Sonia Sotomayor

Nonpartisan

Supreme Court of the United States

Tenure

2009 - Present

Years in position

16

Predecessor:David Souter (Nonpartisan)

Prior offices:

United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit

Years in office: 1998 - 2009

Predecessor:John Daniel Mahoney

Successor:Raymond Lohier (Nonpartisan)

---

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Years in office: 1992 - 1998

Predecessor:John Walker

Successor:Victor Marrero

Education

Bachelor's

Princeton University, 1976

Law

Yale Law School, 1979

Personal

Birthplace

New York, NY

Sonia Sotomayor is an associate justice of theSupreme Court of the United States. PresidentBarack Obama (D) nominated her to fill the vacancy following JusticeDavid Souter's retirement on June 29, 2009. TheU.S. Senate confirmed her nomination on August 6, 2009, in a 68-31 vote. She was sworn in on August 8, 2009, becoming the first Hispanic justice to sit on the court.^[1][2][3]

Before serving on the U.S. Supreme Court, Sotomayor was a judge on theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1998 to 2009. PresidentBill Clinton (D) nominated her to the court on June 25, 1997, to a seat vacated byJ. Daniel Mahoney. The Senate confirmed her on October 2, 1998, and she received commission on October 7, 1998.^[1] A notable ruling included her majority opinion in abortion caseCenter for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush (2002).Click here to read more about Sotomayor's noteworthy opinions during her judicial career.

From 1992 to 1998, Sotomayor was a federal district judge. PresidentGeorge H.W. Bush (R) nominated her to serve on theDistrict Court for the Southern District of New York on November 27, 1991, to a seat thatJohn M. Walker, Jr. vacated on December 19, 1989. The Senate confirmed her on August 11, 1992, and she received commission on August 12, 1992.^[1] While on the court, notable rulings includedSilverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee, Inc, where her decision ended a Major League Baseball strike, andCastle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, where her opinion in aSeinfeld-related copyright infringement case became a standard for fair use doctrine.^[2]

In 2015, Sotomayor said of her judicial philosophy and jurisprudence: "I have always tried to approach the law as a learning process, as one of trying to understanding how other people have approached particular questions. I believe that people really expect the law to have some fixed meaning that gives them some measure of comfort in their human relations."^[4] In a 2025 conversation with Georgetown Law School Dean William M. Treanor, Sotomayor said, “For me, my approach has always relied on a broader understanding that it’s not mere words and it’s not mere history... The idea that we would think that we were frozen into a period of time seems alien to what I think the purpose of the Constitution is. ... The vast majority of my dissents surround issues of fair process, because that really guides what I think justice is about."^[5]

Sotomayor'sOyez profile said, "Sotomayor is known on the court for her trust in the judicial process, and her cutthroat attitude toward ill-prepared attorneys. She is also known for her kindness toward jurors and the attorneys who work hard to advocate for their clients."^[2] Recapping Sotomayor's first ten years on the court,USA Today Supreme Court reporter and opinion contributor Richard Wolf wrote in 2019,"Her voice, in all its forms, has become the liberal conscience on a conservative court, one that speaks out in defense of minorities, immigrants, criminal defendants and death row inmates. ... best known for her opinions on civil rights, privacy rights and criminal justice... As the court has trended more conservative in recent years, Sotomayor's objections have become more frequent and forceful."^[6]

Sotomayor’snotable Supreme Court opinions include her dissent in the preferential admissions caseSchuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014), her majority opinion in the tribal nations' hunting rights caseHerrera v. Wyoming (2018), and her joint dissent in the abortion caseDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022).Click here to read more about Justice Sotomayor's noteworthy opinions.

Judicial nominations and appointments

United States Supreme Court (2009-present)

Nomination Tracker
Nominee Information
Name: Sonia Sotomayor
Court:Supreme Court of the United States
Progress
Confirmed 66 days after nomination.
ANominated: June 1, 2009
AABA Rating:Unanimously Well Qualified
Questionnaire:
AHearing: January 9-13, 2006
Hearing Transcript:Hearing Transcript
QFRs:(Hover over QFRs to read more)
AReported: July 28, 2009
AConfirmed: August 6, 2009
AVote: 68-31

PresidentBarack Obama (D) nominated Sonia Sotomayor to fill the vacancy following JusticeDavid Souter's retirement on June 29, 2009. TheSenate Judiciary Committee voted in favor of her confirmation on July 28, 2009, in a 13-6 vote with one Republican, SenatorLindsey Graham, voting in favor. Sotomayor was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on August 6, 2009, on a vote of 68-31. She was sworn in on August 8, 2009.^{[1][2][7][8][9][10][11]}

Sotomayor is the first HispanicUnited States Supreme Court justice and she was the third woman to serve on the nation's highest court.^[8][12][13]

Second Circuit Court of Appeals (1998-2009)

Sotomayor served as a judge on theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit from 1998 until her confirmation as an associate justice of theSupreme Court of the United States in 2009.^[1]

On the recommendation of U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D), Sotomayor was nominated to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit by PresidentBill Clinton (D) on June 25, 1997, to a seat vacated byDaniel Mahoney. Sotomayor was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on October 2, 1998, on a 67-29-2 vote, receiving her commission on October 7, 1998.^[14][15]

A majority of judicial evaluators at theAmerican Bar Association ranked Sotomayor in 1997 as "well qualified" for a position on the federal appellate bench, while a minority of evaluators found her "qualified."^[16]

In filling out herSenate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, Sotomayor wrote that "judges must be extraordinarily sensitive to the impact of their decisions and function within, and respectful of, theConstitution."^[17]

For Sotomayor's confirmation materials from 1998, visit the Sotomayor Collection at the William J. Clinton Presidential Libraryat this link.

Southern District of New York (1992-1998)

Sotomayor's appointment as a U.S. district judge with theSouthern District of New York was held up for nearly a year under an anonymous hold from one or more senators after she was approved by theSenate Judiciary Committee. She received aUnanimously Qualified rating by theAmerican Bar Association for the position. Sotomayor was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on August 11, 1992, by unanimous consent, receiving her commission on August 12, 1992. When she joined the court, she was its youngest judge.^[18][19][20]

Biography

Sotomayor was born inNew York, New York, on June 25, 1954. Her parents were born in Puerto Rico.^[21][22][23] She graduated as valedictorian from Cardinal Spellman High School, a private Catholic school in New York City, in 1972.^[2]

Sotomayor graduatedsumma cum laude from Princeton University with an undergraduate degree in history in 1976. While at Princeton, she received the M. Taylor Pyne Honor Prize. Sotomayor wrote her senior thesis on "The Impact of the Life of Luis Muñoz Marin on the Political and Economic History of Puerto Rico, 1930-1975." After graduating from Princeton University, Sotomayor attended Yale Law School, where she received herJ.D. in 1979. She co-chaired the Latin American and Native American Students Association and was published in theYale Law Journal — where she served as an editor — with the note "Statehood and the Equal Footing Doctrine: The Case for Puerto Rican Seabed Rights," analyzing Puerto Rico's ability to maintain rights to its seabed if it pursued statehood.^{[1][21][24][25][26][27][28][29]}

Sotomayor began her legal career as an assistant district attorney in Manhattan in 1979. She moved into private practice at Pavia & Harcourt in 1984, where she specialized in intellectual property rights and copyright litigation.^[2]

At the time of her confirmation, Sotomayor was the sixth sitting Catholic on the court, alongsideChief JusticeJohn Roberts and JusticesAnthony Kennedy,Antonin Scalia,Clarence Thomas, andSamuel Alito.^[30][31][32]

Professional career

• 2009-present: Associate justice,Supreme Court of the United States
• 1998-2009: Judge,United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
• 1992-1998: Judge,United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
• 1984-1992: Private practice,New York, N.Y.
• 1979-1984: Assistant district attorney,New York County, N.Y.^[1]

Approach to the law

Recapping her first ten years on the court, Richard Wolf wrote inUSA Today in 2019 that "she has been a reliable member of the court's liberal wing."^[33]

Oyez, a law project created by Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law, said in 2019 that Sotomayor "is known on the court for her trust in the judicial process, and her cutthroat attitude toward ill-prepared attorneys. She is also known for her kindness toward jurors and the attorneys who work hard to advocate for their clients."^[2]

Martin-Quinn score

Sotomayor's Martin-Quinn score following the 2023-2024 term was -4.21, making her the most liberal justice on the court at that time.Martin-Quinn scores were developed by political scientists Andrew Martin and Kevin Quinn from the University of Michigan, and measure the justices of the Supreme Court along an ideological continuum. The further from zero on the scale, the more conservative (>0) or liberal (<0) the justice. The chart below details every justice's Martin-Quinn score for the 2023-2024 term. These are preliminary scores provided by Kevin Quinn that may differ slightly from the final version of the scores that Martin and Quinn will make publicly available at a later date.

Video discussion

Sotomayor spoke at the Library of Congress in February 2018 about her work as a children's author, differences in her work at different levels of federal courts, and how rulings of the court impact future cases. The video of that event is embedded below.

Supreme Court statistics

Opinions by year

Below is a table of the number of opinions, concurrences, and dissents that Sotomayor has issued since joining the Supreme Court according to the data onCornell University’s Legal Information Institute and the websiteSCOTUSblog. This information is updated annually at the end of each term.^{[34][35][36][37]} Information for the 2022 term is from a dataset provided by Dr. Adam Feldman, author ofEmpirical SCOTUS. Data for the 2022-2023 term does not include concurrences and dissents in part. Information for the 2023-2024 term is from theEmpirical SCOTUS 2023 Stat Review.

Justice agreement

In the 2023-2024 term, Sotomayor had the highest agreement rate withElena Kagan. She had lowest agreement rate withClarence Thomas.^[38] In the 2022-2023 term, Sotomayor had the highest agreement rate withElena Kagan andKetanji Brown Jackson. She had lowest agreement rate withSamuel Alito.^[39] This does not include agreements in part.^[40]

The table below highlights Sotomayor's agreement rate with each justice on the court during that term.^[41][42]

Frequency in majority

In the 2023-2024 term, Sotomayor was in the majority in 71 percent of decisions. Sotomayor andElena Kagan and were in the majority the least often of all the justices.^[38] In the 2022-2023 term, Sotomayor was in the majority in 82 percent of decisions. Sotomayor was in the majority more often than two of the justices.^{[39][34][43][44]}

Since the 2011-2012 term, Sotomayor has been in the majority more than 80 percent of the time five times. Across those terms, she has been in the majority an average of 77 percent of the time.^[34][45][38]

Noteworthy cases

See also:Noteworthy cases heard by current justices on the U.S. Supreme Court

The noteworthy cases listed in this section include any case where the justice authored a 5-4 majority opinion or an 8-1 dissent. Other cases may be included in this section if they set or overturn an established legal precedent, are a major point of discussion in an election campaign, receive substantial media attention related to the justice's ruling, or based on our editorial judgment that the case is noteworthy. For more on how we decide which cases are noteworthy, clickhere.

Since she joined the court through the 2022-2023 term, Sotomayor authored the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision ten times and authored a dissent in an 8-1 decision 18 times. The table below details these cases by year.^[46]

U.S. Supreme Court noteworthy opinions

• SCOTUS 2022 term (Click to expand)

  State court deference and federal judicial review (2023)

  See also:Cruz v. Arizona

  Justice Sotomayor authored the 5-4 majority opinion inCruz v. Arizona (2023), holding that the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision below was not adequately supported in prior state law to preclude federal court review:^[47]

  “	In exceptional cases where a state-court judgment rests on a novel and unforeseeable state-court procedural decision lacking fair or substantial support in prior state law, that decision is not adequate to preclude review of a federal question. The Arizona Supreme Court applied Rule 32.1(g) in a manner that abruptly departed from and directly conflicted with its prior interpretations of that Rule. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.[48]	”
  —Justice Sotomayor

• SCOTUS 2021 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  Dissent in case deciding there is no constitutional right to abortion (2022)

  See also:Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

  Sotomayor was part of the three-justice dissent inDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022). Sotomayor and Associate JusticesStephen Breyer andElena Kagan jointly authored the dissenting opinion. The majority opinion, authored by Associate JusticeSamuel Alito, held that the U.S. Constitution did not provide a right to abortion. Alito was joined in the majority by Associate JusticesClarence Thomas,Neil Gorsuch,Brett Kavanaugh, andAmy Coney Barrett. Chief JusticeJohn Roberts joined with the majority to uphold Mississippi's abortion law but not to overturnRoe (1973) andCasey (1992). Alito wrote:^[49]

  “	We hold thatRoe andCasey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders ofRoe andCasey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). The right to abortion does not fall within this category.[48]	”
  —Justice Alito

  The dissenting justices wrote:^[49]

  “	Whatever the exact scope of the coming laws, one result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens. ... The Constitution will, today’s majority holds, provide no shield, despite its guarantees of liberty and equality for all. ... Subsequent legal developments have only reinforcedRoe andCasey. The Court has continued to embrace all the decisionsRoe andCasey cited, decisions which recognize a constitutional right for an individual to make her own choices about “intimate relationships, the family,” and contraception.Casey, 505 U. S., at 857.Roe andCasey have themselves formed the legal foundation for subsequent decisions protecting these profoundly personal choices. As discussed earlier, the Court relied onCaseyto hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects same-sex intimate relationships. SeeLawrence, 539 U. S., at 578;supra, at 23. The Court later invoked the same set of precedents to accord constitutional recognition to same-sex marriage. SeeObergefell, 576 U. S., at 665–666;supra, at 23. In sum,Roe andCasey are inextricably interwoven with decades of precedent about the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Seesupra, at 21–24. While the majority might wish it otherwise,Roe andCasey are the very opposite of “‘obsolete constitutional thinking.’”Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 236 (1997) (quotingCasey 505 U. S., at 857). Moreover, no subsequent factual developments have underminedRoe andCasey. Women continue to experience unplanned pregnancies and unexpected developments in pregnancies. Pregnancies continue to have enormous physical, social, and economic consequences. Even an uncomplicated pregnancy imposes significant strain on the body, unavoidably involving significant physiological change and excruciating pain. For some women, pregnancy and childbirth can mean life-altering physical ailments or even death. Today, as noted earlier, the risks of carrying a pregnancy to term dwarf those of having an abortion. Seesupra, at 22. ... With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent.[48]	”
  —Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan

• SCOTUS 2020 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  Scope of judicial review in administrative agencies' actions (2020)

  See also:Salinas v. United States Railroad Retirement Board

  Justice Sotomayor authored the 5-4 majority opinion inSalinas v. United States Railroad Retirement Board (2020), holding that the Board’s refusal to reopen a prior benefits determination was subject to judicial review. Justice Sotomayor was joined in the majority by Chief JusticeJohn Roberts and Associate JusticesStephen Breyer,Elena Kagan, andBrett Kavanaugh. Justice Sotomayor wrote:^[50]

  “	It is also worth noting that judicial review of reopening decisions will be limited. The Board’s decision to grant or deny reopening, while guided by substantive criteria, is ultimately discretionary and therefore subject to reversal only for abuse of discretion. See 20 CFR §261.11;Stovic, 826 F. 3d, at 506;Szostak v. Railroad Retirement Bd., 370 F. 2d 253, 254 (CA2 1966) (Friendly, J., for the court). Most decisions will be upheld under this deferential standard. SeeICC v. Locomotive Engineers, 482 U. S. 270, 288 (1987) (Stevens, J., concurring). Judicial review plays a modest, but important, role in guarding against decisions that are arbitrary, inconsistent with the standards set by the Board's own regulations, or otherwise contrary to law.[48]	”
  —Justice Sotomayor

• SCOTUS 2018 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  Crow Tribal Nation's hunting rights survived Wyoming's statehood (2018)

  See also:Herrera v. Wyoming

  Sotomayor authored the 5-4 majority opinion inHerrera v. Wyoming (2018), holding that the Crow Tribal Nation's hunting rights under an 1868 treaty did not expire upon Wyoming's statehood. Sotomayor was joined in the majority by JusticesRuth Bader Ginsburg,Stephen Breyer,Elena Kagan, andNeil Gorsuch. Sotomayor wrote:^[51]

  “

  The Wyoming courts held that the treaty-protected hunting right expired when Wyoming became a State and, in any event, does not permit hunting in Bighorn National Forest because that land is not "unoccupied." We disagree. The Crow Tribe’s hunting right survived Wyoming’s statehood, and the lands within Bighorn National Forest did not become categorically "occupied" when set aside as a national reserve.[48]

  ”

• SCOTUS 2013 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  Dissent holds that Court ignored key purpose of Equal Protection Clause in affirmative action case (2014)

  InSchuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014), Justice Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion in the Court's 6-2 ruling upholding a Michigan constitutional amendment banning any preferential selection based on sex or race, also known asaffirmative action. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote:^[52]

  “

  The effect of §26 is that a white graduate of a public Michigan university who wishes to pass his historical privilege on to his children may freely lobby the board of that university in favor of an expanded legacy admissions policy, whereas a Black Michagander who was denied the opportunity to attend that very university cannot lobby the board in favor of a policy that might give his children a chance that he never had and that they might never have absent that policy.[48]

  ”

  Sotomayor agreed with the majority that Michigan did nothing wrong in following the political process to offer an amendment, but wrote that the issue lies in the amendment itself. She wrote that the amendment takes away the ability of university board members to create admission standards that aid minorities but allows ones that aid athletes and legacies, effectively creating uneven admission standards.^[52]

  
  

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit opinions

During more than a decade as a circuit court judge, Sotomayor heard appeals on more than 3,000 cases and wrote more than 380 opinions for the majority. Five of those decisions were reviewed by theUnited States Supreme Court, three of them were overturned and two were upheld.^[17][53]

• Second Circuit opinions (2008) (Click to expand)
  
  

  Unlawful discrimination throughdisparate impact underCivil Rights Act of 1964

  InRicci v. DeStefano (2008), Sotomayor joined a finding in favor of theCity of New Haven rejecting a lawsuit filed by 17 White firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter claiming race discrimination by the city. New Haven denied promotions to all candidates following a promotion examination that yielded no Black candidates eligible for advancement. This case was later discussed during Sotomayor's U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings.^{[54][55][56][57][58][59][60]}

  In a 5-4 decision, theSupreme Court of the United States overturned the ruling, holding that the decision to cancel the promotions violated theEqual Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Title VII of the 1964Civil Rights Act, which guarantees equal employment opportunity. For the Court, JusticeAnthony Kennedy wrote:^[61]

  “	If an employer cannot rescore a test based on the candidates' race, § 2000e-2(l), then it follows a fortiori that it may not take the greater step of discarding the test altogether to achieve a more desirable racial distribution of promotioneligible candidates — absent a strong basis in evidence that the test was deficient and that discarding the results is necessary to avoid violating the disparate-impact provision.[48]	”
  —JusticeAnthony Kennedy

• Second Circuit opinions (2007) (Click to expand)
  
  

  Cost-benefit analysis not permitted under EPA'sbest technology available clean water standard

  InRiverkeeper Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2007), Judge Sotomayor found in favor of environmental group Riverkeeper's challenge to anEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) ruling related to the Clean Water Act'sbest technology available ("BTA") rule:^{[55][62][63][64]}

  “	This is a case about fish and other aquatic organisms. Power plants and other industrial operations withdraw billions of gallons of water from the nation's waterways each day to cool their facilities. The flow of water into these plants traps (or "impinges") large aquatic organisms against grills or screens, which cover the intake structures, and draws (or "entrains") small aquatic organisms into the cooling mechanism; the resulting impingement and entrainment from these operations kill or injure billions of aquatic organisms every year. Petitioners here challenge a rule promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency ("the EPA" or "the Agency") pursuant to section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act ("CWA" or "the Act"), 33 U.S.C. § 1326(b),1 that is intended to protect fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms from being harmed or killed by regulating "cooling water intake structures" at large, existing power-producing facilities. For the reasons that follow, we grant in part and deny in part the petitions for review, concluding that certain aspects of the EPA's rule are based on a reasonable interpretation of the Act and supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, but remanding several aspects of the rule because they are inadequately explained or inconsistent with the statute, or because the EPA failed to give adequate notice of its rulemaking. We also dismiss for lack of jurisdiction one aspect of the petitions because there is no final agency action to review. ... Cost-benefit analysis, however, is not permitted under the statute because, as noted, Congress has already specified the relationship between cost and benefits in requiring that the technology designated by the EPA be the best available.[48]	”
  —Judge Sonia Sotomayor

  The Second Circuit ruling was overturned by theUnited States Supreme Court in a 6-3 opinion penned by JusticeAntonin Scalia:^[65]

  “	The EPA permissibly relied on cost-benefit analysis in setting the national performance standards and in providing for cost-benefit variances from those standards as part of the Phase II regulations. ... And in the decision below rejecting the use of cost-benefit analysis in the Phase II regulations, the Second Circuit nonetheless interpreted "best technology available" as mandating only those technologies that can "be reasonably borne by the industry." 475 F.3d, at 99. But whether it is "reasonable" to bear a particular cost may well depend on [*226] the resulting benefits; if the only relevant factor was the feasibility of the costs, their reasonableness would be irrelevant.[48]	”
  —JusticeAntonin Scalia

• Second Circuit opinions (2002) (Click to expand)
  
  

  U.S. government within its rights to deny federal aid to NGOs that support or perform abortions

  Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush (2002) involvedthe Mexico City Policy that "required nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations."^[66] The policy was instituted by PresidentRonald Reagan (R) in 1984, subsequently rescinded by PresidentBill Clinton (D) in 1993, and reauthorized by PresidentGeorge W. Bush (R) in 2001.^[66]

  In the case, Judge Sotomayor found that the federal government is within its rights to deny federal aid to foreign organizations that support or perform abortions. She dismissed claims by the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy that the Mexico City Policy violated the First Amendment right to association as well as Fifth Amendment rights todue process and equal Protection. Sotomayor cited theForeign Assistance Act of 1961, authorizing the president "to furnish assistance, on such terms and conditions as he may determine, for voluntary population planning," as well as multipleSupreme Court precedents. Sotomayor wrote:^[67]

  “	TheSupreme Court of the United States has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds.[48]	”
  —Judge Sotomayor

  Judge Sotomayor rejected the Center's equal protection claim, held that their free speech claim was ruled out by a previous ruling, and that the Center lacked standing for its due process claim.^{[21][68][69][70]}

  
  

• Second Circuit opinions (2000) (Click to expand)
  
  

  Bivens action should allow recovery against private corporation operating on behalf of Bureau of Prisons

  InMalesko v. Correctional Services Corporation (2000), Judge Sotomayor found that an inmate living in a halfway house could sue a government contractor for forcing him to climb five flights of stairs despite a heart condition after the inmate suffered a heart attack, fell down the stairs, and injured himself. Sotomayor held "extendingBivens (1971) liability to reach private corporations furthers [its] overriding purpose: providing redress for violations of constitutional rights."^[71]Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971) is a U.S. Supreme Court case allowing civil rights violation suits against the federal government.

  The Supreme Court later overturned Sotomayor's decision in a 5-4 ruling, holding that only individual agents, not corporations, could be sued for such violations.^[55][72][73]

Southern District of New York opinions

Sotomayor wrote several high-profile rulings regarding the Major League Baseball strike of 1994, theWall Street Journal's publishing of the suicide note left by formerClinton White House counsel Vince Foster, and copyright issues related to a trivia book about the television showSeinfeld. As a federal district judge, Sotomayor had one of her decisions overturned by theSupreme Court of the United States.

• Southern District of New York opinions (1997) (Click to expand)
  
  

  Copyright infringement claim onSeinfeld television show

  InCastle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group (1998), Judge Sotomayor ruled that the trivia bookSAT: The Seinfeld Aptitude Test infringed on the copyright of the television showSeinfeld. The case is often used in law schools as a modern application of thefair use doctrine. Sotomayor's ruling was upheld on appeal by theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. In the opinion and order, Judge Sotomayor wrote:^[74]

  “

  Plaintiff brings this action alleging copyright infringement and unfair competition flowing from defendants' publication ofThe Seinfeld Aptitude Test ("SAT"), a book of trivia concerningSeinfeld, a popular television *262 comedy program "about absolutely nothing." (Golub Dep. Ex. 3, cover). Though this seemingly invites the conclusion that this opinion is not about anything, plaintiffs claims raise a variety of difficult and interesting questions concerning the proper scope of copyright protection as it extends to popular television programming. For the reasons to be discussed, I grant plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of copyright infringement, finding that defendants have appropriated original material fromSeinfeld without making "fair use" of the program. I deny plaintiffs motion for summary judgment with respect to its claim of unfair competition, however, because there are material issues in dispute concerning this claim.[48]

  ”

  
  

  Freelance journalists' copyright challenge to digital archive

  InTasini v. New York Times, et al (1997), Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor ofThe New York Times when it was sued by freelance journalists claiming the newspaper did not have the right to include their work in the electronic archival databaseLexisNexis:^[75]

  “	In this action, the Court is called upon to determine whether publishers are entitled to place the contents of their periodicals into electronic data bases and onto CD-ROMs without first securing the permission of the freelance writers whose contributions are included in those periodicals. According to the Complaint, filed by a group of freelance journalists, this practice infringes the copyright that each writer holds in his or her individual articles. The defendant publishers and electronic service providers respond by invoking the "revision" privilege of the "collective works" provision of theCopyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 201(c). Defendants maintain that they have not improperly exploited plaintiffs' individual contributions, but that they have permissibly reproduced plaintiffs' articles as part of electronic revisions of the newspapers and magazines in which those articles first appeared. For the reasons to be discussed, the Court agrees with defendants, and grants summary judgment in their favor. ... In sum, plaintiffs insist that the framers of Section 201(c) never intended the windfall for publishers permitted under this Court's ruling. This may well be. If today's result was unintended, it is only because Congress could not have fully anticipated the ways in which modern technology would create such lucrative markets for revisions; it is not because Congress intended for the term revision to apply any less broadly than the Court applies it today. In other words, though plaintiffs contend mightily that the disputed electronic reproductions do not produce revisions of defendants' collective works, plaintiffs' real complaint lies in the fact that modern technology has created a situation in which revision rights are much more valuable than anticipated as of the time that the specific terms of the Copyright Act were being negotiated. If Congress agrees with plaintiffs that, in today's world of pricey electronic information systems, Section 201(c) no longer serves its intended purposes, Congress is of course free to revise that provision to achieve a more equitable result. Until and unless this happens, however, the courts must apply Section 201(c) according to its terms, and not on the basis of speculation as to how Congress might have done things differently had it known then what it knows now.[48]	”
  —Judge Sonia Sotomayor

  Sotomayor's decision was later reversed by theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, the reversal was upheld by theSupreme Court of the United States in a 7-2 vote, with JusticesJohn Paul Stevens andStephen Breyer dissenting.^[76][77][78]

  
  

• Southern District of New York opinions (1995) (Click to expand)
  
  

  Ruling ends 1994 Major League Baseball strike

  Judge Sotomayor's decision inSilverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee, Inc. (1995) granting a temporary injunction against the Major League Baseball owners on March 31, 1995, ended the 232-day baseball strike of 1994. The injunction prevented the owners from installing replacement players and temporarily reinstated a five-year-old collective bargaining agreement allowing the 1995 season to take place and allowing players and owners to come to a new agreement nearly a year later. Her decision was later upheld by theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. In the court's opinion and order, Sotomayor wrote:^{[76][79][80][81][82][83]}

  “	I find injunctive relief here warranted for several reasons. An important public interest in the process of collective bargaining will be irreparably harmed if an injunction does not issue. This strike has captivated the public's attention, given the popularity of the sport as well as the protracted nature and well-documented bitterness of the strike. Thus, this strike is about more than just whether the Players and Owners will resolve their differences. It is also about how the principles embodied by federal labor law operate. In a very real and immediate way, this strike has placed the entire concept of collective bargaining on trial. It is critical, therefore, that the Board ensure that the spirit and letter of federal labor law be scrupulously followed. If the Board is unable to enforce the NLRA, public confidence in the collective bargaining process will be permanently and severely undermined.[48]	”
  —Judge Sonia Sotomayor

  
  

  Freedom of information case weighing public interest and personal privacy

  InJones & Co., Inc. v. US Dept. of Justice (1995), Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of theWall Street Journal, allowing the newspaper to print a photocopy of a suicide note written byClinton White House deputy counsel Vince Foster, who died in 1993. Sotomayor ruled that the public interest in the Foster story outweighed any violation of his family's privacy.^{[84][85][86][87][88]}

  
  

About the courts

U.S. Supreme Court

TheSupreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the country and leads the judicial branch of the federal government. It is often referred to by the acronymSCOTUS.^[89]

The Supreme Court consists of nine justices: theChief Justice of the United States and eightAssociate Justices. The justices are nominated by thepresident and confirmed with the"advice and consent" of theUnited States Senate perArticle II of the United States Constitution. As federal judges, the justices serve during "good behavior," which means that justices have tenure for life unless they are removed by impeachment and subsequent conviction.^[90]

The Supreme Court is the only court established by theUnited States Constitution (inArticle III); all other federal courts are created byCongress.

The Supreme Court meets inWashington, D.C., in the United States Supreme Court building. The Supreme Court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.^[90]

To read opinions published by this court, clickhere.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Second Circuit
Court of Appeals
Judgeships
Posts: 13
Judges: 13
Vacancies: 0
Judges
Chief:Debra Livingston
Active judges:Joseph Bianco,Maria Araujo Kahn,Eunice Lee,Debra Livingston,Raymond Lohier,Steven Menashi,Sarah Ann Leilani Merriam,William Nardini,Alison J. Nathan,Michael H. Park,Myrna Pérez,Beth Robinson,Richard Sullivan Senior judges: Jose Cabranes,Guido Calabresi,Susan L. Carney,Denny Chin,Dennis Jacobs,Amalya Kearse,Pierre Leval,Gerard Lynch,Jon Newman,Barrington Parker, Jr.,Rosemary Pooler,Reena Raggi,Robert Sack,Chester Straub,John Walker,Richard Wesley

TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is afederal appellate court with appellatejurisdiction. It hears appeals from all of the circuit courts within its jurisdiction and its rulings may be appealed to theSupreme Court of the United States.

Appeals are heard in the Thurgood Marshall Federal Courthouse inNew York City.

Four judges of the Second Circuit went on to serve on theSupreme Court of the United States. John Marshall Harlan II was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1955 byDwight Eisenhower, Thurgood Marshall was appointed in 1967 by Lyndon Johnson, andSonia Sotomayor was appointed in 2009 byBarack Obama.The Second Circuit hasappellate jurisdiction over cases heard in one of its subsidiary districts. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law. Appeals of rulings by theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit are petitioned to theSupreme Court of the United States.

To read opinions published by this court, clickhere.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Southern District of New York
Second Circuit
Judgeships
Posts: 28
Judges: 25
Vacancies: 3
Judges
Chief:Laura Swain
Active judges:Ronnie Abrams,Vernon Broderick,Andrew L. Carter Jr.,Jessica Clarke,John Peter Cronan,Paul A. Engelmayer,Katherine Failla,Jesse Furman,Margaret Garnett,Philip M. Halpern,Dale Ho,Kenneth Karas,John Koeltl,Lewis Liman,James Paul Oetken,Edgardo Ramos,Jennifer Rearden,Jennifer Rochon,Nelson S. Roman,Arun Subramanian,Laura Swain,Analisa Torres,Jeannette Vargas,Mary Kay Vyskocil,Gregory Howard Woods Senior judges: Richard Berman,Vincent L. Briccetti,Naomi Buchwald,Valerie Caproni,Kevin Castel,Denise Cote,Paul Crotty,George Daniels,Paul Gardephe,Charles Haight,Alvin Hellerstein,Lewis Kaplan,John Keenan,Victor Marrero,Colleen McMahon,Loretta Preska,Jed Rakoff,Lorna Schofield,Cathy Seibel,Louis Stanton,Sidney Stein,Kimba Wood

TheUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York is one of 94United States district courts. The Southern District is one of the most influential and active federal district courts in the United States, largely because of its jurisdiction over New York's major financial centers. When decisions of the court are appealed, they are appealed to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit based in Lower Manhattan at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Federal Courthouse.

The Southern District of New York hasoriginal jurisdiction over cases filed within its jurisdiction. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law.

The court shares geographic jurisdiction over New York City with theU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which manages Brooklyn, Queens, and Richmond (Staten Island) counties, along with Nassau and Suffolk on Long Island.

To read opinions published by this court, clickhere.

See also

• Supreme Court of the United States
• United States Supreme Court cases and courts
• Sotomayor confirmation hearing video
• Reaction to Sonia Sotomayor nomination

External links

• U.S. Supreme Court
• U.S. Supreme Court Biography
• Biography from theFederal Judicial Center
• Profile byOyez
• Profile from the American Bar Association
• Profile from theSupreme Court Historical Society
• United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Questionnaire filled out by Justice Sotomayor
• Appendix to the Committee on the Judiciary Questionnaire filled out by Justice Sotomayor
• GPO.gov, "Full Transcript of Justice Sotomayor's Senate Judiciary Hearing"
• Writings by Justice Sotomayor from theCornell Law School Legal Information Institute
• Selected Opinions by Justice Sotomayor fromJustia

Footnotes

v • e Justices of theSupreme Court of the United States
Active justices	Chief justice:Roberts Associate justices:Alito •Barrett •Gorsuch •Jackson •Kagan •Kavanaugh •Sotomayor •Thomas
Senior justices	Breyer •Kennedy •Souter
Former chief justices	Burger •Chase •Ellsworth •Fuller •Hughes •Jay •Marshall •Rehnquist •Rutledge •Stone •Taft •Taney •Vinson •Waite •Warren • White
Former associate justices	O'Connor •Baldwin •Barbour •Black •Blackmun •Blair •Blatchford •Bradley •Brandeis •Brennan •Brewer •Brown •Burton •Butler •Byrnes •Campbell •Cardozo •Catron •Chase •Clark •Clarke •Clifford •Curtis •Cushing •Daniel •Davis •Day •Douglas •Duvall •Field •Fortas •Frankfurter •Ginsburg •Goldberg •Gray •Grier •Harlan I •Harlan II •Holmes •Hunt •Iredell •H. Jackson •R. Jackson •T. Johnson •W. Johnson, Jr. •J. Lamar •L. Lamar •Livingston •Lurton •Marshall •Matthews •McKenna •McKinley •McLean •McReynolds •Miller •Minton •Moody •Moore •Murphy •Nelson •Paterson •Peckham •Pitney •Powell •Reed •Roberts •W. Rutledge •Sanford •Scalia •Shiras •Stevens •Stewart •Story •Strong •Sutherland •Swayne •Thompson •Todd •Trimble •Van Devanter •Washington •Wayne •B. White •Whittaker •Wilson •Woodbury •Woods

v • e Federal judges who have served theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Active judges	Chief Judge: Debra Livingston  •  Joseph Bianco  •  Richard Sullivan (New York)  •  Maria Araujo Kahn  •  Raymond Lohier  •  Alison J. Nathan  •  Beth Robinson  •  Sarah A.L. Merriam  •  Michael Park  •  Steven Menashi  •  William Nardini  •  Eunice Lee  •  Myrna Pérez
Senior judges	Denny Chin  •  Gerard Lynch  •  Pierre Leval  •  Dennis Jacobs  •  Jon Newman  •  Amalya Kearse  •  John Walker (New York)  •  Chester Straub  •  Guido Calabresi  •  Jose Cabranes  •  Robert Sack  •  Barrington Parker  •  Reena Raggi  •  Richard Wesley  •  Susan L. Carney (Second Circuit)  •
Former judges	Christopher Droney  •  Julian William Mack  •  Frank Altimari  •  Samuel Blatchford  •  Alexander Smith Johnson  •  Nathaniel Shipman  •  William James Wallace  •  Lewis Bartholomew Woodruff  •  Sonia Sotomayor  •  Wilfred Feinberg  •  Ralph Winter  •  Roger Miner  •  Rosemary Pooler  •  Robert Katzmann  •  Peter Hall (Federal judge)  •  John Mahoney (Second Circuit)  •  George Pratt  •  Richard Cardamone  •  Lawrence Pierce  •  Thomas Meskill  •  William Mulligan  •  James Oakes  •  William Timbers  •  Fred Parker  •  Alfred Conkling Coxe  •  Emile Henry Lacombe  •  William Kneeland Townsend  •  Charles Merrill Hough  •  Walter Chadwick Noyes  •  Henry Galbraith Ward  •  John Harlan II  •  Learned Hand  •  Martin Augustine Knapp  •  Julius Marshuetz Mayer  •  Augustus Noble Hand  •  Martin Thomas Manton  •  Henry Wade Rogers  •  Harrie Brigham Chase  •  Thomas Walter Swan  •  Carroll Hincks  •  Charles Edward Clark  •  John Joseph Smith (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut judge)  •  Robert Palmer Anderson  •  Robert Porter Patterson, Sr.  •  Murray Gurfein  •  Irving Kaufman  •  Walter Mansfield  •  Harold Medina  •  Thurgood Marshall  •  Jerome Frank  •  Henry Friendly  •  Paul Hays  •  Joseph Lumbard  •  Leonard Moore  •  Ellsworth Van Graafeiland  •  Sterry Waterman  •
Former Chief judges	Wilfred Feinberg  •  Jon Newman  •  Ralph Winter  •  John Walker (New York)  •  Robert Katzmann  •  Thomas Meskill  •  James Oakes  •  Learned Hand  •  Harrie Brigham Chase  •  Thomas Walter Swan  •  Charles Edward Clark  •  Irving Kaufman  •  Henry Friendly  •  Joseph Lumbard  •

v • e Federal judges who have served theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Active judges	Chief Judge: Laura Swain  •  Kenneth Karas  •  John Koeltl  •  Andrew L. Carter, Jr.  •  Nelson S. Roman  •  Analisa Torres  •  J. Paul Oetken  •  Paul A. Engelmayer  •  Edgardo Ramos  •  Jesse Furman  •  Ronnie Abrams  •  Katherine Failla  •  Vernon Broderick  •  Gregory Howard Woods  •  Mary Kay Vyskocil  •  Lewis Liman  •  Philip Halpern  •  John Cronan (New York)  •  Jennifer Rearden  •  Dale Ho  •  Jessica Clarke  •  Jennifer Rochon  •  Arun Subramanian  •  Margaret Garnett  •  Jeannette Vargas
Senior judges	Victor Marrero  •  Kimba Wood  •  Richard Berman  •  Naomi Buchwald  •  Kevin Castel  •  Denise Cote  •  Paul Crotty  •  George Daniels  •  Paul Gardephe  •  Charles Haight  •  Alvin Hellerstein  •  Lewis Kaplan  •  John Keenan (New York)  •  Colleen McMahon  •  Loretta Preska  •  Jed Rakoff  •  Cathy Seibel  •  Louis Stanton  •  Sidney Stein  •  Vincent L. Briccetti  •  Lorna Schofield  •  Valerie Caproni  •
Magistrate judges	Henry Pitman  •  Kevin Fox  •  Debra Freeman  •  Gabriel Gorenstein  •  Paul Davison  •  James L. Cott  •  Sarah Netburn  •  Judith C. McCarthy  •  Barbara Moses  •  Katharine Parker  •  Stewart Aaron  •  Robert Lehrburger  •  Ona Wang  •  Sarah Cave  •  Andrew Krause  •  Jennifer Willis  •  Kim Berg  •
Former Article III judges	Michael Mukasey  •  Morris Lasker  •  Harold Baer  •  Deborah Batts  •  Robert Carter (New York)  •  Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum  •  Denny Chin  •  William Conner  •  Thomas Griesa  •  Richard Holwell  •  Barbara Jones  •  Shirley Kram  •  Peter Leisure  •  Gerard Lynch  •  Lawrence McKenna  •  Richard Owen  •  Robert Patterson (New York)  •  William Pauley  •  Stephen Robinson (New York)  •  Shira Scheindlin  •  John Sprizzo  •  Richard Sullivan (New York)  •  Robert Sweet  •  William Peter Van Ness  •  Samuel Rossiter Betts  •  Samuel Blatchford  •  Sonia Sotomayor  •  William Gardner Choate  •  Pierre Leval  •  Wilfred Feinberg  •  John Walker (New York)  •  Barrington Parker  •  Lawrence Pierce  •  Addison Brown  •  George Bethune Adams  •  George Chandler Holt  •  Charles Merrill Hough  •  Learned Hand  •  Julius Marshuetz Mayer  •  Augustus Noble Hand  •  John Clark Knox  •  Martin Thomas Manton  •  William Bondy  •  Henry Warren Goddard  •  Francis Asbury Winslow  •  Frank Joseph Coleman  •  Thomas Day Thacher  •  Alfred Conkling Coxe, Jr.  •  John Munro Woolsey  •  George Murray Hulbert  •  John William Clancy  •  Vincent Leibell (New York judge)  •  Samuel Mandelbaum  •  Edward Conger  •  Robert Porter Patterson, Sr.  •  Kevin Duffy  •  Gerard Goettel  •  Charles Metzner  •  Arnold Bauman  •  Alexander Bicks  •  Dudley Bonsal  •  Charles Brieant  •  John Bright  •  Vincent Broderick  •  Frederick Bryan  •  Francis Caffey  •  John Cannella  •  Richard Casey  •  John Cashin  •  Kenneth Conboy  •  Irving Cooper  •  Thomas Croake  •  Richard Daronco  •  Archie Dawson  •  Edward Dimock  •  David Edelstein  •  Marvin Frankel  •  Louis Freeh  •  Lee Gagliardi  •  Murray Gurfein  •  William Herlands  •  Irving Kaufman  •  Samuel Kaufman  •  Percy Knapp  •  Richard Levet  •  Mary Lowe  •  Lloyd MacMahon  •  Walter Mansfield  •  John McGohey  •  Edward McLean  •  Harold Medina  •  Constance Motley  •  Gregory Noonan  •  Edmund Palmieri  •  Milton Pollack  •  Simon Rifkind  •  Sylvester Ryan  •  Allen Schwartz  •  Abraham Sofaer  •  Charles Stewart  •  Sidney Sugarman  •  Charles Tenney  •  Harold Tyler  •  Lawrence Walsh (New York judge)  •  Robert Ward  •  Edward Weinfeld  •  Henry Werker  •  Inzer Wyatt  •  John S. Martin (New York)  •  Thomas Francis Murphy (New York)  •  Alison J. Nathan  •  Katherine Forrest  •
Former Chief judges	Kimba Wood  •  Colleen McMahon  •  Loretta Preska  •  Lisa Smith (New York)  •  John Clark Knox  •  William Bondy  •  John William Clancy  •  Charles Brieant  •  David Edelstein  •  Lloyd MacMahon  •  Constance Motley  •  Sylvester Ryan  •  Sidney Sugarman  •

v • e Federal judges nominated byBarack Obama
Nominated	Federal judges nominated by Barack Obama

v • e Federal judges nominated byBill Clinton
1993	Adams •Ambrose •Barnes •Brinkema •Bucklew •Chasanow •Coffman •Daughtrey •Ferguson •Ginsburg •Hagen •Jackson •Lancaster •Leval •Lindsay •Messitte •Michael •Piersol •Saris •Schwartz •Seybert •Shanahan •Shaw •Stearns •Trager •Vazquez •Wilken •Wilson
1994	Baer •Barkett •Batts •Beaty •Benavides •Bennett •Berrigan •Biery •Block •Borman •Breyer •Briones •Bryson •Bucklo •Burgess •Burrage •Cabranes •Calabresi •Carr •Casellas •Castillo •Chatigny •Chin •Cindrich •Coar •Collins •Cooper •Cote •Currie •Davis •Dominguez •Downes •Duval •Friedman •Furgeson •Garcia •Gertner •Gettleman •Gillmor •Gilmore •Gleeson •Haggerty •Hamilton •Hannah •Hawkins •Henry •Holmes •Hood •Hull •Hurley •Jack •Jones •Jones •Kaplan •Katz •Kern •Kessler •Koeltl •Lisi •Manning •McKee •McLaughlin •Melancon •Miles-LaGrange •Moore •Motz •Murphy •O'Malley •O'Meara •Oliver •Paez •B. Parker •F. Parker •R. Parker •Perry •Ponsor •Pooler •Porteous •Rendell • Riley •Robertson •Rogers •Ross •Russell •Sands •Sarokin •Scheindlin •Silver •Squatrito •Stewart •Sullivan •Tatel •Thompson •Timlin •Urbina •Vanaskie •Vance •Walls •Wells •Williams
1995	Arterton •Atlas •Black •Blake •Briscoe •Tena Campbell •Todd Campbell •Chesney •Cole •Collier •Daniel •Davis •Dennis •Dlott •Donald •Duffy •Economus •Evans •Fallon •Folsom •Gaughan •Goodwin •Heartfield •Hunt •Illston •Jones •King •Kornmann •Lawson •Lenard •Lucero •Lynch •McKinley •Moody •Moore •Moskowitz •Murphy •Murtha •Nugent •O'Toole •Orlofsky •Pogue •Sessions •C. Smith •O. Smith •Stein •Thornburg •Tunheim •Wallach •Wardlaw •Webber •Whaley •Winmill • Wood
1996	Broadwater •Clevert •Fenner •Gershon •Gottschall •Greenaway •Hinkle •Jones •Kahn •Laughrey •Lemmon •Marten •Miller •Molloy •Montgomery •Pregerson •Rakoff •Sargus •Tashima •Thomas •Zapata
1997	Adelman •Bataillon •Breyer •Caputo •Casey •Chambers •Clay •Damrell •Droney •Friedman •Gajarsa •Garland •Gilman •Gold •Gwin •Hall •Hayden •Hull •Ishii •Jenkins •Kauffman •Kennedy •Kimball •Kollar-Kotelly •Lazzara •Marbley •Marcus •Middlebrooks •Miller •Moon •Pratt •Rendell •Sippel •Siragusa •Snyder •Thrash
1998	Aiken •Barbier •Barzilay •Berman •Buttram •Carter •Collins •Dawson •Dimitrouleas •Fletcher •Fogel •Frank •Graber •Hellerstein •Herndon •James •Johnson •Kane •Kelly •G. King •R. King •Lasnik •Lee •Lemelle •Lindsay •Lipez •Manella •Matz •McCuskey •McKeown •McMahon •Mickle •Mollway •Mordue •Moreno •Morrow •Munley •Murphy •Pallmeyer •Pauley •Polster •Pooler •Rawlinson •Ridgway •R. Roberts •V. Roberts •Sack •Scott •Seitz •Seymour •Shea •Silverman •Sleet •Sotomayor •Steeh •Story •Straub •Tagle •Tarnow •Trauger •Traxler •Tyson •Wardlaw •Whelan •Young
1999	Alsup •Barry •Brown •Buchwald •Cooper •Eaton •Ellison •Feess •Fisher •Gould •Guzman •Haynes •Hibbler •Hochberg •Hurd •Huvelle •Jordan •Katzmann •Kennelly •Linn •Lorenz •Lynn •Marrero •Murguia •Pannell •Pechman •Pepper •Phillips •Schreier •Stewart •Underhill •Ward •Williams •Wilson
2000	Ambro •Antoon •Battani •Berzon •Bolton •Brady •Bye •Cavanaugh •Daniels •Darrah •Dawson •Dyk •Fuentes •Garaufis •Garcia-Gregory •Hamilton •Huck •Hunt •Lawson •Lefkow •Lynch •Martin •McLaughlin •Moody •Murguia •Paez •Pisano •Presnell •Rawlinson •Reagan •Schiller •Singal •Steele •Surrick •Swain •Tallman •Teilborg •Tucker •Whittemore

v • e Federal judges nominated byGeorge H.W. Bush
1989	Barksdale •Bonner •Buckwalter •Cyr •Fernandez •Garbis •Harmon •Lee •Lindberg •Lodge •Nelson •Nottingham •Plager •Rosen •Rymer •Smith •Spatt •Thomas •VanBebber •J. Walker •V. Walker •Wiener •Wright
1990	Alito •Amon •Birch •Boudin •Cleland •Clevenger •Dubina •Hamilton •Henderson •Hood •Hornby •Jones •Kent •Levi •Loken •Lourie •Martin •McBryde •McClure •McKenna •McLaughlin •McNamee •Moreno •Mullen •Nelson •Nickerson •Niemeyer •Norton •Parker •Pickering •Rader •Rainey •Randolph •Shanstrom •Shedd •Shubb •Singleton •Skretny •Souter •Sparr •Stahl •Stamp •Suhrheinrich •Taylor •Vollmer •Ware •Wilson
1991	Albritton •Andersen •Armstrong •Arnold •Bartle •Bassler •Batchelder •Beckwith •Belot •Benson •Blackburn •Bramlette •Brody •Brody •Burrell •Carnes •Caulfield •Cauthron •Clement •Collier •Conway •Cooper •Dalzell •DeMent •DeMoss •Doherty •Echols •Edmunds •Faber •Freeh •Gaitan •Garza •Graham •Haik •Hamilton •Hansen •Hendren •Herlong •Highsmith •Hogan •Huff •Hurley •Irenas •Johnson •Joyner •Kelly •Kleinfeld •Legg •Leonard •Lewis •Longstaff •Lungstrum •Luttig •Matia •McCalla •McDade •McKeague •McKelvie •Means •Merryday •Moore •Morgan •Nielsen •Nimmons •Osteen Sr. •Padova •Payne •Reinhard •Robinson •Robreno •Roll •Roth •Schlesinger •Scullin •Siler •Solis •Sotomayor •Sparks •Stohr •Thomas •Traxler •Trimble •Ungaro •Van Sickle •Wanger •Werlein •Whyte • Yohn
1992	Baird •Barbadoro •Black •Boudin •Carnes •Covello •DiClerico •Gilbert •Gonzalez •Gorton •Hansen •Heyburn •Jackson •Jacobs •Keeley •Kendall •Kopf •Kyle •Lewis •McAuliffe •McLaughlin •Melloy •Preska •Quist •Randa •Rosenthal •Rovner •Schall •Sedwick •Simandle •Stahl •Vratil •Williams