proceeded to amend the law. It continued to require that ten verses of the Bible be read daily without comment but now allowed any student to be excused from attending Bible readings upon the written request of a parent or guardian. After further legal maneuvering by the parties, the three judges unanimously struck down the amended statute on the ground that it too violated the constitutional prohibition against the establishment of religion. The Court reasoned: The fact that some pupils, or theoretically all pupils, might be excused from attendance at the exercises does not mitigate the obligatory nature of the ceremony for the ‘new’ [statute], as did the statute prior to its 1959 amendment, unequivocally requires the exercises to be held every school day in every school in the Commonwealth. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. On June 17, 1963, the same day the Supreme Court decided United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, it handed down its ruling affirming the District Court. In the words of Justice Tom Clark: The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality. Though the application of that rule requires interpretation of a delicate sort, the rule itself is clearly and concisely stated in the words of the First Amendment. From that point forward, Bible reading in the public schools of the Commonwealth was a thing of the past. But in the process, as often happens in controversial cases, the Court in Philadelphia received a plethora of hate mail. Incongruously, some of those who professed to favor the nurturing of school children with a message from the Scriptures filled their correspondence with obscenities. The Pennsylvania Railroad and the Reading Company, as previously noted, were two venerable institutions headquartered in Philadelphia. The Pennsylvania Railroad, incorporated by special Act of the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 1846, ultimately became one of the largest privately owned railroads and one of the most powerful corporations in the United States. Its passenger and freight lines ran from Boston to Washington and as far west as Chicago and St. Louis. It also operated six commuter lines ridden by thousands each day into its Suburban Station in downtown Philadelphia. The Pennsylvania Railroad was so much a part of the life of the Philadelphia region that the Western Suburbs were called the “Main Line” because of the railroad’s main track line to Pittsburgh and Chicago that intersected the area. The glory of the railroad can still be seen in its 30th Street Station in Philadelphia which was completed just before the onslaught of the Great Depression. The Reading Company was a much smaller railroad centered in eastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey, but it too in its heyday was formidable. At the beginning of the twentieth Century, its President, George F. Baer, a confidant of J.P. Morgan, made headlines as a vocal opponent of the United Mine Workers Union and of the efforts of President Theodore Roosevelt to settle a 1902 strike on terms favorable to the coal miners. The Reading’s main source of revenue came from the transportation of coal from the anthracite region of northeastern Pennsylvania into Philadelphia. It also had six important commuter lines reaching from the Philadelphia suburbs into the landmark Reading Terminal with its expansive train shed at Twelfth and Market Streets where the railroad had its main offices. By the 1970’s, the golden era of the railroads had come to an end. In an effort to solve their financial woes, the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central Railroad Company had merged in 1968 to form the Penn Central Transportation Company with over 20,000 miles of track in sixteen states, two Canadian provinces, and the District of Columbia, close to $7 billion in assets, and more than 100,000 employees. This merger, however, did not bring about the profits and cost savings for which the two railroads had hoped. By late June 1970, in the words of a Penn Central spokesman, it was suffering “a severe cash squeeze” and was “unable to acquire from any source additional working capital.” The unthinkable happened on Sunday, June 21, 1970. The railroad’s law firm, Dechert Price & Rhoads, had drafted a petition to place the Penn Central in reorganization under the Bankruptcy Act. Judge Hannum, the emergency judge that weekend, was alerted but deferred to his colleague Judge Kraft. After approval of the Penn Central’s Board of Directors at an emergency meeting that Sunday afternoon, H. Francis De Lone, a partner at the Dechert firm, and Lawrence Turner, a Dechert associate, rushed the petition to Judge Kraft at his farm in Edgmont, Delaware County, where Kraft signed the fateful Order placing the railroad in reorganization at 5:40 p.m. During the 1970’s and 1980’s, the Court had several Chief Judges. John Lord stepped down on his seventieth birthday in December 1971, after two years in that position. He died shortly thereafter in May 1972. Judge Kraft would have been next in line to succeed him, but in 1970 had taken senior status. He soon began to spend most of his time in Key Biscayne and heard cases in the Southern District of Florida for a number of years. Judge Kraft aptly observed years ago, a judge is “a mortal charged with tremendous responsibilities. You’re dealing with other people’s rights, not your own. . . .” Judge Kraft assumed senior status on November 11, 1970. He served in that capacity until his death on January 18, 2002 in Key Biscayne, Florida, at the age of 98.
=== Thomas C. Egan ===
Thomas C. Egan Born: July 15, 1894, in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania Died: July 6, 1961, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Dwight D. Eisenhower on August 7, 1957, to a seat vacated by George A. Welsh. Confirmed by the Senate on August 22, 1957, and received commission on August 26, 1957. Service terminated on July 6, 1961, due to death. Education: Georgetown College (now Georgetown University), A.B., 1917 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), LL.B., 1923 Professional Career: Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania * * * Judicial Biography *In 1957 after Judge Welsh took senior status, President Eisenhower chose Thomas C. Egan of Philadelphia, a stalwart organization Republican, to take his place. He was easily confirmed. Born in Shenandoah, Schuylkill County in 1894, he was graduated from Georgetown University in 1917 and thereafter from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. In between, * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. he served in the Army during World War I. Governor Gifford Pinchot appointed him to the Pennsylvania Public Service Commission in 1934, and Governor John Fine named him to its successor, the Public Utility Commission in 1953. He also was a member and later Chairman of the Philadelphia Gas Commission. On July 6, 1961, Egan collapsed with a stroke in the courtroom as he was leaving the bench after imposing a sentence on a conscientious objector who had refused alternative service. He died at age 66 hours later, after less than four years as a federal judge.
=== Harold K. Wood ===
Harold K. Wood Born: March 21, 1906, in Mount Vernon, New York Died: December 17, 1972, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Dwight D. Eisenhower on March 2, 1959, to a seat vacated by William H. Kirkpatrick. Confirmed by the Senate on September 9, 1959, and received commission on September 10, 1959. Assumed senior status due to certified disability on June 24, 1971. Service terminated on December 17, 1972, due to death. Education: Colgate University, A.B., 1927 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), LL.B., 1934 Professional Career: Tax Examiner, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: 1940-1941 Assistant District Attorney, Chester County, Pennsylvania: 1942-1945 Legal Counsel, Selective Service System: 1941-1945 Private Practice, Pennsylvania: 1946-1957 U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 1957-1959 * * * Judicial Biography *President Eisenhower’s final nominee was Harold K. Wood of Chester County who succeeded Chief Judge Kirkpatrick when he became a senior judge. After obtaining his undergraduate degree from Colgate University, he came to Philadelphia to attend the University of Pennsylvania Law School. He then worked as an Assistant District Attorney in Chester County and as legal counsel for the Selective Service System during World War II. Subsequently, he was in private practice until the President named him as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 1957. He moved from that post to his federal judgeship in 1959. Judge Wood died in Philadelphia on December 17, 1972 at the age of 66. * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press.
=== Joseph S. Lord, III ===
Joseph S. Lord, III Born: May 21, 1912, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: April 23, 1991, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by John F. Kennedy on August 31, 1961, to a new seat authorized by 75 Stat. 80. Confirmed by the Senate on September 14, 1961, and received commission on September 15, 1961. Served as chief judge, 1971-1982. Assumed senior status on July 1, 1982. Service terminated on April 23, 1991, due to death. Education: University of Pennsylvania, A.B., 1933 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), LL.B., 1936 Professional Career: Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1936-1961 U.S. Navy: 1942-1945 U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 1961 Member, U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: 1968-1978 * * * Judicial Biography *President John F. Kennedy, in his initial year in office, named three new judges. The first was Joseph S. Lord III. Born in 1912 in Philadelphia, he received his undergraduate degree from the University of Pennsylvania where he captained the boxing team and later earned his law degree from the same institution. At the time, his uncle, Charles A. Waters, was a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. Years later, Lord’s brother, Charles A. Lord, would also sit on the Common Pleas bench. After law school, Lord became the law clerk for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas No. 4. From 1936 to 1961, he was a highly successful trial lawyer, with time out for his service in the Navy along with his four brothers during World War II. He first was employed as an associate with Schnader and Lewis and later practiced with Richter, Lord and Farage, a firm that represented plaintiffs in personal injury and wrongful death cases. During his career, he was a member of the Board of Governors of the Philadelphia Bar Association and served on the Board of the Philadelphia Port Authority. President Kennedy appointed him initially as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District in 1961. He held this office for only a few months before being chosen for the federal bench. These appointments in such rapid succession were due to the influence of Congressman William J. Green, Philadelphia’s powerful Democratic party leader. Lord had the good fortune to have defended the Congressman successfully in the Middle District of Pennsylvania in connection with his federal indictment and trial for allegedly receiving kickbacks related to the construction of the Tobyhanna Signal Corps Depot near Scranton. As Lord candidly stated, “I was picked [to be a judge] because I was fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time.” He did not suffer fools gladly. His wit and humor were legendary. He quipped that he elevated the bench by becoming a judge and advised his colleagues to learn to sleep with their eyes open. John Lord and Joseph Lord were not related and had quite different political views. The former was a Republican and the latter a Democrat. Nonetheless, they were often mistaken for one another in the public mind. Whenever they were asked if they were confused with the other Judge Lord, they had a standard retort. Each would note in jest that he was confused without the other Judge Lord. John Lord had an additional response when dealing with the identity issue: ‘If someone praises me for an opinion of [Judge Joseph Lord], I just nod and smile .. . But if someone tells me I handed down a terrible decision . . . I say it must have been the other Judge Lord.’ A number of electrical equipment antitrust cases were filed in the courts. The plaintiffs ranged from large investor-owned utilities to small rural public-power operators and cooperatives. Ultimately, over 1,900 civil cases were filed in thirty-five federal districts. The Judicial Conference of the United States under the leadership of Chief Justice Earl Warren appointed a nine-member committee of federal judges to coordinate the discovery and processing * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. of the cases. Judge Kirkpatrick, then a senior judge, had agreed to manage the consolidated discovery occurring in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This included presiding over depositions at the courthouse. Soon thereafter, he was hospitalized, and Chief Judge Clary assigned the discovery oversight and any trials to Judge Joseph Lord. Ultimately, of nearly 2,000 cases nationwide, only one, Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., involving a single electrical product, went to trial in the Eastern District. Most of the trial, which lasted over three months, consisted of the reading of depositions. The jury returned a verdict in June 1964 of more than $9 million in favor of the plaintiffs, which the Court trebled to almost $29 million as provided under the Sherman Act. Recognizing that their position was untenable due to the criminal convictions and admissions of conspiracy, the defendants soon undertook to settle the remaining cases. They ended up paying out many millions of dollars. Because of these Electrical Equipment Antitrust cases, and with the strong support of Chief Justice Warren, Congress passed legislation allowing for the transfer to one district “for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings” civil actions pending in different districts which involved “one or more common questions of fact” if it is determined to be “for the convenience of parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions.” This multi-district litigation statute authorized the Chief Justice to designate a panel of judges to make pretrial transfers in appropriate circumstances. Judge Joseph Lord served for a number of years as one of the original panel members. The mid-and-late 1960’s was also a time of political tumult as a result of the civil rights struggle. In 1963, the centennial year of President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his eloquent “I have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. He would be assassinated in Memphis on April 4, 1968. Congress was finally enacting significant civil rights legislation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination in places of public accommodation as well as in employment. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was also enacted. The courts, primarily in the South, were dealing with the desegregation of schools and lunch counters and facing massive resistance in some localities. The Civil Rights movement, however, was also taking place in the North. In the Eastern District, Judge Joseph Lord presided over the most important and closely followed civil rights case in this region. It concerned Girard College, a well-known Philadelphia secondary school, which had been established under the will of Stephen Girard before the Civil War. Girard was born in Bordeaux, France, in 1750. At the age of fourteen he went to sea, became a ship captain, and ultimately settled in Philadelphia where he prospered as a merchant, shipowner, and banker. He was also a generous philanthropist who, among other good works, provided funds to fight the several yellow fever epidemics in the City in the 1790’s. At the time of his death in 1831, he was said to be the richest man in America. Orphaned at twelve, he left a large portion of his fortune in trust to the City of Philadelphia to establish a school for “poor male white orphan children . . . to provide them a better education as well as a more comfortable maintenance than they usually receive from the application of the public funds.” Girard College opened in 1848 in a then sparsely populated area on land designated by Girard in Penn Township, Philadelphia County just north of the city. Over the years as the City expanded, Girard College eventually found itself in the midst of a densely populated row house neighborhood of North Philadelphia. By the 1950’s and 1960’s, the residents in the area were largely African-American. Girard College with its stately Founders Hall in the Greek revival style and its other marble buildings, a high stone wall around the circumference of the campus, and an all white student body stood out in sharp contrast to its surroundings. This incongruity did not go unnoticed. The Local NAACP, led by the flamboyant attorney and ex-Marine Cecil B. Moore, as well as other civil rights activists, began to turn their attention to Girard College with frequent marches outside its gates to protest the racial discrimination taking place within. Even Martin Luther King added his voice and presence on one occasion. Not surprisingly, various parties also turned to the courts for relief. In the mid1950’s two African-American children petitioned the Orphans’ Court of Philadelphia County for admission to Girard College. Defending Girard’s will was the Board of Directors of City Trusts which managed all charitable bequests to the City of Philadelphia and which had responsibility to oversee the operation of the school. The Court rejected the children’s constitutional claim and turned down their request for admission on the ground that to do otherwise would violate the clear language of Girard’s will. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Horace Stern, agreed with the Orphans’ Court, although he described the result as “unfortunate”. The lawsuit reached the United States Supreme Court, which in a short per curiam opinion, summarily reversed. It stated: The Board which operates Girard College is an agency of the State of Pennsylvania. Therefore, even though the Board was acting as a trustee, its refusal to admit Foust and Felder to the college because they were Negroes was discrimination by the State. Such discrimination is forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment. Brown v. Board of Education, . . . Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. When the matter returned to the Orphans’ Court, it promptly removed the Board of City Trusts as the trustee with oversight of Girard College. In place of the Board it appointed a group of “private” trustees, who were not associated with the City. The Court reasoned that its primary obligation was to uphold the terms of Girard’s will and that its selection of private trustees would insulate the trust and Girard College from claims of state sponsored discrimination. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with the support of Governor William Scranton, and the City of Philadelphia as well as a number of African-American children, filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in which they alleged Girard College’s race-based admission policy not only was unconstitutional but also contravened Pennsylvania law. Judge Joseph Lord, after a hearing, ruled that the exclusion of African-American boys from the education offered at the school violated the Pennsylvania Public Accommodations Act. He did not decide the constitutional issues raised. Reversing the District Court’s order, the Court of Appeals held that Pennsylvania law had not been broken and remanded for Judge Lord to resolve the federal constitutional questions involved. With the case back in District Court, Judge Lord ruled that the exclusion of non-white applicants to Girard College violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. While recognizing that private discrimination, however invidious, does not infringe the Constitution, he wrote that “the transfer of immediate supervisory control to private trustees by the Orphans’ Court failed to effectively disassociate the State from the discriminatory policies and purposes which the State operation of the school had come to embody.” He found, “the College has not purged itself of critical State involvement nor has the State erased the impression of public approval which long attached to the school’s racial policies.” Accordingly, “Since the strictures of the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the administration of the institution, it may no longer deny admission to applicants simply because they are not ‘white.’” This time, the Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, unanimously affirmed his decision, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Now, for the first time in its history, Girard College would be admitting not only poor male white orphan children but also poor male non-white orphan children. As often occurs with court decisions, the matter at issue, in this case the integration of Girard College, caused widespread discussion and debate among Philadelphians. Many saw Judge Lord’s ruling as advancing the promise of America. Others viewed it as undermining the sanctity of wills and wrongfully depriving persons of the right to dispose of their property as they see fit. Emotions ran high on both sides. However, as the years passed, the passions of the day abated, and Girard College quietly goes about its worthy educational mission unvexed, now with female as well as male students of all colors. The civil rights actions were not the only cases which sought to bring about widespread social change through the courts. Organizations such as Community Legal Services and the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia were also busy instituting and winning lawsuits on behalf of the economically disadvantaged. In the mid-1960’s, one of the first successful poverty law cases decided by the Supreme Court arose out of the Eastern District. A class action challenged the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania law requiring welfare recipients to have resided in the Commonwealth for a year immediately preceding their application for benefits. A three-judge court consisting of District Judge Joseph Lord, District Judge Michael Sheridan of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and Circuit Judge Harry Kalodner heard the matter. The Court, over the dissent of Judge Kalodner, held that the one-year waiting period had no legitimate purpose and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Although noting that there is no constitutional right to receive public welfare, it decided that it was arbitrary to draw a distinction between those who had been residents in the state for at least a year and those who had lived in the state for a shorter time. The Court also concluded that the statute had the prohibited effect of inhibiting the movement of indigent persons from other states into Pennsylvania. In the Court’s opinion, Judge Lord declared, “The right to travel freely without deterrence is inherent in the notion of a unified nation, and no State may exclude citizens migrating from other States, whatever the reason for the migration.” The Supreme Court affirmed. It agreed that the Equal Protection Clause and the fundamental right to travel voided the Pennsylvania law as well as similar laws of Connecticut and the District of Columbia. Years later, Judge Lord singled out this and the Girard College case as two of his decisions that made a real difference. As to the former, he remarked, “I felt that I had done a good thing in that and I felt gratified that I had the opportunity.” The lobby of the federal courthouse in Philadelphia is usually a place of calm where people enter and exit the courthouse in an orderly manner and where quiet conversation often transpires. From time to time, judges, lawyers, and guests gather there for receptions held after sessions in the nearby Ceremonial Courtroom to induct a new judge, to memorialize a deceased colleague, or to unveil a judicial portrait. In the early part of 1979, the tranquility normally experienced in the lobby was disturbed. It became the site of a controversy over the exhibition of art which eventually resulted in a lawsuit. Under a federal program to encourage the use of public buildings for cultural and educational purposes and to stimulate pedestrian traffic, the works of local artists were displayed in the lobby. Some of the paintings featured females whose countenance left nothing to the imagination. Other artwork contained purportedly offensive political content. Chief Judge Joseph Lord, acting in his administrative capacity, directed that ten paintings of nudes be removed forthwith by the General Services Administration (“GSA”) which administered the federal program. Leaving no doubt about his feelings on the matter, he declared emphatically that the subject matter was not fit for viewing by priests, nuns, or school children. The publicity and stir over the removal of the nude paintings had barely subsided when artwork allegedly critical of the FBI appeared in the lobby. Chief Judge Lord promptly banished it from the courthouse. He was quoted as having said, ‘I order it out and I don’t care who takes it out as long as it’s out.’ At that point, eminent Philadelphia lawyer Henry Sawyer filed a lawsuit in this Court for an injunction to overturn Judge Lord’s directive and its execution by GSA. The matter was assigned to Judge Fullam. After Sawyer presented the case and made an impassioned argument in support of liberty and freedom of speech, Judge Fullam, ruling from the bench, ordered the politically offensive art to be restored to the lobby. The practice of law was changing as a result of litigation. For as long as anyone could remember, lawyer advertising and soliciting of cases was strictly forbidden by the various professional Codes of Conduct in effect throughout the country. In 1977, the Supreme Court held lawyer advertising to be a form of protected commercial speech and overturned the blanket ban on such activity. Despite this ruling, many questions remained as to what limitations could still be imposed. A significant loosening in the restrictions in Pennsylvania was mandated by the decision of Judge Joseph Lord in Spencer v. The Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1984. The plaintiff, a lawyer who wished to advertise by direct mail his credentials in the areas of computer and aviation law, challenged certain sections of the Pennsylvania Code of Professional Responsibility which in his view unconstitutionally curtailed the right of a lawyer to advertise. While recognizing that some limits on lawyer advertising were permissible to prevent deception and to protect a substantial state interest, Judge Lord declared the Pennsylvania Code prohibition against direct mail advertising to be unconstitutional. He also struck down the Code requirement that lawyers who state that their practice was limited to a particular field of law must also state affirmatively that they are not recognized or certified as a specialist in that field. Judge Lord assumed senior status on July 1, 1982. He passed away on April 23, 1991 in Philadelphia, at the age of 78.
=== Abraham L. Freedman ===
Abraham L. Freedman Born: November 19, 1904, in Trenton, New Jersey Died: March 13, 1971, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by John F. Kennedy on September 1, 1961, to a new seat authorized by 75 Stat. 80. Confirmed by the Senate on September 14, 1961, and received commission on September 22, 1961. Service terminated on July 7, 1964, due to appointment to another judicial position. Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Nominated by Lyndon B. Johnson on April 15, 1964, to a seat vacated by Herbert Funk Goodrich. Confirmed by the Senate on July 2, 1964, and received commission on July 2, 1964. Service terminated on March 13, 1971, due to death. Education: Temple University School of Law (now James E. Beasley School of Law), LL.B., 1926 Professional Career: Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1926-1952; 1956-1961 General Counsel, Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) Housing Authority: 1938-1949 Counsel, Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) Housing Association: 1940-1961 Special Counsel for Housing, Pennsylvania Post-War Planning Commission: 1944-1946 Special Counsel, Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) Redevelopment Authority: 1946-1947 City Solicitor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1952-1956 * * * Judicial Biography *At about the time of Joseph Lord’s nomination, President Kennedy also named Abraham L. Freedman to the District Court. He was born in 1904 in Trenton, New Jersey and was a graduate of Temple Law School. Thereafter, he was an associate and later a partner in the law firm of Wolf Block Schorr and Solis-Cohen. He and his brother Maurice coauthored a multi- volume treatise, Law of Marriage and Divorce in Pennsylvania. Freedman also taught domestic relations law and Pennsylvania practice at Temple. He was a leader in the Jewish community, where he was the first President of the Federation of Jewish Agencies and served as a member of the Board of the Jewish Publication Society. Included among his other activities was his involvement with the Americans for Democratic Action. Along with William A. Schnader and Robert T. McCracken, Freedman was one of three principal drafters of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter of 1951. In 1952, reform Mayor Joseph S. Clark named him the City Solicitor of Philadelphia, a post he held until 1956. Unlike Joseph Lord, Freedman was not a favorite of Congressman Green and the regular Democratic organization. In fact, Green at one point blocked his appointment to a vacancy on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas where Freedman at the time would have preferred to sit rather than on the District Court. He believed a seat on a Common Pleas bench would be a stepping-stone to a state appellate judgeship. By the time of Freedman’s selection for the District Court, Clark had been elected a United States Senator, and it was Clark’s influence that prevailed over Green’s. Within several years, again with Clark’s sponsorship, President Johnson named him to the Court of Appeals. In MacEwan v. Rusk, the plaintiffs sought a declaration from the Eastern District to be allowed to travel to Cuba after the State Department had prohibited them from doing so by refusing to provide a special endorsement in their passports. Judge Freedman explained that the President, under the Constitution as well as pursuant to statutory authority, was empowered to conduct foreign policy. As part of that authority, the President could prohibit citizens from traveling to certain parts of the world. Furthermore, Judge Freedman found that the President’s power had not been unreasonably exercised given the hostility existing between the Cuban and United States Governments. Accordingly, he denied the relief plaintiffs had requested. In his opinion, he reminded the reader of Cuba’s “avowed . . . solidarity with world Communism and its fraternal relations with the Soviet Union and Communist China.” He continued: Tensions rose to unprecedented dimensions at the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union over the presence of missiles hidden in Cuba. For some days following the declaration of an embargo by the President of the United States the world lived in dread of the unleashing of a thermonuclear war in * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. the immediate vicinity of the United States. The United States Government has since announced many times that it considers Cuba a continuing danger spot because of the ever present threat of the clandestine concealment or return of Soviet Missiles. . . . Our Government has joined with the governments of Latin America to devise means of isolating Cuba and dealing with its threat of Communist infiltration and subversion. Among these measures is the restriction of movement between free world countries and Cuba. . . . Thus the policy of the United States, reflected in congressional and executive action, recognizes the Cuban government, so close to us geographically, as an important and militant link in a movement aimed at the destruction of the influence of this country abroad and of its tranquility at home. Judge Freedman served on the Court of Appeals from July 2, 1964 until the date of his death on March 13, 1971. He passed away in Philadelphia, at the age of 66. * * * Biographical Materials 1. Biographical information.
=== Alfred L. Luongo ===
Alfred L. Luongo Born: August 17, 1920, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: July 19, 1986, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by John F. Kennedy on September 14, 1961, to a new seat authorized by 75 Stat. 80. Confirmed by the Senate on September 21, 1961, and received commission on September 22, 1961. Served as chief judge, 1982-1986. Service terminated on July 19, 1986, due to death. Education: University of Pennsylvania, B.S., 1941 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), LL.B., 1947 Professional Career: U.S. Army Technical Sergeant: 1942-1946 Law Clerk, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (Pennsylvania): 1948-1949 Law Clerk, Honorable Thomas J. Clary, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 1949-1952 Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 1952-1953 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1953-1961 City Councilman, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1960-1961 Member, Judicial Conference of the United States: 1978-1981 * * * Judicial Biography *President John F. Kennedy in 1961 appointed Alfred L. Luongo to the Court. His commission and that of Judge Freedman were dated the same day. Younger than both Joseph Lord and Abraham Freedman, he was born in 1920 in an Italian neighborhood in South Philadelphia before his family moved to Germantown. He held both his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Pennsylvania. His law school days were interrupted by service in World War II. Following his completion of law school, he obtained the coveted position as the sole law clerk in the highly respected Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas No. 6 which was then comprised of Judges Curtis Bok, Gerald F. Flood, and Louis E. Levinthal. In 1949, Judge Clary hired him as his law clerk. Luongo remained with Judge Clary until 1952 and then spent several years as an Assistant United States Attorney. Thereafter, he practiced law at the Blank, Rome law firm. In 1959, the voters elected him as a Philadelphia District Councilman, and he was holding that office when appointed to the bench. Because of his independence on City Council, he noted that “the Mayor [Dilworth] insisted that . . . I be made a Federal Judge in order to get me out of his hair permanently.” A marked increase in the number of judges in the Eastern District in the 1970’s and 1980’s reflected the Court’s increasing caseload. In the early 1970’s as the Vietnam War persisted, that caseload included criminal draft evasion cases. Judges grappled with them in different ways. In a case before Judge Luongo, a person who made a belated claim for conscientious objector status was convicted for failure to submit to induction. Judge Luongo had announced to counsel before trial his standing policy to sentence to thirty-months imprisonment all selective service violators “if they are good people” whether or not they pleaded guilty or were found guilty after trial. His goal was uniformity in sentencing, a principle that was to become one of the cornerstones of the Sentencing Guidelines which went into effect years later. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the conviction due to Judge Luongo’s failure to recuse himself. It held that his stated policy of imposing uniform thirty-month sentences as indicating a bent of mind that may prevent or impede impartiality of judgment. Several months later, the Court of Appeals again reversed him for his policy of imposing a thirty-month sentence on a person convicted of violations of the Selective Service Act. It concluded that he had exhibited personal bias against this class of defendants. In the Court’s opinion, Chief Judge Collin Seitz explained that a defendant has the right to make his own statement before sentencing and to present other evidence in mitigation. A fixed sentence determined in advance is “inconsistent” with the “mandate to tailor the sentence imposed to the circumstances surrounding each individual defendant” and “frustrates” those rules designed for that purpose. Judge Luongo took the unusual step of engaging his old law firm to file on his behalf in the Supreme Court a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of prohibition * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. and/or mandamus directed against the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. When the Supreme Court denied his motion, he ceased presiding over Selective Service cases. In an interview over a decade later and only a few days before his death, he spoke of those Court of Appeals’ rulings. They still rankled him. While recognizing that reasonable minds could differ on whether he had abused his discretion in imposing a uniform sentencing policy, he vehemently rejected any notion of personal bias. Many of his colleagues agreed that the Court of Appeals had treated him, a well-respected judge, unfairly. A number of cases involving the issue of separation of church and state were filed in the District Court. In 1969, an African-American parent of a student attending a public school in Pennsylvania as well as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and several Jewish and Protestant groups among others brought suit in Lemon v. Kurtzman in which they challenged the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That law provided public funds to sectarian and private schools for “secular educational services,” that is, for actual expenditures for teachers’ salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials. It prohibited reimbursement for any course or materials relating to religion. A three-judge panel consisting of District Judges Alfred Luongo and Mac Troutman and Circuit Judge William H. Hastie was convened to hear the case since the constitutionality of a state statute was at issue. The Court, in an opinion by Judge Troutman, dismissed the complaint over the dissent of Judge Hastie. Judge Troutman wrote for himself and Judge Luongo: The mandate of the First Amendment is neutrality with respect to religious teachings, beliefs and practices. The Education Act does not employ religion as its standard. . . . Admittedly, the line is not an easy one to draw. However, we believe the Education Act is consistent with neutrality towards religion and comes within the permissible limits and spirit of the non establishment principle. Consequently, we will dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint under the establishment clause. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court which unanimously reversed. Chief Justice Warren Burger, speaking for the high Court, enunciated what has come to be known as the Lemon test. To pass constitutional muster, “. . . the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; . . . its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; . . . [and] the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’” Finding that the Pennsylvania law created “excessive entanglement between government and religion,” the Court struck it down as a violation of the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment. It explained that “political fragmentation and divisiveness on religious lines” are likely to be intensified as a result of regular legislative appropriations that benefit only a small number of religious groups. Among the Court’s other concerns was the fact that the state governments and religious schools would necessarily become entangled by government oversight and auditing of these payments. The Chief Justice concluded: The sole question is whether state aid to these schools can be squared with the dictates of the Religion Clauses. Under our system the choice has been made that government is to be entirely excluded from the area of religious instruction and churches excluded from the affairs of government. The Constitution decrees that religion must be a private matter for the individual, the family, and the institutions of private choice, and that while some involvement and entanglement are inevitable, lines must be drawn. In 1958, Congress had changed the law so that no judge may serve as Chief Judge after attaining the age of seventy. In 1982, it again amended the statute to impose additional time and age limitations. While retaining the existing age restriction, Congress for the first time prohibited a judge from assuming that position unless he or she is under the age of sixty-five. It also now limited the term of a Chief Judge to a maximum of seven years. Before this latter provision took effect, Chief Judge Joseph Lord reached the age of seventy and relinquished his post. He was followed by Alfred L. Luongo, his colleague with the greatest seniority under age sixty-five. It was under Chief Judge Luongo’s leadership that the Historical Society of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was established in 1984. Others who were instrumental in its formation were Judge Ditter, Patrick T. Ryan, Esquire, and the Court Clerk Michael E. Kunz. The Society is a non-profit organization whose purpose is to heighten the public’s awareness of the Court’s many contributions to American history. Included among its various activities are legal symposia and lectures as well as an annual black tie dinner. Judge Ditter is largely responsible for the Society’s nationally heralded calendar, complete with historical themes and accompanying sketches, which has been published each year since 1985. The Society also commissions portraits of judges to hang in the Courthouse. It was also during Chief Judge Luongo’s tenure that Congress enacted in 1984 what is known as the Rule of 80. It allows a judge to take senior status when his or her age and years of service total eighty, provided that the judge has reached the age of sixty-five and has completed ten years of judicial service. Chief Judge Luongo died on July 19, 1986 at the age of 65 at his home in Philadelphia.
=== Ralph C. Body ===
Ralph C. Body Born: February 18, 1903, in Yellow House, Pennsylvania Died: June 2, 1973, in Earlville, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by John F. Kennedy on March 5, 1962, to a seat vacated by Allan K. Grim. Confirmed by the Senate on April 2, 1962, and received commission on April 4, 1962. Assumed senior status due to certified disability on May 30, 1972. Service terminated on June 2, 1973, due to death. Education: Pennsylvania State University, A.B., 1925 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), LL.B., 1928 Professional Career: Private Practice, Pennsylvania: 1928-1960 Solicitor for Recorder of Deeds, Berks County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: 1933-1936 Home Owners’ Loan Corporation: 1933-1941 Assistant County Solicitor, Pennsylvania: 1936-1938 Member, Berks County [Pennsylvania] Board of Law Examiners: 1946-1960 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Berks County [Pennsylvania]: 1960-1962 * * * Judicial Biography *Ralph C. Body was the last Kennedy appointment to the Eastern District. He was born in Yellow House, Berks County, in 1903. He earned degrees from Penn State and the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Aside from his service in World War II as an Army officer in the Judge Advocate General Corps, he had engaged continuously in the practice of law in Reading. For a number of years, he was also the Solicitor to the Berks County Recorder of Deeds and the Assistant County Solicitor. Like his father before him, he headed the Berks County Democratic Party for a time. In 1959, he won election to a seat on the Court of Common Pleas. Body joined the federal bench in 1962 where he was always seen wearing a bow tie. He is fondly remembered for his efforts to encourage and arrange social activities for the judges and their spouses and to promote an esprit de corps at the Court. He was recommended to the President by United States Senators Hugh Scott, a Republican and Joseph S. Clark, Jr., a Democrat, and nominated by President John F. Kennedy on March 5, 1962 to fill the seat on the court vacated by Judge Allan K. Grim assuming senior status. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on April 2, 1962 and received his commission on April 4, 1962. A case was filed in the Court involving the matter of obscenity in the highly publicized case of United States v. Ralph Ginzburg. The Government indicted Ginzburg under a federal law making it a crime to send obscene material through the mail. Ginzburg, the editor and publisher of Eros Magazine, had mailed copies of it along with books such as Housewife’s Handbook in Selective Promiscuity and another similar publication from the post office in Middlesex, New Jersey. This site for the mailings was selected after he was denied advantageous mailing privileges at the post offices at Blue Ball and Intercourse, Pennsylvania, in Lancaster County in the Eastern District. Having waived his right to a jury, Ginzburg was tried for five days before Judge Ralph Body who found him guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to five years in prison. In his post-trial opinion, Judge Body explained that “the material to be obscene must appeal . . . to the prurient interest of the average person, applying contemporary community standards.” He found that all the publications easily met this threshold. With respect to one of them, he wrote: The Handbook, standing bare of any socially redeeming value, is a patent offense to the most liberal morality. The descriptions leave nothing to the imagination, and in detail, in a clearly prurient manner offend, degrade and sicken anyone however healthy his mind was before exposure to this material. It is a gross shock to the mind and chore to read. Pruriency and disgust coalesce here creating a perfect example of hardcore pornography. * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. Judge Body concluded, “This Court has the power and the right as a fact finder and as one who is aware of all types of material sold, tolerated and not tolerated by the community as a whole, to find, as it has found, that the material in question exceeds the standard. It does so unequivocally.” The Court of Appeals, after emphasizing it had carefully reviewed the record, affirmed. The Supreme Court, granting a writ of certiorari, had to contend with the applicability of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech to matter found to be obscene. With Justice William Brennan writing the majority opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of five to four over the vigorous dissents of Justices Hugo Black, William Douglas, John Marshall Harlan, and Potter Stewart. The dissenting opinion declared: Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. Long ago those who wrote our First Amendment charted a different course. They believed a society can be truly strong only when it is truly free. In the realm of expression they put their faith, for better or for worse, in the enlightened choice of the people, free from the interference of a policeman’s intrusive thumb or a judge’s heavy hand. And so, after having lost in the Supreme Court by one vote, Ralph Ginzburg went to prison. Of all Judge Body’s cases, this was the one that was mentioned years later in his obituary. Judge Body assumed senior status due to a certified medical disability on May 30, 1972 and continued to serve on the Court until his death on June 2, 1973, at the age of 70. Judge Body died at his summer cottage in Earlville, Berks County, Pennsylvania.
=== A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. ===
A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. Born: February 25, 1928, in Trenton, New Jersey Died: December 14, 1998, in Boston, Massachusetts Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Received a recess appointment from Lyndon B. Johnson on January 6, 1964, to a seat vacated by J. Cullen Ganey; nominated to the same position by Lyndon B. Johnson on February 3, 1964. Confirmed by the Senate on March 14, 1964, and received commission on March 17, 1964. Service terminated on November 7, 1977, due to appointment to another judicial position. Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Nominated by Jimmy Carter on September 19, 1977, to a seat vacated by Francis Lund Van Dusen. Confirmed by the Senate on October 7, 1977, and received commission on October 11, 1977. Served as chief judge, 1990-1991. Assumed senior status due to certified disability on January 31, 1991. Service terminated on March 5, 1993, due to retirement. Other Federal Judicial Service: Judge, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review: 1979-1986; presiding judge: 1979- 1986. Education: Antioch College, B.A., 1949 Yale Law School, LL.B., 1952 Professional Career: Law Clerk, Honorable Curtis Bok, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County [Pennsylvania]: 1952-1953 Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania: 1953-1954 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1954-1962 Special Deputy Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: 1956-1962 Special Hearing Officer for Conscientious Objectors, U.S. Department of Justice: 1960-1962 Commissioner, Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission: 1961-1962 Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission: 1962-1964 Member, Judicial Conference of the United States: 1990 Private Practice, New York City and Washington, DC: 1993-1998 Professor, Harvard University: 1993-1998 Other Nominations/Recess Appointments: Nominated to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, September 25, 1963; no Senate vote. * * * Judicial Biography *As a result of President Kennedy’s assassination on November 22, 1963, it fell to President Lyndon B. Johnson to fill vacancies on the federal courts. In January 1964, Johnson gave a recess appointment to A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr., age thirty-five, who had been nominated by Kennedy before his death. Higginbotham was the first African-American to have been chosen as a judge in the Eastern District’s history. While white supremacist Mississippi Senator James Eastland, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for a time put obstacles in his way, Higginbotham was ultimately confirmed and commissioned in March. He was born and grew up in Trenton, New Jersey. His college career began at Purdue University, but after suffering racial discrimination, he transferred to Antioch College from which he graduated. He earned his law degree at Yale Law School. Thereafter, he served as a law clerk to Judge Curtis Bok of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas No. 6, and then as an Assistant District Attorney under Richardson Dilworth, who had truly integrated the District Attorney’s office. Higginbotham subsequently obtained a position with the law firm headed by Austin Norris, the legendary African-American Philadelphia lawyer. This was a time when no white firm would hire a lawyer of his race, no matter how well-qualified. Over the years a number of associates and partners in the Norris firm became federal or state judges. When in private practice, Higginbotham served for a period as the President of the Philadelphia Chapter * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. of the NAACP. President Kennedy appointed Higginbotham to the Federal Trade Commission in 1962. Within a short time, he was sitting on the bench in the Eastern District. Higginbotham had not lobbied for a federal judgeship and did not have a close relationship with any influential Pennsylvania political figures. One day in 1963, he received a call out of the blue from Congressman Green. As Higginbotham recounted, Green told him, “I’ve got good news for you . . . You’ve always been my number one candidate for the vacant judgeship.” Green made it clear he had been “battling” Senator Clark, for whom Green had some uncomplimentary remarks, to make the appointment happen. Five minutes later, Higginbotham’s phone ran again, and this time it was Senator Clark. The Senator stated, “Leon, you can’t believe it . . . I’ve finally gotten Bill Green to see the light . . . I have always been pushing for you. . . . “ Clark added that Green had “opposed it . . . . unless you got it, I was going to cause problems on the Judicial Committee.” According to Higginbotham, he later learned that the real story was somewhat different than what he had heard on the phone from either of his two prominent callers. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy had warned Clark and Green that if they could not agree on a candidate, he was going to recommend to President Kennedy that Higginbotham be nominated. It appears that Green and Clark were hastily jumping aboard the train just as it was pulling out of the station. Higginbotham chose his law clerks not simply based on their academic achievements but also on their degree of social consciousness. He encouraged his fellow judges to do likewise. On one occasion, following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., in April 1968, he and Circuit Judge William H. Hastie calmed a crowd gathered outside the courthouse. Judge Higginbotham’s stature was such that President Johnson invited him, along with other leaders, to the White House for a conference on how to deal with the turmoil in the country as a result of King’s death. Higginbotham, who was a very tall man with a deep, rich voice, was a renowned advocate for civil rights and authored two award-winning books, In the Matter of Color and Shades of Freedom. In 1977, President Carter named him to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. A recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, he will always be remembered as a heroic and passionate spokesman for social justice and racial equality. Because of the civil rights legislation passed in the 1960’s, the Court’s docket in the 1970’s and 1980’s was filled with cases alleging race and gender discrimination, primarily but not exclusively discrimination in the work place. Most were actions brought by individuals who sought damages or other relief only for themselves. Judge Higginbotham dealt with claims of racial discrimination against Local 542 of the International Union of Operating Engineers and several contractor associations because of the failure to hire African-Americans for construction jobs. These defendants moved to disqualify him from the case due to a speech he had delivered before the Association for the Study of Afro- American Life and History. Judge Higginbotham forcefully rejected the effort as meritless: I concede that I am black. I do not apologize for that obvious fact. I take rational pride in my heritage, just as most other ethnics take pride in theirs. However, that one is black does not mean, ipso facto, that he is anti-white; no more than being Jewish implies being anti Catholic, or being Catholic implies being anti- Protestant. As do most blacks, I believe that the corridors of history in this country have been lined with countless instances of racial injustice. This is evident by the plain historical fact that for more than two and a half centuries, millions of blacks were slaves under the rule and sanction of law – a fate which confronted no other major minority in this country . . . To suggest that black judges should be so disqualified would be analogous to suggesting that the slave masters were right when, during tragic hours for this nation, they argued that only they, but not the slaves, could evaluate the harshness or justness of the system. This case was hotly contested for a number of years, but eventually a Consent Decree was entered. The Court to this day continues to monitor compliance with it. Judge Higginbotham had on his docket a group of related antitrust cases, although involving a far different activity than the sale of television sets. His concerned professional hockey. In Philadelphia World Hockey Club, Inc. v. Philadelphia Hockey Club, Inc., and other related cases, the basic issue was “whether through their reserve clause, affiliation agreements, and market power dominance, the National Hockey League has violated the federal antitrust laws.” Under a reserve clause in a contract, a player or coach is not permitted to play or work for a competing organization without specific approval of that player’s or coach’s employer. The National Hockey League had grown from a small Canadian organization in 1917 to what Judge Higginbotham characterized as a “position of substantial wealth, power, broad spectator interest, international recognition and many superstars, all crescendoing into huge profits for both its owners and players” in the 1970's. Judge Higginbotham wrote memorably at the outset of his opinion, “Despite the thousands of words uttered on this record by all parties about the glory of the sport of hockey and the grandeur of its superstars, the basic factors here are not the sheer exhilaration from observing the speeding puck, but rather the desire to maximize the available buck.” Judge Higginbotham held that professional hockey operated in interstate commerce and was subject to the antitrust laws. He refused to extend to professional hockey the Supreme Court’s holding, articulated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1922, that baseball was exempt from the antitrust laws because it did not engage in interstate commerce. After a hearing and making extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, he granted a preliminary injunction restraining the National Hockey League from enforcing the reserve clause in any contract against a player or coach. The Court found that there was a clear and substantial likelihood the National Hockey League exercised monopoly power in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act through their interlocking agreements with the various National Hockey League teams, the reserve clause in players’ contracts, and the agreements between the National Hockey League and minor and amateur hockey organizations. Ultimately, all these actions were either settled or dismissed. Judge Higginbotham was elevated to the Third Circuit in 1977 and served as Chief Judge there from 1990 to 1991. He retired from the bench on March 5, 1993. After retiring from the bench, he joined the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and accepted a position at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government as a professor of public service jurisprudence. He died on December 14, 1998 in Boston, Massachusetts.
=== John Morgan Davis ===
John Morgan Davis Born: August 9, 1906, in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania Died: March 8, 1984 Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Received a recess appointment from Lyndon B. Johnson on January 7, 1964, to a seat vacated by Thomas C. Egan; nominated to the same position by Lyndon B. Johnson on February 3, 1964. Confirmed by the Senate on March 14, 1964, and received commission on March 17, 1964. Assumed senior status due to certified disability on May 6, 1974. Service terminated on March 8, 1984, due to death. Education: University of Pennsylvania, B.S., 1929 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), LL.B., 1932 Professional Career: Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1933-1952 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County [Pennsylvania]: 1952-1958 Lieutenant Governor, Pennsylvania: 1959-1963 Other Nominations/Recess Appointments: Nominated to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, September 3, 1963; no Senate vote. * * * Judicial Biography *In 1964 President Lyndon B. Johnson chose John Morgan Davis to fill a vacancy. He was born in Shenandoah in Schuylkill County in 1906, spent his formative years in Berks County, and lived most of his adult life in Philadelphia. His undergraduate and law degrees were awarded from the University of Pennsylvania. During his college and law school days, he was a radio announcer, a job for which he was extremely well-suited with his melodious baritone voice. In the 1940’s, the National Association of Broadcasters retained him as its General Counsel. Davis won election as a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in 1951 and as Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania in 1958. He held the latter office from 1959 to 1963. Thereafter, having failed in his quest to obtain support for the Democratic Party’s nomination for Governor or for Mayor of Philadelphia, party leaders, including Congressman Green and former Governor David Lawrence under whom he had served, persuaded President Kennedy to select him for the Eastern District bench. President Kennedy’s death intervened before Davis could be confirmed, but President Johnson followed through in early 1964 with what his predecessor had initiated. Judge Davis assumed senior status due to a certified disability on May 6, 1974. His service on the court terminated due to his death at the age of 77 on March 8, 1984. * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press.
=== John P. Fullam ===
John P. Fullam Born: December 10, 1921, in Gardenville, Pennsylvania Died: March 8, 2018, in Wallingford, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Lyndon B. Johnson on January 19, 1966, to a seat vacated by Abraham Lincoln Freedman. Confirmed by the Senate on August 10, 1966, and received commission on August 11, 1966. Served as chief judge, 1986-1990. Assumed senior status on April 1, 1990. Service terminated on March 8, 2018, due to death. Education: Villanova College, B.S., 1942 Harvard Law School, J.D., 1948 Professional Career: U.S. Naval Reserve: 1942-1946 Private Practice, Bristol, Pennsylvania: 1948-1960 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County [Pennsylvania]: 1960-1966 Other Nominations/Recess Appointments: Nominated to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, August 24, 1965; no Senate vote. * * * Judicial Biography *In 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated John P. Fullam to join the Court with the endorsement of Senator Joseph Clark, but only after about a year’s delay caused by fellow Senator Hugh Scott, who was urging President Johnson to nominate a Republican to the Court. Fullam, a native of Bucks County, was a graduate of Villanova University and Harvard Law School. During his deployment as a Naval officer on a tanker in the Pacific during World War II, the ship had occasion to fuel the U.S.S. J. William Ditter, a destroyer-mine sweeper named for J. William Ditter, a Pennsylvania Congressman from Montgomery County. As fate would have it, Fullam and the Congressman’s son, J. William Ditter, Jr., were destined to be colleagues on the federal bench many years later. In the 1950’s, Fullam served as Chair of the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission and twice ran unsuccessfully for Congress on the Democratic ticket. In 1960, Governor David Lawrence appointed him to fill a vacancy on the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, as Fullam put it, to get him out of the hair of the politicians. He was then elected with the endorsement of both parties to a ten-year term and became the first Democrat to have won election to the Bucks County Court in many years. Six years after he joined the state bench, he was sitting on the Eastern District where he was destined to hear cases for almost forty-five years before his retirement. His tenure in this regard was longer than that of any other judge in the Court’s history, surpassing by over a year the previous record set by Judge Kirkpatrick. In addition to sharing his legal acumen, he acted as the District Court’s grammarian and resident Latin scholar. He never hesitated to flag both grammatical and spelling errors in his colleagues’ opinions. His own opinions he kept extremely short, often unencumbered by legal citations. When singing was required at court functions, it was he who took the lead with his fine tenor voice. The lobby of the courthouse is usually a place of calm where people enter and exit the courthouse in an orderly manner and where quiet conversation often transpires. From time to time, judges, lawyers, and guests gather there for receptions held after sessions in the nearby Ceremonial Courtroom to induct a new judge, to memorialize a deceased colleague, or to unveil a judicial portrait. In the early part of 1979, the tranquility normally experienced in the lobby was disturbed. It became the site of a controversy over the exhibition of art which eventually resulted in a lawsuit. Under a federal program to encourage the use of public buildings for cultural and educational purposes and to stimulate pedestrian traffic, the works of local artists were displayed in the lobby. Some of the paintings featured females whose countenance left nothing to the imagination. Other artwork contained purportedly offensive political content. Chief Judge Joseph Lord, acting in his administrative capacity, directed that ten paintings of nudes be removed forthwith by the General Services Administration ("GSA") which * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. administered the federal program. Leaving no doubt about his feelings on the matter, he declared emphatically that the subject matter was not fit for viewing by priests, nuns, or school children. The publicity and stir over the removal of the nude paintings had barely subsided when artwork allegedly critical of the FBI appeared in the lobby. Chief Judge Lord promptly banished it from the courthouse. He was quoted as having said, ‘I order it out and I don’t care who takes it out as long as it’s out.’ At that point, eminent Philadelphia lawyer Henry Sawyer filed a lawsuit in this Court for an injunction to overturn Judge Lord’s directive and its execution by GSA. The matter was assigned to Judge Fullam. After Sawyer presented the case and made an impassioned argument in support of liberty and freedom of speech, Judge Fullam, ruling from the bench, ordered the politically offensive art to be restored to the lobby. The Pennsylvania Railroad and the Reading Company, were two venerable institutions headquartered in Philadelphia. The Pennsylvania Railroad, incorporated by special Act of the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 1846, ultimately became one of the largest privately owned railroads and one of the most powerful corporations in the United States. Its passenger and freight lines ran from Boston to Washington and as far west as Chicago and St. Louis. It also operated six commuter lines ridden by thousands each day into its Suburban Station in downtown Philadelphia. The Pennsylvania Railroad was so much a part of the life of the Philadelphia region that the Western Suburbs were called the “Main Line” because of the railroad’s main track line to Pittsburgh and Chicago that intersected the area. The glory of the railroad can still be seen in its 30th Street Station in Philadelphia which was completed just before the onslaught of the Great Depression. The Reading Company was a much smaller railroad centered in eastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey, but it too in its heyday was formidable. At the beginning of the twentieth Century, its President, George F. Baer, a confidant of J.P. Morgan, made headlines as a vocal opponent of the United Mine Workers Union and of the efforts of President Theodore Roosevelt to settle a 1902 strike on terms favorable to the coal miners. The Reading’s main source of revenue came from the transportation of coal from the anthracite region of northeastern Pennsylvania. into Philadelphia. It also had six important commuter lines reaching from the Philadelphia suburbs into the landmark Reading Terminal with its expansive train shed at Twelfth and Market Streets where the railroad had its main offices. By the 1970’s, the golden era of the railroads had come to an end. In an effort to solve their financial woes, the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central Railroad Company had merged in 1968 to form the Penn Central Transportation Company with over 20,000 miles of track in sixteen states, two Canadian provinces, and the District of Columbia, close to $7 billion in assets, and more than 100,000 employees. This merger, however, did not bring about the profits and cost savings for which the two railroads had hoped. By late June 1970, in the words of a Penn Central spokesman, it was suffering “a severe cash squeeze” and was “unable to acquire from any source additional working capital.” The unthinkable happened on Sunday, June 21, 1970. The railroad’s law firm, Dechert Price & Rhoads, had drafted a petition to place the Penn Central in reorganization under the Bankruptcy Act. Judge Hannum, the emergency judge that weekend, was alerted but deferred to his colleague Judge Kraft. After approval of the Penn Central’s Board of Directors at an emergency meeting that Sunday afternoon, H. Francis De Lone, a partner at the Dechert firm, and Lawrence Turner, a Dechert associate, rushed the petition to Judge Kraft at his farm in Edgmont, Delaware County, where Kraft signed the fateful Order placing the railroad in reorganization at 5:40 p.m. At a meeting of the judges of the Court the next day, all in attendance realized that this bankruptcy would be a massive undertaking and would not be resolved anytime soon. It was quickly decided that it should be assigned to a younger judge. Due to the fact that some judges owned Penn Central stock or had other reasons to recuse, there remained just four available contenders. Their names were placed into the fedora of Chief Judge John Lord. Judge Fullam’s name was drawn, and he received the assignment. The case thereafter proceeded under the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 after the Supreme Court rebuffed a challenge to the Act’s constitutionality. A phalanx of lawyers appeared before Judge Fullam, and endless hearings and arguments took place. He could become exasperated when a lawyer did not meet his high expectations. On one occasion, an issue arose involving the disappearance of 352 Penn Central boxcars. When a lawyer kept pressing a meritless argument, Fullam exclaimed, “Did it ever occur to you that the reason you are having such a difficult time with this case is that you don’t have a case to present?” Judge Fullam signed the order consummating the plans of reorganization of the Penn Central Transportation Company in August 1978. The adjudication of the reorganization continued thereafter, and a few subsidiary issues remain open even today. It was one of the most complex cases the Eastern District had ever seen, with over 4,300 court orders issued to date. In November 1971, the Reading Company, because of its grave financial condition, took the same track as the Penn Central and filed for bankruptcy and then reorganization under the Regional Rail Reorganization Act. Again, the assignment of a judge had to be accomplished. In a similar fashion as with the Penn Central, the names of the judges were placed into a hat at a judges’ meeting, and a name was drawn. The winner was J. William Ditter Jr., who happened to have been absent from the meeting that day. After this turn of events, it has been said that Judge Ditter has had perfect attendance at all subsequent gatherings of judges where Court business is conducted. The Reading Reorganization was likewise a protracted undertaking which also took years and over 3,500 orders to resolve. Ultimately, the Reading’s rail properties were transferred to Conrail for approximately $186,000,000 from the Government. All the Reading creditors were paid as were its stockholders. The reorganization was ultimately resolved in 1980. Political corruption was a focus of the Justice Department in the 1970’s and 1980’s, and many well-known political figures in the region were successfully prosecuted in the Eastern District. They included: Congressman Joshua Eilberg; State Senator Henry J. “Buddy” Cianfrani; the Speaker of the State House of Representatives Herbert Fineman; State Representative Matthew Cianciulli; Philadelphia City Councilmen Leland Beloff, Harry Jannotti, George X. Schwartz, and James Tayoun; Philadelphia City Commissioner Maurice Osser; the Mayor of the City of Chester John Nacrelli; and Chester County Republican Party leader Theodore Rubino. The case against George Schwartz and Harry Jannotti is perhaps the most memorable. In the late 1970’s, the FBI undertook an undercover sting operation known as ABSCAM. In 1980, the Government indicted Schwartz, the powerful President of Philadelphia’s City Council, and Jannotti, the Majority Leader, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Hobbs Act. FBI agents had posed as representatives of Arab sheiks from Abu Dhabi who were interested in building a hotel in Philadelphia. Ultimately, Schwartz agreed to meet with a corrupt attorney, Howard Criden, and an undercover FBI agent posing as an intermediary for the Arab sheiks at a suite in the Barclay Hotel on Rittenhouse Square. After discussion about local politics, Schwartz’s power, and the need for his help to smooth the way for the construction of the hotel, the undercover agent opened a briefcase and without comment handed Schwartz an envelope which contained $30,000 in cash. Schwartz then placed it in his jacket without counting it. Unbeknown to Schwartz, the entire meeting was videotaped. The next evening, the lawyer and undercover agent met with Councilman Jannotti in the same suite at the Barclay. Again, after a conversation similar to what had occurred the previous evening, the undercover agent gave Jannotti an envelope containing $10,000 in cash. As with Schwartz, this event was videotaped. A jury convicted both councilmen of conspiracy to violate the Hobbs Act which makes it a criminal offense to conspire to affect interstate commerce by extortion. Schwartz was also found guilty of conspiracy to commit racketeering. Judge Fullam, before whom the case was tried, reluctantly overturned the jury verdicts on the ground that the Government had overreached and had improperly entrapped Schwartz and Jannotti. He wrote: These conclusions have been reached with great reluctance. No one who has viewed the videotape evidence in this case could avoid feelings of distress and disgust at the crass behavior the tapes reveal. The jury’s verdict represents a natural human reaction to that evidence. But, in the long run, the rights of all citizens not to be led into criminal activity by governmental overreaching will remain secure only so long as the courts stand ready to vindicate those rights in every case. The Government appealed. Initially, the three judge appellate panel affirmed Judge Fullam by a vote of 2 to 1. Nonetheless, after hearing argument en banc, the Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the verdicts. The political careers of Schwartz and Jannotti came to an end, and they went to prison. Judge Fullam served as Chief Judge from 1986 to 1990. He assumed senior status on April 1, 1990. He passed way in Wallingford, Pennsylvania on March 8, 2018 at the age of 96.
=== Charles R. Weiner ===
Charles R. Weiner Born: June 27, 1922, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: November 9, 2005, in Doylestown, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Lyndon B. Johnson on May 24, 1967, to a new seat authorized by 80 Stat. 75. Confirmed by the Senate on June 12, 1967, and received commission on June 14, 1967. Assumed senior status on December 31, 1988. Service terminated on November 9, 2005, due to death. Other Federal Judicial Service: Judge, Special Railroad Court, 1982-1997 Education: University of Pennsylvania, A.B., 1947 Temple University School of Law (now James E. Beasley School of Law), LL.B., 1949 University of Pennsylvania, M.A., 1967 University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D., 1976 Professional Career: U.S. Navy: 1941-1945 Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania: 1952-1953 State Senator, Pennsylvania: 1953-1967; minority floor leader, 1959-1960, 1963-1964; majority floor leader, 1961-1962 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1967 Member, U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: 1978-1983 * * * Judicial Biography *In 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated Charles R. Weiner to the Court. Weiner, a World War II Navy veteran, obtained his college degree from the University of Pennsylvania and his law degree from Temple Law School. Unique among his colleagues before or since, he also earned a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Pennsylvania. He was a longtime Democratic State Senator representing a district in North Philadelphia. His legislative colleagues chose him at different times as either the Senate’s majority or minority leader, depending on whether his party had control of the chamber. The NAACP strongly supported his appointment to the bench. A man of boundless energy, he always seemed to be able to do a dozen things at once and was second to none in his ability to settle or otherwise dispose of cases. Like Joseph Lord, he served on the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation. Major litigation occurred in the 1970’s with respect to gender discrimination in the Philadelphia Police Department. In 1974, the United States as well as Philadelphia police officer Penelope Brace filed actions against the City of Philadelphia, its Police Commissioner Joseph O’Neill and others in which they alleged systematic discrimination against females in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment in connection with recruiting, hiring, promotion, transfer, and assignment practices of the City’s Police Department. The City did not dispute that its policy of hiring women only as Juvenile Aid Officers was discriminatory. Instead, relying on the statutory bona-fide occupational defense, it argued that only men could function effectively as police officers in other situations. In the middle of the trial in front of Judge Weiner, the parties agreed to the entry of an interim order in which the Court enjoined certain discriminatory practices and required an increase in the number of women to be hired on the force. Further hearings ensued in which Judge Weiner had to deal with the City’s violations of his orders to remedy discrimination as well as with the exception under the Civil Rights Act for a bona-fide occupational need. Today, women serve in all types of roles within the Philadelphia Police Department, and no one appears to give it much thought. The court in the 1990’s and beyond was a favored venue for significant multidistrict civil litigation. In 1991, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) transferred Asbestos MDL Case No. 875, the largest MDL in history, to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial proceedings before Judge Weiner. This MDL involved tens of thousands of lawsuits involving millions of claimants who had sued thousands of manufacturers and sellers of asbestos and asbestos products for personal injuries and wrongful death resulting from various forms of cancer. To complicate matters, over a hundred of the defendants were in bankruptcy or otherwise out of business. After Judge Weiner died in 2005, Chief Judge Giles assumed his * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. responsibilities. When Judge Giles resigned from the bench in 2008, the torch passed to Judge Robreno. Judge Weiner passed away in Doylestown, Pennsylvania on November 9, 2005, at the age of 83.
=== Thomas A. Masterson ===
Thomas A. Masterson Born: December 10, 1927, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: June 15, 2000, in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Lyndon B. Johnson on January 16, 1967, to a new seat authorized by 80 Stat. 75. Confirmed by the Senate on June 12, 1967, and received commission on June 15, 1967. Service terminated on November 16, 1973, due to resignation. Education: Harvard University, B.A., 1949 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), LL.B., 1952 Professional Career: Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice: 1952-1953 Volunteer Defender, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1953 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1953-1956, 1960-1967, 1973-2000 Instructor, Seton Hall University School of Law: 1953-1956 Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1956 Deputy City Solicitor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1956-1960 * * * Judicial Biography *President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1967 appointed Thomas A. Masterson to the Court. Masterson, age thirty-nine, had an undergraduate degree from Harvard and a law degree from the University of Pennsylvania. He practiced law with Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, and had ties with the Democratic organization in Philadelphia. After only a few years on the Court, he resigned to return to his former law firm in order to be able to support his large family. Judge Masterson served only six years on the Court, and resigned from the Court in 1973. He returned to his former firm, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. At the time of his resignation, he indicated he was resigning in protest over Congressional failure to institute judicial pay raises recommended by an independent commission. He testified before Congress on the issue of fair pay for judges several times after he left the bench. He was involved in civic affairs, having been appointed to the City’s school board, Human Relations Commission and the board of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. He passed away on June 15, 2000 in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, at the age of 72. * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press.
=== E. Mac Troutman ===
E. Mac Troutman Born: January 7, 1915, in Greenwood Township, Pennsylvania Died: October 8, 2004, in Orwigsburg, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Lyndon B. Johnson on May 24, 1967, to a new seat authorized by 80 Stat. 75. Confirmed by the Senate on June 12, 1967, and received commission on June 16, 1967. Assumed senior status on September 1, 1982. Service terminated on October 8, 2004, due to death. Education: Dickinson College, A.B., 1934 Dickinson School of Law (now Penn State Dickinson Law), LL.B., 1936 Professional Career: Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron Company: 1937-1962; Assistant to the General Counsel: 1937-1958; General Counsel: 1958-1962 U.S. Army, Adjutant General’s Office Private Practice, Pottsville, Pennsylvania: 1946-1967 * * * Judicial Biography *In 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed E. (Emanuel) Mac Troutman to the Court. E. Mac Troutman was the third person to be appointed to the federal bench to serve at Reading. Troutman was from Schuylkill County. He was born in Greenwood Township, Perry County on January 7, 1915. He was the son of the late Emmett T. and Kathryn Holman Troutman. Troutman was a resident of Orwigsburg, Schuylkill County and practiced law in Pottsville after serving in the Army in World War II. He was recommended by Senator Joseph S. Clark, Jr., a Democrat and Senator Hugh Scott, a Republican, for appointment by President Lyndon B. Johnson. He was nominated on May 24, 1967, confirmed on June 12, 1967 and received his commission on June 16, 1967. He attended Millerstown elementary and high schools, graduating from the latter in 1930. He attended Dickinson College from 1930 to 1934 receiving an A.B. degree in June 1934, and his law degree from Dickinson School of Law in June of 1936. Troutman was an inveterate cigar smoker and avid outdoorsman and hunter. His storytelling skill was a potent catalyst in helping him to settle countless cases. It was largely through his efforts, and those of Senator Scott, that court stations were established in Reading and Allentown, which were much nearer his home than was Philadelphia. In 1969, an African-American parent of a student attending a public school in Pennsylvania as well as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and several Jewish and Protestant groups among others brought suit in Lemon v. Kurtzman in which they challenged the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That law provided public funds to sectarian and private schools for “secular educational services,” that is, for actual expenditures for teachers’ salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials. It prohibited reimbursement for any course or materials relating to religion. A three-judge panel consisting of District Judges Alfred Luongo and Mac Troutman and Circuit Judge William H. Hastie was convened to hear the case since the constitutionality of a state statute was at issue. The Court, in an opinion by Judge Troutman, dismissed the complaint over the dissent of Judge Hastie. Judge Troutman wrote for himself and Judge Luongo: * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. The mandate of the First Amendment is neutrality with respect to religious teachings, beliefs and practices. The Education Act does not employ religion as its standard. . . . Admittedly, the line is not an easy one to draw. However, we believe the Education Act is consistent with neutrality towards religion and comes within the permissible limits and spirit of the non-establishment principle. Consequently, we will dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint under the establishment clause. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court which unanimously reversed. Chief Justice Warren Burger, speaking for the high Court, enunciated what has come to be known as the Lemon test. To pass constitutional muster, “. . . the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; . . . its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; . . . [and] the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’” Finding that the Pennsylvania law created “excessive entanglement between government and religion,” the Court struck it down as a violation of the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment. It explained that “political fragmentation and divisiveness on religious lines” are likely to be intensified as a result of regular legislative appropriations that benefit only a small number of religious groups. Among the Court’s other concerns was the fact that the state governments and religious schools would necessarily become entangled by government oversight and auditing of these payments. The Chief Justice concluded: The sole question is whether state aid to these schools can be squared with the dictates of the Religion Clauses. Under our system the choice has been made that government is to be entirely excluded from the area of religious instruction and churches excluded from the affairs of government. The Constitution decrees that religion must be a private matter for the individual, the family, and the institutions of private choice, and that while some involvement and entanglement are inevitable, lines must be drawn. Cases attacking long-accepted legal procedures and practices joined the many other constitutional cases in the Eastern District. For centuries, something known as a writ of replevin existed in the English common law. It had undergone changes over time, but in some form it was deeply entrenched in the law of Pennsylvania and other states. In the Commonwealth, a party without any prior notice or hearing could summarily obtain from the prothonotary (clerk) of the Court of Common Pleas a writ of replevin authorizing the seizure of certain goods or chattels in another person’s possession simply by filing an affidavit swearing to the value of the goods or chattels and by filing a bond in double that amount. The Sheriff upon the issuance of the writ, would then seize the described property, again, without any prior notice to the opposing party and without a hearing to determine who actually was entitled to possession or ownership. Under Pennsylvania procedure, the party from whom the property was seized was then permitted to file a bond within three days in the same amount as the bond of the party seeking seizure of the property and in this way trump the seizure. If no bond was filed, the Sheriff would turn over the property to the person who had obtained the writ of replevin. This legal procedure was most commonly used to take back consumer goods when the buyer allegedly fell behind in payments under an installment contract. Usually, the consumer did not have the sophistication or money to challenge any taking. A three-judge Court was convened in the Eastern District to decide a case brought by consumers who alleged that a Pennsylvania statute and the procedure authorizing replevin were in conflict with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The panel, made up of District Judges Mac Troutman and John Hannum as well as Circuit Judge Cullen Ganey, denied relief on the ground the procedure on its face was not “fundamentally unfair.” On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed. It held that due process under the circumstances presented required prior notice and an opportunity to be heard, before a creditor, with the help of the state, could seize the consumer goods in issue. The Court concluded that the Pennsylvania law served no important governmental or general public interest and improperly involved the state in a summary action where only private gain was at stake. Judge Troutman elected senior status on September 1, 1982, and passed away on October 8, 2004, at the age of 89.
=== John B. Hannum ===
John B. Hannum Born: March 19, 1915, in Chester, Pennsylvania Died: April 23, 2007, in Unionville, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Richard M. Nixon on March 24, 1969, to a seat vacated by Francis L. Van Dusen. Confirmed by the Senate on May 5, 1969, and received commission on May 6, 1969. Assumed senior status on May 29, 1984. Service terminated on April 23, 2007, due to death. Education: Dickinson School of Law (now Penn State Dickinson Law), LL.B., 1941 Professional Career: Private Practice, Chester, Pennsylvania: 1941-1942, 1946-1949 U.S. Naval Reserve Lieutenant: 1942-1946 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1949-1968 Judge, Superior Court of Pennsylvania: 1968-1969 * * * Judicial Biography *President Richard M. Nixon announced John Berne Hannum as his first nominee a few months after his inauguration in 1969. Hannum’s father had been the Orphans’ Court Judge in Delaware County for sixteen years in the 1920’s and 1930’s. Although Hannum, a World War II Navy veteran, practiced law in Philadelphia at Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, he resided in the horse country of rural southwestern Chester County. He was active in that community as a member of the Boards of the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District, the Chester County Hospital, and Lincoln University. His resume also included membership on the Board of Dickinson Law School. For two years, he chaired the Republican Party in Chester County and was elected as a delegate to the 1967-1968 Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention. He was an accomplished equestrian and enjoyed fox hunting. Before joining the District Court, Governor Raymond Shafer had appointed him to an interim term on the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Hannum was confirmed to the District Court without difficulty. Cases attacking long-accepted legal procedures and practices joined the many other constitutional cases in the Eastern District. For centuries, something known as a writ of replevin existed in the English common law. It had undergone changes over time, but in some form it was deeply entrenched in the law of Pennsylvania and other states. In the Commonwealth, a party without any prior notice or hearing could summarily obtain from the prothonotary (clerk) of the Court of Common Pleas a writ of replevin authorizing the seizure of certain goods or chattels in another person’s possession simply by filing an affidavit swearing to the value of the goods or chattels and by filing a bond in double that amount. The Sheriff, upon the issuance of the writ, would then seize the described property, again, without any prior notice to the opposing party and without a hearing to determine who actually was entitled to possession or ownership. Under Pennsylvania procedure, the party from whom the property was seized was then permitted to file a bond within three days in the same amount as the bond of the party seeking seizure of the property and in this way trump the seizure. If no bond was filed, the Sheriff would turn over the property to the person who had obtained the writ of replevin. This legal procedure was most commonly used to take back consumer goods when the buyer allegedly fell behind in payments under an installment contract. Usually, the consumer did not have the sophistication or money to challenge any taking. A three-judge Court was convened in the Eastern District to decide a case brought by consumers who alleged that a Pennsylvania statute and the procedure authorizing replevin were in conflict with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The panel, made up of District Judges Mac Troutman and John Hannum as well as Circuit Judge Cullen Ganey, denied relief on the ground the procedure on its face was not “fundamentally unfair.” * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed. It held that due process under the circumstances presented required prior notice and an opportunity to be heard, before a creditor, with the help of the state, could seize the consumer goods in issue. The Court concluded that the Pennsylvania law served no important governmental or general public interest and improperly involved the state in a summary action where only private gain was at stake. Judge Hannum was married to the late Mrs. Nancy Penn Smith Hannum, a leader in land conservation efforts. She was the granddaughter of railroad magnate E.H. Harriman and Mary Harriman, and the niece of W. Averell Harriman, the former Governor of New York and Secretary of Commerce. Judge Hannum assumed senior status on May 29, 1984, and served in that capacity until he died on April 23, 2007 in Unionville, Chester County, at the age of 92.
=== Edward R. Becker ===
Edward R. Becker Born: May 4, 1933, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: May 19, 2006, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Richard M. Nixon on September 24, 1970, to a new seat authorized by 84 Stat. 294. Confirmed by the Senate on October 8, 1970, and received commission on October 14, 1970. Service terminated on January 22, 1982, due to appointment to another judicial position. Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Nominated by Ronald Reagan on November 16, 1981, to a seat vacated by Max Rosenn. Confirmed by the Senate on December 3, 1981, and received commission on December 3, 1981. Served as chief judge, 1998-2003. Assumed senior status on May 4, 2003. Service terminated on May 19, 2006, due to death. Education: University of Pennsylvania, B.A., 1954 Yale Law School, LL.B., 1957 Professional Career: Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1957-1970 Board Member, Federal Judicial Center: 1991-1995 Member, Judicial Conference of the United States: 1998-2003 * * * Judicial Biography *In 1970, President Richard M. Nixon named four judges, all Republicans, to fill newly authorized seats for the Eastern District. They were Edward R. Becker, Donald W VanArtsdalen, Daniel H. Huyett 3rd, and J. William Ditter Jr., each of whom resided in a different county. They progressed through confirmation in lockstep. Had the President signed their commissions on the same day, their seniority on the court would have been determined by age, with Becker, the youngest of the four, having the least seniority. Instead, Becker’s commission was signed by the President a day ahead of the others so that he had precedence over his three older colleagues. Becker, age thirty-seven, lived in the Northwood neighborhood of Northeast Philadelphia in the house where he grew up and usually rode the Market-Frankford elevated line to the courthouse. He had served as counsel to the Republican City Committee, was close to William Austin Meehan, the city’s Republican leader, and had run unsuccessfully for City Council and the State Senate. He had practiced law with his father and brother-in-law in a small firm. As a judge, he wrote long erudite opinions with a plethora of footnotes, and in 1981 was appointed to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit where he eventually became the Chief Judge. Becker, a hard worker with enormous energy, was rarely seen without a brief in his hand. One of his most notable and oft-repeated comments was his description of the Eastern District as Valhalla for Philadelphia Republicans who had been defeated for elective office. Becker was actively involved in countless efforts for judicial, administrative, and civic improvement. The prestigious Devitt Award was presented to him in 2001. His leadership and persistence resulted in the opening of Chestnut Street between Fifth and Sixth Streets after it had been closed to pedestrian and vehicular traffic purportedly to protect Independence Hall after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Judge Becker presided over what came to be known as the Japanese Electronics case, formally Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. The plaintiffs were two American corporations that manufactured and sold television sets. They claimed that defendants, twenty-one Japanese and American companies that also manufactured and sold televisions, conspired to fix and maintain high prices in Japan while fixing and maintaining low prices in the United States. After reviewing the massive record, Judge Becker granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. Considering only what would be admissible evidence, he concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, without the necessity of a trial. Judge Becker explained that the evidence established that defendants conspired but not in ways that injured plaintiffs. Perhaps what was most remarkable was the length of Judge Becker’s opinion. It consumes 217 printed pages in Volume 513 of the Federal Supplement - if not a record, probably * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. close to it. The Court of Appeals reversed with a sixty-nine page opinion, but that reversal was short-lived. The Supreme Court, granting certiorari, held 5 to 4 that Judge Becker had it right. In the opening section of the Court’s opinion, Justice Lewis Powell wrote, “Stating the facts of this case is a daunting task” and, undoubtedly much relieved, found it “unnecessary to state the facts in great detail” since the Court’s sole role was to decide whether Judge Becker had applied the correct standard in ruling that summary judgment was appropriate and that no trial would be needed. The Court concluded: In sum, in light of the absence of any rational motive to conspire, neither petitioners’ pricing practices, nor their conduct in the Japanese market, nor their agreements respecting prices and distribution in the American market, suffice to create a “genuine issue for trial.” There were other substantial antitrust actions in the District at this time. Judge Cahn was assigned a Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) involving allegations that major sugar refiners and others East of the Mississippi River had conspired to fix prices of refined sugar in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. Judge McGlynn presided over an MDL consisting of thirty-seven class actions charging a conspiracy to fix the prices of fine paper. His opinion awarding counsel fees and costs consumed 171 printed pages in the Federal Rules Decisions, coming close but not exceeding Judge Becker’s record of 217 pages in the Japanese Electronics case. Judge McGlynn is supposed to have wrapped a copy of his opinion with a ribbon and bow and presented it to his friend Judge Becker with a note, “We’re like Avis, we try harder.” Changes took place during this period in the appearance of the interior of the courthouse. Through the efforts of Circuit Chief Judge Becker and Senator Specter, an appropriation was obtained from Congress to refurbish the expansive lobby to make it more inviting. The lighting was vastly improved, and three transparent floor-to-ceiling panels were installed containing quotations referencing due process of law, the right of trial by jury, and justice. One was authored by Daniel Webster: “Justice is the great interest of man on earth. It is the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together.” Another originated with Martin Luther King, Jr.: “True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice.” Since these renovations, the first floor of the courthouse has been designated as the Edward R. Becker Lobby. Judge Becker was elevated to a seat on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1981. He served as Chief Judge of the Third Circuit from 1998 to 2003 and assumed senior status on May 4, 2003. He passed away on May 19, 2006 at the age of 73 in Philadelphia. * * * Biographical Materials 1. Biographical information.
=== Donald W. VanArtsdalen ===
Donald W. VanArtsdalen Born: October 21, 1919, in Doylestown, Pennsylvania Died: May 21, 2019, in Doylestown, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Richard M. Nixon on September 10, 1970, to a new seat authorized by 84 Stat. 294. Confirmed by the Senate on October 8, 1970, and received commission on October 15, 1970. Assumed senior status on October 21, 1985. Service terminated on May 21, 2019, due to death. Education: Williams College, 1937-1940 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), LL.B., 1948 Professional Career: Canadian Army: 1940-1942 U.S. Army Sergeant: 1942-1945 Private Practice, Doylestown, Pennsylvania: 1948-1970 District Attorney, Bucks County, Pennsylvania: 1954-1958 * * * Judicial Biography Judge VanArtsdalen was born and raised in Doylestown and remained a lifelong Bucks County resident. Following graduation from Doylestown High School, he enrolled in Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts, but left in his junior year to join the Canadian Army to fight in World War II. As a Canadian soldier from 1940-1941, VanArtsdalen was stationed as an artillery anti-aircraft gunner at various sites in and around London during the Battle of Britain, including the intense bombing campaign known as the Blitz. After the United States entered the war in 1941, VanArtsdalen transferred to the United States Army and volunteered to join the newly formed all-volunteer First Ranger Battalion (U.S. Army Rangers). These soldiers became famously known as “Darby’s Rangers.” During the North African and Italian campaigns, VanArtsdalen was part of four “first wave” beachhead landings, ahead of the main forces, at Arzew (Algeria) and Sicily, Amalfi-Salerno and Anzio (Italy). While a Ranger, he served at various times as a rifleman, company scout, bazooka operator and mortar crew sergeant. VanArtsdalen was involved in the fierce fighting in Tunisia that led to the eventual defeat of Rommel’s German “Afrika Korps.” After the very costly fighting at Anzio, VanArtsdalen was given orders to return to the United States and completed his military service at Fort Meade, Maryland. For his five years of service, VanArtsdalen was awarded nine medals and citations, including a Bronze Star Medal for valor in action. *In 1970, President Richard M. Nixon named four judges, all Republicans, to fill newly authorized seats for the Eastern District. They were Edward R. Becker, Donald W VanArtsdalen, Daniel H. Huyett 3rd, and J. William Ditter Jr., each of whom resided in a different county. They progressed through confirmation in lockstep. Judge VanArtsdalen was self-employed as a practicing attorney from 1948 until 1954 when he was elected District Attorney of Bucks County, an office he held until 1958 when he returned to private practice. Donald W. VanArtsdalen was an experienced trial lawyer who resided and practiced in Bucks county. Over four years after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, in the first part of 2006, a highly publicized trial arising out of the horror of that day was broadcast by closed circuit television into the courthouse in Philadelphia. Zacarias Moussaoui, one of the conspirators alleged to have been involved in the hijackings, was indicted in Alexandria in the Eastern District of Virginia. He ultimately pleaded guilty, and a lengthy jury trial was then held to determine whether the death penalty should be imposed. Congress had enacted legislation requiring the trial to be broadcast to other courthouses for the convenience of family members of victims so that they, but not the public, could observe the proceedings nearer their homes. Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia designated the United States Courthouse in Philadelphia as one of those venues. Special passes were provided to the distraught viewers, and enhanced security was put * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. in place. Many family members of those who died attended every day, and their emotions were palpable. The rules for the trial directed that a judge preside in any courtroom into which the broadcast was to be transmitted. Here, Judges VanArtsdalen, Ditter, and Reed as well as Magistrate Judge Peter Scuderi took turns doing so for approximately seven weeks during the opening statements of counsel, the presentation of evidence and arguments, the taking of the verdict, and the imposition of sentence. The jury declined to inflict the death penalty, and Moussaoui was imprisoned for life without the possibility of release. He died on May 21, 2019, a few months shy of his 100th birthday, in Doylestown, Pennsylvania.
=== Daniel H. Huyett, III ===
Daniel H. Huyett, III Born: May 2, 1921, in Reading, Pennsylvania Died: May 1, 1998, in Reading, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Richard M. Nixon on September 25, 1970, to a new seat authorized by 84 Stat. 294. Confirmed by the Senate on October 8, 1970, and received commission on October 15, 1970. Assumed senior status on May 1, 1988. Service terminated on May 1, 1998, due to death. Education: University of Michigan, A.B., 1942 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), J.D., 1948 Professional Career: U.S. Army Lieutenant, Air Corps: 1942-1946 Private Practice, Berks County, Pennsylvania: 1949-1970 City Solicitor, Reading, Pennsylvania: 1952-1956 Member, Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board: 1965-1968 Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission: 1968-1970 Lecturer, Federal Judicial Center: 1977-1979 * * * Judicial Biography *In 1970, President Richard M. Nixon named four judges, all Republicans, to fill newly authorized seats for the Eastern District. They were Edward R. Becker, Donald W VanArtsdalen, Daniel H. Huyett 3rd, and J. William Ditter Jr., each of whom resided in a different county. They progressed through confirmation in lockstep. Daniel H. Huyett, III was a lawyer in Berks County whose ancestors had settled there before the Revolution. He had a very gracious demeanor. During most of the Second World War he was stationed as an Army Officer in Panama. Some years later, he was appointed the Solicitor of the City of Reading and headed the Berks County Republican Party. In 1968, Governor Raymond P. Shafer named him to the state Public Utility Commission. He was an early and strong proponent of electronic sound recording of court proceedings in place of a court reporter who would take down testimony manually. He persuaded most of his judicial colleagues to follow his lead. As a result of Roe v. Wade, the Pennsylvania General Assembly quickly passed the Abortion Control Act of 1974, but it was not long before a three-judge panel comprised of Judge Green, Judge Newcomer, and Circuit Judge Arlin Adams declared portions of the Act unconstitutional, including provisions requiring parental consent for a minor to have an abortion and the provision requiring spousal consent in all cases. Several years later Judge Bechtle held that Pennsylvania’s prohibition against Medicaid funding for abortions other than those necessary to save the life of the mother violated federal law. Bur it was Judge Huyett who was faced for well over a decade with the complexities of the abortion issue, with the clash between a woman’s right to privacy and the interest of the state in placing limitations and imposing regulations on that right. It began in the early 1980’s with a lawsuit claiming the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982 was unconstitutional in light of Roe v. Wade. The Act and the subsequent amendments were continually challenged as placing undue burdens on a woman’s right to choose an abortion. At various times, Judge Huyett enjoined the enforcement of certain provisions of the Act including: (1) the twenty-four hour waiting period between the time the woman was provided certain information and the time the abortion was performed; (2) certain public disclosure requirements; (3) certain rules related to the judicial bypass procedures for minors seeking abortions; (4) the informed parental consent provision; (5) the husband notification requirement; and (6) the mandate that certain information required to be disclosed to a woman must be imparted by a physician. These several cases, captioned American College of Obstetricians v. Thornburgh, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, moved back and forth between the District Court, Court of Appeals and, on several occasions, the Supreme Court. There were close to twenty reported court opinions in the cases originating before Judge Huyett alone. Some of his rulings were * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. affirmed and others were reversed. The last decision, which concerned fees for plaintiffs’ counsel, was handed down in 1995. As a result of the efforts of Judge Huyett mentioned previously, most judges have opted to use electronic sound recording for Court proceedings rather than an individual court reporter taking down testimony. Some courtrooms are now equipped with real time reporting so that the transcripts are immediately available and with screens for the Court and each juror to view exhibits. Judge Huyett assumed senior status on May 1, 1988, serving in that capacity until his death on May 1, 1998 in Reading, at the age of 76.
=== J. William Ditter, Jr. ===
J. William Ditter, Jr. Born: October 19, 1921, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: April 7, 2019, in Perkiomenville, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Richard M. Nixon on September 28, 1970, to a new seat authorized by 84 Stat. 294. Confirmed by the Senate on October 8, 1970, and received commission on October 15, 1970. Assumed senior status on October 19, 1986. Service terminated on April 7, 2019, due to death. Education: Ursinus College, B.A., 1943 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), LL.B., 1948 Professional Career: U.S. Naval Reserve, Retiring in 1968 at rank of Captain: 1942-1968 Law Clerk, Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: 1948-1950 Assistant District Attorney, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: 1951, 1953-1955, 1956-1960; First Assistant District Attorney: 1956-1960 Private Practice, Ambler, Pennsylvania: 1953-1963 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: 1964-1970 * * * Judicial Biography *In 1970, President Richard M. Nixon named four judges, all Republicans, to fill newly authorized seats for the Eastern District. They were Edward R. Becker, Donald W VanArtsdalen, Daniel H. Huyett 3rd, and J. William Ditter Jr., each of whom resided in a different county. They progressed through confirmation in lockstep. The last of the four 1970 appointees by President Nixon was J. William Ditter Jr. of Montgomery County. His father had represented the County in Congress from 1933 until his death in a navy plane crash in 1943. Ditter served in the Navy during World War II and again during the Korean conflict. Later during his legal career, he was the County’s First Assistant District Attorney and a named partner in an Ambler law firm. In 1963, the voters elected him as a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County where he had been one of the court’s two law clerks in his younger days. Ditter, who lived on a farm, had long engaged in a variety of agricultural activities. Emulating Sherlock Holmes, he was an avid keeper of bees for many years. He was also a gifted speaker and writer. Each December, his colleagues and friends eagerly awaited his Christmas letter in which he described with dry humor the holiday visit of his “Cousin Misty.” Only the skeptics of this world believe her to be an apocryphal figure. At five-year intervals after their appointments to the federal bench in 1970, Judges Becker, VanArtsdalen, Huyett, and Ditter hosted a luncheon for all their district court colleagues at the nearby Down Town Club. In November 1971, the Reading (Railroad) Company, because of its grave financial condition, took the same track as the Penn Central Railroad Company and filed for bankruptcy and then reorganization under the Regional Rail Reorganization Act. The assignment of a judge to this case had to be accomplished. In a similar fashion as with the Penn Central, the names of the judges were placed into a hat at a judges’ meeting, and a name was drawn. The winner was J. William Ditter, Jr., who happened to have been absent from the meeting that day. After this turn of events, it was said that Judge Ditter had a perfect attendance at all subsequent gatherings of judges where Court business was conducted. The Reading Reorganization was likewise a protracted undertaking which also took years and over 3,500 orders to resolve. Ultimately, the Reading’s rail properties were transferred to Conrail for approximately $186,000,000 from the Government. All the Reading creditors were paid as were its stockholders. The reorganization was ultimately resolved in 1980. In 1972, Michael Stanley Green and other persons boarded a plane in Philadelphia before its scheduled flight to New York. As it approached Kennedy Airport, the defendant and his companion pulled a pistol and a shotgun on the flight attendants and demanded $600,000 as well * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. as parachutes. They warned they had a bomb that would explode in ninety minutes and demanded that the plane return to Philadelphia. The pilot, as instructed, returned to Philadelphia, but running low on fuel landed contrary to the order of the hijackers. After the members of the crew were tied up and passengers held hostage for a prolonged period while the temperature in the plane rose to over 100° F, the hijackers finally exited this plane and transferred to another on which had been placed $500,000 and three parachutes. The plane headed south toward Jamaica but, after some harrowing experiences, it finally landed on a small field in Texas where the hijackers finally surrendered after negotiation with the FBI. After a guilty verdict was handed down by a jury before Judge Ditter, Green received a sixty-year prison sentence. In Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. v. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the government was challenged over the conveyance of seventy-seven acres of land in Chester County to the Valley Forge Christian College, operated by the Assemblies of God. The land was transferred under a federal law which authorized the sale or lease of surplus government property to tax-exempt institutions for health and educational purposes. The law also allowed a certain discount known as a public benefit allowance. Although the total value of the property was some $577,500, the government granted a 100% public benefit allowance so that the property was turned over without any payment by the College. The Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., and a number of individuals, sued on the ground that the transfer violated the clause of the First Amendment which prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. Judge Ditter dismissed the action because the plaintiffs lacked standing. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court took the case and by a vote of 5 to 4 reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It concluded that Judge Ditter was correct. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that merely being a taxpayer was not sufficient in and of itself to constitute standing to enforce the Establishment Clause. The plaintiffs themselves, according to the majority of the Court, were not suffering any actual or threatened injury from the conveyance of the property to the College. The Chief Justice emphasized that “Article III [of the Constitution] . . . is every bit as important in its circumscription of the judicial power of the United States as in its granting of that power. . . . “ Judge Ditter took to heart the advice, often ignored, of his judicial predecessors Francis Hopkinson and William Kraft that judges should avoid verbosity and keep their written opinions short and concise. His decision in this case consisted of one and a half pages of double- spaced type. In contrast, the Court of Appeals’ majority and dissenting opinions ran for twenty- one printed pages of smaller type in the Federal Reporter 2d, and the Supreme Court opinions consumed forty-nine printed pages in the official United States Reports. It was under Chief Judge Luongo’s leadership that the Historical Society of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was established in 1984. Others who were instrumental in its formation were Judge Ditter, Patrick T. Ryan, Esquire, and the Court Clerk Michael E. Kunz. The Society is a non-profit organization whose purpose is to heighten the public’s awareness of the Court’s many contributions to American history. Included among its various activities are legal symposia and lectures as well as an annual black-tie dinner. Judge Ditter was largely responsible for the Society’s nationally heralded calendar, complete with historical themes and accompanying sketches, which was formerly published each year since 1985. The Society also commissions portraits of judges to hang in the Courthouse. A little more than a year after the last of the Clinton appointees had been sworn in and a few months after George W. Bush had assumed the Presidency, the tragic events of September 11, 2001 befell America. On that fateful day, over 2,900 innocent people died when al Qaeda members hijacked and crashed two commercial airliners into the Twin Towers in New York City, flew a third hijacked airliner into the Pentagon, and seized a fourth which the heroic passengers brought down over Western Pennsylvania before it too could strike an occupied structure. When word reached Philadelphia that morning as to what had occurred in New York City, judicial business ceased and the courthouse closed for the remainder of the day as no one was able to focus on the work at hand, and no one was certain what would happen next. It was the first time in anyone’s memory that the doors of the courthouse were shut during the day other than on weekends, holidays, or snow days. Over four years later, in the first part of 2006, a highly publicized trial arising out of the horror of that day was broadcast by closed circuit television into the courthouse in Philadelphia. Zacarias Moussaoui, one of the conspirators alleged to have been involved in the hijackings, was indicted in Alexandria in the Eastern District of Virginia. He ultimately pleaded guilty, and a lengthy jury trial was then held to determine whether the death penalty should be imposed. Congress had enacted legislation requiring the trial to be broadcast to other courthouses for the convenience of family members of victims so that they, but not the public, could observe the proceedings nearer their homes. Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia designated the United States Courthouse in Philadelphia as one of those venues. Special passes were provided to the distraught viewers, and enhanced security was put in place. Many family members of those who died attended every day, and their emotions were palpable. The rules for the trial directed that a judge preside in any courtroom into which the broadcast was to be transmitted. Judges VanArtsdalen, Ditter, and Reed as well as Magistrate Judge Peter Scuderi took turns doing so for approximately seven weeks during the opening statements of counsel, the presentation of evidence and arguments, the taking of the verdict, and the imposition of sentence. The jury declined to inflict the death penalty, and Moussaoui was imprisoned for life without the possibility of release. A requirement imposed on every federal judge by Congress is the annual filing of a completed financial disclosure form with the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. On one occasion, Judge Ditter received an inquiry requesting an explanation of his farm income of $171.50, which had resulted from the sale of “one-half a hog, a few dozen eggs, and some honey.” He responded in his customary thorough and straightforward manner: Actually we grew both sides of the hog and sold what I believe was the starboard side -- although when one tries to figure whether scrapple and sausage came from the right or the left, it may be difficult to be precise. In any event, the hog grew on the same property at which my family and I reside although not at our actual place of residence. We kept the hog in a hog pen and we occupied the house. This seemed to work out satisfactorily from the standpoint of all concerned. At least there were no complaints from the people and if the hog was unhappy, he did not let on. Part of the farm income came from the sale of eggs. The eggs came from chickens which, although they were on our property, did not live in our place of residence. We provided a hen house for them. From what little I know of the physiology of a chicken I would believe that an egg grows. To hear the chickens discuss it, post-event, one could only conclude that each egg had been manufactured with a great deal of skill and care. The remaining part of the farm income came from the sale of honey. Once again, the bees that produced the honey did not live in our actual place of residence. They had their own quarters which we call beehives and while one or two from time to time may have gotten into the house (a problem we did not have with either the hog or the chickens) we did not make them feel welcome and tried to make reasonable efforts to exclude them. Honey comes from nectar. I think that much of the nectar gathered by our bees was found on other persons’ properties although I must admit I have made no real effort to trace it. In my judgment honey does not grow at all nor is it manufactured. Therefore, it must come under the heading “etc.” I hope this clears up any questions the committee may have about our farm income but I will be happy to furnish further explanation if you feel it necessary for me to do so. Judge Ditter’s response apparently satisfied the inquirer as no follow-up occurred. Judge Ditter assumed senior status on October 19, 1986, and continued in that role on the Court until his death on April 7, 2019 in Perkiomenville, Pennsylvania, at the age of 97.
=== James H. Gorbey ===
James H. Gorbey Born: July 30, 1920, in Chester, Pennsylvania Died: October 24, 1977, in Upland, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Richard M. Nixon on November 30, 1970, to a new seat authorized by 84 Stat. 294. Confirmed by the Senate on December 19, 1970, and received commission on December 21, 1970. Service terminated on October 24, 1977, due to death. Education: Bowling Green State University, B.A., 1945 Temple University School of Law (now James E. Beasley School of Law), LL.B., 1949 Professional Career: U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant: 1942-1945 Investigator/Appraiser, Inheritance Tax Department, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: 1950 Editor, Delaware County [Pennsylvania] Legal Journal: 1951-1952 Private Practice, Chester, Pennsylvania: 1949-1967 City Councilman, Chester, Pennsylvania: 1956-1963 Mayor, Chester, Pennsylvania: 1964-1967 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania: 1968-1970 * * * Judicial Biography *In December 1970, James H. Gorbey, of Delaware County, was named by President Richard M. Nixon to the bench. Previously, Gorbey had served as the Mayor of the City of Chester and as a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County. He died of cancer only six years after his confirmation. A selective service lawsuit filed in the Eastern District in 1972 had potentially widespread consequences. It dealt with the issue of gender discrimination. Robert Goldberg challenged the constitutionality of the Military Selective Service Act on the ground that only males were subject to registration and conscription. A three judge court consisting of District Judges James Gorbey and Joseph Lord and Circuit Judge Max Rosenn was convened. Shortly thereafter, the draft ended and the case lay dormant for a number of years. Ultimately, the matter was reactivated, and Judge Cahn replaced the late Judge Gorbey on the three-judge panel. Judge Gorbey passed away due to cancer on October 24, 1977 in Upland, Delaware County, at the age of 57, after having served only six years with the Court. * * * Biographical Materials 1. 2. 3. Tribute to James H. Gorbey by Honorable Joseph S. Lord, III, Chief Judge. Tribute to James H. Gorbey by Honorable John B. Hannum, District Judge. Tribute to James H. Gorbey by Dr. Clarence R. Moll, President of Widener College (now known as Widener University). * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press.
=== Raymond J. Broderick ===
Raymond J. Broderick Born: May 29, 1914, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: August 6, 2000, in Gladwyne, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Richard M. Nixon on March 23, 1971, to a new seat authorized by 84 Stat. 294. Confirmed by the Senate on April 21, 1971, and received commission on April 23, 1971. Assumed senior status on July 1, 1984. Service terminated on August 6, 2000, due to death. Education: University of Notre Dame, A.B., 1935 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), J.D., 1938 Professional Career: Assistant Counsel, U.S. Rural Electrification Administration: 1938-1941 Civilian Agent, Office of Naval Intelligence, U.S. Navy: 1941-1942 U.S. Naval Reserve Lieutenant Commander: 1942-1946 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1945-1971 Commissioner, Plymouth Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: 1952-1954 Lieutenant Governor, Pennsylvania: 1967-1971 President, Pennsylvania Senate: 1967-1971 Cabinet Member, Gov. Raymond P. Shafer, Pennsylvania: 1967-1971 * * * Judicial Biography *In 1971, President Richard M. Nixon nominated Raymond J. Broderick, Clarence C. Newcomer, and Clifford Scott Green to the Court. Broderick, a Philadelphian who had been a Naval Officer during World War II, was Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania between 1967 and 1971 under Governor Raymond P. Shafer. During his tenure, Broderick was the president of the 1967-1968 Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention which reformed the state Constitution’s Judiciary Article and provided for a unified court system for the Commonwealth. After he was defeated for Governor in 1970, Senator Scott and other Republican leaders endorsed him to fill a vacancy on the District Court. While on the federal bench, Broderick successfully persuaded Congress to allow compulsory arbitration of smaller damage cases before a panel of court appointed lawyers with the right of a trial de novo in the District Court if any party is not satisfied with the arbitration result. He had a memorable Irish wit, and there was no better storyteller. For many years Broderick and his lovely wife Marjorie graciously hosted a summer outing for the judges and their spouses at their beachfront home in Ocean City, New Jersey. The event always included swimming in the ocean, a sumptuous meal featuring steaks cooked on their outdoor grill, and an abundance of good fellowship. On June 25, 1999, about a year before his death, Broderick wrote a poignant letter to his fellow judges and their spouses: Marjorie and I are finding it difficult to tell you that there will not be a beach party on the Broderick sand dunes this summer. Recently Marjorie and I have been experiencing some health problems. - - - For more than twenty years, our Judges’ day on the beach on the Broderick dunes has been the focal point of our love for you and your family. We are saddened by this interruption. Marjorie and I look forward to seeing you soon. Sincerely, Ray Judge Broderick told an amusing story about his friend Judge Clifford Green, which he repeated often and which Judge Green continued to recount after Judge Broderick’s death. When Broderick was running for state-wide office, he noticed in reviewing the election returns that he had received only one vote in the home division of Clifford and Mable Green in West Philadelphia. When Broderick asked Clifford Green about it, Green insisted that he had indeed * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. voted for Broderick. When Broderick inquired of Mable Green, she responded emphatically that she was the one who had cast the ballot for him. The matter, of course, was never resolved, but the story always generated laughter among the judges. In 1971, Frank Rizzo, the former Philadelphia Police Commissioner, was running for mayor. He publicly announced during the campaign that within the framework of the law, he would support communities in their resistance to public housing. Elected mayor in November 1971 and taking office in January 1972, he accelerated his vociferous opposition to the Whitman Park Project. He declared he would not allow public housing to ruin neighborhoods or to be placed in white neighborhoods where whites did not want African-Americans moving near them. In the meantime, with the project stalled with the complicity of City officials, a group of plaintiffs filed a class action in the federal court in June 1971, claiming violations of their rights under the Constitution and various federal civil rights laws. The lawsuit was hotly contested and hard fought. It was finally tried by Judge Broderick for fifty-seven days in 1976. In ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, he found that the City had acted with racially discriminatory intent in opposing and obstructing the Whitman Park Project to prevent African-Americans from living in that neighborhood. He ordered the City and various local and federal agencies to “take all necessary steps for the construction of the Whitman Park Townhouse Project as planned.” He also enjoined interference “in any manner” with its construction. The Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Broderick’s findings of discriminatory intent and modified only slightly the injunctive relief he had granted. On October 3, 1979, Pope John Paul II was scheduled to visit Philadelphia and celebrate a Roman Catholic Mass before an estimated one million people. The City of Philadelphia was in the process of designing and constructing a large platform at Logan Circle above the Swann Fountain to accommodate the Pope, Bishops, and other clergy for the Mass. The platform was to contain an altar and a thirty-six-foot cross supplied by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. A group of plaintiffs brought suit to enjoin the City from using public funds for the platform on the ground that such an expenditure violated the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment. Before the hearing, in return for the plaintiffs’ agreeing not to seek an injunction, the Archdiocese consented to reimburse the City for its construction and design costs should the plaintiffs prevail. The case was randomly assigned to Judge Broderick, a staunch Roman Catholic. After reviewing the history and purpose of the First Amendment, he ruled that the actions of the City were unconstitutional under the Lemon test in that they had no secular purpose or effect and caused excessive entanglement between government and religion by promoting divisiveness between and among religious groups. Judge Broderick explained: We find that, under the facts presented in this case, the actions of the City of Philadelphia in constructing and decorating the platform amount to public sponsorship of a religious service. The secular purposes expressed by the City are incidental to this non-secular purpose. The beauty of the service, and its appeal to millions of people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, cannot overcome the fact that the expenditure of public funds for items necessary to the service crossed the “wall of separation” mandated by the Constitution. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Archdiocese thereafter reimbursed the City in the amount of $204,569. Judge Broderick presided over Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital a significant case involving the rights of developmentally disabled individuals. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania owned and operated Pennhurst State School and Hospital in Chester County. It housed approximately 1,200 residents of whom approximately 75% were either severely or profoundly retarded. Many were also physically handicapped. Plaintiff, a resident of Pennhurst, claimed in her lawsuit that unsanitary, inhumane, and dangerous conditions prevailed there. She asserted that these conditions violated her rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and her rights under various federal and state statutes, including the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1975. Judge Broderick, after a thirty-two day non-jury trial, found not only that conditions at Pennhurst were dangerous but that it was totally inadequate for the education and training of the mentally retarded and others who were not ill. Some residents had even been physically abused and improperly drugged. Judge Broderick ruled that the residents had a constitutional right to “minimally adequate” and “non-discriminatory habilitation” and “in the least restrictive” environment, and that they had a constitutional right “to be free from harm” under the Eighth Amendment. He ordered that Pennhurst eventually be closed, that appropriate “community living arrangements” be provided, and that individual treatment plans be developed. The Court of Appeals affirmed but rested its decision on statutory rather than on constitutional grounds. However, it overturned the order that Pennhurst be closed. The case then reached the Supreme Court. According to the high Court, there was nothing in federal law which required Pennsylvania to “assume the high cost of providing ‘appropriate treatment’ in the ‘least restrictive environment’ to their mentally retarded citizens.” Congress was simply encouraging, not mandating, that states improve services to the developmentally disabled. The Court remanded the action to the Court of Appeals to consider plaintiffs’ constitutional and other statutory claims. Not surprisingly, further legal proceedings ensued. Fortunately for all concerned, the entire matter was ultimately settled, and Pennhurst closed in 1986. Thanks to the efforts of Judge Broderick, this Court was in the forefront in adopting an innovative compulsory arbitration program, initially approved by Congress in 1988, whereby certain smaller cases are tried in the first instance by a panel of three lawyers who volunteer to participate in the program and are approved by the Court. Only cases seeking money damages in the amount of $150,000 or less where no constitutional claim is involved are eligible. The arbitration is less formal than the courtroom setting and usually lasts no more than a few hours at most. A party unhappy with a decision is entitled to a trial de novo before a District Judge, with a jury if one has been demanded. Judge Broderick assumed senior status on July 1, 1984 and inactive status on June 5, 2000. He passed away on August 6, 2000 in Gladwyne, Pennsylvania at the age of 86.
=== Clarence C. Newcomer ===
Clarence C. Newcomer Born: January 18, 1923, in Mount Joy, Pennsylvania Died: August 22, 2005, in Stone Harbor, New Jersey Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Richard M. Nixon on November 17, 1971, to a seat vacated by C. William Kraft, Jr. Confirmed by the Senate on November 23, 1971, and received commission on November 30, 1971. Assumed senior status on January 19, 1988. Service terminated on August 22, 2005, due to death. Education: Franklin and Marshall College, A.B., 1944 Dickinson School of Law (now Penn State Dickinson Law), J.D., 1948 Professional Career: U.S. Naval Reserve Lieutenant: 1943-1946 Private Practice, Lancaster, Pennsylvania: 1950-1971 Special Deputy Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: 1953-1954 Assistant District Attorney, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania: 1960-1968 District Attorney, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania: 1968-1972 * * * Judicial Biography In 1950, Judge Newcomer entered into private practice in Lancaster, his home for more than 50 years, and served several positions in that county. From 1950-1957, he was a solo practitioner, and later became partner in the law firm of Rohrer, Honaman, Newcomer & Musser. During that time, he also served as a Pennsylvania Special Deputy Attorney General from 1953- 1954. Committed to public service, Judge Newcomer served as a Lancaster Assistant District Attorney from 1960-1964, as a First Assistant District Attorney from 1964-1968, and as the Lancaster County District Attorney from 1968-1972, when he was also a partner with the law firm of Newcomer, Roda & Morgan. *In 1971, in accordance with Senator Hugh Scott’s goal of geographic diversity, President Richard M. Nixon chose Clarence C. Newcomer, only the second nominee in the Court’s history from Lancaster County. Newcomer had served in the Navy in the South Pacific during the Second World War and like Judge VanArtsdalen had been elected to a term as his county’s District Attorney. At the time of his nomination, he was a partner in a law firm in Lancaster. Judge Newcomer presided over a similar protracted race discrimination class action and related individual actions filed against United States Steel Corporation by African-American production and maintenance employees at the corporations’ Fairless Works. As a result of Roe v. Wade, the Pennsylvania General Assembly quickly passed the Abortion Control Act of 1974, but it was not long before a three-judge panel comprised of Judge Green, Judge Newcomer, and Circuit Judge Arlin Adams declared portions of the Act unconstitutional, including provisions requiring parental consent for a minor to have an abortion and the provision requiring spousal consent in all cases. Several years later Judge Bechtle held that Pennsylvania’s prohibition against Medicaid funding for abortions other than those necessary to save the life of the mother violated federal law. During the three decade career on the federal bench, Judge Newcomer presided over several mob and public corruption cases, and in 1994 invalidated a state senate election he found to be overwhelmingly tainted by fraud. The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary cited several other noteworthy cases, including a 1993 ruling that a law firm’s refusal to promote a female associate to partner violated the Civil Rights Act and a 1997 ruling that states cannot discriminate against new residents by paying them lower welfare benefits than longtime residents. In April, Judge Newcomer presided over a civil trial in which a jury awarded residents displaced by the MOVE bombing a $12.83 million verdict against the City of Philadelphia. Judge Newcomer assumed senior status on January 19, 1988 and served in that capacity until his passing on August 22, 2005 in Stone Harbor New Jersey, at the age of 82. * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press.
=== Clifford Scott Green ===
Clifford Scott Green Born: April 2, 1923, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: May 31, 2007, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Richard M. Nixon on December 1, 1971, to a seat vacated by Harold K. Wood. Confirmed by the Senate on December 4, 1971, and received commission on December 9, 1971. Assumed senior status on April 2, 1988. Service terminated on May 31, 2007, due to death. Education: Temple University, B.S., 1948 Temple University School of Law (now James E. Beasley School of Law), J.D., 1951 Professional Career: U.S. Air Force Sergeant: 1943-1946 Instructor, William Penn Business Institute: 1951-1952 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1952-1964 Special Deputy Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: 1954-1955 Lecturer in Law, Temple University: 1968-1971 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania: 1964-1972 * * * Judicial Biography *President Nixon’s last appointment in 1971 was Clifford Scott Green from Philadelphia. He was the second African-American to be selected for the Eastern District. After his time in the Army Air Corps during World War II, he matriculated to Temple University where he obtained a B.S. degree in economics, the first member of his family to attend college. His original plan was to become a certified public accountant, but he was told there were no such jobs in Philadelphia for African-Americans. He then decided to pursue a career in law and was graduated near the top of his class at Temple Law School. Like Leon Higginbotham, he secured a position with the law firm headed by Austin Norris and later became a partner. Again, this was at a time when other opportunities for employment for African-American lawyers in Philadelphia, even ones of his ability, were virtually non-existent. After law school, Green became involved in politics and was the Republican Leader in the 44th Ward in West Philadelphia for a number of years. He ran unsuccessfully for City Council and the Municipal Court but ultimately was appointed and then elected to the old County Court of Philadelphia (later merged into the Court of Common Pleas) with the strong support of Governor William Scranton. He was a judge of the Court of Common Pleas when named to the federal bench. Citing the “joy his district court job provided him and the numerous friendships he enjoyed there,” he subsequently declined an appointment to the Court of Appeals. Judge Broderick told an amusing story about his friend Clifford Green, which he repeated often and which Judge Green continued to recount after Judge Broderick’s death. When Broderick was running for state-wide office, he noticed in reviewing the election returns that he had received only one vote in the home division of Clifford and Mable Green in West Philadelphia. When Broderick asked Clifford Green about it, Green insisted that he had indeed voted for Broderick. When Broderick inquired of Mable Green, she responded emphatically that she was the one who had cast the ballot for him. The matter, of course, was never resolved, but the story always generated laughter among the judges. Judge Green presided over a class action in Bolden v. Pennsylvania State Police in which the named plaintiff claimed that the Pennsylvania State Police were engaged in racially discriminatory policies in the hiring and promotion of state troopers. In 1974, Judge Green approved a Consent Decree which mandated the hiring and promotion of more minorities. At the time it was entered, total minority representation among the employees of the Pennsylvania State Police was only 1.48% compared with 10.8% for all Pennsylvania state agencies and a minority population in the Commonwealth of 9.2%. The Decree, which Judge Green monitored, remained in effect for twenty-five years. As a result of Roe v. Wade, the Pennsylvania General Assembly quickly passed the Abortion Control Act of 1974, but it was not long before a three-judge panel comprised of Judge * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. Green, Judge Newcomer, and Circuit Judge Arlin Adams declared portions of the Act unconstitutional, including provisions requiring parental consent for a minor to have an abortion and the provision requiring spousal consent in all cases. Several years later Judge Bechtle held that Pennsylvania’s prohibition against Medicaid funding for abortions other than those necessary to save the life of the mother violated federal law. Judge Green assumed senior status on April 2, 1988 and continued to serve the Court in that capacity until his death on May 31, 2007 in Philadelphia, at the age of 84.
=== Louis C. Bechtle ===
Louis C. Bechtle Born: December 14, 1927, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: December 22, 2024, in Audubon, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Richard M. Nixon on February 14, 1972, to a seat vacated by John W. Lord, Jr. Confirmed by the Senate on March 2, 1972, and received commission on March 7, 1972. Served as chief judge, 1990-1993. Assumed senior status on April 30, 1993. Service terminated on June 30, 2001, due to retirement. Education: Temple University, B.S., 1951 Temple University School of Law (now James E. Beasley School of Law), LL.B., 1954 Professional Career: U.S. Army: 1946-1947 Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 1956-1959 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1959-1962 Private Practice, Norristown, Pennsylvania: 1962-1969 U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 1969-1972 Member, U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: 1994-2001 * * * Judicial Biography *In 1972, President Richard M. Nixon appointed to the Court Louis C. Bechtle, the United States Attorney since 1969. Bechtle traveled the same path to the District Court as eight of his predecessors: Judges Lewis, Holland, Thompson, Bard, Ganey, Follmer, Wood, and Joseph Lord, all of whom had held the office of United States Attorney. Bechtle resided in Montgomery County and had previously practiced law there at the Wisler Pearlstine firm. Chief Justice William Rehnquist designated him as a member of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. He also served as the Chief Judge of the Eastern District for several years in the early 1990’s. As a result of Roe v. Wade, the Pennsylvania’s General Assembly quickly passed the Abortion Control Act of 1974, but it was not long before a three-judge panel comprised of Judge Green, Judge Newcomer, and Circuit Judge Arlin Adams declared portions of the Act unconstitutional, including provisions requiring parental consent for a minor to have an abortion and the provision requiring spousal consent in all cases. Several years later Judge Bechtle held that Pennsylvania’s prohibition against Medicaid funding for abortions other than those necessary to save the life of the mother violated federal law. In the early 1990’s, Chief Judge Bechtle organized a court retreat, a several-day event away from the courthouse. The judges found the retreat to be very helpful, and one has been held in most subsequent years. The topics vary from “nuts and bolts” issues with which judges must contend in their everyday work to discussions on matters of broader interest. Sometimes the judges themselves conduct the program on a particular subject while on other occasions they engage outside speakers. Judge Bechtle was given multiple high profile special appointments by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, including overseeing the criminal trial of a sitting federal judge in San Francisco and the litigation involving the mass-casualty DuPont Hotel Fire in Puerto Rico. In the early 1980’s, Judge Bechtle presided over the history making trial of former Ukrainian police officer Wolodymir Osidach, who had collaborated with the Nazis and later immigrated to the United States under false pretenses, the verdict resulting in the revocation of Osidach’s U.S. citizenship. Judge Bechtle also enjoined racially discriminatory practices by the International Union of Operating Engineers, oversaw the desegregation of the Philadelphia Fire Department, and presided over the decade long federal court supervision of United Union of Roofers Local 30, the leadership of which was the subject of multiple criminal racketeering convictions. Throughout his career on the bench, Judge Bechtle handled complex mass tort cases. These included, among many others, the various civil lawsuits stemming from the tragic 1980 MGM Grand Hotel fire in Las Vegas, the In re Air Crash Disaster multidistrict litigation (MDL), the orthopedic bone screw MDL, and the “fen-phen” diet drug MDL in which he approved a multibillion dollar settlement. He also presided over the first asbestos case tried and handled * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. precedent setting criminal cases, including in 1979 a major local voting fraud case, United States v. Cianciulli. Judge Bechtle served as Chief Judge from 1990 to 1993. He assumed senior status on April 30, 1993, and retired from the bench on June 30, 2001 to return to the private practice of law. He passed away at the age of 97 on December 22, 2024 in Audubon, Pennsylvania.
=== Herbert A. Fogel ===
Herbert A. Fogel Born: April 20, 1929, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: September 18, 2002, in Hendersonville, Tennessee Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Richard M. Nixon on February 13, 1973, to a seat vacated by Ralph C. Body. Confirmed by the Senate on May 14, 1973, and received commission on May 15, 1973. Service terminated on May 1, 1978, due to resignation. Education: University of Pennsylvania, B.A., 1949 University of Pennsylvania (now Carey Law School), J.D., 1952 Professional Career: U.S. Air Force Law Clerk, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County: 1952-1954 Law Clerk, Honorable Vincent A. Carroll, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County: 1954-1959 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1954-1973 Deputy Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: 1963-1970 Counsel, Pennsylvania Harness Racing Commission: 1963-1970 * * * Judicial Biography *In 1973, President Richard M. Nixon appointed Herbert A. Fogel to the Court. Before he became a District Judge, Fogel was a partner at Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel and a close friend of Senator Scott who was also affiliated with the same firm. Fogel resigned from the bench in 1978. Fogel died at the age of 73 on September 18, 2002 in Hendersonville, Tennessee. * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press.
=== Joseph L. McGlynn, Jr. ===
Joseph L. McGlynn, Jr. Born: February 13, 1925, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: February 23, 1999, in Cancun, Mexico Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Richard M. Nixon on January 31, 1974, to a seat vacated by Thomas A. Masterson. Confirmed by the Senate on March 1, 1974, and received commission on March 8, 1974. Assumed senior status on February 14, 1990. Service terminated on February 23, 1999, due to death. Education: Mount St. Mary’s College, B.S., 1948 University of Pennsylvania (now Carey Law School), LL.B., 1951 Professional Career: U.S. Navy: 1943-1946 Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 1953-1960 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1960-1965 Judge, Philadelphia County Court: 1965-1968 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County: 1968-1974 * * * Judicial Biography *In 1974, President Richard M. Nixon appointed Joseph L. McGlynn, Jr. to the Court. Judge McGlynn had served in the Navy in World War II and later as an Assistant United States Attorney. He was sitting on the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County at the time when he was nominated to the federal bench. McGlynn, like Judge Edward Becker, lived in Northeast Philadelphia and was close to Bill Meehan and the Philadelphia Republican organization. He often quipped that a judge was simply a lawyer who knew a politician. In 1953 Judge McGlynn joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Philadelphia, becoming chief of the civil and criminal divisions and then first assistant U.S. Attorney. He was named the United States Attorney in 1959. After leaving the prosecutor’s office, he joined the Center City law firm then known as Blank, Rudenko, Klaus & Rome, becoming a partner in 1964. Later in 1964, Judge McGlynn was appointed to what was then known as Philadelphia County Court and became a Common Pleas judge in 1968 after a statewide judicial reorganization. He was appointed to the lifetime seat on the U.S. District Court in February 1974 by President Nixon. In a quarter-century on the federal court, Judge McGlynn handled a range of criminal and civil cases. One of his most noteworthy – and controversial – rulings was in 1983, when he cut nearly $16 million from $20.2 million in legal fees requested by more than 40 law firms involved in a $50 million settlement of a paper industry antitrust lawsuit. Although the decision was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, the opinion was hailed by many in the legal community as a “cry for reform” of lawyers’ billing practices. Judge McGlynn presided over an MDL consisting of thirty-seven class actions charging a conspiracy to fix the prices of fine paper. His opinion awarding counsel fees and costs consumed 171 printed pages in the Federal Rules Decisions, coming close but not exceeding Judge Edward Becker’s record of 217 pages in the Japanese Electronics case. Judge McGlynn is supposed to have wrapped a copy of his opinion with a ribbon and bow and presented it to his friend Judge Becker with a note, “We’re like Avis, we try harder.” Judge McGlynn assumed senior status on February 14, 1990, and he continued to serve the Court in that capacity until he died on February 23, 1999 at the age of 74, while vacationing in Cancun, Mexico. * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press.
=== Edward N. Cahn ===
Edward N. Cahn Born: June 29, 1933, in Allentown, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Gerald R. Ford on November 18, 1974, to a seat vacated by John Morgan Davis. Confirmed by the Senate on December 18, 1974, and received commission on December 20, 1974. Served as chief judge, 1993-1998. Service terminated on December 31, 1998, due to retirement. Education: Lehigh University, B.A., 1955 Yale Law School, LL.B., 1958 Professional Career: Private Practice, Allentown, Pennsylvania: 1958-1974 U.S. Marine Corps Reserve: 1958-1964 Member, Judicial Conference of the United States: 1994-1997 * * * Judicial Biography *Edward N. Cahn, a young lawyer in private practice in Allentown, Lehigh County, was appointed to the District Court in January 1975. He was the only judge named by President Gerald R. Ford to the Eastern District. In the 1990’s, he was to serve as Chief Judge of the Court, succeeding Louis Bechtle. For three years he was the District Court representative from the Third Circuit on the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body for the federal courts presided over by the Chief Justice. From 1975 to 1977, Judge Cahn presided in Philadelphia. From 1977 until his retirement in 1998, he served in Allentown.1 He was born on June 29, 1933, in Allentown, graduated from Allentown High School, and graduated magna cum laude from Lehigh University in 1955, where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. He received his LL.B. from Yale University in 1958, and an Honorary Doctor of Laws from Lehigh University in 2002. He was admitted to the practice of law in 1959. He served as an Adjunct Professor at Rutgers-Camden Law School from 1985 to 1989, and as a Tresolini Lecturer in law at Lehigh University. He was a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States from 1994 to 1996, the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources from 1993 to 1998, and the Judicial Conference for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals from 1993 to 1998. A selective service lawsuit filed in the Eastern District in 1972 had potentially widespread consequences. It dealt with the issue of gender discrimination. Robert Goldberg challenged the constitutionality of the Military Selective Service Act on the ground that only males were subject to registration and conscription. A three judge court consisting of District Judges James Gorbey and Joseph Lord and Circuit Judge Max Rosenn was convened. Shortly thereafter, the draft ended and the case lay dormant for a number of years. Ultimately, the matter was reactivated, and Judge Cahn replaced the late Judge Gorbey on the three-judge panel. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter asked Congress to reinstitute the registration process in order to facilitate a draft if one should ever be reinstated. He proposed that women as well as men register as a matter of equity. Congress authorized the President to require registration of males but rejected his request with respect to women. The question now before the three-judge panel was whether the Military Selective Service Act was constitutional when it compelled men, but not women, to register. The panel ruled unanimously that the law violated the due process clause of the Constitution and enjoined * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. 1 From December of 1998, when Judge Cahn retired, until November of 2002, no district judge served on a regular basis at the Allentown federal courthouse. enforcement of registration on the ground that it did not treat men and women equally. In an opinion by Judge Cahn, the Court stated: It is undisputed that the MSSA [Military Selective Service Act] creates a gender- based classification and that the government has the burden of justifying that classification. . . . We . . . hold that the complete exclusion of women from the pool of registrants does not serve “important governmental objectives” and is not “substantially related” . . . to any alleged government interest. Thus, the MSSA unconstitutionally discriminates between males and females. The Court’s order was stayed by Justice William Brennan to give the Supreme Court an opportunity to consider the matter. After argument, the Supreme Court reversed. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the majority that the District Court must defer to Congress which has the exclusive power under the Constitution to raise and maintain an Army and a Navy and to make rules and regulations for the land and naval forces. According to the high Court, Congress had made a valid policy decision that women in the military were not to engage in combat and therefore should not be required to register for a possible draft. Consequently, men and women were not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft and the Military Selective Service Act did not violate due process. Judge Cahn was assigned and presided over a Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) involving allegations that major sugar refiners and others East of the Mississippi River had conspired to fix prices of refined sugar in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. With the induction of Judge Cahn in 1975, the Court had a judge sitting in Allentown for the first time since that city was designated by Congress as a court station in 1968. The Commissioners of Lehigh County kindly permitted him to use the old Lehigh County Courthouse with its vintage courtroom since there was no adequate federal facility nearby. In the early 1990’s, a federal courthouse was built in Allentown where both civil and criminal cases arising out of that geographic area are now tried. It is situated on Hamilton Street across from the old county courthouse and a block from Zion’s Reformed Church where the Liberty Bell was hidden during the Revolution after it was removed from Independence Hall to keep it out of the grasp of the British Army about to occupy Philadelphia. The courthouse contains the portraits of Judges William H. Kirkpatrick and J. Cullen Ganey, who were from neighboring Northampton County, as well as that of Judge Cahn, who is a native of Lehigh County. All three served as Chief Judge of this Court. Judge Cahn served as Chief Judge from 1993 to 1998. He retired from the Court on December 31, 1998, and then returned to the private practice of law. On August 20, 2001, the Allentown Federal Courthouse was named by the United States Congress the “Edward N. Cahn Federal Building and United States Courthouse” in his honor. * * * Biographical Materials 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Transcript of induction proceedings, administration of the oath of office, January 31, 1975, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania – Honorable Edward N. Cahn. Naming Ceremony of the Edward N. Cahn United States Courthouse and Federal Building, November 19, 2001. Judicial photograph of Honorable Edward N. Cahn. Transcript of Official Ceremonies Commemorating Opening of Allentown, Pennsylvania Federal Court facility held on December 16, 1977. Series of three photographs taken on December 16, 1977 of Judge Alfred L. Luongo, Chief Judge Joseph S. Lord, III, and Judge Edward N. Cahn, on the occasion of the opening of the federal courtroom in Allentown, Pennsylvania in the old Lehigh County Courthouse.
=== Louis H. Pollak ===
Louis H. Pollak Born: December 7, 1922, in New York, New York Died: May 8, 2012, in West Mount Airy, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Jimmy Carter on June 7, 1978, to a seat vacated by A. Leon Higginbotham. Confirmed by the Senate on July 10, 1978, and received commission on July 12, 1978. Assumed senior status on January 1, 1991. Service terminated on May 8, 2012, due to death. Education: Harvard University, B.A., 1943 Yale Law School, LL.B., 1948 Professional Career: U.S. Army: 1943-1946 Law Clerk, Hon. Wiley B. Rutledge, Supreme Court of the United States: 1948-1949 Private Practice, New York City: 1949-1951 Attorney and Special Assistant to Ambassador-at-Large Philip C. Jessup, U.S. Department of State: 1951-1953 Assistant Counsel, Amalgamated Clothing Workers, New York City: 1954-1955 Faculty, Yale Law School: 1955-1974; Dean: 1965-1970 Faculty, University of Pennsylvania Law School: 1974-1978; Dean: 1975-1978 Member, U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: 1983-1992 Manuscript Collections: Yale University New Haven, Connecticut Louis H. Pollak Papers: 1948-2012 Oral History: Pollak, Louis H. “The Honorable Louis Heilprin Pollak.” Interview by Liana Perez conducted on April 24 and May 10, 2001. Legal Oral History Project, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2001. 2 videocassettes; 1 computer disk; transcript. * * * Judicial Biography President Jimmy Carter nominated Louis H. Pollak to the bench in 1978, with the endorsement of Pennsylvania’s two Republican Senators, Richard S. Schweiker and H. John Heinz, III. *Judge Pollak was an academician and a fervent advocate for civil rights. After completing his undergraduate studies, he entered the Army during World War II. Upon completing law school, he was hired by Supreme Court Justice Wiley Rutledge as his law clerk. During his time in private practice as a young lawyer, he helped the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in writing a Supreme Court brief in support of school desegregation in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education. Beginning in 1951, he served two years in the State Department as a special assistant to Ambassador-at-Large Philip C. Jessup. He then was employed as assistant counsel to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. Teaching followed. After serving on the faculty and as Dean of Yale Law School, he moved to Philadelphia in 1975 to become Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. With the support of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and a number of influential lawyers such as William T. Coleman, he was seated as a federal judge in 1978. Chief Justice Warren Burger later appointed him to the Multidistrict Litigation Panel. Judge Pollak assumed senior status on January 1, 1991 and continued to serve in that status until he died on May 8, 2012 in the West Mount Airy neighborhood of Philadelphia at the age of 89. * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press.
=== Norma L. Shapiro ===
Norma L. Shapiro Born: July 27, 1928, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: July 22, 2016, in Wynnewood, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Jimmy Carter on August 1, 1978, to a seat vacated by James H. Gorbey. Confirmed by the Senate on August 11, 1978, and received commission on August 11, 1978. Assumed senior status on December 31, 1998. Service terminated on July 22, 2016, due to death. Education: University of Michigan, B.A., 1948 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), J.D., 1951 Professional Career: Law Clerk, Hon. Horace Stern, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: 1951-1952 Gowen Fellow in Criminal Law, University of Pennsylvania: 1954-1955 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1956-1978 Instructor and Lecturer, University of Pennsylvania Law School: 1951-1952; 1955-1956; 1971 Oral History: Shapiro, Norma L. Oral History Interview. American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession, Women Trailblazers in the Law Oral History Project, Radcliffe College, Schlesinger Library on the History of Women, 2005-2013. Transcript. * * * Judicial Biography President Jimmy Carter nominated Norma L. Shapiro to a seat on the Court in 1978. *Norma Shapiro was the first woman ever confirmed to the Eastern District. Following her completion of law school, Justice Horace Stern of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court chose her as his only female law clerk. Sometime later, she temporarily put her legal career on hold when her three sons were young and then returned to practice to become the first woman partner at Dechert Price & Rhoads. She was also elected to the Lower Merion School Board and served as its President for several years. Her interests have included both the Philadelphia Bar Association where she chaired the Board of Governors and the American Bar Association where she presided over the Judicial Division of the House of Delegates. The President of the American Bar Association named her to head its Standing Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements. Throughout her career, she remained a strong advocate for women in the legal profession. Although she was a Republican, President Carter in her case transcended partisan policies when he selected her to be a judge. Her arrival on the Court in 1978 was greeted at first with less than enthusiasm by some of her male colleagues who had not been accustomed to associating with professional women in the workplace. As time passed and they came to know her, these gender-related feelings ultimately disappeared. In that era when a new judge joined the Eastern District, it was the custom for each of the other judges to select a certain number of cases from his docket and transfer them to the new member of the Court. Not uncommonly, there was a tendency to pick for transfer what were characterized as “dog” cases, that is, those which in the transferor judge’s view were either uninteresting or otherwise unappetizing. When Judge Shapiro received her bundle of assignments and then questioned the fairness of the selection process, the Court approved, albeit prospectively, a more equitable arrangement whereby cases for transfer from each judge’s calendar are chosen at random, with the transferor judge having only a veto on the reassignment of any particular case. Each succeeding judge has owed her a lasting debt of gratitude for this change in practice. Judge Shapiro soon instituted a gracious and generous custom of her own, and which is undoubtedly unique among courts anywhere. She wrote lyrics and provided a cake for each of her colleagues on that colleague’s birthday. These celebrations now occur over thirty times a year during lunch in the judges’ dining room. With the assistance of Judge Fullam until his retirement and later that of Judge Dalzell, she led all judges in attendance in singing the lyrics to * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. some known tune of her choosing, and the cake was then cut and eagerly consumed. A good time was always had by all. As a result of the countless cakes she purchased over more than three decades, it is believed that she single-handedly kept the local baking industry in the black. In 1982, several inmates incarcerated in Holmesburg Prison in Philadelphia filed a pro se class action complaint on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, in which they sought damages as well as injunctive relief. They claimed they were suffering cruel and unusual punishment because of prison overcrowding in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The action landed on the docket of Judge Shapiro. She initially dismissed it on the ground that relief could be obtained under the terms of a judgment handed down in a case in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. The Court of Appeals disagreed and returned it to her for further proceedings. She was destined to preside over this action for almost twenty years. An amended complaint was subsequently filed to expand the scope of the class action to include the conditions at the Detention Center and the House of Correction, the other two Philadelphia County jails. In 1986, the parties reached a settlement, approved by Judge Shapiro, which included a number of conditions such as a cap on the inmate population, a mechanism for reducing the inmate population if and when the cap was exceeded, and the construction of a new prison with 650 beds and a downtown detention facility of 440 beds. This, however, did not end the lawsuit. Over the years, the cap was exceeded. Judge Shapiro, along with a Special Master she had appointed, had to contend with that issue to insure that unconstitutional prison conditions did not occur. Before her were difficult questions concerning what categories of detainees, how many, and under what conditions they would be released pending trial. This was a highly controversial matter, with the District Attorney and the newspapers often vituperative and abusive in their unfair criticism. The Decree was modified from time to time to allow for an increase in the prison population due, among other circumstances, to the growth of illegal drug trafficking in the City. The two prisons to be built under that Consent Decree were never constructed, but the City ultimately increased the number of beds for its inmate population. In 1991, by agreement of the parties and approval of the Court, the 1986 Decree was replaced by a new Decree. It included, among other provisions, a requirement that the City construct a new prison and expand by 1,250 the number of inmate beds and that it build a new courthouse. A new release mechanism to reduce any overcrowding was also included. Finally, the City committed to develop a long- range plan to alleviate this critical problem. A new prison facility and a new criminal justice center for the trial of state criminal cases were constructed in the 1990’s under the watchful eye of Judge Shapiro. She ended her years of oversight of the Philadelphia prisons in 2000. Judge Shapiro assumed senior status on December 31, 1998 and continued to serve in that capacity until her death on July 22, 2016 in Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, at the age of 87.
=== James T. Giles ===
James T. Giles Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Jimmy Carter on October 11, 1979, to a seat vacated by Herbert A. Fogel. Confirmed by the Senate on November 26, 1979, and received commission on November 27, 1979. Served as Chief Judge, 1999-2005. Assumed senior status on February 11, 2008. Service terminated on October 3, 2008, due to retirement. Education: Amherst College, B.A., 1964 Yale Law School, LL.B., 1967 Professional Career: Clerk, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: 1967 Field Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1967-1968 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1968-1979; 2008- * * * Judicial Biography James T. Giles was named to the bench by President Jimmy Carter at the age of 36. *He was the third African-American named to the Eastern District and the last judge named by President Carter. His appointment came in 1979. He grew up in segregated southwestern Virginia but went to college at Amherst and then on to Yale Law School. Following his employment as a field attorney with the National Labor Relations Board, he became an associate and then a partner at Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz in Philadelphia. He followed Edward Cahn as the Chief Judge of the Court, a position he held for six years. Judge Giles retired from the bench in 2008 to return to the private practice of law where he has focused on alternative dispute resolution matters. * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press.
=== Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr. ===
Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr. Born: July 6, 1928, in Hanover, Pennsylvania Died: January 16, 2018, in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Ronald Reagan on June 21, 1983, to a seat vacated by Edward R. Becker. Confirmed by the Senate on August 4, 1983, and received commission on August 5, 1983. Assumed senior status on July 6, 1996. Service terminated on January 16, 2018, due to death. Education: Catholic University of America, A.B., 1950 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), LL.B., 1953 Professional Career: U.S. Naval Air Reserve: 1948-1953 Law Clerk, Hon. Herbert F. Goodrich, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: 1953-1954 Law Clerk, Hon. Harold H. Burton, Supreme Court of the United States: 1954-1955 Fulbright Scholar, London School of Economics: 1955-1956 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1956-1983 * * * Judicial Biography Judge Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr. was appointed to the Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1983. Judge O’Neill served in the United States Navy Reserve from 1948 to 1953. He received his A.B., magna cum laude, from The Catholic University of America in 1950 and his LL.B., magna cum laude, from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1953 where he served as Articles Editor of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. He was a member of Phi Beta Kappa and the Order of the Coif. Judge O’Neill served as Law Clerk to Judge Herbert F. Goodrich (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit) from 1953 to 1954 and to Justice Harold H. Burton (U.S. Supreme Court) from 1954 to 1955. He was a Fulbright Scholar at the London School of Economics from 1955 to 1956, when he also had a desk in Chambers in Lincolns Inn. In 1956 he joined the Philadelphia law firm of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads where he served as Chairman of the Litigation Section and as a member of the firm’s Management Committee, and specialized in business litigation and the defense of lawyer malpractice cases. Judge O’Neill was counsel to the First and Second Pennsylvania State Legislative Reapportionment Commissions. He was an instructor in Appellate Advocacy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1973. He was Chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association in 1976 and a member of the American Bar Association House of Delegates in the same year. He was a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and a Life Member of the American Law Institute. He was a member of the Governors Trial Court Nominating Commission for Philadelphia County; President of the Pennsylvania Conference of County Bar Officers; President of the University of Pennsylvania Law Alumni Society and President of the University of Pennsylvania Chapter of the Order of the Coif. Judge O’Neill served as a member of the Board of Overseers of the University of Pennsylvania Museum and a Board member of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law. He was an incorporator and a Board member of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia. Judge O’Neill was the founding Chairman of the University of Pennsylvania Law School American Inn of Court. He served on the Codes of Conduct Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States from 1995 to 2001. Judge O’Neill’s diverse interests and civic involvement included, among others, serving on the Board of Trustees of the Gladwyne Library Committee, as a Board member of the Pennsylvania Society of the Sons of the Revolution, and as President of his beloved Edgemere Club at Silver Lake in Pike County, Pennsylvania, singing in both the Savoy Company and the Counterparts (an a cappella singing group), fishing for trout, playing tennis and being an all- around bon raconteur of very long jokes. Judge O’Neill was a lifelong Anglophile. *One of the more noteworthy cases he handled involved the government prosecution of Nicodemo Scarfo, the powerful and feared head of the Mafia in Philadelphia and Southern New Jersey. In one trial in the Eastern District before Judge O’Neill in 1987, where the Government’s main witnesses were convicted murderers, Scarfo was acquitted. * The following material is excerpted from JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III, MORTALS WITH TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 3-12 (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011). Reproduced with the permission of the author, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, and the publisher, Saint Joseph’s University Press. Judge O’Neill assumed senior status on July 6, 1996 and continued to serve in that capacity until he passed away on January 16, 2018 at the age of 89. * * * Biographical Materials 1. Philadelphia Bar Association Board of Governors Board Resolution – In Memoriam: Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr.
=== James McGirr Kelly ===
Photo of Oil Painting of James McGirr Kelly James McGirr Kelly Born: March 24, 1928, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: March 5, 2005, in Overbrook, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Ronald Reagan on June 21, 1983, to a seat vacated by E. Mac Troutman. Confirmed by the Senate on August 4, 1983, and received commission on August 6, 1983. Assumed senior status on March 31, 1996. Service terminated on March 5, 2005, due to death. Education: University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School, B.S., 1951 Temple University School of Law (now James E. Beasley School of Law), J.D., 1957 Professional Career: U.S. Navy: 1951-1953 Law Clerk, Hon. Edward J. Griffiths, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania: 1957-1958 Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1958-1960 Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 1960-1962 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1962-1983 Master, Jury Selection Board, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania: 1963-1964 Special Assistant Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: 1964-1965 Adjunct Professor of Business Law, Drexel University: 1965-1989 Member, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission: 1967-1977 Vice President of Regulatory Practices, American Water Works Company: 1977-1983 * * * Judicial Biography Judge James McGirr Kelly was named to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1983. From 1951 to 1953 he served as a gunnery officer in the United States Navy. He served as a law clerk for Judge Edward J. Griffiths of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia from 1957 to 1958. He was an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia from 1958 to 1960. He was an assistant Untied States Attorney of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania from 1960 to 1962. He was in private practice in Philadelphia from 1962 to 1983. He was a Master of the Jury Selection Board for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas from 1963 to 1964. He was a special assistant attorney general of Pennsylvania from 1964 to 1965. He was an adjunct professor of business law at Drexel University from 1965 to 1989. He was a member of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission from 1967 to 1977. He was a Vice President of regulatory practices at American Water Works Company from 1977 to 1983. He assumed senior status on March 31, 1996 and continued in that role until his death on March 5, 2005, in Overbrook, Pennsylvania at the age of 76.
=== Marvin Katz ===
Photo of Oil Painting of Marvin Katz Marvin Katz Born: November 22, 1930, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: October 12, 2010, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Ronald Reagan on June 21, 1983, to a seat vacated by Joseph S. Lord, III. Confirmed by the Senate on August 4, 1983, and received commission on August 6, 1983. Assumed senior status on August 26, 1997. Service terminated on October 12, 2010, due to death. Education: University of Pennsylvania, B.A., 1951 Yale Law School, LL.B., 1954 Professional Career: Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1954-1977; 1981-1983 Law Clerk, Hon. Francis X. McClanaghan, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania: 1959-1960 Assistant to the Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of Treasury: 1977- 1981 * * * Judicial Biography Marvin Katz was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1983. Katz went to college at the University of Pennsylvania in the late 1940’s, when he met Arlen Specter, who later was elected a United States Senator. The two became law school classmates at Yale Law School and later formed the law partnership of Specter and Katz. In the late 1980’s Judge Katz presided over the lengthy trial of Roofers Union leader Stephen Traitz, his two sons and others who were charged with paying cash bribes to state court judges, and other officials, from members of the Roofers Union. The defendants were found guilty of most of the racketeering, extortion, conspiracy and bribery charges against them. Katz was well known for a ruling that led to a significant change in how patent cases were litigated. In Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., Katz ruled that issues of “claim construction” in patent cases were for the trial judge, and not the jury. The decision was unanimously affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, leading to the practice of holding “Markman” hearings in the early stages of patent litigation. He was in private practice in Philadelphia from 1954 to 1977, serving as a law clerk for Judge Francis X. McClanaghan of Philadelphia’s Court of Common Pleas from 1959 to 1960. Katz was an assistant to the Commissioner of the United States Internal Revenue Service from 1977 to 1981, thereafter returning to private practice in Philadelphia until 1983. Judge Katz assumed senior status on August 26, 1997, and served in that capacity until his death on October 12, 2010, at the age of 79.
=== Anthony J. Scirica ===
Photo of Oil Painting of Anthony J. Scirica Anthony J. Scirica Born: December 16, 1940 in Norristown, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Ronald Reagan on June 19, 1984, to a seat vacated by John B. Hannum. Confirmed by the Senate on September 17, 1984, and received commission on September 18, 1984. Service terminated on September 11, 1987, due to appointment to another judicial position. Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Nominated by Ronald Reagan on June 26, 1987, to a seat vacated by Ruggero John Aldisert. Confirmed by the Senate on August 5, 1987, and received commission on August 6, 1987. Served as chief judge, 2003-2010. Assumed senior status on July 1, 2013. Education: Wesleyan University, B.A., 1962 University of Michigan Law School, J.D., 1965 Professional Career: Fulbright Scholar, Central University, Caracas, Venezuela: 1966 Private Practice, Norristown, Pennsylvania: 1966-1980 Assistant District Attorney, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: 1967-1969 State Representative, Pennsylvania: 1971-1979 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: 1980-1984 Member, Judicial Conference of the United States: 2003-2010 Member, U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: 2006-2008 Senior Fellow, University of Pennsylvania Law School: 2013- * * * Judicial Biography Anthony J. Scirica was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to the district court bench in 1984. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Wesleyan University in 1962. He received a Juris Doctor from the University of Michigan Law School in 1965. He was a Fulbright Scholar at Central University of Venezuela in Caracas, Venezuela in 1966. He was in private practice of law in Norristown from 1966 to 1980. He was an Assistant District Attorney of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania from 1967 to 1969. He was a Republican Pennsylvania State Representative from 1971 to 1979. He was a Judge on the Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County from 1980 to 1984. In 1987 Judge Scirica was nominated by President Reagan to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He was confirmed by the Senate on August 5, 1987. He served as Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals from 2003 to 2010, and assumed senior status on July 1, 2013.
=== Edmund V. Ludwig ===
Edmund V. Ludwig Born: May 20, 1928 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: May 17, 2016 in Doylestown, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Ronald Reagan on June 21, 1985, to a seat vacated by Raymond Broderick. Confirmed by the Senate on October 16, 1985, and received commission on October 17, 1985. Assumed senior status on May 20, 1997. Service terminated on May 17, 2016, due to death. Education: Harvard University, A.B., 1949 Harvard Law School, LL.B., 1952 Professional Career: U.S. Army Reserve Captain, JAG Corps: 1953-1956 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1956-1960 Private Practice, Doylestown, Pennsylvania: 1960-1968 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylvania: 1968-1985 Clinical Associate Professor, Hahnemann University: 1977-1985 Visiting lecturer, Temple University School of Law: 1977-1982 Faculty, Villanova University School of Law: 1975-1977; 1984-1997; Presenter, Institute for Correctional Law: 1975-1977; Lecturer in law: 1984-1997 Faculty, University of Pennsylvania: 1981-1982 * * * Judicial Biography Edmund V. Ludwig was nominated as a judge of the court in 1985 by President Ronald Reagan. He graduated from Germantown Friends School in 1945 and subsequently attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He served in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, achieving the rank of Captain in the Army JAG Corps before returning to the private practice of law in Doylestown. In 1968, he was elected as a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County. He held faculty positions at various times with Hahnemann University, Temple Law School, Villanova Law School and the University of Pennsylvania. In 1971, he co-founded TODAY, Inc., a residential drug treatment program and served on its Board from 1971 to 1985. In 1996, he ordered that Major League Baseball umpires who were threatening to boycott games over a labor dispute, to work through the 1996 World Series. In 1995, he founded the Doylestown Historical Society, where he served as Chair until 2011. He assumed senior status in 1997, and continued to serve in that capacity until his death in 2016, at the age of 87.
=== Robert F. Kelly ===
Photo of Oil Painting of Robert F. Kelly Robert F. Kelly Born: June 17, 1935, in Rosemont, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Ronald Reagan on May 1, 1987, to a seat vacated by Donald W. VanArtsdalen. Confirmed by the Senate on June 25, 1987, and received commission on June 26, 1987. Assumed senior status on July 17, 2001. Education: Villanova University, B.S., 1957 Temple University School of Law (now James E. Beasley School of Law), LL.B., 1960 Professional Career: Private Practice, Media, Pennsylvania: 1961-1962; 1964-1976 Private Practice, Chester, Pennsylvania: 1962-1964 Clerk, Hon. Francis J. Catania, Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania: 1964-1972 Prothonotary, Delaware County, Pennsylvania: 1972-1976 Chairman, Delaware County, Pennsylvania Republican Executive Committee: 1972-1985 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Delaware Pennsylvania: 1976-1987 * * * Judicial Biography Robert F. Kelly was born in Rosemont, Pennsylvania. He received a Bachelor of Science degree from Villanova University in 1957 and a Bachelor of Laws degree from Temple University School of Law in 1960. He was in private practice in Media, Pennsylvania from 1961 to 1962. He was in private practice in Chester, Pennsylvania from 1962 to 1964. He was in private practice in Media from 1964 to 1976. He was a clerk for Judge Francis J. Catania of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas from 1964 to 1972. He was the Prothonotary of Delaware County from 1972 to 1976. He was the Chairman of the Delaware County Republican Executive Committee from 1972 to 1985. He was a Judge on the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County from 1976 to 1987. Kelly was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on May 1, 1987, to a seat on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania vacated by Judge Donald W. VanArtsdalen. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on June 25, 1987, and received his commission on June 26, 1987. He assumed senior status on July 17, 2001.
=== Franklin S. Van Antwerpen ===
Franklin S. Van Antwerpen Born: October 23, 1941, in Passaic, New Jersey Died: July 25, 2016, in Palmer Township, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Ronald Reagan on September 11, 1987, to a seat vacated by Alfred L. Luongo. Confirmed by the Senate on December 8, 1987, and received commission on December 9, 1987. Service terminated on June 1, 2004, due to appointment to another judicial position. Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Nominated by George W. Bush on November 21, 2003, to a seat vacated by Edward R. Becker. Confirmed by the Senate on May 20, 2004, and received commission on May 24, 2004. Assumed senior status on October 23, 2006. Service terminated on July 25, 2016, due to death. Education: University of Maine, B.S., 1964 Temple University School of Law (now James E. Beasley School of Law), J.D., 1967 Professional Career: Contracts Counsel, Hazeltine Corporation, New York City: 1967-1970 Chief Counsel, Northampton County, Pennsylvania Legal Aid Society: 1970-1971 Private Practice, Easton, Pennsylvania: 1971-1979 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Pennsylvania: 1979-1987 Other Nominations/Recess Appointments: Nominated to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, September 11, 1991; no Senate vote * * * Judicial Biography Judge Van Antwerpen graduated from Newark Academy in 1960, and attended college at the University of Maine, where he graduated in 1964 with a degree in Engineering Physics and a minor in Electrical Engineering. He continued his studies at the Temple University Beasley School of Law, graduating with a Juris Doctor degree in 1967. While in law school, he served as a Justice of the Moot Court. After law school, he worked for Hazeltine Corporation on projects including a top secret electronic battlefield program for the armed forces dubbed as the “Manhattan Project of the Vietnam War.” In 1970, he left his corporate law position in New York City and became Chief Counsel of the Northampton County Legal Aid Society in Easton, Pennsylvania, a clinic providing legal assistance to those most in need. He then joined and became partner in the Easton law firm of Hemstreet, Smith, and Van Antwerpen. In 1979, he was appointed to fill a vacancy as judge on the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas and then elected to a 10-year term in 1982, having secured the backing of both major political parties. While serving on the state bench, he also spent two years as the President Judge of Bradford County by special appointment, and was instrumental in rewriting the Pennsylvania Domestic Relations Code and various municipal laws. He frequently lectured on the law of evidence for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute and taught law as an adjunct professor at a local college. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan appointed Judge Van Antwerpen to the federal bench. In 1988, he conducted a trial involving all 17 members of the Philadelphia mafia and sentenced them to long prison terms. The trial gave rise to three books and a made-for-TV movie. Judge Van Antwerpen was nominated by President Bush to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and sworn in as a Circuit Judge on June 1, 2004. Judge Van Antwerpen presided as Chairman of the Criminal Business Committee of the U.S. District Court, and served on the Defender Services Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States. He was also Chairman of the nationwide Subcommittee on Federal Defender Funding with a budget of almost a billion dollars. Judge Van Antwerpen served on the Board of Visitors of Temple University Beasley School of Law, and received numerous awards for his service and contributions, including the Law Enforcement Commendation medal of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, The Law Day Award of the Temple Law School Alumni Association, Liberty Bell Award of the Lehigh County Bar Association, and the Alumni Career Award of Newark Academy. In 2009, he received the University of Maine Alumni Achievement Award, and was listed by the Maine Alumni Magazine as one of 125 people who have made a difference in the world. A brief story about his life can be found on YouTube under the heading “UMaine Alumni Association 2009 Career Award Franklin Van Antwerpen.” He was an avid pipe organ player and fond of classical music. He assumed senior status on the Court of Appeals on October 23, 2006 and served in that capacity until his death on July 25, 2016 in Palmer Township, Pennsylvania, at the age of 74.
=== Robert S. Gawthrop, III ===
Robert S. Gawthrop, III Born: December 2, 1942, in West Chester, Pennsylvania Died: August 1, 1999, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Ronald Reagan on September 30, 1987, to a seat vacated by J. William Ditter, Jr. Confirmed by the Senate on December 8, 1987, and received commission on December 9, 1987. Service terminated on August 1, 1999, due to death. Education: Amherst College, B.A., 1964 Dickinson School of Law (now Penn State Dickinson Law), J.D., 1970 Professional Career: U.S. Army Lieutenant, Field Artillery: 1965-1967 Law Clerk, Hon. Lee F. Swope, Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania: 1969-1970 Private Practice, West Chester, Pennsylvania: 1970-1978 Assistant District Attorney, West Chester, Pennsylvania: 1971-1978 Assistant District Attorney, Wayne County, Pennsylvania: 1976-1977 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Pennsylvania: 1978-1988 Adjunct Professor, Dickinson School of Law: 1981-1982 * * * Judicial Biography Judge Gawthrop attended the Haverford School and was a 1964 graduate of Amherst College and a 1970 graduate of Dickinson School of Law. He served in the U.S. Army as a First Lieutenant in Korea. Prior to serving as a federal judge, he was a judge on the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County. He was an Assistant District Attorney in Chester County from 1971 to 1978. On the faculty of the Pennsylvania College of the Judiciary, he instructed fellow judges in areas such as criminal law procedure, evidence, and the handling of jury trials. He also taught lawyers, both in the Pennsylvania Bar Institute and Academy of Advocacy, and law students as an adjunct professor of advocacy at the Dickinson School of Law. He was an avid outdoorsman and singer. He performed many leading roles in all 14 of Gilbert and Sullivan operettas in England as well as the Philadelphia region. He sang principal roles in opera, operetta, and musical comedy in groups that include the Rose Valley Chorus, the Savoy Company, Opera Delaware, and he was a singing member of the Orpheus Club of Philadelphia. He played the Pirate King in “The Pirates of Penzance” with the English D’Oyley Carte company. The cases he handled included one involving a law firm accused of firing a young associate with the AIDS virus. Although the 1994 case ended in a settlement, Judge Gawthrop wrote the first opinion that people who show no symptoms of AIDS can still be considered disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case had notable similarities to the one depicted in the Academy Award-winning movie “Philadelphia” which was released in 1993. Among other notable cases in Judge Gawthrop’s court were the 1996 sentencing of five police officers who pleaded guilty in a corruption scandal; the 1996 racketeering and bribery trial of the late U.S. Representative Joseph M. McDade, R-Pa, which resulted in McDade’s acquittal; and the lawsuit brought by parents against the Chester-Upland School District, in which he appointed a special master to implement education reforms. His service on the court was terminated by this death on August 1, 1999 in Philadelphia, at the age of 56.
=== Lowell A. Reed, Jr. ===
Photo of Oil Painting of Lowell A. Reed, Jr. Lowell A. Reed, Jr. Born: June 21, 1930, in West Chester, Pennsylvania Died: April 11, 2020, in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Ronald Reagan on December 18, 1987, to a seat vacated by Anthony J. Scirica. Confirmed by the Senate on April 19, 1988, and received commission on April 20, 1988. Assumed senior status on June 21, 1999. Service terminated on April 11, 2020, due to death. Education: University of Wisconsin, B.B.A., 1952 University of Wisconsin Law School (one year of study) Temple University School of Law (now James E. Beasley School of Law), J.D., 1958 Professional Career: U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander, Naval Intelligence: 1953-1957 Law Clerk, Hon. Ethan Allen Doty, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania: 1958 Corporation Trial Counsel, PMA Insurance Group, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1958-1962 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1963-1988 Lecturer in Law, Temple University School of Law: 1966-1981 Faculty Advisory Board, The Academy of Advocacy, Temple University: 1989-2020 * * * Judicial Biography Judge Reed attended a one-room school in Kenosha, Wisconsin until eighth grade. He had fond memories of that school, which “never closed for weather”. He graduated from Mary D. Bradford High School in 1947. He earned a B.B.A. from the University of Wisconsin and also finished one year of law school at the University of Wisconsin. He was drafted during the Korean War and became a Seaman Recruit in the U.S. Navy. He applied to Officers’ Candidate School and became an Ensign. In 1953, he was sent to Washington, D.C. to Naval Intelligence School. He was posted as a naval intelligence officer during the day, and was a law student at night. Eventually he left the U.S. Naval Reserve as a Lieutenant Commander. Judge Reed moved to Abington, Pennsylvania and graduated from Temple University Beasley School of Law in 1958 followed by a clerkship for the Honorable Ethan Allen Doty of the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court. He went on to be Trial Counsel for Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association. He joined the law firm of Rawle & Henderson, founded in 1783, where he served for almost 25 years and eventually became a senior partner. He focused his practice on the fields of medical malpractice, toxic tort, occupational injury, products liability and complex litigation. In May of 1988, after being sponsored by Senators Arlen Specter and H.J. Heinz, III, Reed was appointed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by President Ronald Reagan. On the Court, he issued over one thousand opinions, and presided over naturalization ceremonies granting citizenship to hundreds of people from all over the world. Judge Reed served in many professional positions, including with the Philadelphia Bar Association, as President of the Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel, and as a Lecturer in Law at Temple University School of Law. He received a number of awards and honors among which was the A. Sherman Christiansen Award given to him at the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. as co-founder and first president of the first Inn of Court in Pennsylvania, the Temple American Inn of Court. It was for “those who had provided distinguished, exceptional leadership for the American Inn of Court movement.” He was the moving force behind many other Inns of Court. His work with the Inns of Court focused on mentoring law students and young lawyers in ethical civil behavior. In the Abington community, Reed was a long-standing member of Abington Presbyterian Church where he was a trustee and elder. He was President of the Rydal-Meadowbrook Civic Association, trustee of the Abington Memorial Hospital Foundation, and served on the Abington School Board. Judge Reed assumed senior status on June 21, 1999 and continued in that capacity until he passed away on April 11, 2020 in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, at the age of 89.
=== Jan E. DuBois ===
Jan E. DuBois Born: January 17, 1931, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: May 10, 2026 in Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Ronald Reagan on May 10, 1988, to a seat vacated by Clifford Scott Green. Confirmed by the Senate on July 26, 1988, and received commission on July 27, 1988. Assumed senior status on April 15, 2002. Education: University of Pennsylvania, B.S., 1952 Yale Law School, LL.B., 1957 Professional Career: U.S. Army: 1952-1954 Clerk, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice: 1956 Law Clerk, Hon. Harry Kalodner, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: 1957-1958 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1958-1988 * * * Judicial Biography A native of Philadelphia, Judge DuBois graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 1952, with a Bachelor of Science degree. From 1952 to 1954 he served in the United States Army. He received his Bachelor of Laws from Yale Law School in 1957. While at law school, he served as a Clerk in the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice in 1956. After graduation, he was a law clerk to Judge Harry Ellis Kalodner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1957 to 1958. From 1958 to 1988, he worked in private practice in Philadelphia. Judge DuBois has presided over several noteworthy cases during his time on the bench. In 2010, he issued an order to the Lower Merion School District to stop using webcams on school-issued MacBook computers to spy on students. He also presided over the case Robbins v. Lower Merion School District, where he awarded $1.37 million in damages to a fan injured during a Fishbone concert. He was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on May 10, 1988, to a seat on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania vacated by Judge Clifford Scott Green. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on July 26, 1988, and received his commission on July 27, 1988. Judge DuBois assumed senior status on April 15, 2002, and died in Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania on May 10, 2026 at the age of 95.
=== Herbert J. Hutton ===
Herbert J. Hutton Born: November 26, 1937, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Died: April 8, 2007, in Wynnewood, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Ronald Reagan on May 17, 1988, to a seat vacated by Clarence C. Newcomer. Confirmed by the Senate on August 11, 1988, and received commission on August 12, 1988. Assumed senior status on September 6, 2003. Service terminated on April 8, 2007, due to death. Education: Lincoln University, Pennsylvania, A.B., 1959 Temple University School of Law (now James E. Beasley School of Law), J.D., 1962 Professional Career: Attorney, Pennsylvania Housing and Home Finance Agency: 1962-1964 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1964-1988 Hearing Officer, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Board of Revision of Taxes: 1982-1988 * * * Judicial Biography Judge Hutton attended Sayre Junior High School and graduated from West Philadelphia High School. He went on to Lincoln University where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1959. He earned his J.D. from Temple University School of Law in 1962, and was admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar in 1963. He began his professional career with the Pennsylvania Housing and Home Finance Agency, but soon after joined the firm of Norris, Schmidt, Green, Harris and Higginbotham, the first African-American law firm in Philadelphia where he later became a partner in 1969. The partnership later grew and changed to include Neal, Wells, Simpkins and Tucker. He also took on the role of Hearing Officer for the Board of Revision of Taxes in Philadelphia, in 1982. In August 1988, he was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the position of United States District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Judge Hutton was an active member and leader in numerous professional, civic, charitable and social organizations. He was a member of the Philadelphia Bar Association, the Pennsylvania Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, and the Federal Judges Association. He served on the Board of Trustees of the Philadelphia Bar Foundation, Board of Governors of the Philadelphia Bar Association, Board of Directors of the City Trusts, Board Member of the Philadelphia Revision of Taxes, and as a Trustee of Lincoln University. He was Past President and Board Member of the Philadelphia Council for Community Advancement, Past President and Board Member of Philadelphia Tribune Charities, served on the Board of Directors of YMCA of Philadelphia, and was a member of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Phi Alpha Delta Fraternity, the Boule, the Guardsmen and the Commissioners. Judge Hutton assumed senior status in 2003, and continued to serve in that capacity until 2007 when he passed away in Wynnewood, Pennsylvania at the age of 69.
=== Jay C. Waldman ===
Jay C. Waldman Born: November 16, 1944, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Died: May 30, 2003, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Ronald Reagan on August 3, 1988, to a seat vacated by Daniel H. Huyett, III. Confirmed by the Senate on October 14, 1988, and received commission on October 17, 1988. Service terminated on May 30, 2003, due to death. Education: University of Wisconsin, B.S., 1966 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), LL.B., 1969 Professional Career: Law Clerk, Hon. Gwilym A. Price, Jr., Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania: 1969-1970 Private Practice, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: 1970-1971 Assistant U.S. Attorney, Western District of Pennsylvania: 1971-1975 Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice: 1975-1977 Director, Thornburgh for Governor Committee, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1978 Counsel, Gov. Richard L. Thornburgh, Pennsylvania: 1979-1981 General Counsel, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: 1981-1986 Commissioner, Pennsylvania Convention Center Authority: 1986-1988 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1986-1988 Other Nominations/Recess Appointments: Nominated to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, July 26, 1991; no Senate vote. Manuscript Collections: Papers of Jay C. Waldman, 1968-2003. 30 Linear ft. (24 boxes); finding aid. The material in this collection reflects the expansive responsibilities Waldman amassed in his fifteen years of service as an aide to Dick Thornburgh. In addition to his native ability and advice, it is well known and documented that Waldman and Thornburgh not only worked well together, but also respected and admired one another. Waldman’s collection and that of Dick Thornburgh are significantly linked together, as many topics and issues are specifically intertwined. The collection contains correspondence, memoranda, issues, research and polling, news clippings, and legal case documents. The majority of the materials in this collection date from 1968 to 2003. Waldman’s contributions in each of his fifteen years of public service are reflected in these personal papers. However, as one who did not commit much to paper, the files are diverse and thin in some respects. They do reflect Waldman’s expansive responsibilities in each position and the issues addressed. Waldman’s ideas are particularly well represented in his memoranda during the first campaign for governor (1977-1978) and in reports and memoranda to Dick Thornburgh in the Department of Justice years. * * * Judicial Biography Judge Waldman earned an undergraduate degree from the University of Wisconsin and his law degree in 1969 from the University of Pennsylvania. He began his legal career clerking for a state court judge in Pittsburgh, spent a brief time in private practice, and then joined the federal prosecutor’s office in Pittsburgh in 1971, when Richard L. Thornburgh was the U.S. Attorney there. The two men worked together for most of the next two decades, including the eight years in which he served as Gov. Richard L. Thornburgh’s general counsel. In that post, he was Thornburgh’s legislative strategist, regularly visiting the legislature. After Thornburgh’s administration ended in January 1987, Judge Waldman was a member of the Turnpike Commission and worked for a Center City law firm before being nominated to the federal bench in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan. Prior to his death, Judge Waldman had been nominated by President George H.W. Bush to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. His service as a district judge was terminated due to his death on May 30, 2003 in Philadelphia, at the age of 58.
=== Ronald L. Buckwalter ===
Ronald L. Buckwalter Born: 1936, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George H.W. Bush on November 17, 1989, to a seat vacated by Charles R. Weiner. Confirmed by the Senate on March 9, 1990, and received commission on March 12, 1990. Assumed senior status on December 11, 2003. Education: Franklin and Marshall College, A.B., 1958 William and Mary Law School, B.C.L., 1962 Professional Career: Private Practice, Lancaster, Pennsylvania: 1963-1980 Legal Aid Attorney, Lancaster, Pennsylvania: 1964-1966 Clerk, Hon. John Bowman and Hon. Anthony Appel, Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania: 1966-1970 Assistant District Attorney, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania: 1970-1978 District Attorney, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania: 1978-1980 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania: 1980-1990 * * * Judicial Biography Judge Buckwalter received an Artium Baccalaureus degree from Franklin and Marshall College in 1958 and a Bachelor of Civil Law from William & Mary School of Law in 1962. After a tour of active duty with the Pennsylvania Army National Guard, where he attained the rank of first lieutenant, he became a sole practitioner in Lancaster. He was a legal aid attorney in Lancaster from 1964 to 1966, and then was a clerk to Judges John Bowman and Anthony Appel of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County. In 1971, he formed a partnership with K.L. Shirk, Jr. and Roger S. Reist. Buckwalter became an assistant district attorney for Lancaster County in 1970 and was district attorney from 1977 to 1980. He served as a Judge on the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County from 1980 to 1990. In 1991, in Dalton v. Specter, a case involving the closing of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Judge Buckwalter dismissed the lawsuit, saying the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 stripped the courts of jurisdiction. This case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1994, where Buckwalter’s decision was affirmed. In 1996, Judge Buckwalter was part of a three-judge panel, and as such, was one of the first jurists to consider the First Amendment status of the internet. In Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, the three-judge panel included Buckwalter; Judge Stewart Dalzell, from the Eastern District; and Chief Judge Dolores Sloviter of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In this case, the panel ruled on the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996. Congress had enacted the CDA to restrict and criminalize the transmission of “obscene or indecent” materials to minors. In three separate opinions, the three judge panel found two provisions of the CDA (sections 223[a] and sections 223[d]) to be unconstitutional because of vagueness and their impact on internet communications with regard to the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment. The judicial opinion found that the word “indecent” was unconstitutionally vague, and the terms “in context” and “patently offensive” also were so vague as to violate the First and Fifth Amendments. To enforce these words would violate the “fundamental constitutional principle” of “simple fairness”, as well as the First and Fifth Amendments. In response to the government’s argument that the two provisions in question would be applied only to “pornographic” materials and would not be applied to materials with serious value, the three judge panel found that the CDA itself did not support the government’s argument. “Indecency has not been defined to exclude works of serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, and therefore the Government’s suggestion that it will not be used to prosecute publishers of such material is without foundation in the law itself.” After the district court’s unanimous ruling that the CDA was unconstitutionally vague, the government appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s rulings on June 18, 1997. A majority opinion, written by Justice Stevens, found the two provisions to be unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and infringed upon the right to free expression. Justice Stevens was joined by six other Justices (Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer) to affirm the decision in full. Justice O’Connor and Chief Justice Rehnquist concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part. Judge Buckwalter had two additional cases heard by the Supreme Court. In Rompilla v. Beard, Judge Buckwalter granted relief to Rompilla, ruling that trial counsel had been ineffective. Before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, then Circuit Court Judge Alito reversed. On June 19, 2005, Justice Souter delivered the Opinion of the Supreme Court, reversing the judgment of the Third Circuit, and affirming Judge Buckwalter’s decision. Finally, in the fourth case of Judge Buckwalter to reach the Supreme Court, American Manufacturers’ Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sullivan, the Third Circuit Opinion reversing Judge Buckwalter, was reversed by the Supreme Court in an Opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist. Another case handled by Judge Buckwalter that gained national attention was Cureton v. National College Athletic Association. In this case, Judge Buckwalter discarded the NCAA’s minimum test score requirement, in which incoming freshmen students were required to achieve a minimum score on either the SAT or ACT test as a condition of eligibility for freshmen athletics and/or athletically related financial aid. Judge Buckwalter found that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited the NCAA’s ineligibility rule because the rule had an unjustified disparate impact against African Americans. Buckwalter added that the NCAA’s goal of improving graduation rates, which was the reason it instituted Proposition 16 in the first place, was not being served by the cutoff scores, and that meeting that goal could be achieved by other available methods. Judge Buckwalter’s decision went on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where it was reversed on December 22, 1999. Judge Buckwalter assumed senior status on December 11, 2003.
=== William H. Yohn, Jr. ===
William H. Yohn, Jr. Born: November 20, 1935, in Pottstown, Pennsylvania Died: January 3, 2026, in Pottstown, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George H.W. Bush on June 14, 1991, to a seat vacated by John P. Fullam. Confirmed by the Senate on September 12, 1991, and received commission on September 16, 1991. Assumed senior status on November 20, 2003. Education: National Judicial College Princeton University, B.A., 1957 Yale Law School, J.D., 1960 Professional Career: U.S. Marine Corps Reserve: 1960-1965; Active Duty: 1960-1961 Private Practice, Pottstown, Pennsylvania: 1961-1981 Assistant District Attorney, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: 1962-1965 State Representative, Pennsylvania: 1968-1980 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: 1981-1991 Board Member, Federal Judicial Center: 1999-2003 * * * Judicial Biography Judge Yohn graduated from Pottstown High School, where he was class president and valedictorian. He graduated from Yale Law School after earning Phi Beta Kappa distinction at Princeton University. He practiced law as a partner in two western Montgomery County law firms – Wells, Campbell, Reynier & Yohn and Binder, Yohn and Kalis. Before becoming a federal judge in 1991, Yohn had a long career in public service. Starting in 1969, he represented the Pottstown area in the State House for about 10 years, covering the 146th District. As Chairman of the House Insurance Committee, he helped draft the state’s no-fault auto insurance laws. And as Chairman of the House Ethics Committee, helped write the state’s financial disclosure laws requiring public officials to report potential conflicts of interest. In 1981, he was appointed, then elected, to a county judgeship, where he served for a decade. There, he helped streamline the case management process by recommending that the civil and family divisions be combined. That ensured that all phases of a case were handled by the same judge. In 1990, then-President Bush nominated Yohn to a federal judgeship. In a questionnaire submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Yohn said that about 155 of his cases were appealed during his time as a county judge. His decisions were reversed only four times. After he became a federal judge, he presided in a case that led to a multibillion-dollar settlement of a national class-action lawsuit. The case involved allegations that General Motors pickup trucks had unsafe fuel tanks. He also ordered former Nazi death camp guard Johann Breyer of Philadelphia stripped of his naturalized U.S. Citizenship. Judge Yohn assumed senior status on November 20, 2003 and continued to serve in that capacity until his death on January 3, 2026 in Pottstown, Pennsylvania, at the age of 90.
=== Harvey Bartle, III ===
Harvey Bartle, III Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George H.W. Bush on May 15, 1991, to a seat vacated by Joseph L. McGlynn, Jr. Confirmed by the Senate on September 12, 1991, and received commission on September 16, 1991. Served as Chief Judge, 2006-2011. Assumed senior status on October 1, 2011.
=== Stewart R. Dalzell ===
Stewart R. Dalzell Born: September 18, 1943, in Hackensack, New Jersey Died: February 18, 2019, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George H.W. Bush on July 24, 1991, to a new seat authorized by 104 Stat. 5089. Confirmed by the Senate on September 12, 1991, and received commission on September 16, 1991. Assumed senior status on October 31, 2013. Service terminated on December 31, 2016, due to retirement. Education: University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School, B.S., 1965 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), J.D., 1969 Professional Career: Financial Analyst, National Broadcasting Co., New York City: 1965-1966 Visiting Lecturer in Law, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania: 1969-1970 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1970-1991 * * * Judicial Biography Judge Dalzell graduated from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business in 1965 with a degree in economics. He worked at the National Broadcasting Company in New York City before returning to the University of Pennsylvania to pursue a law degree, which he received in 1969. He was a visiting lecturer in law at Wharton for a year before entering private practice. While at Wharton, he majored in economics. He had a considerable interest in learning, he told an oral history interviewer for the court in 1999. “I took lots of literature courses, history courses, philosophy courses – I loved it. I couldn’t take enough,” he said. After teaching law at Wharton for a year, Judge Dalzell joined the Philadelphia law firm of Drinker Biddle & Reath on June 22, 1970. The previous day, the Penn Central Transportation Co. had declared bankruptcy. “For my first 4½ years at the firm, 90 percent of what I did was the Penn Central securities litigation,” the judge said. “And a very rich experience it was, because I was exposed to some of the best lawyers you could ever want to see as a young lawyer in action.” Judge Dalzell had become interested in politics after law school. He approached U.S. Rep. John Heinz in 1974, and when Heinz ran in the 1975 Republican primary for a U.S. Senate seat, Heinz hired Dalzell as general counsel and campaign treasurer. Heinz won the seat in the general election. In 1990, Heinz sponsored Dalzell when there was an opening on the federal court bench. After being vetted, Judge Dalzell was appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush in September 1991. One of the notable cases he handled involved a petty officer who was charged with disorderly conduct after swearing at military police who rousted him from sleeping in his car outside the noncommissioned officers’ club at the Willow Grove Naval Air Station. The officer was convicted of the charge and fined $50. Because the incident occurred on federal property, the matter was appealed to a three-judge panel headed by Judge Dalzell. “So, we look at the case. And, lo and behold, there’s a very interesting First Amendment issue here that the Pennsylvania courts, and the federal courts, had never addressed,” the judge said. “Could this be disorderly conduct? He didn't resist arrest, there was no physical resistance; he just used the F-word. So, I reversed his conviction,” the judge said. He later learned from a public defender that the petty officer hoped to apply to another branch of the armed services and feared the misdemeanor would ruin his chances. Another case he handled that received national attention was that of Lisa Michelle Lambert, a Lancaster County woman convicted of stalking and killing teenager Laurie Show in 1991. Lambert was serving a life sentence for first-degree murder when Judge Dalzell held hearings to investigate her claims of prosecutorial misconduct. Later, the judge ordered Lambert set free and ruled that the state could not retry her. The outcry over the decision was so strong that Judge Dalzell stepped aside in 2002 out of concern that personal attacks on him would delay further adjudication. Judge Dalzell’s decision was overturned on appeal. Lambert was sent back to prison. He served as President of the standing committee for the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania. He was a member of St. Mark’s Church in Philadelphia, where he served on the vestry and sang bass in the choir. A movie fan, he often mentioned films in his opinions. Judge Dalzell assumed senior status on October 31, 2013 and continued in that capacity until his retirement on December 31, 2016. He passed away on February 18, 2019 in Philadelphia, at the age of 75.
=== John R. Padova ===
John R. Padova Born: 1935, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George H.W. Bush on November 5, 1991, to a new seat authorized by 104 Stat. 5089. Confirmed by the Senate on March 13, 1992, and received commission on March 18, 1992. Assumed senior status on February 11, 2008. Education: Villanova University, A.B., 1956 Temple University School of Law (now James E. Beasley School of Law), J.D. , 1959 Professional Career: Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1960-1992 New Jersey Army National Guard: 1959-1964 U.S. Army Reserve, JAG Corps: 1964-1968 * * * Judicial Biography Judge Padova rose to the bench after a career as a trial lawyer practicing in the state and federal courts near Philadelphia. The judge was the first in his family to attend college, graduating from Villanova University with a degree in English. He graduated from Villanova with the Outstanding Senior Merit award and went on to attend Temple University Law School. While at Temple, he worked as an adjuster with Allstate Insurance Company. After graduating from law school, Judge Padova went on to active duty in the military. At that time in Pennsylvania, an attorney needed a preceptor to become licensed. After his military obligation was fulfilled, he clerked at a general practice firm, Marcu & Marcu, where he worked with his preceptor, Ed Marcu, a blind transactional attorney, whom the judge recalls with reverence. After his clerkship, he joined Solo, Bergman & Trommer, a general practice firm concentrating in real estate, commercial, and personal injury litigation. With his own unique litigation skills - as well as a growing client base - he found the law firm growing by “leaps and bounds,” and he was eventually named a managing partner. During the administration of Mayor Rizzo, Judge Padova represented the mayor and received referrals from the city solicitor’s office that primarily involved civil rights and employment matters. The judge also served as trial counsel to the Philadelphia Gas Works, for which he handled catastrophic personal injury losses, as well as special counsel to the City of Philadelphia. Even though he accepted tort defense work for which he could bill insurance companies, he nonetheless continued to accept personal injury cases from nonconflicting plaintiffs on a contingency fee basis, allowing him to remain as counsel for his original client base. In the 1970’s, Judge Padova’s firm merged with a firm that concentrated on labor law. His firm grew to 15 lawyers. That said, as managing partner, he chose not to expand the firm further - even when it appeared that his firm could grow much larger. The law firm of Solo, Bergman & Trommer became Solo Padova & Lisi when Bergman became disabled, and Trommer became a judge. A practicing attorney for more than 32 years, Judge Padova had been working full-time as a family man and litigator when an opportunity accidentally presented itself to apply for the bench. At a high-profile holiday party, Judge Padova bumped into a Pennsylvania Superior Court judge whom he advised, tongue in cheek, that it was that jurist’s time to rise to the federal bench. In response, that judge turned the tables, telling Judge Padova that the Biden Bill presented an opportunity for three new judges within the Eastern District and suggested that he apply. Supported by both sides of the aisle, Judge Padova was nominated by President George H.W. Bush and confirmed to a seat on the court in 1992. Judge Padova assumed senior status on the court on February 11, 2008.
=== J. Curtis Joyner ===
J. Curtis Joyner Born: 1948, in Newberry, South Carolina Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George H.W. Bush on November 5, 1991, to a new seat authorized by 104 Stat. 5089. Confirmed by the Senate on April 8, 1992, and received commission on April 13, 1992. Served as Chief Judge, 2011-2013. Assumed senior status on May 1, 2013. Service terminated on September 15, 2021, due to retirement. Education: National Judicial College Central State University, Ohio, B.S., 1971 Howard University School of Law, J.D., 1974 Professional Career: Legal Publications Specialist, U.S. Office of the Federal Register: 1974-1975 Private Practice, West Chester, Pennsylvania: 1975-1987 Chester County, Pennsylvania District Attorney’s Office: 1975-1987; Assistant District Attorney: 1975-1980; Chief Deputy District Attorney: 1980-1984; First Assistant District Attorney: 1984-1987 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Pennsylvania: 1987-1992 * * * Judicial Biography Judge Joyner received a Bachelor of Science degree from Central State University in Ohio in 1971 and a Juris Doctor from Howard University School of Law in 1974. He also attended the National Judicial College at the University of Nevada in Reno. He was a legal publications specialist, United States Office of the Federal Register, Washington, D.C. from 1974 to 1975. He was in private practice in West Chester, Pennsylvania from 1975 to 1987. He was an Assistant District Attorney of Chester County, Pennsylvania from 1975 to 1980. He was a Chief Deputy District Attorney of Chester County from 1980 to 1984, and First Assistant District Attorney of that jurisdiction from 1984 to 1987. He was a judge on the Court of Common Pleas, 15th Judicial District, Chester County, Pennsylvania from 1987 to 1992. On November 5, 1991, Joyner was nominated by President George H.W. Bush to a new seat on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on April 8, 1992, and received his commission on April 13, 1992. He served as Chief Judge from 2011 to 2013. He took senior status on May 1, 2013. Joyner retired from active service on September 15, 2021.
=== Eduardo C. Robreno ===
Eduardo C. Robreno Born: 1945, in Havana, Cuba Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George H.W. Bush on November 26, 1991, to a seat vacated by Louis H. Pollak. Confirmed by the Senate on June 26, 1992, and received commission on June 30, 1992. Assumed senior status on August 31, 2013. Service terminated on August 31, 2023, due to retirement. Education: Westfield State University, B.A., 1967 University of Massachusetts, M.A., 1969 Rutgers School of Law-Camden, J.D., 1978 Professional Career: Attorney, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1978- 1981 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1981-1992 Adjunct Professor, Rutgers School of Law: 1993-2020 Adjunct Professor, Villanova Law School: 2001-2005 Distinguished Jurist in Residence, University of Miami School of Law: 2021 – Present * * * Judicial Biography Judge Robreno was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by President George H.W. Bush and confirmed to the bench in 1992. During his tenure on the bench, Judge Robreno presided over more than 100 civil and criminal jury trials, authoring more than 3,000 opinions. He oversaw significant multidistrict litigation, including In re Asbestos Products Liability, MDL-875, one of the largest multidistrict litigations in the federal courts, disposing of approximately 180,000 cases and 10 million claims, and In re Google Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation, MDL-2358 in the District of Delaware. In addition to his assignment as a District Judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Robreno sat by designation with the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Eleventh Circuit, Ninth Circuit and the District Courts in New Jersey, Delaware, and the Western District of Pennsylvania. While on the bench, he was appointed by Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to serve on the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules and by Chief Justice John G. Roberts to the Judicial Conference Committee on Bankruptcy Administration. Judge Robreno is the author of “Learning to do Justice”, Vol. 29, No. 3, Rutgers Law Journal (Spring 1998) and “The Federal Asbestos Product Liability Multidistrict Litigation (MDL-875): Black Hole or New Paradigm?”, 23 Widener Law Journal 97 (2013). Prior to his judicial service, Judge Robreno, was a partner at a Philadelphia law firm. He also served as a trial attorney with the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division and as a Special Assistant United States Attorney. Judge Robreno is the first Cuban-American to sit on any federal court and the first Latino on the federal bench in Pennsylvania. He has served as a member of the faculty at the University of Miami Law School where he has served as Distinguished Jurist in Residence (ret). Judge Robreno has also taught as an adjunct at Rutgers Law School, the University of Georgia, and Villanova Law School. He is an elected member of the American Law Institute, a founding member of the Hispanic Bar Association of Pennsylvania, and a member of the Cuban American Bar Association. Judge Robreno retired from the bench on August 31, 2023. He then returned to the private practice of law where he provides alternative dispute resolution services through arbitration, mediation, special masterships, corporate investigations and other court appointed neutral services.
=== Anita B. Brody ===
Anita B. Brody Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George H.W. Bush on November 22, 1991, to a new seat authorized by 104 Stat. 5089. Confirmed by the Senate on September 29, 1992, and received commission on October 2, 1992. Assumed senior status on June 8, 2009.
=== Marjorie O. Rendell ===
Marjorie O. Rendell Born: 1947, in Wilmington, Delaware Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by William J. Clinton on November 19, 1993, to a seat vacated by Louis C. Bechtle. Confirmed by the Senate on February 10, 1994, and received commission on February 11, 1994. Service terminated on November 21, 1997, due to appointment to another judicial position. Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Nominated by William J. Clinton on January 7, 1997, to a seat vacated by William D. Hutchinson. Confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 1997, and received commission on September 29, 1997. Assumed senior status on July 1, 2015. Education: University of Pennsylvania, B.A., 1969 Villanova University School of Law, J.D., 1973 Professional Career: Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1973-1993 Member, U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: 2011-2018 * * * Judicial Biography Judge Rendell received her B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania and her Juris Doctor degree from the Villanova University School of Law. Upon graduation from law school, she joined the law firm of Duane, Morris & Heckscher, where she subsequently became the firm’s second woman partner. Judge Rendell was inducted as a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in March of 1994. In 2004, Judge Rendell was awarded the Philadelphia Bar Association’s Sandra Day O’Connor Award, given annually to a woman attorney whose career in the legal profession has demonstrated her superior legal talent and significant achievements within the legal community, and her support for women in the profession. As First Lady of Pennsylvania from January of 2003 through January 2011, Judge Rendell’s primary initiative focused on imparting civic responsibility to Pennsylvania’s children through civic learning. In 2014 she co-founded the Rendell Center for Civics and Civic Engagement, a nonprofit corporation that focuses on educating students, especially at the elementary level, regarding the principles and disciplines of democracy. Judge Rendell has served her community as Chairman of the Board of the Avenue of the Arts, Inc., a member of the Board of Directors of the Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts, and a Trustee of the University of Pennsylvania. She was elevated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in November of 1997. Judge Rendell took senior status on July 1, 2015.
=== Bruce W. Kauffman ===
Bruce W. Kauffman Born: December 1, 1934, in Atlantic City, New Jersey Died: November 29, 2021, in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by William J. Clinton on July 31, 1997, to a seat vacated by James McGirr Kelly. Confirmed by the Senate on November 8, 1997, and received commission on November 12, 1997. Assumed senior status on February 11, 2008. Service terminated on July 20, 2009, due to retirement. Education: University of Pennsylvania, B.A., 1956 Yale Law School, LL.B., 1959 Professional Career: Law Clerk, Hon. Vincent S. Haneman, Superior Court of New Jersey: 1959-1960 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1960-1980; 1982-1997; 2009-2021 Justice, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: 1980-1982 Professor, University of Pennsylvania Law School: 1995-1997 Oral History: Kauffman, Bruce W. “The Honorable Bruce W. Kauffman.” Interview conducted by Mary Stokes on March 26, 2003. University of Pennsylvania Law School, Biddle Law Library, Philadelphia, Pa., 2003. Transcript. * * * Judicial Biography Judge Kauffman was a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, and graduate of Yale Law School, Order of the Coif. Judge Kauffman served as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from 1980 to 1982. He also served as an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Chairman of the Board of a bank, and Chairman of the Pennsylvania Judicial Inquiry and Review Board. He was a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and International Academy of Trial Lawyers; President of the Philadelphia Bar Foundation; Life Member of the American Law Institute; Member of the Board of the University of the Arts in Philadelphia; Member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association Judicial Selection Reform Committee and House of Delegates; Chairman of the Mayor’s Task Force on Minority Employment in the Philadelphia Police Department; Member of the Philadelphia Special Investigation Commission (MOVE Commission); Delegate to the Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention and Co-Chairman of the Subcommittee on Selection of Judges; Member of the Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights; Chairman of the Lower Merion Township Civil Service Commission and Montgomery County Government Study Commission; Life Member of the Navy League of the United States; President of the Merion Park Civic Association; Member of the Pennsylvania Society and Fellow of the Phi Beta Kappa Society; Past Vice President of the Yale Law School Association; and Past President of the Yale Law School Association of the Philadelphia Area. He received the Philadelphia Bar Association’s Justice for All CLS Champion Award; the Judge Learned Hand Human Relations Award; Shomrin Service Award; the Torch of Learning Award from the American Friends of the Hebrew University and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith; and the Tree of Life Award for the Jewish National Fund. He served as a Member of the Federal Judges Association, the Lawyers Club, the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Bar Associations and the New Jersey Bar Association. His scholarly articles have been published in the Villanova Law Review, the Delaware Journal of Corporate Law and the Temple Law Quarterly. He retired from the Court on July 20, 2009 to return to the private practice of law where his practice included representation of major corporations, boards of directors, fiduciaries, entrepreneurs and individuals, in commercial disputes, internal and governmental investigations, anti-trust, unfair competition, business torts and federal claims. He died on November 29, 2021 in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, at the age of 86.
=== Mary A. McLaughlin ===
Mary A. McLaughlin Born: 1946, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by William J. Clinton on March 9, 2000, to a seat vacated by Marvin Katz. Confirmed by the Senate on May 24, 2000, and received commission on May 31, 2000. Assumed senior status on November 18, 2013. Service terminated on July 1, 2020, due to retirement. Other Federal Judicial Service: Judge, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, 2008-2015 Education: Gwynedd-Mercy College, B.A., 1968 Bryn Mawr College, M.A., 1969 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), J.D., 1976 Professional Career: Law Clerk, Hon. Stanley Brotman, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey: 1976-1977 Private Practice: 1977-1980 Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Columbia: 1980-1984 Assistant Professor, Vanderbilt University School of Law: 1984-1986 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1986-2000 Adjunct Professor, University of Pennsylvania Law School: 1988 Adjunct Professor, Rutgers University School of Law: 1989 Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary: 1995 * * * Judicial Biography Judge McLaughlin received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Gwynedd-Mercy College in 1968, a Master of Arts from Bryn Mawr College in 1969, and a Juris Doctor from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1976. She was a law clerk for Judge Stanley Seymour Brotman from 1976 to 1977, and went on to work in private practice from 1977 to 1980. She was an Assistant United States Attorney of the United States Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia from 1980 to 1984 and was an assistant professor at the Vanderbilt University School of Law from 1984 to 1986. After leaving Vanderbilt, McLaughlin returned to private practice for fourteen years, during which time she served as a partner at the law firm of Dechert LLP. She also completed stints as an adjunct professor at both the University of Pennsylvania and Rutgers University law schools. In 1995, McLaughlin was appointed chief counsel to the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government (a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee). Judge McLaughlin was nominated by President William J. Clinton on March 9, 2000, for a seat on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. She was confirmed by the Senate on May 24, 2000, and received her commission on May 31, 2000. She simultaneously served a 2008 to 2015 term on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Judge McLaughlin took senior status on November 18, 2013, and retired from the court on July 1, 2020.
=== Petrese B. Tucker ===
Petrese B. Tucker Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by William J. Clinton on July 27, 1999, to a seat vacated by Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr. Confirmed by the Senate on May 24, 2000, and received commission on June 1, 2000. Served as Chief Judge, 2013-2017. Assumed senior status on June 1, 2021.
=== Berle M. Schiller ===
Berle M. Schiller Born: 1944, in Brooklyn, New York Died: July 22, 2025, in Lower Merion Township, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by William J. Clinton on April 11, 2000, to a seat vacated by Robert S. Gawthrop. Confirmed by the Senate on May 24, 2000, and received commission on June 2, 2000. Assumed senior status on June 18, 2012. Education: Bowdoin College, B.A., 1965 New York University School of Law, J.D., 1968 Professional Career: Private Practice, Pennsylvania: 1968-1969; 1972-1993 Deputy Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: 1971 Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration: 1994-1996 Judge, Superior Court of Pennsylvania: 1996-2000 * * * Judicial Biography In 1996, Judge Schiller was appointed to the State Superior Court by Gov. Tom Ridge and was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. He later was reappointed by Ridge. He unsuccessfully ran for State Supreme Court in 1997. As a state court appellate judge, he participated in more than 2,000 decisions by the Superior Court, and authored majority opinions in about a third of those cases. He also filed dissenting opinions when he didn’t agree with the majority’s rulings. In one dissent, Schiller said it should be up to common pleas court judges to decide whether DNA tests should be ordered when paternity is contested, after considering what is in the child’s best interest. Judge Schiller spent 25 years as a lawyer, handling, among other things, corporate and family law cases, and two years as Chief Counsel for the Federal Transit Administration. He served in the Army, was trained in military intelligence and patrolled flood-ravaged areas of Pennsylvania in 1972 while on active duty in the National Guard in the aftermath of Hurricane Agnes. As a Deputy Attorney General in the early 1970’s, he established the first narcotics strike force in the state. He previously was Chairman of the Board of a Philadelphia mental health center and is a Past President of the parents association for Lower Merion High School. Schiller also served on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Disciplinary Board, which investigates complaints against lawyers and recommends discipline. He is well known for his passion for hunting using a bow and arrow and has travelled around the world doing so. His chambers were filled with many trophies from his hunting activities. He is a member of the United Bowhunters of Pennsylvania and other sportsmen’s clubs. Judge Schiller assumed senior status on June 18, 2012. He passed away on July 22, 2025 at the age of 81.
=== R. Barclay Surrick ===
R. Barclay Surrick Born: 1937, in Media, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by William J. Clinton on April 11, 2000, to a seat vacated by Lowell A. Reed, Jr. Confirmed by the Senate on May 24, 2000, and received commission on June 5, 2000. Assumed senior status on February 1, 2011. Education: Dickinson College, B.A., 1960 Dickinson School of Law (now Penn State Dickinson Law), J.D., 1965 University of Virginia School of Law, LL.M., 1982 Professional Career: Private Practice, Pennsylvania: 1965-1977 Chief, Appellate Division, Office of the Public Defender, Delaware County, Pennsylvania: 1965-1974 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania: 1978-2000 * * * Judicial Biography Judge Surrick received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Dickinson College in 1960, and a Juris Doctor from Penn State Dickinson Law in 1965. He was in private practice in Pennsylvania from 1965 to 1977. He was Chief of the appellate division in the Office of the Public Defender of Delaware County from 1965 to 1974. He was a Judge on the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County from 1978 to 2000. He received a Master of Laws from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1982. One of the notable cases Judge Surrick presided over was United States v. Kaboni Savage. Kaboni Savage led a regional drug trafficking operation in North Philadelphia referred to at trial as the Kaboni Savage Organization (KSO). The KSO distributed large quantities of controlled substances and, not surprisingly, fiercely protected its network and territory through the use of guns and violence. Threats to the organization, whether perceived or real, were quickly tamped down or extinguished. Early in the KSO’s operation, Savage took care of such threats himself, but as his power grew, his enforcers did his bidding without question. Even while detained on criminal charges, Savage continued to manage the affairs of the KSO from his prison cell. He led by retaliating against those who dared to cooperate with government agents and prosecutors. What makes this case stand out is that Savage not only arranged for the murder of the prosecution’s main witness in a murder case; in a later case, he orchestrated the firebombing of the family home of another cooperating witness in a fashion that ensured no one would survive. Eventually, Savage was charged with inter alia, a dozen counts of murder in aid of racketeering, among other serious offenses. The Government sought the death penalty. The jury’s verdict was guilty on all charges and the imposition of a sentence of death. The verdict was upheld by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Surrick assumed senior status on February 1, 2011.
=== Legrome D. Davis ===
Legrome D. Davis Born: 1952, in Columbus, Ohio Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George W. Bush on January 23, 2002, to a seat vacated by Edmund V. Ludwig. Confirmed by the Senate on April 18, 2002, and received commission on April 23, 2002. Assumed senior status on September 28, 2017. Education: Princeton University, B.A., 1973 Rutgers School of Law-Camden, J.D., 1976 Professional Career: Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1977-1980 Attorney, Pennsylvania Crime Commission: 1980-1981 Assistant Deputy District Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1981-1987 Attorney, General Counsel Office, University of Pennsylvania: 1987 Private Practice, Pennsylvania: 1987 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania: 1987-2002 Other Nominations/Recess Appointments: Nominated to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, July 30, 1998; no Senate vote. Nominated to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, January 26, 1999; no Senate vote. * * * Judicial Biography Judge Davis received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Princeton University in 1973 and a Juris Doctor from Rutgers Law School in 1976. Davis was an Assistant District Attorney in Philadelphia from 1977 to 1980. After leaving the District Attorney’s office, Davis spent a year as an attorney for the Pennsylvania Crime Commission. He returned to the District Attorney’s office from 1981 to 1987, before spending a year in the general counsel’s office at the University of Pennsylvania. He was briefly in private practice in Pennsylvania in 1987. He was elected a judge on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, as one of the “Casey Five”, to replace judges removed from that court for corruption, where he served from 1987 to 2002 in that court’s criminal division. On January 23, 2002, Davis was nominated by President George W. Bush to a seat on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania vacated by Edmund V. Ludwig. Davis was confirmed by the United States Senate on April 18, 2002 and received his commission on April 23, 2002. Judge Davis presided over Langbord v. United States, a protracted legal battle over the ownership of ten 1933 Double Eagle $20 gold coins. The Langbords purportedly found the coins in their father’s safe deposit box. President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order in 1933 removing gold coins from circulation. A dispute arose over the ownership of the coins, and whether they were the property of the Government. The Government’s claim for forfeiture of the coins was sustained in the trial and appellate courts. He also presided over the multidistrict litigation involving the Amtrak derailment accident. The accident occurred on May 12, 2015 when an Amtrak train derailed in Philadelphia resulting in eight fatalities and over 200 injuries. He was responsible for coordinating the flow of a case that involved thousands of documents and plaintiffs from multiple states. He approved the $265 million settlement in the case in 2016, which was deemed to then reflect the present value of the federally capped $295 million damages limit for which Amtrak could be held liable. He assumed senior status on September 28, 2017.
=== Cynthia M. Rufe ===
Cynthia M. Rufe Born: 1948, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George W. Bush on January 23, 2002, to a seat vacated by Norma L. Shapiro. Confirmed by the Senate on April 30, 2002, and received commission on May 3, 2002. Assumed senior status on December 31, 2021. Education: Adelphi University, B.A., 1970 State University of New York at Buffalo Law School, J.D., 1977 Professional Career: Bucks County, Pennsylvania Public Defender’s Office: 1977-1982; Assistant and Coordinator, Juvenile Division: 1977-1982; Deputy Public Defender: 1980-1981 Solicitor, Bucks County, Pennsylvania Children and Youth Social Services Agency: 1984-1988 Private Practice, Pennsylvania: 1982-1993 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylvania: 1994-2002 * * * Judicial Biography Judge Rufe attended college at Adelphi University and attended law school at the State University of New York at Buffalo Law School. Before becoming a judge, she served in the Bucks County Public Defender Office where she represented delinquent, dependent, abused and neglected children. She was a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County before her nomination and appointment in 2002 as a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Judge Rufe has devoted her career to representing and serving those most in need including domestic abuse victims, disadvantaged children, and those in need of mental health services; to fairly upholding the law for all; and to being a positive role model and example for not only young women and girls seeking to achieve leadership roles, but for young people everywhere looking to engage in civic roles in their communities. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s outreach efforts under Judge Rufe’s direction have earned national recognition as models of court and law-related educational programs. In her leadership role, she also speaks on diversity and inclusion, particularly in the legal profession. She has served as President of the Federal Judges Association. For many years, Judge Rufe was an active board member of several community agencies related to the improvement of youth, families, protection from abuse, chemical addiction, and mental health. She was a founding member of the Organization to Prevent Teenage Suicide, and a former member and past President of Soroptimist International of Indian Rock, Inc., a service organization well known locally and internationally. She has been recognized and honored by several organizations for her work to end domestic violence, especially as it affects children, for her outstanding contributions to the ideals of law and justice for all citizens, and as a woman in law who serves as a role model and mentor in the legal profession. Judge Rufe assumed senior status on December 31, 2021.
=== Michael M. Baylson ===
Michael M. Baylson Born: 1939, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George W. Bush on January 23, 2002, to a seat vacated by Robert F. Kelly. Confirmed by the Senate on April 30, 2002, and received commission on June 19, 2002. Assumed senior status on July 13, 2012. Education: University of Pennsylvania, B.S., 1961 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), LL.B., 1964 Professional Career: Law Clerk, Hon. Joseph Sloane, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania: 1965 Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1966-1970 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1970-1988; 1993-2002 U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 1988-1993 * * * Judicial Biography Judge Baylson was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by President George W. Bush and took office on July 12, 2002. He graduated from Cheltenham High School (1957), the Wharton School of Finance & Commerce (B.S. Econ., 1961) and the Law School (LL.B., 1964) of the University of Pennsylvania. After clerking for Judge Joseph Sloane of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and volunteering with the Defender Association, Judge Baylson began serving as an Assistant District Attorney under District Attorney Arlen Specter in January 1966, and became Chief of the Homicide Division in 1969. In January 1970, Judge Baylson joined the law firm of Duane Morris and became a partner in 1974. He handled complex civil litigation matters and tried numerous cases, specializing in class actions, antitrust and securities issues. After serving as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania from October 1988 through January 1993, Judge Baylson returned to Duane Morris and resumed an active law practice. He served as Chair of the Trial Department and as a member of the firm’s Executive Committee. Judge Baylson was a founder, and later counsel, to Gaudenzia, Inc., the largest non-profit provider of drug, alcohol and mental health rehabilitation services in Pennsylvania. Judge Baylson served as a member of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules of the Judicial Conference of the United States from 2005 to 2010 and the Third Circuit Committee on Model Criminal Jury Instructions. He has served as an Adjunct Professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. He assumed senior status on July 13, 2012. * * * Biographical Materials 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Transcript of admission to the Bar of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, May 4, 1965. Transcript of Induction of Michael M. Baylson, Esquire as Special Prosecutor, June 22, 1973. Transcript of Induction of The Honorable Michael B. Baylson as Judge of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, July 12, 2002. Program booklet for Special Session of the Court for the Presentation of the Portrait of the Honorable Michael M. Baylson, April 15, 2016. Transcript of Special Session of the Court for the Presentation of the Portrait of the Honorable Michael M. Baylson, April 15, 2016.
=== Timothy J. Savage ===
Timothy J. Savage Born: 1946, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George W. Bush on March 21, 2002, to a seat vacated by Edward N. Cahn. Confirmed by the Senate on August 1, 2002, and received commission on August 1, 2002. Assumed senior status on March 1, 2021. Education: Assumption College, B.A., 1968 Temple University School of Law (now James E. Beasley School of Law), J.D., 1971 Editor, Temple Law Review Professional Career: MacCoy, Evans & Lewis: 1971-1974 Timothy J. Savage, P.C.: 1974-2002 – Litigation Hearing Examiner, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board: 1976-2002 Public and Community Service: Counsel and Member of Board of Directors, Metropolitan (Northeast) Boys & Girls Clubs: 1980-2002 President and Founding Member, Frankford Special Services District: 1996-2000 County Committeeman, Philadelphia Democratic County Executive Committee: 1976-2002 Counsel, Northwood Civic Association President, Parish Council, St. Joachim Roman Catholic Church Board Member, St. Mary Interparochial School: 2015-2025 Board Member, Green Byrne Day Care * * * Judicial Biography Judge Savage graduated from Holy Ghost Preparatory School in 1964. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Assumption College (now Assumption University) in 1968. He received a Juris Doctor from Temple University School of Law in 1971. He was in private practice in Pennsylvania from 1971 to 2002. He was a Hearing Examiner for the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board from 1976 to 2002. Judge Savage assumed senior status on March 1, 2021.
=== James Knoll Gardner ===
James Knoll Gardner Born: September 14, 1940, in Allentown, Pennsylvania Died: April 26, 2017, in Emmaus, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George W. Bush on April 22, 2002, to a seat vacated by Jan E. DuBois. Confirmed by the Senate on October 2, 2002, and received commission on October 3, 2002. Assumed senior status on April 3, 2017. Service terminated on April 26, 2017, due to death. Education: Yale University, B.A., 1962 Harvard Law School, J.D., 1965 Professional Career: U.S. Navy Law Specialist: 1966-1967 U.S. Navy, JAG Corps: 1967-1969 U.S. Naval Reserve, JAG Corps: 1969-1993 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1965-1966; 1969-1970 Private Practice: Allentown, Pennsylvania: 1970-1981 Solicitor, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania Treasurer’s Office: 1971-1977 Assistant District Attorney, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania: 1972-1981; First Assistant District Attorney: 1977-1981 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania: 1981-2002 * * * Judicial Biography Judge Gardner graduated Maga Cum Laude from Yale University in 1962 with a B.A. in American Studies Honors program, and Harvard Law School in 1965 with a Juris Doctorate. From 1965 to 1966 and 1969 to 1970, he was an associate with the law firm of Duane, Morris & Heckscher, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as a litigator, and from 1970 to 1981 he was a partner with his father and sister, Audrey Racines, in Gardner, Gardner & Racines, engaged in general practice. He served as First Assistant District Attorney of Lehigh County from 1977 to 1981 and was an Assistant District Attorney from 1972 to 1977. In 1980, Judge Gardner was appointed by former Pennsylvania Governor Richard L. Thornburgh to the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. He was elected to a ten year term in the General Election in 1981, and was retained for an additional ten year term in 1991. From 1997 to 2002, Judge Gardner served a five-year term as President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County and served a term as the President of the Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges from 1996 to 1997. In 2002, President George W. Bush appointed Judge Gardner to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; he was confirmed by the Senate and received his commission on October 3, 2002. He served on active duty as an officer in the United States Navy, Judge Advocate General’s Corps from 1966 to 1969 and as a reservist for 24 years from 1969 to 1993, where he advanced to the rank of Captain and served as an Appellate Military Judge on the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review in Washington, D.C. As a Military Judge, Captain Gardner presided over 77 active duty military courts-martial. Of his many accolades and awards, he received the Meritorious Service Medal from the President of the United States “for outstanding meritorious service as a Military Judge while serving with the Naval Reserve Trial Judiciary from October 1985 to October 1991;” and the Navy Commendation Medal of Heroism. An avid Boy Scout, he received the highest honor granted within the Boy Scouts Association of America, the distinguished Eagle Scout Award. In his youth as a boy Scout, he attended the International Jubilee Jamboree in Sutton-Goldfield, England in 1957, where he played the clarinet with the United States Boy Scouts of America Band, for the Queen of England. He was involved with the Allentown Symphony, of which he was an active member of the Board of Directors for 29 years, carrying on the legacy of his late parents, the Honorable Theodore R. Gardner and Margaret K. Gardner, who were founding members. Other boards that he was actively involved with throughout his lifetime, included the Boys and Girls Club of Allentown; the Police Athletic League; the 15th Congressional District Military Academy Selection Board; Board of Associates for Muhlenberg College; Minsi Trails Council; and the Yale Alumni Schools Committee. Judge Gardner assumed senior status on April 3, 2017, and died in Emmaus, Pennsylvania on April 26, 2017 at the age of 76. * * * Biographical Materials 1. 2. 3. 4. Memorial Service for Judge James Knoll Gardner, Remarks by Honorable Henry S. Perkin (Ret.), May 2, 2017. Bar Association of Lehigh County – Bar Memorial, Remarks by Michael S. Daigle, Esquire, February 12, 2018. Program from Special Session of the Court – Portrait Unveiling and Memorial Service for the Honorable James Knoll Gardner, May 11, 2018. Transcript of Special Session of the Court for a Portrait Unveiling and Memorial Concerning the Late Honorable James Knoll Gardner on May 11, 2018.
=== Gene E. K. Pratter ===
Photo of Oil Painting of Gene E.K. Pratter Gene E.K. Pratter Born: February 25, 1949, in Chicago, Illinois Died: May 17, 2024, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George W. Bush on November 3, 2003, to a seat vacated by William H. Yohn. Confirmed by the Senate on June 15, 2004, and received commission on June 16, 2004. Service terminated on May 17, 2024, due to death. Education: Stanford University, A.B., 1971 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), J.D., 1975 Professional Career: Private Practice: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1975-2004 Other Nominations/Recess Appointments: Nominated to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, November 15, 2007; nomination withdrawn by President on July 24, 2008. * * * Judicial Biography Judge Pratter was a graduate of Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. She spent nearly 30 years, from 1975 to 2004, at the law firm of Duane Morris. She focused on civil litigation and professional liability, and became one of the firm’s first female partners in 1983. She chaired the firm’s ethics committee and, as its first general counsel from 1999 to 2004, oversaw hundreds of lawyers in dozens of offices. She also served as a mediator and arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association, and did pro bono work for Philadelphia charter schools and other community organizations. She taught legal ethics and trial advocacy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School for more than 20 years, served as chair of the law school’s American Inn of Court, and served on the school’s board of overseers in the 1990’s. She had season tickets to the Phillies for years and rode in the Devon Horse Show. Her favorite getaway was to a cottage on Nantucket Island in Massachusetts. She served on boards at local schools and was active at St. John Vianney Church in Gladwyne, Pennsylvania. At the time of her passing, she was presiding over the multidistrict litigation case involving numerous lawsuits against Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly alleging failure to warn people about serious side effects related to weight loss drugs Ozempic and Mounjaro. Judge Pratter died in Philadelphia on May 17, 2024, at the age of 75.
=== Lawrence F.Stengel ===
Photo of Oil Painting of Lawrence F. Stengel Lawrence F. Stengel Born: 1952, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George W. Bush on November 6, 2003, to a seat vacated by Ronald Buckwalter. Confirmed by the Senate on June 16, 2004, and received commission on June 21, 2004. Served as Chief Judge, 2017 to 2018. Service terminated on August 31, 2018, due to retirement. Education: St. Joseph’s College (now St. Joseph’s University), B.A., 1974 University of Pittsburgh Law School, J.D., 1980 Professional Career: Teacher, Lancaster, Pennsylvania Catholic High School: 1974-1977 Private Practice: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: 1980-1984 Private Practice, Lancaster, Pennsylvania: 1985-1990; 2018- Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania: 1990-2004 Adjunct Professor, Franklin & Marshall College: 1997-2004 Adjunct Professor, Millersville University: 2000-2004 * * * Judicial Biography Judge Stengel received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Saint Joseph’s University in 1974 and his J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law in 1980 where he served on the Law Review. Early in his career, from 1980 to 1984, he was in private practice in Pittsburgh with Dickie, McCamey and Chilcote, P.C. He then began his own practice in Lancaster with his father, Lawrence E. Stengel, from 1985 until 1990. He was a teacher at Lancaster Catholic High School from 1974 until 1977 and has served as an adjunct professor at Millersville University, Franklin and Marshall College and the Beasley School of Law at Temple University. His judicial career began in 1990 when he was appointed by Governor Robert P. Casey to fill a vacancy on the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas. In 1991, Judge Stengel was elected to a full-term on the court and was retained in 2001. During his 14 years of service, he presided over hundreds of trials, jury, and nonjury, wrote hundreds of opinions; and conducted settlement conferences in numerous cases. He handled 20 homicide cases, two of which were capital cases that went to trial. His state court work included many complex negligence, product liability, professional malpractice, land use and commercial cases involving trials, hearings, motions and settlements. In 2000, he was elected to the Executive Committee of the Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges and received the President’s award in 2002 for his work in planning an educational program for the state judiciary on racial disparity in sentencing. Former President George W. Bush nominated Judge Stengel to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2003. After Senate confirmation, he was sworn in on June 29, 2004, and served as a federal judge in Philadelphia and Reading. On August 1, 2017, he was named Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the third-largest federal court in the nation. At the federal level, Judge Stengel authored more than 1,400 opinions and has presided over dozens of civil and criminal trials, including two multidistrict litigation cases. In 2009, he was appointed to the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources, the committee responsible for human resources policy for the entire federal judiciary. He was subsequently named Chairman of the Committee on Judicial Resources by Chief Justice Roberts in 2015. Judge Stengel announced his retirement from the bench in 2018. After retiring from the bench, Judge Stengel returned to the private practice of law. His practice has focused on internal investigations, arbitrations and mediations, monitorships and receiverships.
=== Paul S. Diamond ===
Paul S. Diamond Born: 1953, in Brooklyn, New York Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George W. Bush on January 20, 2004, to a seat vacated by Herbert J. Hutton. Confirmed by the Senate on June 16, 2004, and received commission on June 22, 2004. Education: Columbia University, B.A., 1974 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), J.D., 1977 Professional Career: Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1977-1979; 1981-1983 Law Clerk, Hon. Bruce W. Kauffman, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: 1980 Private Practice: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1983-2004 Adjunct Professor, Temple University School of Law: 1990-1992 Other Nominations/Recess Appointments: Nominated to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, July 24, 2008; no Senate vote. * * * Judicial Biography Judge Diamond was born in Brooklyn, New York. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Columbia University in 1974 and a Juris Doctor from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1977. He was an Assistant District Attorney in the Philadelphia County District Attorney’s Office from 1977 to 1979. In 1980, he served as a law clerk to Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Bruce W. Kauffman. He returned to the District Attorney’s Office from 1981 to 1983. He worked in private practice in Philadelphia from 1983 to 2004 with the firm of Obermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell & Hippel, LLP. He also served as an adjunct professor of law at Temple University Beasley School of Law from 1990 to 1992. From 1993 until 1995, he worked as the treasurer and as the counsel for the 1996 presidential campaign of United States Senator Arlen Specter. On January 20, 2004, President George W. Bush nominated him to a seat on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania vacated by Herbert J. Hutton. Diamond was confirmed by the United States Senate on June 16, 2004 and received his commission on June 22, 2004.
=== Juan R. Sanchez ===
Juan R. Sánchez Born: 1955, in Vega Baja, Puerto Rico Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George W. Bush on November 25, 2003, to a seat vacated by Jay C. Waldman. Confirmed by the Senate on June 23, 2004, and received commission on June 24, 2004. Served as Chief Judge, 2018-2024. Education: City College of New York, B.A., 1978 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), J.D., 1981 Professional Career: Staff Attorney, Legal Aid of Chester County, Pennsylvania: 1981-1983 Private Practice: West Chester, Pennsylvania: 1983-1997 Assistant Public Defender, Chester County, Pennsylvania: 1983-1997 Trial Attorney, MacElree, Harvey, Gallagher, Featherman & Sebastian, Ltd., West Chester, Pennsylvania: 1997 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Pennsylvania: 1998-2004 Member, Judicial Conference Committee on Defender Services: 2016-2022 Member, Judicial Conference of the United States: 2023-2024 Member, Judicial Conference Committee on International Judicial Relations: 2025-present * * * Judicial Biography Judge Sánchez formerly served as the Chief Judge of the court and was the first Latino Chief Judge in the court’s history. He was born in Puerto Rico and moved to the Bronx in New York when he was twelve years old. He received a United Federation of Teachers Scholarship to attend City College at the City University of New York, from which he received his bachelor’s degree, cum laude. He received his law degree from the University of Pennsylvania School of Law, where he received the Benjamin R. Jones Award for his commitment to humanity and the law. Following law school, he received a Reginald Heber Smith Community Lawyer Fellowship and worked at Legal Aid of Chester County for two years. He went on to work as a Chester County Public Defender for about fourteen years while also maintaining a private civil practice. His judicial career began in 1998 when he joined the Chester County Court of Common Pleas after winning a judicial election in 1997. President George W. Bush nominated Sánchez to a seat on the District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2003, and Sánchez was confirmed in 2004 in an unopposed vote. In 2017, Judge Sánchez issued a landmark ruling in which he ordered Google to comply with warrants issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act (SCA) and provide the FBI with data on servers located outside of the United States. That data included emails from the subjects of two criminal investigations. Google argued that the SCA would not apply to information on servers in other countries. However, Judge Sánchez found the location of the service provider and where the data will be disclosed were key in determining the reach of the SCA. Judge Sánchez has also presided over numerous jury trials, including high-profile public corruption and gang-related murder cases. Judge Sánchez has been active in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s efforts to improve jury representativeness. As Chair of the court’s Jury Committee, he convened a Jury Diversity Subcommittee to evaluate the representativeness of the court’s jury pools. The Subcommittee proposed four recommendations that were ultimately adopted, including adding more names to the list of potential jurors, conducting more frequent change of address checks, sending a second juror qualification questionnaire to a zip code from which a previous questionnaire has not been returned, and engaging in community education and outreach efforts to educate potential jurors on the importance of jury service. Since these changes were implemented, judges in the Eastern District have reported a greater number of people of color on juries. Judge Sánchez remains active in the court’s ongoing community outreach effort on this issue. In 2019, Judge Sánchez published a Temple Law Review article on the importance of jury diversity and his plan to make this issue a priority in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania during his tenure as Chief Judge. In the article, he pointed to instances in which the diversity of a jury (or lack thereof) has had an impact on the result of a case and expressed his belief that juries should reflect the diversity of the communities in which they sit – a position that is becoming particularly crucial with demographics changing in many areas. He also shared that diverse juries are beneficial to the legal system because more diverse juries tend to deliberate longer, ask more questions, and examine cases more thoroughly. The article concluded by describing the recommendations implemented in the Eastern District. It can be found at: (https://www.templelawreview.org/article/a-plan-of-our-own-the-eastern-district-of- pennsylvanias-initiative-to-increase-jury-diversity/). Judge Sánchez is also the co-author, with Judge Mark A. Kearney, of “A Federal Trial Court’s Evolving Responsibilities to the Rule of Law” in the Temple Law Review, Vol. 97:4 (Summer 2025), and with Sarah Zimmerman of “Judge Nelson A. Díaz and Latinx Leaders’ Legacies,” Temple Law Review, Vol. 96:1 (Spring 2024).
=== Thomas M. Golden ===
Photo of Oil Painting of Thomas M. Golden Thomas M. Golden Born: November 1, 1947, in Pottsville, Pennsylvania Died: July 31, 2010, in Reading, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George W. Bush on January 25, 2006, to a seat vacated by Franklin Van Antwerpen. Confirmed by the Senate on May 4, 2006, and received commission on June 13, 2006. Service terminated on July 31, 2010, due to death. Education: Pennsylvania State University, B.A., 1969 Dickinson School of Law (now Penn State Dickinson Law), J.D., 1972 Professional Career: Private Practice, Pennsylvania: 1972-2006 * * * Judicial Biography Born in Pottsville, Judge Golden graduated from Reading Central Catholic High School in 1965. He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in history from the Pennsylvania State University in 1969. While at Penn State, Judge Golden was a member of Lion’s Paw and Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity. He received his Juris Doctorate from the Dickinson School of Law in 1972. Judge Golden began his legal career in 1972, at Stevens and Lee in Reading, where he ultimately became a partner. In 1979, he joined Howard M. Fry in a partnership for the general practice of law, which grew to become the law firm of Golden Masano & Bradley. He served as the managing partner of the firm for 25 years. He was appointed by President George W. Bush in June of 2006 as judge of the court. Judge Golden served as the 109th President of the Pennsylvania Bar Association (PBA) in 2003. Prior to this, he held numerous offices in the PBA and its affiliates. He was an active member of the Berks County Bar Association, serving as its President in 1993. Judge Golden received a variety of awards and honors. Alvernia University awarded him an honorary doctorate for his service to the community and the legal profession. He received two President’s Awards from the PBA for his outstanding leadership. In addition, Judge Golden received the Berks County Bar Association Presidential Award for Distinguished Service and the Hyman Award for outstanding service to the Bar of Berks County. Organizations he served before becoming a judge included the Caron Foundation, Berks County Republican Executive Committee, Republican National Lawyers Association, Council of Legal Advisors for the Republican National Committee and the United Way of Berks County. He was a member of the Board of Counselors of Penn State University’s Dickinson School of Law. Judge Golden’s service on the court ended with his death on July 31, 2010 in Reading, Pennsylvania. * * * Biographical Materials 1. Program for Portrait Unveiling of the Late Honorable Thomas M. Golden, November 17, 2017.
=== Joel H. Slomsky ===
Joel H. Slomsky Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George W. Bush on July 24, 2008, to a seat vacated by James T. Giles. Confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 2008, and received commission on October 6, 2008. Assumed senior status on October 9, 2018.
=== C. Darnell Jones, II ===
Photo of C. Darnell Jones, II C. Darnell Jones, II Born: 1949, in Claremore, Oklahoma Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George W. Bush on July 24, 2008, to a seat vacated by Bruce W. Kauffman. Confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 2008, and received commission on October 30, 2008. Assumed senior status on March 15, 2021. Education: Southwestern College, Winfield Kansas, A.B., 1972 American University, Washington College of Law, J.D., 1975 Drexel University, Doctor of Laws (Honoris Causa), 2021 Professional Career: Public Defender, Defender Association of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1975-1987 Adjunct Professor, St. Joseph’s University School of Criminal Justice: 1991-1992 Adjunct Professor, Temple University Beasley School of Law: 1992-1996 Adjunct Professor, University of Pennsylvania Law School: 1998-2020 Curriculum Developer and Instructor, National Judicial College: 1998-2008 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania: 1987-2008; President Judge: 2006-2008 * * * Judicial Biography C. Darnell Jones, II was sworn in as a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania after nomination by President George W. Bush in 2008. He previously served as President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, from December 2006 until his federal judicial appointment in October, 2008. During his tenure as President Judge of Pennsylvania’s largest judicial district, he was appointed Chair of the Administrative Governing Board (AGB) of the First Judicial District by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The AGB is the coordinating body for all of the courts of the First Judicial District. Judge Jones began serving as a judge in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1987. He held various positions on the Court of Common Pleas, including: managing judge of the Adult Probation and Parole Department, member of the Judicial Education Committee, presiding judge and Co-Coordinating Judge of the Homicide Division, and presiding judge in the Major Civil Trial Division. He served as a presiding judge in the Commerce Case Management Program (Business Court), and also served as a Supervising Judge of the Philadelphia County Grand Jury. Prior to becoming a judge, he practiced law at the Defender Association of Philadelphia, where among other responsibilities, he served as chief of the Family Court Division. Judge Jones obtained his bachelor’s degree from Southwestern College in French, and his J.D. degree from American University, Washington College of Law. He previously served as an adjunct professor at St. Joseph’s University’s Graduate School, Temple University School of Law, and The National Institute for Trial Advocacy. Judge Jones has been an adjunct professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School since 1993. He has taught Handling Capital Cases and Criminal Evidence for the National Judicial College. At the request of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, he oversaw the development of a curriculum for trial judges presiding over capital cases within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania – the Supreme Court’s Capital Case Initiative program. He was a contributing author of Presiding Over a Capital Case, A Benchbook for Judges (William J. Brunson, Esq., et al. eds., 2009). He has been appointed a Business Court Representative to the American Bar Association’s Business Law Section, and served as a liaison to the Judicial Division of the ABA. Judge Jones has served as a member of the University of Pennsylvania American Inn of Court. He has also served on the Advisory Board of New Directions for Women; the Salvation Army Advisory Board, the Drexel University Law School Board, the Advisory Board of the George Mason School of Law – Law & Economics Center Judicial Education Program, and as a member of the Executive Committee of the National Conference of Federal Trial Judges. He was a member of the Model Civil Jury Instructions Committee for the Third Circuit. In 2012, Judge Jones was appointed to the Committee on Criminal Law of the Judicial Conference of the United States by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. Judge Jones assumed senior status on the court on March 15, 2021.
=== Mitchell S. Goldberg ===
Mitchell S. Goldberg Born: 1959, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by George W. Bush on July 24, 2008, to a seat vacated by John R. Padova. Unanimously confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 2008, and received commission on October 31, 2008. Served as Chief Judge, March 5, 2024 – August 1, 2025. Education: Ithaca College, A.B., 1981 Temple University School of Law (now James E. Beasley School of Law), J.D., 1986 Professional Career: Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1986-1989 Private Practice, Cozen O’Connor, Pennsylvania: 1989-1996 Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 1997-2003 Adjunct Professor, Temple University Beasley School of Law: 2002-Present Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylvania: 2003-2008 Member, Judicial Conference of the United States: 2024-Present * * * Judicial Biography Judge Goldberg was appointed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on October 31, 2008. He had previously served on the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas. Judge Goldberg’s career as a practicing attorney started at the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office where he worked in both the trial and appellate divisions. He later joined the law firm of Cozen O’Connor, where his practice focused on commercial litigation. Judge Goldberg was eventually promoted to senior partner, and also served as the manager of Cozen’s Arson and Fraud Unit. Judge Goldberg returned to the public sector in 1997, serving as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where he handled mostly white collar crime cases, both before the District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In 2017, the Chief Judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals appointed Judge Goldberg to sit as a visiting judge in the District of Delaware (in addition to his work in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) to assist the court with its large patent/intellectual property caseload. Through that assignment Judge Goldberg handled over 100 patent cases. Judge Goldberg graduated from Temple Law School in 1986, where he was a member of Temple’s first trial team. He presently serves as an adjunct professor at Temple Law teaching both civil and criminal advanced trial advocacy and the Federal Judicial Clinical. Judge Goldberg served as Chief Judge of the court from March 5, 2024 to August 1, 2025.
=== Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro ===
Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro Born: Puerto Rico Federal Judicial Service: Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by President Barack Obama on January 4, 2013, to a seat vacated by the Honorable Richard B. Surrick. Confirmed by the United States Senate on June 13, 2013, and received her commission on June 19, 2013. Education: University of Puerto Rico, School of Business Administration, B.B.A., 1972 University of Puerto Rico School of Law, J.D., 1975 Professional Career: Staff Attorney, Community Legal Services, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1975-1977 Attorney Advisor, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1977-1979 Staff Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1979- 1991 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1991 Judge, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania: 1991-2013 Other Nominations/Recess Appointments: Nominated to United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, November 27, 2012; no Senate vote. * * * Judicial Biography Judge Quiñones Alejandro was born in Puerto Rico, grew up in a military family and attended the University of Puerto Rico, where she earned a Bachelor of Business Administration degree, cum laude, in 1972, and her Juris Doctor from the University of Puerto Rico School of Law in 1975. She began her career as a staff attorney for Community Legal Services, Inc. in Philadelphia in 1975 until 1977, after which she became an attorney advisor for the Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration. In 1979, she joined the United States Department of Veterans Affairs as a staff attorney – a position she held until 1991. In 1990, the Honorable Robert P. Casey, Sr., Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nominated her to a vacancy in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. She was elected as a judge on the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas in 1991 and remained in that position until 2013, presiding over civil and criminal matters. She was the first Hispanic woman to serve on that court and retained her seat in the elections in 2001 and 2011. President Barack Obama nominated her to be a federal judge; she resigned her state judicial position when her federal nomination was confirmed in 2013.
=== L. Felipe Restrepo ===
L. Felipe Restrepo Born: 1959, in Medellin, Colombia Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Barack Obama on January 4, 2013, to a seat vacated by Anita B. Brody. Confirmed by the Senate on June 17, 2013, and received commission on June 19, 2013. Service terminated on January 13, 2016, due to appointment to another judicial position. Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Nominated by Barack Obama on January 7, 2015, to a seat vacated by Anthony J. Scirica. Confirmed by the Senate on January 11, 2016, and received commission on January 13, 2016. Other Federal Judicial Service: U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 2006-2013 Education: University of Pennsylvania, B.A., 1981 Tulane University Law School, J.D., 1986 Professional Career: Law Clerk, ACLU National Prison Project, Washington, D.C.: 1986-1987 Assistant Defender, Defender Association of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1987-1990 Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 1990-1993 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1993-2006 Member, U.S. Sentencing Commission: 2022-Present Other Nominations/Recess Appointments: Nominated to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, November 27, 2012; no Senate vote. Nominated to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, November 12, 2014; no Senate vote. * * * Judicial Biography Judge Restrepo was born in Medellin, Columbia and moved with his parents to the United States when he was two years old. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Pennsylvania and his law degree from Tulane Law School. Following law school, he worked within the ACLU’s National Prison Project as a law clerk. In 1987, he joined the Defender Association of Philadelphia, as an Assistant Defender. Three years later, he became an Assistant Federal Defender in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In 1993, he became a partner at Krasner & Restrepo. His judicial career began in 2006, when he was appointed as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He served in that role until 2013. President Barack Obama appointed him to the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2012. While the original nomination was returned due to the adjournment of the Senate, President Obama renominated him in 2013, and he was confirmed later that year. In the following year, President Obama nominated him to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. That nomination was also returned because of the Senate’s adjournment, but he was renominated in 2015 and confirmed in 2016. In 2018, President Donald Trump nominated him to the United States Sentencing Commission, but that nomination was returned in 2019. In August 2020, President Trump stated that he intended to renominate Restrepo to the Commission, and he was subsequently confirmed by the Senate. As a Magistrate Judge and a District Judge, he helped create the Eastern District’s reentry program, working with community partners, the Office of Probation, the Federal Defender’s Office, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office to assist those recently released from federal custody reenter communities and lead productive lives. He insisted on continuing his involvement with the STAR (Supervision to Aid Reentry) Program when he became a Third Circuit Judge. He is dedicated to the program’s success, which began in 2007 with 12 participants and has since expanded. The participants meet every two weeks, as a group, to discuss all aspects of their supervised release. In 2019, he was awarded the Champion of Justice Judicial Recognition Award from the National Criminal Defense bar for his role in establishing and overseeing the program. Judge Restrepo currently serves as a Third Circuit Judge.
=== Jeffrey L. Schmehl ===
Jeffrey L. Schmehl Born: 1955, in Reading, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Barack Obama on January 4, 2013, to a seat vacated by Thomas M. Golden. Confirmed by the Senate on June 13, 2013, and received commission on June 25, 2013. Education: Dickinson College, B.A., 1977 University of Toledo College of Law, J.D., 1980 Professional Career: Assistant Public Defender, Berks County, Pennsylvania: 1980-1981 Assistant District Attorney, Berks County, Pennsylvania: 1981-1986 Private Practice, West Reading, Pennsylvania: 1981-1986 Private Practice, Reading, Pennsylvania: 1986-1997 Solicitor, Berks County, Pennsylvania: 1989-1997 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Pennsylvania: 1998-2013; President Judge: 2007-2013 Other Nominations/Recess Appointments: Nominated to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, November 27, 2012; no Senate vote. * * * Judicial Biography Judge Schmehl was born in November of 1955 in Reading. He is a graduate of Governor Mifflin High School and graduated from Dickinson College in 1977. He received his law degree from the University of Toledo School of Law in 1980. Following graduation from law school, Judge Schmehl worked as a sole practitioner in West Reading from 1981 to 1986 and was initially employed for two years with the Public Defender’s Office of Berks County. He later served as an Assistant District Attorney for five years. In 1986 he joined the firm of Rhoda, Stoudt and Bradley, the predecessor of what is now known as Kozloff Stoudt. He became a partner in the firm in 1988 where he remained until his election as a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County in 1998. At the time of his nomination to the federal bench in 2012, he was serving as President Judge of the Berks County Court of Common Pleas, a post to which he was elevated in 2008. While a member of the Rhoda, Stoudt and Bradley firm, he also served as Berks County Solicitor and as an adjunct professor at the Reading Police Academy and Alvernia College. He was recommended for appointment as a judge of the United States District Court by Senators Robert P. Casey, Jr and Patrick J. Toomey. He was nominated by President Barack Obama to the Court on November 27, 2012. On January 4, 2013, he was renominated. The United States Senate confirmed his nomination on June 13, 2013 and he received his commission on June 25, 2013.
=== Gerald A. McHugh ===
Gerald A. McHugh, Jr. Born: 1954, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Barack Obama on January 6, 2014, to a seat vacated by Harvey Bartle, III. Confirmed by the Senate on March 26, 2014, and received commission on March 28, 2014. Education: St. Joseph’s University, A.B., 1976 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), J.D., 1979 Professional Career: Law Clerk, Hon. Alfred L. Luongo, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 1979- 1981 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1981-2014 Other Nominations/Recess Appointments: Nominated to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, August 1, 2013; no Senate vote. * * * Judicial Biography Judge McHugh is a life-long resident of West Philadelphia, where his family has lived through five generations. He commuted to St. Joseph’s College, majoring in theology, where he was named a College Scholar and graduated summa cum laude. The research he did, growing out of teaching in the Philadelphia prisons, became the basis for his first book, Christian Faith & Criminal Justice, which continues to be cited today in works on restorative justice. He attended the University of Pennsylvania School of Law, graduating cum laude, where he served on the Law Review, followed by clerkships with the Honorable Edmund Spaeth of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and the Honorable Alfred L. Luongo in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He was a senior attorney at Raynes McCarty (now Raynes & Lawn), until President Obama appointed him to serve as a judge of the court in 2014. He began his career at Litvin Blumberg, Matusow and Young, where he regularly had the opportunity to co-counsel with attorneys from Raynes, which he joined for the culmination of his career in private practice. While at Raynes, he had the opportunity to represent clients in complex personal injury cases, oftentimes involving complicated issues of international law. He is an elected Fellow of both the American College of Trial Lawyers and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers. While in practice, he was consistently listed in Best Lawyers in America, and on three occasions was named its Philadelphia Lawyer of the Year. He was known for legislative advocacy as well: on six occasions the Governor of Pennsylvania presented him with a ceremonial pen used to sign legislation he was instrumental in drafting. He co-authored Pennsylvania Torts: Law and Advocacy, a two-volume treatise considered a standard reference. He is a member of the American Law Institute and served on an advisory committee to the Third Restatement of Torts. He has written and lectured widely, and taught evidence and appellate advocacy at Penn Law School. Judge McHugh served three terms as Chairman of the Pennsylvania Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts Program (IOLTA) by appointment of the Supreme Court, generating funds to support civil legal services for the poor. In 1998 he served as President of the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association. He also served as President of the Philadelphia Bar Foundation, and President of the Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network, the largest source of funds for indigent legal services in the state. Working with the Philadelphia Bar’s Civil Gideon Task Force, he was instrumental in starting the Landlord-Tenant Help Center in Municipal Court. The Fellowship he established at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in honor of Gerald Litvin and Dennis Suplee has launched five young lawyers into public interest careers. He co-founded Hospitality House of Philadelphia, a residential program for ex-offenders, and has been active in neighborhood improvement, leading anti-drug efforts, designing and building a community garden, and working to establish the Firehouse Farmers Market, an economic development project. Included among the awards he has received are the Philadelphia Bar’s Fidelity Award, the Justice Michael Musmanno Award, the Distinguished Child Advocate Award from the Support Center for Child Advocates, the Friends of Farmworkers Service Award, the Equal Justice Award from Community Legal Services, and Penn Law’s Lesnick Award for pro bono service.
=== Edward G. Smith ===
Photo of Oil Painting of Edward G. Smith Edward G. Smith Born: September 17, 1961, in Fort Knox, Kentucky Died: November 27, 2023, in Plainfield Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Barack Obama on January 6, 2014, to a seat vacated by Berle M. Schiller. Confirmed by the Senate on March 26, 2014, and received commission on March 31, 2014. Service terminated on November 27, 2023, due to death. Education: Franklin and Marshall College, B.A., 1983 Dickinson School of Law (now Penn State Dickinson Law), J.D., 1986 Naval Justice School, 1987 Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, 2004 Professional Career: U.S. Navy, JAG Corps: 1984-1990 U.S. Naval Reserve, JAG Corps: 1990-2014 Private Practice, Easton, Pennsylvania: 1990-2001 Solicitor, Upper Nazareth Township, Pennsylvania: 1990-2001 Special Deputy Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: 1991-1999 Assistant Solicitor, Northampton County, Pennsylvania: 1996-1998 Solicitor, Northampton County, Pennsylvania Industrial Development Authority: 1997-2001 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Pennsylvania: 2002-2014 Other Nominations/Recess Appointments: Nominated to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, August 1, 2013; no Senate vote. * * * Judicial Biography In 2014, Judge Smith was appointed to serve as a district court judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with courtroom chambers in both Easton and Philadelphia. Judge Smith was nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed by a Republican majority Senate. Prior to his federal judicial service, he served for twelve years as a Pennsylvania state trial judge on the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Pennsylvania. Before that, and after leaving active duty with the U.S. Navy, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, he was a partner in private practice with the firm of DeRaymond & Smith in Easton. In 1984, while still completing his studies at the Dickinson School of Law, Judge Smith was commissioned as an ensign in the United States Navy, Judge Advocate General’s Corps. That commission would begin a 30-year military career combining military service and judicial responsibility. He rose through the ranks to Navy Captain, took command of two separate reserve units, presided as a military judge over Navy and Marine Corps courts-martial at home and abroad, and served as an appellate judge on the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals. Of particular note, in 2007, he took a temporary leave of absence from the Northampton County bench and forward-deployed to Baghdad, Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, where he served as the Rule of Law Advisor to Joint Task Force 134, Multi-National Force-Iraq. His military awards include the Bronze Star Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, Joint Meritorious Unit Commendation, National Defense Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation, Armed Forces Reserve Medal with “M” device, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, USCG Special Operations Ribbon, Expert Rifleman Medal, and Expert Pistol Medal. Judge Smith was a graduate of Easton Area High School. He studied at Franklin and Marshall College and the Dickinson School of Law where he graduated with honors. From there, he went to Naval Justice School where he graduated first in his class. He passed away on November 27, 2023, in Plainfield Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania, at the age of 62. * * * Biographical Materials 1. 2. Obituary, The Honorable Edward G. Smith (1961-2023). Remarks delivered on December 1, 2023, by Dr. Mark S. Smith at Memorial Service concerning the late Honorable Edward G. Smith. 3. 4. 5. 6. Remarks delivered on December 1, 2023, by Joseph A. Corpora, III, Esq. at Memorial Service concerning the late Honorable Edward G. Smith. Remarks delivered on December 1, 2023, by the Honorable Bernard E. DeLury, Judge, Superior Court of New Jersey at Memorial Service concerning the late Honorable Edward G. Smith. Remarks delivered on December 1, 2023, by the Honorable Evan A. Young, Justice, Supreme Court of Texas at Memorial Service concerning the late Honorable Edward G. Smith. Remarks delivered on December 1, 2023, by the Honorable Juan R. Sanchez, Chief Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania at Memorial Service concerning the late Honorable Edward G. Smith.
=== Wendy Beetlestone ===
Wendy Beetlestone Born: 1961, in Ibadan, Nigeria Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Barack Obama on June 16, 2014, to a seat vacated by Michael M. Baylson. Confirmed by the Senate on November 20, 2014, and received commission on November 21, 2014. Serves as Chief Judge, August 1, 2025 – Present. Education: Liverpool University, B.A. (Hons.), Philosophy, 1984 University of Pennsylvania Law School (now Carey Law School), J.D., 1993 Drexel University, Doctor of Laws (Honoris Causa), 2019 University of Liverpool, Doctor of Laws (Honoris Causa), 2019 Professional Career: Television News Producer, BBC, CNN, Pittsburgh (local TV stations) and Bala Cynwyd (local TV station), Pennsylvania: 1984-1990 Intern, Hon. Jan E. Dubois, , U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania: Summer 1991 Law Clerk, Hon. Robert S. Gawthrop, III, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 1993-1994 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1994-2002; 2005-2014 General Counsel, The School District of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 2002-2005 * * * Judicial Biography Judge Beetlestone was born in Ibadan, Nigeria, where her parents worked as academics at the University of Ibadan. After leaving Nigeria with her family as a teenager, she attended the University of Liverpool, graduating with honors in philosophy. While at Liverpool she was also editor-in-chief of the university newspaper, The Guild and City Gazette, and was elected by the student body to serve as Welfare and National Union of Students sabbatical officer for the Guild of Undergraduates. After graduation, she worked as a journalist at the British Broadcasting Company before being recruited by CNN in Atlanta and, eventually, moving to Philadelphia to work as a news producer at Channel 10. After six years as a journalist, she decided to pursue a longstanding interest in the law. She attended the University of Pennsylvania Law School, serving on the law review as an articles editor and interning for Judge Jan E. Dubois. She then served as a law clerk for the late Judge Robert S. Gawthrop, III, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. After clerking she became an associate, then partner, at the law firm of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP where she developed a wide-ranging complex civil litigation practice. She then served as the General Counsel for the School District of Philadelphia before returning to the private practice of law as a shareholder at Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller. Each year from 2008 through 2014 she was selected by the publication Best Lawyers in America as a Best Lawyer in America in the field of Education Law and in 2012 she was first named as one of the top 250 women in litigation in the United States by the Benchmark publication. Judge Beetlestone has been active in numerous community and professional organizations. Shortly before taking the bench, she served as the President of the Philadelphia Bar Foundation, on the executive committee of the Board of Trustees of Philadelphia University, and as a member of Pennsylvania’s State Board of Education. In 2019 she was awarded two honorary degrees – from Drexel University and from Liverpool University. She was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama on June 16, 2014, was confirmed by unanimous voice vote by the United States Senate on November 20, 2014, and received her judicial commission on November 21, 2014. In 2023, she was appointed as Chancellor of the University of Liverpool – the titular and ceremonial figurehead of the University. Judge Beetlestone became Chief Judge of the Court on August 1, 2025.
=== Mark A. Kearney ===
Mark A. Kearney Born: 1962, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Barack Obama on June 16, 2014, to a seat vacated by J. Curtis Joyner. Confirmed by the Senate on December 3, 2014, and received commission on December 4, 2014. Education: Villanova University, B.A., 1984 Villanova University School of Law, J.D., 1987 Professional Career: Law Clerk, Hon. Maurice A. Hartnett, III, Delaware Court of Chancery: 1987-1988 Private Practice, Philadelphia and Blue Bell, Pennsylvania and Wilmington, Delaware: 1988- 2014 * * * Judicial Biography On December 4, 2014, following a unanimous voice vote in the United States Senate, President Barack Obama commissioned Mark A. Kearney as the 100th judge in the history of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Judge Kearney received his B.A. in Economics and English with honors followed by his J.D. from Villanova University in 1987, where he presently serves on Villanova Law School’s Board of Consultors. Following law school, he served as a judicial law clerk for the Delaware Court of Chancery. A member of the Delaware and Pennsylvania Bars, he is published as a lead author on Delaware fiduciary standards in two editions of the Villanova Law Review (1995, 1996). Judge Kearney, along with Judge Sanchez, most recently published “A Federal Trial Court’s Evolving Responsibilities to the Rule of Law” in the Temple Law Review, Vol. 97:4 (Summer 2025). He served while in practice as multi-year contributing editor to Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law, where he wrote extensively on commercial, banking and corporate litigation for the international legal and financial community. A sampling of his many law articles include: “The Poison Pill as Shield and Gavel”; “The Redemption of Poison Pills: The New Battleground”; “Update on Target Auctions and Poison Pills”; “Paramount v. Time: New Options for Directors with Long Term Plans”; “Foreign Sovereign Investment in the United States”; “Advisors Gain New Immunity from Racketeering Statutes”; “The Evolving Standard of Scrutiny Applied to Directors’ Decisions”; and, “Cede Ill: Towards a Clear Standard for Corporate Fiduciaries.” The 2014-2015 President of the Pennsylvania Bar Institute and 2009 President of the 2200-member Montgomery Bar Association, his national law practice from 1988 to 2014 concentrated in commercial, financial, employment and consumer litigation with special emphasis on the representation of business owners, investors, directors and officers. His law partners repeatedly elected or appointed him to serve as Corporate Secretary and a managing and hiring shareholder of the Mid-Atlantic firm Elliott Greenleaf before joining the District Court. His varied experience included serving as lead counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants in class actions, multidistrict litigations, mass tort actions, and in regulatory investigations throughout the United States. The Montgomery Bar Association honored him as the 2014 Trial Lawyer of the Year. He was repeatedly elected (2011-2015) as a Top 100 lawyer in Pennsylvania and in the Philadelphia Metropolitan area by Thomson Reuters. Benchmark Litigation selected him as one of the top 50 “Litigation Stars” in Pennsylvania for 2013 and 2014. He received the highest peer rating of AV from Martindale-Hubbell since he became eligible in 1992. The United States District Court appointed Judge Kearney in 2012 to the Lawyers Advisory Committee of the Judicial Council for the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. As an active judge member of the District Court, he presently serves on the National Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, the Court of Appeals’ Courts in the Community Committee, and as the Chair of the District Court’s Public Relations and Community Outreach Committee. He also serves on the Executive Committee of the Federal Judges Association and co-Chair of Judicial Pay and Benefits, the Circuit representative on the Annenberg Center’s Civics Education national project, long-time Chair of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Law Related Education Committee and Vice-Chair of the Bar’s Federal Practice Committee. * * * Biographical Materials 1. “A Federal Trial Court’s Evolving Responsibilities to the Rule of Law” in the Temple Law Review, Vol. 97:4 (Summer 2025).1 1 Produced with the permission of Temple University Beasley School of Law. Originally published in Temple Law Review Vol. 97, Issue 4. 2 3
=== Gerald J. Pappert ===
Gerald J. Pappert Born: 1963, in Albany, New York Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Barack Obama on June 16, 2014, to a seat vacated by Stewart R. Dalzell. Confirmed by the Senate on December 3, 2014, and received commission on December 4, 2014. Education: Villanova University, B.A., 1985 Notre Dame Law School, J.D., 1988 Professional Career: Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1988-1997; 2012-2014 First Deputy Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: 1997-2003 Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: 2003-2005 Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Cephalon, Inc., Frazer, Pennsylvania: 2008-2012 * * * Judicial Biography Judge Pappert graduated with honors from Villanova University in 1985 and from Notre Dame Law School in 1988. Upon graduation from Notre Dame, he joined a large Philadelphia law firm where he conducted a general commercial litigation practice, primarily in the federal courts. In January of 1997, he became the Commonwealth’s First Deputy Attorney General. In that capacity, he successfully argued cases before the United States and Pennsylvania Supreme Courts. From 2003 to 2005, he was the Attorney General of Pennsylvania. Upon leaving office, he resumed a litigation, regulatory and government enforcement practice with another large Philadelphia firm. In May of 2008, he became the Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Cephalon, Inc., a global biopharmaceutical company. After Cephalon’s acquisition by another pharmaceutical company, he returned to private practice in 2012, primarily representing individuals and companies facing regulatory and enforcement investigations. He also served as the Chairman of the Pennsylvania Banking and Securities Commission from 2012 through 2014 and as a member of the Commonwealth Financing Authority from 2006 to 2012. On June 16, 2014 he was nominated by President Barack Obama to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on December 3, 2014, and began his service on the court on January 5, 2015.
=== Chad F. Kenney ===
Federal Judicial Service: Chad F. Kenney Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Donald J. Trump on December 20, 2017, to a seat vacated by Luis Felipe Restrepo. Confirmed by the Senate on October 11, 2018, and received commission on October 24, 2018. Education: Villanova University, B.A., 1977 Temple University School of Law (now James E. Beasley School of Law), J.D., 1980 Professional Career: Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1980-1981; 1983-1988 Central Legal Staff Lawyer, Superior Court of Pennsylvania: 1981-1983 Private Practice, Delaware County, Pennsylvania: 1988-2003 Sheriff, Delaware County, Pennsylvania: 1998-2003 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania: 2003-2018; Domestic Relations Section: 2003-2005; Criminal Section: 2005-2010; Civil Trial Section: 2009-2011; 2017-2018; Civil Motion Judge: 2011-2012; President Judge and Orphans’ Court: 2012-2017 * * * Judicial Biography Judge Kenney graduated from Villanova University, Class of 1977, and Temple Law, Class of 1980 where he was a member of the Law Review. He embarked on his professional career in the City of Philadelphia. In 1988, he transitioned his practice out of the city to Delaware County, immediately joining the Delaware County Bar Association where he served on the Board of Directors before taking the bench. He co-chaired the Federal Courts Committee. He was twice elected Delaware County Sheriff. In 2003, he was nominated by Governor Edward G. Rendell to fill a vacancy on the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County. In November of 2003, he was elected to a full ten year term and, in 2013 he was retained by the electorate to serve another ten year term. In 2012, he was elected by his judicial colleagues to serve a five-year term as the President Judge for the Delaware County bench. He was nominated by President Donald J. Trump to the court in 2017, and was confirmed by the United States Senate in 2018.
=== Joshua D. Wolson ===
Joshua D. Wolson Born: 1974, in Ann Arbor, Michigan Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Donald J. Trump on January 23, 2019, to a seat vacated by James Knoll Gardner. Confirmed by the Senate on May 2, 2019, and received commission on May 28, 2019. Education: University of Pennsylvania, B.A., 1996 Harvard Law School, J.D., 1999 Professional Career: Law Clerk, Hon. Jan E. DuBois, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 1999-2000 Private Practice, Washington, D.C.: 2000-2008 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 2008-2019 Other Nominations/Recess Appointments: Nominated to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, May 15, 2018; no Senate vote. * * * Judicial Biography Judge Wolson was born in Ann Arbor, Michigan. At an early age, he moved with his parents to Allentown, Pennsylvania, where he graduated from Parkland High School. He then attended the University of Pennsylvania, where he studied economics and graduated magna cum laude. After college, he attended Harvard Law School, where he graduated cum laude. He then returned to Philadelphia and clerked on this court for Judge Jan DuBois. Following his clerkship, he moved to Washington, D.C., where he joined the litigation and antitrust practices at Covington & Burling LLP. At Covington, his practice focused on complex commercial litigation, ranging from antitrust class actions to patent cases to commercial contract disputes. In 2007, he received the Charles F.C. Ruff Pro Bono Attorney of the Year award at Covington. In 2008, he returned to Philadelphia again, this time to join Dilworth Paxson LLP. At Dilworth, he continued to focus on complex civil litigation, including antitrust, contract, and intellectual property matters. He also handled several criminal forfeiture and procurement matters. While in private practice, he wrote numerous articles, including a blog for The Legal Intelligencer and articles in a variety of publications including Antitrust magazine, The Weekly Standard, Law 360, and IP Watchdog. Judge Wolson has served as the Co-Chair of the Privilege Subcommittee of the American Bar Association Section of Litigation’s Commercial and Business Litigation Committee. He has moderated programs for the ABA Section of Antitrust Joint Conduct Committee. He served as the President of the Philadelphia Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society and on the Federalist Society’s Corporations, Securities and Antitrust Committee. Judge Wolson has served as the Chair of the Board of Historic Philadelphia, Inc., which operates Franklin Square and the Betsy Ross House, as well as other properties in Philadelphia’s Historic District. He also has served on the Board of the Breakthrough Bike Challenge, which raises money for novel research at the Abramson Cancer Center. He is a former co-chair of the Young Friends of the Abramson Cancer Center, and he has served on the Cancer Center’s Directors and Leadership Council. Judge Wolson was nominated to the Court by President Donald J. Trump in 2019 and confirmed by the United States Senate in 2019.
=== John Milton Younge ===
John Milton Younge Born: 1955, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Donald J. Trump on January 23, 2019, to a seat vacated by Mary A. McLaughlin. Confirmed by the Senate on July 31, 2019, and received commission on August 20, 2019. Education: Boston University, B.A., 1977 Howard University School of Law, J.D., 1981 University of Nevada, Reno, M.J.S., 2011 Professional Career: Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1982-1985; 1995 Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority: 1985-1995; Staff Attorney: 1985-1987; Development Legal Officer: 1987-1989; Deputy Executive Director: 1989-1995; General Counsel: 1990- 1995 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania: 1996-2019 Adjunct Professor, Delaware County Community College: 2005-2014 Other Nominations/Recess Appointments: Nominated to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, July 30, 2015; no Senate vote. Nominated to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, July 17, 2018; no Senate vote. * * * Judicial Biography Judge Younge is a native Philadelphian. He was first nominated to the federal bench by President Barack Obama in July of 2015. This nomination expired in January of 2017. He was renominated by President Donald J. Trump in July of 2018 and was confirmed by the United States Senate on July 31, 2019. Judge Younge’s judicial career began when he was elected to a ten-year term on the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1995. He was re-elected in 2005 and 2015. Raised in the southwest section of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, he is a product of the Philadelphia Public School system and a member of the 232nd graduating class of Central High School in 1973. Judge Younge earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration from Boston University in 1977, his Juris Doctor Degree in 1981 from the Howard University School of Law, and in 2011 he received his Masters of Judicial Studies degree from the University of Nevada, Reno. His commitment to community was also in evidence from 1985 to 1995, when he served as Deputy Executive Director and General Counsel for the Redevelopment Authority of Philadelphia. Prior to that, he had his own community-based, private law practice from 1982 to 1985. He has taught Continuing Legal Education (CLE) for judges and lawyers and has served as an adjunct professor at the Delaware County Community College. His civic and church involvements have included serving as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of The Consortium, the West Philadelphia community mental health center; Chairman of the Board of Directors of the New Life Credit Union; Board member of the Associated Alumni of Central High School; member of the Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Mu Omega Chapter; member of Most Worshipful Prince Hall Lodge of Pennsylvania, F.A.M., Phoenix Lodge #3, Co- Chairman of the Board of Finance of Sharon Baptist Church. His professional involvements include his memberships in the Clifford Scott Green Chapter of the National Bar Association Judicial Council; member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, and a member of the Philadelphia Bar Association
=== Karen S. Marston ===
Karen Spencer Marston Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Donald J. Trump on September 9, 2019, to a seat vacated by Legrome D. Davis. Confirmed by the Senate on December 19, 2019, and received commission on December 20, 2019.
=== John M. Gallagher ===
John M. Gallagher Born: 1966, in New York, New York Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Donald J. Trump on October 15, 2019, to a seat vacated by Joel H. Slomsky. Confirmed by the Senate on December 19, 2019, and received commission on December 31, 2019. Education: Long Island University, B.S., 1989 New York Law School, J.D., 1994 Professional Career: Police Officer, New York City: 1989-1994 Assistant District Attorney, Bronx County, New York: 1994-1996 Assistant Special Prosecutor, New York City Police Department: 1996-1997 Assistant District Attorney, Monroe County, Pennsylvania: 1997-1998 Special Counsel to Police Commissioner, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1998-2000 White House Fellow, Counsel to Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice: 2000-2001 Assistant U.S. Attorney and Civil Rights Coordinator, District of New Mexico: 2001-2003 Assistant Chief of Police, Miami, Florida: 2003-2004 Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 2004-2019; Chief, Allentown Branch Office: 2014-2019 * * * Judicial Biography Judge Gallagher was born in Queens, New York City. He earned his Bachelor of Science from Long Island University in 1989 and his Juris Doctor from New York Law School in 1994. He attended law school while serving as a New York City Police Officer assigned to the 28th Precinct in Central Harlem. Judge Gallagher then worked as an Assistant District Attorney in Bronx County, New York, from 1994 to 1996, before returning to the NYPD as an Assistant Special Prosecutor for cases involving serious police corruption. In 1997, Judge Gallagher moved to Pennsylvania, serving one year as an Assistant District Attorney in Monroe County before being hired as Special Counsel to Philadelphia Police Commissioner John Timoney, serving during a period of significant reform for the Philadelphia Police Department. In 2000, Judge Gallagher received a Presidential appointment as a White House Fellow, serving as Counsel to United States Attorneys General Janet Reno and John Ashcroft. The following year, he was sworn as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of New Mexico, also serving as the district’s Civil Rights Coordinator, investigating and prosecuting criminal civil rights violations. In 2003 to 2004, Judge Gallagher was appointed Assistant Chief of Police in the City of Miami, Florida, taking a leading role in the development and implementation of policies improving the effectiveness and professionalism of the police department. In 2004, Judge Gallagher returned to Pennsylvania, and he served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania through 2019. He served as the Chief of the Allentown Branch from 2014 to 2019. In this office, he prosecuted some of the region’s most notorious criminals including drug organizations, violent gangs, fraudsters, and corrupt public officials. His cases included the successful racketeering prosecution of a defendant who murdered 12 people, including two women and four children who were family to a federal informant who had agreed to testify against the defendant in a drug trafficking case. The trial resulted in the only death sentence ever imposed in the modern history of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In 2015, Judge Gallagher co-authored “Black Ice: The Val James Story,” the autobiography of Valmore James, the first American-born black player in the National Hockey League. Judge Gallagher was nominated to his seat by President Donald J. Trump in 2019, and he was confirmed by the United States Senate later that same year. Judge Gallagher presides at the Edward N. Cahn United States Courthouse and Federal Building, located on West Hamilton Street, in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
=== Mia Roberts Perez ===
Mia Roberts Perez Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Joseph R. Biden, Jr. on July 12, 2022, to a seat vacated by Timothy J. Savage. Confirmed by the Senate on December 7, 2022, and received commission on December 16, 2022.
=== Kelley Brisbon Hodge ===
Kelley Brisbon Hodge Born: 1971, in Abington, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Joseph R. Biden, Jr. on July 12, 2022, to a seat vacated by Petrese B. Tucker. Confirmed by the Senate on December 6, 2022, and received commission on December 23, 2022. Education: University of Virginia, B.A., 1993 University of Richmond T.C. Williams School of Law (now University of Richmond School of Law), J.D., 1996 Professional Career: Assistant Public Defender, Richmond Virginia: 1997-2003; Assistant Public Defender I: 1997- 1999; Assistant Public Defender II: 1999-2001; Senior Assistant Public Defender: 2001-2003 Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 2004-2011; Assistant Chief, Municipal Court Unit: 2007-2009; Chief, Municipal Court Unit: 2009-2010; Assistant Chief, Juvenile Court Unit: 2010-2011 Adjunct Professor, Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law: 2010, 2011 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency: 2011-2015; Safe Schools Advocate: 2011-2015; Acting Director, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: 2015 Title IX Coordinator and Executive Assistant to the President, University of Virginia: 2015- 2016 Private Practice, Blue Bell, Pennsylvania: 2016-2017, 2018-2020 District Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 2017-2018 Adjunct Professor, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School: 2019- Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 2020-2022 Adjunct Professor, University of Virginia School of Law: 2021- * * * Judicial Biography Judge Hodge was born in Abington, Pennsylvania. She grew up in Montgomery County and attended elementary school at Ancillae-Assumpta Academy in Wyncote, Pennsylvania. She attended high school at Mount Saint Joseph Academy, an all-girls Catholic college preparatory school, in Flourtown, Pennsylvania, graduating in 1989. She graduated from the University of Virginia in 1993 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Foreign Affairs and in Spanish Language and Literature. She then attended the University of Richmond School of Law in Richmond, Virginia receiving the McCaul Martins Evans and Cooke scholarship and graduated with her Juris Doctor in 1996. Prior to joining the federal bench, Judge Hodge was a partner in private practice in the labor and employment practice group of Fox Rothschild LLP in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Prior to joining Fox Rothschild LLP, she had served as the 25th District Attorney of Philadelphia after being elected in 2017 by the Board of Judges for the Court of Common Pleas for the First Judicial District. Upon her election, she became the first African American woman to lead the District Attorney’s office in its 167-year history and the first African American woman to lead a District Attorney’s Office in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As an attorney, she practiced law in the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia, starting her legal career as a public defender in Richmond, Virginia in 1997 and then relocated to Philadelphia where she joined the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office in 2004. Before becoming District Attorney, she was the first independent Title IX Coordinator at the University of Virginia. Additionally, during her career, she was appointed by two Pennsylvania Governors to serve on statewide commissions that focused on school safety, juvenile justice and citizen’s review of law enforcement. Over her twenty-five years as an attorney, she developed an extensive and comprehensive trial, litigation and compliance practice focusing on education law, criminal law, government policy advising, discrimination and civil rights. She has served as a lecturer in law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and the University of Virginia School of Law. She has sat on numerous boards, has been recognized by various legal and professional entities and is a member of a number of community-centered organizations. Judge Hodge was nominated by President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. to become a United states District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 12, 2022 and was confirmed by the United States Senate on December 6, 2022. She received her commission from the President on December 23, 2022.
=== John F. Murphy ===
John F. Murphy Born: 1977, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Joseph R. Biden, Jr. on July 12, 2022, to a seat vacated by Lawrence F. Stengel. Confirmed by the Senate on December 7, 2022, and received commission on December 23, 2022. Education: Cornell University, B.S., 1999 California Institute of Technology, M.S., 2002 California Institute of Technology, Ph.D., 2005 Harvard Law School, J.D., 2007 Professional Career: Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 2007-2008, 2009-2022 Law Clerk, Hon. Kimberly A. Moore, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: 2008-2009 Adjunct Professor, Rutgers School of Law Adjunct Professor, Villanova Law School * * * Judicial Biography Judge Murphy was nominated by President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. on July 12, 2022 and was confirmed by the United States Senate on December 7, 2022. He received his commission from the President on December 23, 2022. Judge Murphy graduated with a B.S., summa cum laude, in chemical engineering from Cornell University, and then moved to the California Institute of Technology. There, he worked in the laboratory of Professor Mark E. Davis and obtained a Ph.D. in chemical engineering in 2004 with a thesis addressing the collection of gene expression data using peptidomimetic tags and mass spectrometry, and analysis of that data with machine-learning techniques. He obtained his law degree from Harvard Law School, where he was editor-in-chief of the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology and an active member of the Harvard Mediation Program. Early in his career, he served as a law clerk for the Honorable Kimberly A. Moore of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judge Murphy began his career in private practice in the Philadelphia office of Woodcock Washburn. He became a partner with Baker & Hostetler when it merged with Woodcock Washburn in 2014, where he remained until his appointment to the bench. In private practice, he concentrated on intellectual property litigation, especially patent litigation, but he frequently went beyond the courtroom to advise on the development and strategic business uses of intellectual property. He represented plaintiffs and defendants in about equal number in district courts around the country and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as well as the U.S. International Trade Commission, arbitration panels, and mediators. He branched out from chemical engineering to representations involving commercial packaging, orthopedic medical devices and materials, chemical and biological therapeutics, tablet and telephone hardware, semiconductor manufacturing, industrial machinery, and cryptographic software, to name a few. Judge Murphy has served outside the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as a visiting judge in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the District of Delaware, and the District of New Jersey. He serves on the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, he serves on the Attorney Discipline, Civil Business, and Information Technology committees. Judge Murphy also serves as adjunct professor of law at the Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law and at Rutgers Law School, where he teaches Patent Litigation & Strategy. He is co-author of the last three editions of the casebook Patent Litigation & Strategy along with Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore, Professor Timothy Holbrook, and Andrew Sommer.
=== Kai N. Scott ===
Kai N. Scott Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Joseph R. Biden, Jr. on July 12, 2022, to a seat vacated by C. Darnell Jones, II. Confirmed by the Senate on December 7, 2022, and received commission on January 18, 2023.
=== Mary K. Costello ===
Mary Kay Costello Born: 1968, in Bristol, Pennsylvania Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Joseph R. Biden, Jr. on June 13, 2024, to a seat vacated by Cynthia M. Rufe. Confirmed by the Senate on September 17, 2024, and received commission on September 19, 2024. Other Federal Judicial Service: U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2024 Education: Temple University, B.A., 1998 Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law, J.D., 2001 Professional Career: U.S. Air Force Staff Sergeant: 1986-1994 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 2001-2008 Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 2008-2024 * * * Judicial Biography Judge Costello was nominated by President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. in June of 2024. She was confirmed by the United States Senate on September 17, 2024, and received her commission on September 19, 2024. She previously served as a United States Magistrate Judge from August to September of 2024. From April of 2008 until August of 2024, Judge Costello served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. She served in various units within the criminal division during her tenure there. Most recently, she was assigned to the public corruption and civil rights unit. From September of 2010 until October of 2022, she was assigned to the health care fraud and government fraud unit. From April of 2008 until September of 2010, she was assigned to the consumer and commercial fraud unit. During her career at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, she prosecuted criminal cases involving bribery, heath care fraud, drug diversion schemes, schemes to defraud the government, tax fraud, cases involving violent crimes, and other matters. Judge Costello conducted multiple jury trials and argued three cases before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. She also supported the mission of the U.S. Attorney’s Office by serving as the stimulus fraud coordinator and as a member of the hiring committee. Prior to joining the United States Attorney’s office, she was a litigation associate at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP in Philadelphia from 2004 to 2008. Her practice focused on class actions and other complex commercial litigation, including cases involving antitrust, health care, insurance matters, contracts, and employment law. She also worked as a litigation associate at Saul Ewing LLP in Philadelphia from 2001 until 2004 where she handled various commercial litigation matters involving contracts, insurance issues, employment law, and commercial real estate. While in private practice, she regularly participated in pro bono matters, including serving as a volunteer attorney for the Support Center for Child Advocates. Judge Costello received her J.D., magna cum laude, from Temple University Beasley School of Law in 2001 and her B.A., summa cum laude, from Temple University in 1998. From 1986 to 1994, Judge Costello served in the U.S. Air Force as a communications- computer systems operator. After attending basic training and technical school, she was assigned to duty stations in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Keflavik, Iceland, and Cape Cod, Massachusetts. She ultimately achieved the rank of staff sergeant (E-5). After eight years of service, she left the Air Force with an Honorable Discharge to pursue her college degree and attend law school.
=== Catherine C. Henry ===
Catherine C. Henry Born: 1969, in Edison, New Jersey Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Joseph R. Biden, Jr. on June 4, 2024, to a seat vacated by Edward G. Smith. Confirmed by the Senate on December 3, 2024, and received commission on December 6, 2024. Education: Drew University, B.A., 1991 District of Columbia School of Law (now University of the District of Columbia Clarke School of Law), J.D., 1995 Professional Career: Staff Attorney, Feminist Majority Foundation, Arlington, Virginia: 1995-1996 Assistant Defender, Defender Association of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1996-2002 Federal Community Defender Office, Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 2002-2024; Assistant Federal Defender: 2002-2008; Senior Litigator: 2008-2024 Adjunct Professor, University of Pennsylvania Carey School of Law: 2009- * * * Judicial Biography Judge Henry graduated from Drew University in 1991 and received her J.D. from the University of the District of Columbia Daniel A. Clarke School of Law in 1995. She took the oath of office as a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on December 12, 2024, following nearly three decades of service as a career public defender. She brings to the bench a depth of professional experience, including civil and criminal constitutional advocacy. She has made nearly 1400 appearances in this district and taken numerous trials to verdict. Judge Henry began her career advancing gender equality as a staff attorney at the Feminist Majority Foundation. She then arrived in Philadelphia to begin three decades defending indigent clients, first at the Defender Association of Philadelphia and later at the Federal Community Defender Office. Over her 24 years in the federal courthouse, she litigated many complex criminal cases, including over 30 trials to verdict. Since 2008, she was the office’s Senior Litigator, a role in which she continued trial practice while also mentoring junior attorneys and leading training in trial advocacy, sentencing strategy, and federal criminal procedure. Judge Henry’s service extends beyond the courtroom. She taught Trial Advocacy at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and Temple University Beasley School of Law, and served as an instructor in Temple’s LL.M. program and federal criminal clinic. Nationally recognized for her legal insight, she regularly trained federal defenders and Criminal Justice Act attorneys, and she was appointed chair of the Public Defenders Committee of the American College of Trial Lawyers in 2023. She served as the volunteer Defender representative for the STAR Program, a reentry initiative aiding formerly incarcerated individuals in their return to society – a role that reflects her enduring commitment to justice with compassion. President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. nominated Judge Henry on June 4, 2024, to fill the seat of the late Judge Edward G. Smith. The United States Senate confirmed her nomination on December 3, 2024. She received her commission on December 6, 2024.
=== Gail A. Weilheimer ===
Gail A. Weilheimer Born: 1970, in Syracuse, New York Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Nominated by Joseph R. Biden, Jr. on July 8, 2024, to a seat vacated by Gene E.K. Pratter. Confirmed by the Senate on December 3, 2024, and received commission on January 2, 2025. Education: Hofstra University, B.A., 1992 Hofstra University School of Law, J.D., 1995 Professional Career: Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1995-2002 Instructor, National Institute of Trial Advocacy, Hofstra University School of Law: 1998-2005 Instructor, Intensive Trial Advocacy Program, Widener University School of Law: 1999-2011 Private Practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 2002-2013 Adjunct Professor, Widener University School of Law: 2002, 2003, 2006 Commissioner, Abington Township, Pennsylvania: 2004-2008 Solicitor (Part Time), Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: 2008-2013 Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: 2014-2024; Family Court: 2014-2016; Criminal Court: 2016-2018; Civil Division: 2018-2020, 2022-2024; Orphans’ Court: 2020-2022; Competency Court: 2022-2024 * * * Judicial Biography Judge Weilheimer took the oath of office on January 3, 2025, as a United States District Judge following more than a decade of service on the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. Elected to the county bench in 2013 and retained in 2023, she presided over cases across the Criminal, Civil, Family, and Orphans’ Court divisions, and was widely recognized for her innovative leadership in judicial reform related to mental health. Most notably, she created Pennsylvania’s first Competency Court - a model that has since informed best practices across the Commonwealth. Beyond the courtroom, Judge Weilheimer has consistently demonstrated a deep commitment to systemic improvement and public service. She chaired the state-wide Competency and Civil Commitment Committee, served as Vice-Chair of the Pennsylvania Mental Health Justice Advisory Committee, and was a member of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Behavioral Health Executive Committee. She also played an active role in judicial education, co-chairing Montgomery County’s Continuing Judicial Education Committee and coordinating its Judicial Internship Program. A strong advocate for mentorship, she founded the Montgomery County Women’s Networking Initiative and has been a consistent voice for professional development among women in the law. She began her legal career as an Assistant District Attorney in Philadelphia, where she litigated more than 100 jury trials and thousands of bench trials. After moving to Montgomery County, she became actively involved with her community. In 2003 she was elected to the Abington Township Board of Commissioners and volunteered regularly in Abington’s public schools. For the eight years prior to serving as a state court trial judge, Judge Weilheimer was Senior Counsel at Wisler Pearlstine, LLP, during which she also served as legal counsel to the Montgomery County Clerk of Courts and co-counsel to the Shapiro/Richards Transition Team. Throughout her professional career she demonstrated her commitment to enhancing the legal profession by teaching trial advocacy at local law schools, presenting at numerous continuing legal and judicial education programs and serving as an instructor for the National Institute for Trial Advocacy. Judge Weilheimer earned both her B.A. and J.D. from Hofstra University. While at Hofstra she was selected as a Harry S. Truman Scholar, a prestigious U.S. national award recognizing academic excellence, leadership and promise in public service. Judge Weilheimer was nominated by President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. to become a United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 8, 2024, and was confirmed by the United States Senate on December 3, 2024. She received her commission from President Biden on January 2, 2025. * * * Biographical Materials 1. Transcript of Investiture Ceremony of The Honorable Gail A. Weilheimer as Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held on Thursday, May 15, 2025.
Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this judge practice, verify citations, and research related authorities. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.
