Public policy made simple. Dive into ourinformation hub today!

United States District Court for the District of Arizona

From Ballotpedia
District of Arizona
Ninth Circuit
Great seal of the United States.png
Judgeships
Posts: 13
Judges: 13
Vacancies: 0
Judges
Chief:Jennifer Zipps
Active judges:Susan Brnovich,Sharad Desai,John Hinderaker,Diane Humetewa,Krissa Lanham,Dominic Lanza,Michael Liburdi,Steven Logan,Rosemary Marquez,Angela Martinez,Scott Rash,John Tuchi,Jennifer Zipps

Senior judges:
Susan Bolton,David Bury,David G. Campbell,Raner Collins,Cindy Jorgenson,Frederick Martone,Stephen McNamee,Douglas Rayes,Roslyn Silver,G. Murray Snow,James A. Soto,James Teilborg,Neil Wake,Frank Zapata


TheUnited States District Court for the District of Arizona is one of 94United States district courts. Cases are heard in Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff, Yuma, and Prescott. When decisions of the court are appealed, they are appealed to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in downtown San Francisco at the James R. Browning Federal Courthouse. Initial appeals are heard at the Richard Chambers Federal Courthouse inPasadena, California.

Vacancies

See also:Current federal judicial vacancies

There are no current vacancies on theUnited States District Court for the District of Arizona, out of the court's 13 judicial positions.

Pending appointments

There are no pending nominees for this court.


Active judges

Article III judges

JudgeAppointed ByAssumed OfficeBachelorsLaw

Jennifer Zipps

Barack Obama (D)

October 5, 2011 -

University of Arizona, 1986

Georgetown University Law Center, 1990

Diane Humetewa

Barack Obama (D)

May 16, 2014 -

Arizona State University, 1987

Arizona State University, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, 1993

John Tuchi

Barack Obama (D)

May 16, 2014 -

West Virginia University, 1987

Arizona State University Law School, 1994

Steven Logan

Barack Obama (D)

May 16, 2014 -

University of Louisville, 1988

University of Oklahoma College of Law, 1992

Rosemary Marquez

Barack Obama (D)

May 19, 2014 -

University of Arizona, 1990

University of Arizona Law, 1993

Dominic Lanza

Donald Trump (R)

September 10, 2018 -

Dartmouth College, 1998

Harvard Law School, 2002

Susan Brnovich

Donald Trump (R)

October 23, 2018 -

University of Wisconsin, 1990

University of Wisconsin Law School, 1994

Michael Liburdi

Donald Trump (R)

August 5, 2019 -

Arizona State University, 1998

Arizona State University, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, 2002

Scott Rash

Donald Trump (R)

May 27, 2020 -

University of Arizona, 1985

University of Arizona College of Law, 1991

John Hinderaker

Donald Trump (R)

September 29, 2020 -

University of California, Santa Barbara, 1991

University of Arizona College of Law, 1996

Krissa Lanham

Joe Biden (D)

June 3, 2024 -

Yale University, 2002

Yale University, 2007

Angela Martinez

Joe Biden (D)

July 2, 2024 -

University of Arizona, 1995

University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 2000

Sharad Desai

Joe Biden (D)

January 7, 2025 -

University of Arizona, 2003

New York University School of Law, 2006


Active Article III judges by appointing political party

The list below displays 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: 8
  • Republican appointed: 6

Senior judges

JudgeAppointed ByAssumed OfficeBachelorsLaw

Stephen McNamee

George H.W. Bush (R)

October 1, 2007 -

University of Cincinnati, 1964

University of Arizona College of Law, 1969

Frank Zapata

Bill Clinton (D)

August 3, 2010 -

University of Arizona, 1966

University of Arizona College of Law, 1973

David Bury

George W. Bush (R)

December 31, 2012 -

Oklahoma State University, 1964

University of Arizona College of Law, 1967

Frederick Martone

George W. Bush (R)

January 30, 2013 -

College of the Holy Cross, 1965

University of Notre Dame, 1972

James Teilborg

Bill Clinton (D)

January 30, 2013 -

University of Arizona College of Law, 1966

Roslyn Silver

Bill Clinton (D)

September 3, 2013 -

University of California, Santa Barbara, 1968

Arizona State University Law School, 1971

Neil Wake

George W. Bush (R)

July 5, 2016 -

Arizona State University, 1971

Harvard Law School, 1974

Susan Bolton

Bill Clinton (D)

September 1, 2016 -

University of Iowa, 1973

University of Iowa College of Law, 1975

Cindy Jorgenson

George W. Bush (R)

April 6, 2018 -

University of Arizona, 1974

University of Arizona College of Law, 1977

David G. Campbell

George W. Bush (R)

July 31, 2018 -

University of Utah, 1976

University of Utah College of Law, 1979

Raner Collins

Bill Clinton (D)

March 4, 2019 -

Arkansas Polytechnic College, 1973

University of Arizona College of Law, 1975

Douglas Rayes

Barack Obama (D)

June 1, 2024 -

Arizona State University, 1975

Arizona State University Law School, 1978

James A. Soto

Barack Obama (D)

July 1, 2024 -

Arizona State University, 1971

Arizona State University Law School, 1975

G. Murray Snow

October 21, 2024 -

Brigham Young University, 1984

Brigham Young University, J. Reuben Clark Law School, 1987


Senior judges by appointing political party

The list below displays 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: 7
  • Republican appointed: 6

Magistrate judges

Federal magistrate judges are federal judges who serve inUnited States district courts, but they are not appointed by the president and they do not serve life terms. Magistrate judges are assigned duties by the district judges in the district in which they serve. They may preside over most phases of federal proceedings, except for criminal felony trials. The specific duties of a magistrate judge vary from district to district, but the responsibilities always include handling matters that would otherwise be on the dockets of the district judges. Full-time magistrate judges serve for renewable terms of eight years. Some federal district courts have part-time magistrate judges, who serve for renewable terms of four years.[1]

JudgeAppointed ByAssumed OfficeBachelorsLaw

D. Thomas Ferraro

Northern Arizona University, 1977

California Western Law School, 1980

Jacqueline Marshall Rateau

University of Arizona

Michelle Burns

University of Michigan, 1981

University of Toledo, 1985

James F. Metcalf

November 21, 2011 -

University of Arkansas, Little Rock

Bruce G. Macdonald

May 7, 2012 -

University of Arizona, 1982

University of Arizona, 1985

Leslie A. Bowman

May 7, 2012 -

University of Arizona

University of Arizona

Eric J. Markovich

February 10, 2014 -

Ohio University, 1989

Syracuse University Law, 1992

John Z. Boyle

September 10, 2014 -

University of Arizona

Eileen Willett

October 7, 2014 -

University of Georgia, 1980

Rutgers School of Law, 1984

Deborah M. Fine

May 4, 2015 -

State University of New York, Stony Brook, 1986

Harvard Law School, 1989

Lynnette Kimmins

April 5, 2016 -

Arizona State University, 1988

University of Arizona, 1992

Camille Bibles

February 6, 2019 -

College of Idaho, 1983

College of William & Mary, 1987

Maria Aguilera

April 1, 2019 -

University of Arizona

Michael Morrissey

January 23, 2020 -

University of Virginia, 1983

University of Virginia School of Law, 1987

Alison Bachus

April 12, 2023 -

University of Illinois, 1999

University of Arizona College of Law, 2005

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

To learn more about the judges who have served on the court, seeformer federal judges, District of Arizona.

Jurisdiction

The Counties of Arizona (click for larger map)

The jurisdiction of the District of Arizona consists of all thecounties in the state ofArizona. Court is held in the cities of Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff, Yuma, and Prescott.

TheDistrict of Arizona hasoriginal jurisdiction over cases filed within its jurisdiction. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law.

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
TermExplanation
Cases filed and terminatedThe 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 dispositionThe 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 loadThe number of cases pending from the previous calendar year.
Cases filedThe number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated in a calendar year.
Cases terminatedThe total number of civil and criminal lawsuits decided by the court in a calendar year.
Remaining casesThe 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 casesThe number and percent of civil cases that were filed more than three years before the end of the given calendar year.
Vacant postsThe number of months during the year an authorized judgeship was vacant.
Trial/PostThe 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.

Source:United States Courts, "Explanation of the Judicial Caseload Profiles for United States District Courts," accessed September 25, 2018


United States District Court for the District of Arizona caseload stats, 2010-2024
YearCases FiledCases TerminatedCases PendingNumber of JudgeshipsVacant Judgeship MonthsAverage Total Filings per JudgeshipTrials Completed per JudgeshipMedian time from filing to disposition, criminalMedian time from filing to disposition, civilThree-year civil cases (#)Three-year civil cases (%)
201012,20310,5297,92113593921571073
201112,47813,1716,26113339603358943
201211,56412,6775,82213248902057933
201312,05511,5336,25113629271958832
201411,75312,1825,64513269041558742
20159,8079,5765,6811307541358953
201612,10610,1847,427131093114561002
201711,87810,0439,170132491415581212
201812,7189,72912,021133897812572122
201914,12215,16710,77713291,0861151294512
20208,83412,1037,402131368068041483618
20219,93011,0466,231130764104201565
20229,6319,5936,13413074111591335
202311,3779,8006,92113087511581595
202418,0349,0688,0561301,38710551664
Average11,89911,0937,448131891560592255

History

Court history

The District of Arizona was organized by Congress as one judicial district onJune 20, 1910, with one authorized judgeship for the district. The district was then assigned to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and became effective upon the admission of Arizona onFebruary 14, 1912. Over time, twelve permanent judicial posts were added for a total of thirteen current posts.[7]

Judicial posts

The following table highlights the development of judicial posts for the District of Alaska:[7]

YearStatuteTotal Seats
June 20, 191036 Stat. 5571
August 19, 193549 Stat. 6592
May 19, 196175 Stat. 803
March 18, 196680 Stat. 754
June 2, 197084 Stat. 2945
October 20, 197892 Stat. 16298
November 29, 1999113 Stat. 150111
December 21, 2000114 Stat. 276212
November 2, 2002116 Stat. 175813

Noteworthy cases

For more information about cases in the District of Arizona,click here.

  • Death penalty and the First Amendment (2014)
     Judge(s):Neil Wake (Wood v. Ryan, CV 14-1447-PHX-NVW)
Click for summary→

On July 11, 2014, JudgeNeil Wake ruled against postponing the execution of Arizona death-row inmate Joseph Wood, saying his lack of access to details about the drug protocol for his execution was not a violation of the First Amendment.[8]

In his opinion, Wake found that Wood had already been provided with enough information related to his execution, such as the type of drugs that would be used, the specific dosage, and the drugs’ expiration dates. He wrote that this information was “sufficient for an ‘informed public debate’” over their usage.[8]

Wood continued to seek additional information and appealed to theNinth Circuit, where a divided panel composed of JudgesJay Bybee,Ronald Gould, andSidney Thomas delayed the death row inmate’s execution on July 19, 2014. The judges cited Wood'sFirst Amendment right to obtain more knowledge about the way in which he would be killed, including the qualifications and certifications of the personnel who would perform the execution. This was the first time that an appellate court ruled that a prisoner had the right to obtain such explicit details about the manner in which he would be executed.[9]

Arizona officials filed a motion for reconsideration of the panel’s ruling en banc, which waslater denied by the judges of the Ninth Circuit on July 21, 2014, although the decision was divided. Arizona then filed a motion with theSupreme Court of the United States to lift the Ninth Circuit's stay, and the high court granted that motion.[10]

On July 23, 2014, Wood was executed. The procedure, which was supposed to take 10 to 15 minutes, took almost two hours. Wood reportedly gasped for the duration of the execution process, which led his attorney tofile an emergency appeal with Judge Wake, as he believed his client was still alive. In it, the attorney wrote that the execution “violated Mr. Wood’s Eighth Amendment right to be executed in the absence of cruel and unusual punishment” and requested that the Arizona Department of Corrections save Wood’s life. His attorney also called Supreme Court JusticeAnthony Kennedy and three justices of the Arizona Supreme Court in an attempt to get the courts to intervene.[11]

Wood died before any judge could intervene, and Justice Kennedy eventually denied the request.[11] Arizona temporarily halted executions in the state.[12]

  • Sheriff Joe Arpaio (2010-2012)
     Judge(s):Murray Snow (Ortega Melendres et al. v. Arpaio et al., No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS)
Click for summary→

JudgeMurray Snow presided over a case on whether to impose sanctions against Maricopa County SheriffJoe Arpaio and his department. The department was sued over its alleged widespread use of racial profiling against Hispanics. The District of Arizona imposed a preliminary injunction against Sheriff Arpaio and his department, disallowing them from detaining individuals based on their suspicions of citizenship. This decision was reconsidered by theNinth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's ruling.[13]

  • Lethal injection delay case (2012)
     Judge(s):Neil Wake (Robert Towery, et al v. Janice Brewer, et al, No. CV-12-245-PHX-ROS)
Click for summary→

JudgeNeil Wake denied a preliminary injunction that would have ceased or delayed two executions following changes to the lethal injection protocol used by the Arizona Department of Corrections.[14]

The federal defender had argued the changes gave too much power to the corrections director, decreased the qualifications of executioners, and eliminated the opportunity for an inmate to meet with his attorneys in person on the day he was scheduled to be executed. The request was denied by Wake, who had previously ruled in December of 2011 that the Corrections Department did not violate a prisoner's right in following its own department protocol.[14]

  • Medical marijuana (2012)
     Judge(s):Susan Bolton (State of Arizona v. U.S., 11-cv-1072)
Click for summary→

JudgeSusan Bolton dismissed a lawsuit filed by Arizona on January 4, 2012, arguing that a state law passed by voters in 2010 legalizing medical marijuana put state workers at risk for federal prosecution and imprisonment due to conflict with federal drug law. Arizona GovernorJan Brewer (R), who opposed the measure, sought to block the creation of marijuana dispensaries allowed by the law, claiming that state employees charged with regulating the dispensaries were at risk for federal prosecution. Bolton ruled that the state had not established a “genuine threat of imminent prosecution” and dismissed the case.[15]

  • Arizona abortion restriction (2012)
     Judge(s):James Teilborg
Click for summary→

In July 2012, JudgeJames Teilborg ruled that an Arizona state law prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in medical emergencies, was constitutional because women were still able to have abortions earlier. Previously, Arizona banned most abortions after viability at 24 weeks. Two groups announced their intention to appeal the decision to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, stating that Judge Teilborg's ruling ignored constitutional precedent.[16]

In May 2013, the Ninth Circuit ruled the law was unconstitutional “under a long line of invariant Supreme Court precedents” that a woman had a right to end a pregnancy before viability.[17]

  • Arizona immigration law/S.B. 1070 (2011)
     Judge(s):Susan Bolton (USA v. State of Arizona, No. CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB)
Click for summary→

TheUnited States Department of Justice suedArizona to court to challenge an immigration law scheduled to take effect on July 29, 2010. In the ruling, JudgeSusan Bolton upheld parts of the law, while striking down others.

In summary, the following provisions were upheld:

  • Arizona could restrict local officials from creatingsanctuary city policies that limit enforcement of the law;
  • Arizona state officials could work with the federal government on illegal immigration; and
  • It was a crime to employ day laborers, often individuals residing in the U.S. without legal permission, that wait for work in public areas.[18]

The following were parts of the law that were blocked by the decision:

  • Arizona could not criminalize individuals for failing to have alien registration papers on them; and
  • Arizona could not authorize "the warrantless arrest of a person" if law officials believed he or she was in the county illegally.[19]

Arizona appealed the ruling in theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit upheld Bolton's ruling on April 1, 2011.[20]

Read the Ninth Circuit opinion here:USA v. State of Arizona

Arizona counter-suit

OnOctober 21, 2011, Bolton dismissed a lawsuit filed by Gov.Jan Brewer (R) against the federal government as a countersuit. Brewer claimed that the federal government was not doing enough to protect the state from illegal immigration. Bolton dismissed the case saying that the charges were political questions and not appropriate for a court to decide. Bolton also said that some of the state's claims were thrown out because they were answered in a1994 court case could not be litigated again.

Bolton wrote, "While Arizona may disagree with the established enforcement priorities, Arizona’s allegations do not give rise to a claim that the counter-defendants (the federal government) have abdicated their statutory responsibilities."[21]

  • Petland puppy mill case (2010)
     Judge(s):David G. Campbell (Martinelli et al. v. Petland, Inc. and Hunte Corporation, No. CV-09-529-PHX-DGC)
Click for summary→

JudgeDavid G. Campbell dismissed a lawsuit against Hunte Corporation on February 3, 2010, after six pet owners alleged that Petland Stores solid puppies distributed by Hunte that had come from puppy mills. The judge dismissed the case after finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hunte engaged in illegal conduct. The case was part of a series of cases filed by the Humane Society of the United States.[22]

  • Unsanctioned Green Party candidates (2010)
     Judge(s):David G. Campbell (Arizona Green Party et al. vs. Ken Bennett et al., 2:10-cv-01902-DGC)
Click for summary→

In September 2010, theGreen Party requested that the names of nine candidates not endorsed by the party be removed from the general election ballots inArizona. The Green Party alleged that the candidates were recruited by Republicans to restrict the number of votes that could have potentially gone to Democrats. They said the public positions of the candidates were contrary to the policies supported by the party he represented.

Campbell ruled that removing the candidates from the ballot would not be fair to the candidates before a full hearing on the merits of the case occurred. This allowed counties in the state to begin printing its ballots as planned.[23]

  • Arizona campaign finance (2010)
     Judge(s):Roslyn Silver (McComish v. Brewer, No. CV-08-1550-PHX-ROS)
Click for summary→

On January 20, 2010, JudgeRoslyn Silver ruled that portions of Arizona's matching campaign funds law, which gave participating candidates extra public funds to match other candidates' fundraising, were unconstitutional. The judge ruled that the law violated the First Amendment of the Constitution on the premise that it restricted campaigns from raising and spending their own money.[24]

Noteworthy events

Federal Judicial Conference recommendation (2019)

In March 2019, the Federal Judicial Conference (FJC) recommended that four judgeships be added to the district and one temporary judgeship be made permanent.[25] Based on FJC data, the district handled 685 weighted filings per judgeship from September 2017 to September 2018. Weighted filings are a specific metric used by the federal judiciary that accounts for the different amounts of time judges require to resolve types of civil and criminal cases. The national average in that period for weighted filings per judgeship was 513.[26]

The FJC is the policy-making body for the United States federal courts system. It was first organized as the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges in 1922.[27] The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States serves as chair of the conference. The members of the conference are the chief judge of each judicial circuit, the Chief Judge of the Court of International Trade, and a district judge from each regional judicial circuit.[28]

Federal courthouse

Five separate courthouses serve the District of Arizona.

About United States District Courts

TheUnited States district courts are the generaltrial courts of theUnited States federal courts. There are 94 such courts. Bothcivil andcriminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of both law and equity.

There is aUnited States bankruptcy court and a number ofbankruptcy judges associated with each United States district court. Eachfederal judicial district has at least one courthouse, and most districts have more than one.

There is at least one judicial district for each state, and one each for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. District courts in three insular areas—the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands—exercise the same jurisdiction as U.S. district courts. Despite their name, these courts are technically not District Courts of the United States. Judges on theseterritorial courts do not enjoy the protections ofArticle III of the Constitution, and serve terms of 10 years rather than for life.

There are677 U.S. District Court judgeships.[29][30]

The number of federal district judge positions is set by the U.S. Congress in Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 133, which authorizes a set number of judge positions, or judgeships, making changes and adjustments in these numbers from time to time.

In order to relieve the pressure of trying the hundreds of thousands of cases brought before the federal district courts each year, many trials are tried by juries, along with a presiding judge.[31]

Appointments by president

The chart below shows the number of district court judges confirmed by the U.S. Senate through November 1 of the first year of presidents' second term in office. At this point in the term, President Obama had the most district court appointments with 25.


Judges by district

See also:Judicial vacancies in federal courts

The table below displays the number of judges in each district and indicates how many were appointed by presidents from each major political party. It also includes the number of vacancies in a district and how many pending nominations for that district are before theUnited States Senate. The table can be sorted by clicking the column headers above the line, and you can navigate through the pages by clicking the arrows at the top of the table. It is updated every Monday.


Judicial selection

The district courts are served byArticle III federal judges who are appointed for life during "good behavior." They are usually first recommended by senators (or members of the House, occasionally). The President of the United States makes the appointments, which must then be confirmed by the U.S. Senate in accordance withArticle III of the United States Constitution.[30]

StepApprovedA Candidacy ProceedsDefeatedA Candidacy Halts
1. Recommendation made by Congress Member to the PresidentPresident Nominates toSenate Judiciary CommitteePresident Declines Nomination
2. Senate Judiciary Committee interviews CandidateSends candidate to Senate for confirmationReturns candidate to President, who may re-nominate to Committee
3. Senate votes on candidate confirmationCandidate becomes federal judgeCandidate does not receive judgeship

Magistrate judges

The district courts are also served by magistrate judges. Congress created the judicial office offederal magistrate in 1968. In 1990, the position title was changed tomagistrate judge. The chief judge of each district appoints one or more magistrate judges, who discharge many of the ancillary duties of district judges so judges can handle more trials. There are both full-time and part-time magistrate judge positions, and these positions are assigned to the district courts according to caseload criteria (subject to funding by Congress). A full-time magistrate judge serves a term of eight years; a part-time magistrate judge's term of office is four years.[32]


See also

External links


Footnotes

  1. U.S. District Court – NH, "Magistrate Judges of the District Court," accessed April 27, 2021
  2. 2.02.1United States Courts, "Frequently Asked Questions," accessed January 25, 2022
  3. 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. 4.04.14.2Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "28 U.S. Code § 258 - Chief judges; precedence of judges," accessed January 25, 2022
  5. 5.05.15.2Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "28 U.S. Code § 45 - Chief judges; precedence of judges," accessed January 25, 2022
  6. 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. 7.07.1Federal Judicial Center, "U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona: Legislative History," accessed April 28, 2021
  8. 8.08.1Los Angeles Times, "Federal judge refuses to stay execution of Arizona death row inmate," July 11, 2014
  9. New York Times, "Court Delays Execution Over Secrecy With Drugs," July 20, 2014
  10. RT, "Supreme Court upholds Ariz. death row drug secrecy, clears inmate execution," July 23, 2014
  11. 11.011.1New York Times, "Arizona Takes Nearly 2 Hours to Execute Inmate," July 23, 2014
  12. The New York Times, "A Prolonged Execution in Arizona Leads to a Temporary Halt," July 25, 2014
  13. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "De Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al v. Arpaio, et al," September 25, 2012
  14. 14.014.1The Republic, "Federal judge declines delaying 2 Arizona executions," February 23, 2012
  15. Bloomberg, "Arizona Medical-Marijuana Suit Dismissed by Federal Judge," January 5, 2012
  16. The New York Times, "Arizona: Judge Upholds 20-Week Limit on Abortions," July 30, 2012
  17. The New York Times, "Arizona Law on Abortions Struck Down as Restrictive," May 21, 2013
  18. Fox News, "Arizona's Altered Immigration Law Takes Effect, State Heads Back to Court," July 29, 2010
  19. CNN, "Parts of controversial Arizona immigration law to take effect," July 29, 2010
  20. Los Angeles Times, "Federal appeals court upholds injunction blocking Arizona immigration law," April 11, 2011
  21. CBS8, "Judge dismisses Ariz. governor’s lawsuit against feds over border enforcement," October 21, 2011
  22. Joplin Globe, "Judge dismisses federal suit against Hunte Corp.," February 3, 2010
  23. East Valley Tribune, "Judge won't kick Green Party candidates off ballot," September 9, 2010
  24. The Republic, "Federal judge strikes down Ariz. matching funds," January 21, 2010
  25. Federal Judicial Conference, "March 2019 Recommendations," accessed July 25, 2019
  26. US Courts, "Table X-1A—Other Judicial Business (September 30, 2018)," accessed July 24, 2019
  27. US Courts, "Governance & the Judicial Conference," accessed July 25, 2019
  28. US Courts, "About the Judicial Conference," accessed July 25, 2019
  29. US Courts, "Federal Judgeships," accessed May 10, 2021 (archived)
  30. 30.030.1U.S. Courts, "United States District Court Federal Judiciary Frequently Asked Questions," accessed May 10, 2021 (archived)
  31. United States District Courts, "District Courts," accessed May 10, 2021
  32. The 'Lectric Law Library, "Understanding the U.S. federal courts"

v  e
U.S. Circuit Courts andDistrict Courts
First Circuit
Second Circuit
Third Circuit
Fourth Circuit
Fifth Circuit
Sixth Circuit
Seventh Circuit
Eighth Circuit
Ninth Circuit
Tenth Circuit
Eleventh Circuit
Flag of Arizona.svg
v  e
Federal judges who have served theUnited States District Court for the District of Arizona
Active judges

   •  Murray Snow  •  Susan Brnovich  •  Scott Rash  •  Jennifer Zipps  •  Rosemary Marquez  •  Steven Logan  •  Diane Humetewa  •  John Tuchi  •  Dominic Lanza  •  Michael Liburdi  •  John Hinderaker  •  Krissa Lanham  •  Angela Martinez (Arizona)  •  Sharad Desai

Senior judges

Stephen McNamee  •  Susan Bolton  •  David G. Campbell  •  Frederick Martone  •  Roslyn Silver  •  James Teilborg  •  David Bury  •  Raner Collins  •  Cindy Jorgenson  •  Frank Zapata  •  Neil Wake  •  Douglas Rayes  •  James A. Soto  •  

Magistrate judgesMichelle Burns  •  Eileen Willett  •  D. Thomas Ferraro  •  Jacqueline Marshall Rateau  •  Bernardo Velasco  •  James F. Metcalf  •  Eric J. Markovich  •  Bruce G. Macdonald  •  Leslie A. Bowman  •  Alison Bachus  •  John Z. Boyle  •  Deborah Fine  •  Lynnette Kimmins  •  Camille Bibles  •  Michael Morrissey (Arizona)  •  Maria Aguilera  •  
Former Article III judges

William Henry Sawtelle  •  Richard Elihu Sloan  •  Fred Clinton Jacobs  •  John Roll  •  Robert Broomfield  •  Earl Carroll  •  Mary Murguia  •  Albert Morris Sames  •  David Ling  •  Richard Bilby  •  William Browning  •  William Copple  •  Valdemar Cordova  •  Walter Craig  •  Arthur Davis  •  William Frey  •  Charles Muecke  •  Mary Richey  •  Howard Speakman  •  Charles Hardy (Arizona)  •  Alfredo Marquez  •  James A. Walsh  •  

Former Chief judges

John Roll  •  Robert Broomfield  •  Stephen McNamee  •  Roslyn Silver  •  Richard Bilby  •  William Browning  •  Walter Craig  •  Charles Muecke  •  James A. Walsh  •