Numerous observers believe that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is the most ideologically conservative appellate tribunal. Critics have seized on a plethora of rulings that epitomize its jurisprudence. Quintessential is the Fourth Circuit’s dependence on an obscure, rarely invoked 1968 statute to alter the Supreme Court’s Miranda v. Arizona decision, even though the Justices flatly rejected this interpretation and no appellate court had seriously entertained the argument that it should overrule the landmark determination. The Fourth Circuit issued three opinions in a major “war on terror” action challenging an American’s detention—which the Supreme Court vacated and remanded—while the en banc Fourth Circuit published eight opinions about litigation disputing military authority to incarcerate a lawful permanent resident. The appellate court will probably hear other terrorism appeals because the government has prosecuted many suspects, in particular Zacarias Moussaoui, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and has imprisoned Ali al-Marri and Jose Padilla in the Charleston Consolidated Naval Brig. The media also perennially touted as potential Supreme Court appointees Fourth Circuit members J. Harvie Wilkinson and J. Michael Luttig. The New York Times apparently deemed the court so influential that its Sunday New York Times Magazine published a thorough, nuanced article on the tribunal’s judges, replete with vignettes and a glossy photograph.
One striking omission characterizes these perspectives. They ignore how the appellate court delivers justice and resolves every appeal in a substantial caseload, phenomena that profoundly affect the vast majority of litigants. Nonetheless, a study that took a valuable Fourth Circuit picture elucidates how the tribunal dispenses appellate justice. The Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals (the “Commission”) issued a report and proposals after carefully evaluating the appellate system for a year, while the data have minimally changed since the report’s issuance. The Commission’s principal focus was the Ninth Circuit, as Congress had instructed, yet the Commission assembled much useful information on each circuit court of appeals and found that all operate efficaciously. Because how the Fourth Circuit addresses a large docket is critical to appellate justice, the Commission’s analysis of the tribunal and the court itself merit scrutiny, which this Article undertakes.
