@TheAtlantic has a new article, suggesting we should worry about the courts of appeals in 20 years b/c many Trump appointees will be Chief Judges and might manipulate panel assignments (creating more 2R/1D panels). This piece is *deeply problematic* and misreads my scholarship. https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic/status/1380998286581059599

The article begins by noting that in 2040 / 2041, many of the Chief Judges of the courts of appeals will be judges who were appointed by President Trump. That is an observation I and others have made. And that is important in some respects. (2/x)

As I talk about in my forthcoming article, "The Office of the Circuit Chief Judge," the Chief Judge has a number of important responsibilities. And that includes approving the calendar. This does not mean we should expect a whole swath of judges to manipulate that calendar. (3/x)

But @TheAtlantic article makes that deeply concerning leap. Taking an earlier study by @adamschilton and me that showed that panels are not created in "strictly random fashion," the article suggests that Trump judges might well manipulate panels to get the outcomes they desire.

There is no basis for saying this. In a separate qualitative article that I did - called "Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals" - I showed that there are good reasons for having a non-random procedure in setting panels, like, Judge A has to judge a moot court in May.

You cannot draw names out of a hat to make panels when there are logistical concerns in play. So in short, this article makes the dangerous suggestion that certain judges would manipulate this process - without any evidence for this charge. And ignores scholarship to the contrary

And in making this deeply problematic and sensationalist claim, it ignores the actual important ramifications of having many Chief Judges appointed by a particular president. (Fin)