United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
| Seventh Circuit |
|---|
| Court of Appeals |
 |
| Judgeships |
| Posts: 11 |
| Judges: 11 |
| Vacancies: 0 |
| Judges |
| Chief:Michael B. Brennan |
| Active judges:Michael B. Brennan,Frank Easterbrook,Candace Jackson-Akiwumi,Thomas L. Kirsch II,Joshua Kolar,John Z. Lee,Nancy Maldonado,Doris Pryor,Michael Scudder,Amy St. Eve,Rebecca Taibleson Senior judges: |
TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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 Everett M. Dirksen Federal Building in downtownChicago.
Three judges of the Seventh Circuit went on to serve on theSupreme Court of the United States.Sherman Minton was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1949 byHarry Truman (D),John Paul Stevens was appointed in 1975 byGerald Ford (R), andAmy Coney Barrett was appointed in 2020 byDonald Trump (R).
This page contains the following information on the Seventh Circuit.
- An overview of the court'sjurisdiction
- A list of the court'sactive and senior judges
- A list of the court'scurrent vacancies
- Abrief history of the court
- Case reversal statistics by the Supreme Court of the United States
- Noteworthy cases heard by the court
- A list of the court'sformer judges
- Information aboutU.S. Courts of Appeals
- Where the court islocated
Vacancies
- See also:Current federal judicial vacancies
There are no current vacancies on theSeventh Circuit out of the court's 11 judicial positions.
Pending nominations
There are no pending nominees for this court.
Active judges
Article III judges
| Judge | Appointed By | Assumed Office | Bachelors | Law |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| April 4, 1985 - | Swarthmore College, 1970 | University of Chicago Law School, 1973 | ||
| May 11, 2018 - | University of Notre Dame, 1986 | Northwestern University School of Law, 1989 | ||
| May 21, 2018 - | Saint Joseph's College, 1993 | Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, 1998 | ||
| May 23, 2018 - | Cornell University, 1987 | Cornell Law School, 1990 | ||
| December 17, 2020 - | Indiana University, 1996 | Harvard Law School, 1999 | ||
| July 1, 2021 - | Princeton University, 2000 | Yale Law School, 2005 | ||
| September 9, 2022 - | Harvard University, 1989 | Harvard Law School, 1992 | ||
| December 9, 2022 - | University of Central Arkansas, 1999 | Indiana University School of Law, 2003 | ||
| January 31, 2024 - | Northwestern University, 1999 | Northwestern University Law School, 2003 | ||
| July 11, 2024 - | Harvard College, 1997 | Columbia Law School, 2001 | ||
| November 3, 2025 - | Yale University, 2005 | Yale Law School, 2010 |
Active Article III judges by appointing political party
Below is a display of the number of active judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.
- Democratic appointed: 5
- Republican appointed: 6
Senior judges
Senior status is a classification forfederal judges at all levels who are semi-retired. Senior judges are Article III judges who, having met eligibility through age and service requirements, continue to serve on federal courts while typically hearing a reduced number of cases. Some senior judges, however, elect to retain a full caseload after taking senior status. According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, senior judges "typically handle about 15 percent of the federal courts' workload annually."[1] The date listed under assumed office in the table below reflects the date that the judge took senior status.
| Judge | Appointed By | Assumed Office | Bachelors | Law |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| October 31, 1994 - | Elmhurst College, 1949 | DePaul University College of Law, 1952 | ||
| December 18, 2007 - | University of Notre Dame, 1964 | Indiana University, Indianapolis School of Law, 1973 | ||
| September 1, 2008 - | Fordham University, 1965 | University of Virginia School of Law, 1968 | ||
| September 7, 2022 - | University of Texas, Austin, 1971 | University of Texas School of Law, 1975 | ||
| December 5, 2022 - | Haverford College, 1979 | Yale Law School, 1983 | ||
| July 11, 2024 - | Bryn Mawr College, 1960 | Chicago-Kent College of Law, 1966 | ||
| October 1, 2025 - | Northwestern University, 1980 | Marquette University Law School, 1984 |
Senior judges by appointing political party
Below is a display of the number of senior judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.
- Democratic appointed: 2
- Republican appointed: 5
Former chief judges
In order to qualify for the office ofchief judge in an Article III circuit or district court, or on theUnited States Court of International Trade, a judge must be in active service and hold seniority over the court's commissioned judges who are 64 years of age or under, have served one year or more, and have not previously served as chief judge.[2]
In the event that no judge on the court meets those qualifications, the youngest judge in regular active service aged 65 years or more and who has served as a judge for one year or more shall become chief judge. If no judge meets those qualifications, the judge holding seniority in active service who has not served as chief before shall become the chief judge.[3][4][5]
The chief judge serves for a term of seven years until another judge becomes eligible to serve in the position. No judge is permitted to serve as chief judge after reaching the age of 70 years unless no other judge is qualified to serve.[3][4][5]
Unlike the chief justice of the United States, a chief judge returns to active service after the expiration of their term and does not create a vacancy on the court by the fact of their promotion.[2][3][4][5]
On theUnited States Court of Federal Claims, the chief judge is selected by thepresident of the United States. The judge must be less than 70 years of age. A chief may serve until they reach age 70 or until another judge is designated by the president as the new chief judge. If the president selects a new chief judge, the former chief judge may continue active service on the court for the remainder of their appointed term.[6]
|
|
Former judges
For more information about the judges of the Seventh Circuit, seeformer federal judges of the Seventh Circuit.
Jurisdiction
The Seventh 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 the Seventh Circuit are petitioned to theSupreme Court of the United States. JusticeAmy Coney Barrett is thecircuit justice for the Seventh Circuit.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has appellatejurisdiction over thecourts in the followingdistricts:
- Central District of Illinois
- Northern District of Illinois
- Southern District of Illinois
- Northern District of Indiana
- Southern District of Indiana
- Eastern District of Wisconsin
- Western District of Wisconsin
Caseloads
This section contains court management statistics dating back to 2010. It was last updated in September 2025.
Click[show] below for more information on caseload terms and definitions.
| Caseload statistics explanation | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Term | Explanation | ||||||||
| Cases filed and terminated | The number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated or decided by the court in a calendar year. The chart below reflects the table columnsCases filed andCases terminated. | ||||||||
| Average time from filing to disposition | The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to date of disposition (acquittal, sentencing, dismissal, etc.). The chart below reflects the table columnsMedian time (Criminal) andMedian time (Civil). | ||||||||
| Starting case load | The number of cases pending from the previous calendar year. | ||||||||
| Cases filed | The number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated in a calendar year. | ||||||||
| Cases terminated | The total number of civil and criminal lawsuits decided by the court in a calendar year. | ||||||||
| Remaining cases | The number of civil and criminal cases pending at the end of a given year. | ||||||||
| Median time (Criminal) | The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to the date of disposition. In criminal cases, the date of disposition occurs on the day of sentencing or acquittal/dismissal. | ||||||||
| Median time (Civil) | The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to the date of disposition. | ||||||||
| Three-year civil cases | The number and percent of civil cases that were filed more than three years before the end of the given calendar year. | ||||||||
| Vacant posts | The number of months during the year an authorized judgeship was vacant. | ||||||||
| Trial/Post | The number of trials completed divided by the number of authorized judgeships on the court. Trials include evidentiary trials, hearings on temporary restraining orders, and preliminary injunctions. | ||||||||
| United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit caseload stats, 2010-2024 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Appeals Filed | Appeals Terminated | Pending Appeals | Terminations on the Merits (per Active Judge) | Procedural Terminations (per Active Judge) | Total Written Decisions (per Active Judge) | Number of Judgeships | Number of Sitting Senior Judges | Number of Vacant Judgeship Months | Median Time From Filing Notice of Appeal to Disposition | |
| 2010 | 3,098 | 3,336 | 1,913 | 319 | 106 | 107 | 11 | 6 | 12 | 11 | |
| 2011 | 3,005 | 2,987 | 1,930 | 332 | 85 | 99 | 11 | 6 | 12 | 9 | |
| 2012 | 3,031 | 3,010 | 1,949 | 383 | 66 | 121 | 11 | 5 | 12 | 8 | |
| 2013 | 2,992 | 3,034 | 1,906 | 419 | 44 | 137 | 11 | 4 | 12 | 8 | |
| 2014 | 2,917 | 3,023 | 1,812 | 422 | 47 | 134 | 11 | 4 | 12 | 7 | |
| 2015 | 2,977 | 2,906 | 1,880 | 404 | 39 | 134 | 11 | 5 | 22 | 7 | |
| 2016 | 3,362 | 3,361 | 1,804 | 565 | 50 | 190 | 11 | 4 | 24 | 6 | |
| 2017 | 2,730 | 2,793 | 1,739 | 416 | 52 | 140 | 11 | 5 | 35 | 8 | |
| 2018 | 2,812 | 2,727 | 1,826 | 407 | 42 | 134 | 11 | 6 | 40 | 8 | |
| 2019 | 2,629 | 2,656 | 1,795 | 344 | 56 | 113 | 11 | 4 | 0 | 9 | |
| 2020 | 2,615 | 2,575 | 1,833 | 394 | 46 | 130 | 11 | 4 | 3 | 9 | |
| 2021 | 2,493 | 2,539 | 1,787 | 377 | 57 | 124 | 11 | 4 | 24 | 9 | |
| 2022 | 2,362 | 2,358 | 1,791 | 331 | 55 | 110 | 11 | 6 | 7 | 9 | |
| 2023 | 2,588 | 2,529 | 1,851 | 284 | 56 | 96 | 11 | 4 | 6 | 9 | |
| 2024 | 2,434 | 2,332 | 1,953 | 283 | 46 | 93 | 11 | 5 | 1 | 9 | |
| Average | 2,803 | 2,811 | 1,851 | 379 | 56 | 124 | 11 | 5 | 15 | 8 | |
History
Court history
TheSeventh Circuit was established by the United States Congress in 1891 by theEvarts Act of 1891, which established the first nine appeals circuits. Over the years, nine additional seats were added to the court, resulting in a total of eleven seats.[7] The court has moved six times throughout its history although it has remained in the city of Chicago.
Judicial posts
The following table highlights the development of judicial posts for the Seventh Circuit:[7]
| Year | Statute | Total Seats |
| March 3, 1891 | 26 Stat. 826 | 2 |
| February 8, 1895 | 28 Stat. 643 | 3 |
| March 3, 1905 | 33 Stat. 992 | 4 |
| May 31, 1938 | 52 Stat. 584 | 5 |
| August 3, 1949 | 63 Stat. 493 | 6 |
| May 19, 1961 | 75 Stat. 80 | 7 |
| March 18, 1966 | 80 Stat. 75 | 8 |
| October 20, 1978 | 92 Stat. 1629,1632 | 9 |
| July 10, 1984 | 98 Stat. 333 | 11 |
Reversal rate
Since 2007, SCOTUS has released opinions in1,313 cases. Of those, it reversed a lower court decision938 times (71.4 percent) while affirming a lower court decision363 times (27.6 percent).
In that time period, SCOTUS has decided55 cases originating from the Seventh Circuit, affirming in 20 cases and reversing in 35 cases, for a reversal rate of63.6 percent. As of the end of the2023 term, of the Article III circuits—the ordinal circuits, the D.C. Circuit, and the Federal Circuit—the court with the lowest rate of overturned decisions is theFourth Circuit at 62.1 percent.
Noteworthy cases
The following are noteworthy cases heard before this court. To suggest cases we should cover here,email us. To read opinions published by this court, clickhere.
Court strikes down Indiana abortion law
- See also:Seventh Circuit
On April 19, 2018, a panel of the Seventh Circuit ruled that an Indiana law prohibiting abortions if the provider knew the patient was terminating the pregnancy because of a reason listed in the statute, such as race or disability, was unconstitutional. The court referred to this part of the law as thenon-discrimination provisions. The law would have also required providers to inform women seeking abortions of the non-discrimination provisions and instituted changes to the handling of aborted fetuses. The court concluded that all three parts of the law were unconstitutional under Supreme Court precedent:
| “ | The non-discrimination provisions clearly violate well-established Supreme Court precedent holding that a woman may terminate her pregnancy prior to viability, and that the State may not prohibit a woman from exercising that right for any reason. Because the non-discrimination provisions are unconstitutional, so too is the provision that a woman be informed of them. Additionally, the amended fetal disposition provisions violate substantive due process because they have no rational relationship to a legitimate state interest.[8][9] | ” |
JudgeDaniel Manion concurred in the court's judgment as to the first two provisions but dissented as to the third provision. He would have ruled that thefetal disposition provisions related to a legitimate state interest.[8]
| • Seventh Circuit upholds restraint on enforcement of abortion law (2013) | Click for summary→ |
|---|---|
| TheWisconsin Legislature passed a law requiring doctors who perform abortions in the state to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their facility. Opponents of the law, primarily Planned Parenthood, argued that such a requirement would effectively prevent women in certain portions of the state from obtaining an abortion because hospitals usually grant admitting privileges to a doctor who can refer a set number of patients to it. Opponents said modern abortions rarely face complications requiring hospital admittance; therefore, few abortion doctors would meet a hospital's quota of referrals. Planned Parenthood sued to stop enforcement of this law and, in July 2013, U.S. District JudgeWilliam Conley issued a one-year restraining order preventing the state from taking action against a doctor who did not have admitting privileges. The state appealed to theSeventh Circuit, which upheld Judge Conley’s order on December 20, 2013. JudgeRichard Posner wrote for the three-judge panel. He said that had the law not been enjoined, two of the state’s four abortion clinics would have been shut down. Further, “fully qualified” doctors were unable to comply with the law due to hospital restrictions and policies concerning granting admitting privileges.[10] Judge Posner said that the state was treating abortion differently from other invasive outpatient procedures and, under the equal protection clause, the law was a violation. He ruled that the one-year restraining order was proper in this case. JudgesDavid Hamilton andDaniel Manion were also part of the panel. Articles: | |
| • Court allows for warrantless entry and seizure (2014) Judge(s):Joel Flaum,Daniel Manion, andIlana Rovner (Krysta Sutterfield v. City of Milwaukee, et. al., No. 12-2272) | Click for summary→ |
|---|---|
In May 2014, the Seventh Circuit found that Milwaukee Police had the authority to enter Krysta Sutterfield's home without a warrant due to exigent circumstances. The city claimed that Sutterfield posed harm to herself, following a comment made during a doctor's appointment. As a result, police arrived at Sutterfield's home, questioned her, seized firearms from her home, arrested her, and took her for an emergency mental evaluation. Sutterfield, who insisted she was of sound mental health at the time of the incident, sued on the basis of herSecond,Fourth, andFourteenth Amendment rights. The Seventh Circuit agreed that the police officers were protected under qualified immunity even if Sutterfield's Fourth Amendment rights were violated. This decision affirmed a ruling by JudgeJoseph Stadtmueller of theEastern District of Wisconsin.[11] | |
| • Union challenge to Wisconsin's labor law defeated in court (2014) Judge(s):Joel Flaum,Ilana Rovner, andVirginia Kendall (Laborers Local 236, AFL-CIO, et al v. Walker, et al, 13-3193) | Click for summary→ |
|---|---|
On April 18, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit, composed of JudgesJoel Flaum,Ilana Rovner, and JudgeVirginia Kendall of theNorthern District of Illinois sitting by designation, ruled thatWisconsin's Act 10, a law enacted in 2011 that barred government employers from collectively bargaining with employees' unions over anything save for wages, was constitutional and upheld a lower court opinion from theWestern District of Wisconsin.[12] In the underlying case, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 60 and Laborers Local 236 brought suit against Wisconsin Gov.Scott Walker (R), alleging violations of theirFirst Amendment right to the freedom of association and their right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. The plaintiffs further alleged violations of theirFourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws. Prior to the plaintiffs' appeal, JudgeWilliam Conley said that as public employees of the state, they "remain[ed] free to associate and their unions remain[ed] free to speak; municipal employers are simply not allowed to listen."[12] In an opinion written by Judge Flaum, the Seventh Circuit affirmed Judge Conley's ruling, commenting that "the line between constitutionality and unconstitutionally is not drawn according to how open a state decisionmaker is to what you have to say."[12] | |
| • Copyright infringement case based on Facebook posts dismissed (2014) Judge(s):Richard Posner,Michael Kanne, andJohn Tinder (Conrad v. AM Community Credit Union, et al, 13-2899) | Click for summary→ |
|---|---|
On April 14, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit, composed of JudgesRichard Posner,Michael Kanne, andJohn Tinder, found that Catherine Conrad, apro se plaintiff, did not have a valid copyright infringement claim related to videos of her singing telegram performance posted on Facebook.[13] In the underlying case, Conrad performed at a credit union trade association conference but asked that audience members not take photos or videos of the performance except for their own personal use. Audience members then posted photos and videos of her performance on their personal Facebook pages, which prompted Conrad to sue, alleging violations of her intellectual property rights. JudgeBarbara Crabb of theWestern District of Wisconsin dismissed Conrad's suit, finding that it had no legal merit.[13] Conrad further appealed to the Seventh Circuit, where Posner, writing for the majority, affirmed Judge Crabb's dismissal of the lawsuit.[13] | |
Before the U.S. Supreme Court
This section focuses on cases the U.S. Supreme Court heard that originated in this court. To suggest cases we should cover here,email us.
2025-2026 term
The following case was scheduled for argument before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2025-2026 term.
| 2025-2026 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 7th Circuit | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Case | Opinion author | Decision | Vote |
| Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections | TBA | TBA | TBA |
| Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC | TBA | TBA | TBA |
2024-2025 term
The following case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2024-2025 term.
| 2024-2025 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 7th Circuit | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Case | Opinion author | Decision | Vote |
| Thompson v. United States | Chief Justice John Roberts | vacated andremanded | 9-0 |
| Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Todd Heath | Elena Kagan | affirmed andremanded | 9-0 |
2023-2024 term
The following case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2023-2024 term.
| 2023-2024 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 7th Circuit | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Case | Opinion author | Decision | Vote |
| Snyder v. United States | Brett Kavanaugh | reversed andremanded | 6-3 |
| Erlinger v. United States | Neil Gorsuch | vacated andremanded | 6-3 |
2022-2023 term
The following cases were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2022-2023 term.
| 2022-2023 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 7th Circuit | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Case | Opinion author | Decision | Vote |
| Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Indiana v. Talevski | Ketanji Brown Jackson | affirmed | 7-2 |
| U.S. ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc. (Consolidated withU.S. ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, Inc.) | Clarence Thomas | vacated andremanded | 9-0 |
2021-2022 term
The following cases were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2021-2022 term.
| 2021-2022 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 7th Circuit | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Case | Opinion author | Decision | Vote |
| Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC | N/A | Casedismissed | N/A |
| Hughes v. Northwestern University | Sonia Sotomayor | vacated andremanded | 8-0 |
| Southwest Airlines v. Saxon | Clarence Thomas | affirmed | 8-0 |
| LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Company | Per curiam | affirmed | 4-4 |
2020-2021 term
The following cases were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2020-2021 term.
| 2020-2021 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 7th Circuit | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Case | Opinion author | Decision | Vote |
| City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton | Samuel Alito | vacated andremanded | 8-0 |
2019-2020 term
The following cases were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2019-2020 term.
| 2019-2020 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 7th Circuit | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Case | Opinion author | Decision | Vote |
| Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee | Per curiam | application for stay granted | 5-4 |
Federal courthouse
TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has moved into six different court buildings. The original building was located at the northwest corner of Monroe Street and Dearborn Street and shared space with the U.S. Customs House and Post Office. The building was gutted by the Great Chicago Fire in 1871. The court moved to a newly constructed building in 1880 located between Clark, Adams, and Dearborn streets and Jackson Boulevard. The building was poorly constructed, and the court moved again in 1894 to the Monadnock building at the corner of Jackson Boulevard and Dearborn Street. The Monadnock building served as a temporary home until a new courthouse was built in 1905 by architect Henry Ives Cobb. The court moved again in 1938 to 1212 Lake Shore Drive and one final time in 1965 to its present location at the Everett M. Dirksen Federal Building. The current building was constructed by principal architect Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe. The official court website describes the building, stating,
| “ | The block-long building rises thirty stories on a skeleton of structural steel, supported by concrete caissons extending to rock one hundred feet below sidewalk level. It is sheathed in a curtain wall of steel, aluminum and bronze-tinted glass. The entire ground level area is paved in granite, extending to the lobby as interior paving and onto the elevator core walls.[14][9] | ” |
About United States Courts of Appeal
TheUnited States courts of appeals (orcircuit courts) are the intermediateappellate courts of theUnited States federal courts. The court of appeals was originally created in 1891 and has grown to include thirteen courts.
A court of appeals decides appeals from any of thedistrict courts that are in its federal judicial circuit. The appeals courts also can hear appeals from some administrative agencies. Decisions of the federal appeals courts can, in turn, be appealed to theSupreme Court of the United States.
There are thirteen United States courts of appeals. In addition, there are other federal courts (such as theCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which hears appeals in court-martial cases) that have "Court of Appeals" in their titles.
The eleven numbered circuits and theD.C. Circuit are defined by geography. The thirteenth court of appeal is theCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This court has nationwide jurisdiction over certain types of appeals based on what the underlying legal case is about.
All of the courts of appeals also hear appeals from some administrative agency decisions and rulemaking. The largest share of this type of case is heard by the D.C. Circuit. The Federal Circuit hears appeals from specialized trial courts, primarily theCourt of International Trade and theCourt of Federal Claims, as well as appeals from the district courts inpatent cases and certain other specialized matters.
Federal circuit court judges are appointed for life. They are paid approximately $179,500 annually. At the age of 65, a federal judge may choose to retire with his or her full salary. Judges may also choose to go onsenior status at age 65, if they have served actively for 15 years.[15]
Appointments by president
The chart below shows the number of appeals court judges confirmed by the U.S. Senate through November 1 of the first year of each president's second term in office. At this point in the term, Presidents Obama had the most appeals court appointments with 9.
Judges by circuit
- See also:Judicial vacancies in federal courts
The table below displays the number of judges in each circuit and indicates how many were appointed by presidents from each major political party. It also includes the number of vacancies on a circuit and how many pending nominations for that circuit are before theUnited States Senate. The table can be sorted by clicking the column headers above the line. It is updated every Monday.
See also
- Federal courts
- Federal judge
- United States Court of Appeals
- Central District of Illinois
- Northern District of Illinois
- Southern District of Illinois
- Northern District of Indiana
- Southern District of Indiana
- Eastern District of Wisconsin
- Western District of Wisconsin
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- Judges of the Seventh Circuit
- Seventh Circuit Official Opinions Database
Footnotes
- ↑United States Courts, "FAQs: Federal Judges: What is a senior judge?" accessed December 19, 2016
- ↑2.02.1United States Courts, "Frequently Asked Questions," accessed January 25, 2022
- ↑3.03.13.2Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "28 U.S. Code § 136 - Chief judges; precedence of district judges," accessed January 25, 2022
- ↑4.04.14.2Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "28 U.S. Code § 258 - Chief judges; precedence of judges," accessed January 25, 2022
- ↑5.05.15.2Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "28 U.S. Code § 45 - Chief judges; precedence of judges," accessed January 25, 2022
- ↑Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "28 U.S. Code § 171 - Appointment and number of judges; character of court; designation of chief judge," accessed January 25, 2022
- ↑7.07.1Federal Judicial Center, "U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: Legislative History," accessed May 4, 2021
- ↑8.08.1United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, "Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health Opinion," April 19, 2018
- ↑9.09.1Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑Courthouse News, "Abortion Law Remains Enjoined in Wisconsin," December 24, 2013
- ↑Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, "7th Circuit upholds warrantless entry, seizure of gun rights activist," May 13, 2014
- ↑12.012.112.2Courthouse News Service, "Defeat for Union Challenge to Wisc. Labor Law," April 23, 2014
- ↑13.013.113.2Courthouse News Service, "7th Circuit Squishes Banana Lady's Suit," April 16, 2014
- ↑United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, "Seventh Circuit Courthouses," accessed April 26, 2014
- ↑United States Courts, "FAQs: Federal Judges," accessed May 5, 2021
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
