Richard Paez

Richard Paez

Nonpartisan

United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (senior status)

Tenure

2021 - Present

Years in position

3

Prior offices

United States District Court for the Central District of California

---

United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit

---

Education

Bachelor's

Brigham Young University, 1969

Law

University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1972

Personal

Birthplace

Salt Lake City, Utah

Richard A. Paez is a federal judge on senior status with the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco. He joined the court in 2000 after being nominated by President Bill Clinton (D). Paez assumed senior status on December 13, 2021, upon the confirmation of his successor Lucy H. Koh.

Biography

Early life and education

A native of Salt Lake City, Utah, Paez graduated from Brigham Young University with his bachelor's degree in 1969, and later received his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law in 1972.

Professional career

• 1981-1994: Judge, Los Angeles Municipal Court
• 1976-1981: Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, California
  • 1980-1981: Acting executive director and director of litigation
  • 1979-1980: Deputy director of litigation
  • 1978-1979: Director of litigation
  • 1976-1978: Senior counsel
• 1974-1976: Staff attorney, Western Center on Law and Poverty
• 1972-1974: Staff attorney, California Rural Legal Assistance

Judicial career

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Nomination Tracker
Nominee Information
Name: Richard A. Paez
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
Progress
Confirmed 1505 days after nomination.
ANominated: January 25, 1996
AABA Rating: Substantial Majority Well Qualified, Minority Qualified
Questionnaire:
AHearing: July 31, 1996 February 25, 1998
QFRs: (Hover over QFRs to read more)
AReported: July 29, 1999 March 19, 1998
AConfirmed: March 9, 2000
AVote: 59-39
AReturned: October 4, 1996 October 21, 1998

Paez was first nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit by Bill Clinton on January 25, 1996, to a seat vacated by Cecil F. Poole. The American Bar Association rated Paez Substantial Majority Well Qualified, Minority Qualified for the nomination, and that rating did not change through Paez's lengthy confirmation process. Hearings on Paez's nomination were first held before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on July 31, 1996. Under Rule XXXI, paragraph six of the standing rules of the Senate, Paez's nomination was returned to the president on October 4, 1996. President Clinton resubmitted Paez's nomination on July 7, 1997. Hearings were again held before the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 25, 1998, and his nomination was reported by U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) on March 19, 1998. Under Rule XXXI, paragraph six of the standing rules of the Senate, Paez's nomination was returned to the president on October 21, 1998. President Clinton submitted Paez's nomination a third time on January 26, 1999, and his nomination was again reported by U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) on July 29, 1999. After several procedural motions to delay Paez's vote in the United States Senate, Paez was confirmed on a recorded 59-39 vote on March 9, 2000, and he received his commission on March 14, 2000.

Central District of California

Paez was nominated to the United States District Court for the Central District of California by President Bill Clinton on March 9, 1994, to a new seat created by 104 Stat. 5089. The American Bar Association rated Paez Majority Well Qualified, Minority Qualified for the nomination. Hearings on Paez's nomination were held before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 25, 1994, and his nomination was reported by then-U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) on June 14, 1994. Paez was confirmed on a voice vote of the U.S. Senate on June 15, 1994, and he received his commission the next day. Paez resigned from the district court on March 17, 2000, upon his elevation to the Ninth Circuit. He was succeeded in this position by Judge James Otero.

Noteworthy cases

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra (2019)

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra, 2:14-cv-09448-R-FFM)

On March 29, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined a request for en banc review of an earlier judgment upholding a California donor disclosure law. In an en banc review, the entire bench takes up the case, as opposed to the customary three-judge panel that typically hears appeals.

The law in question requires nonprofit organizations to file copies of their IRS 990 forms with the state. Schedule B of this form includes the names and addresses of all individuals who donate more than $5,000 to the organization in a given tax year. The California law requires that nonprofits furnish the state with Schedule B forms. Although the law does not provide for the public release of Schedule B information, court documents indicate inadvertent disclosures have occurred. Americans for Prosperity Foundation filed suit against the state in federal court, alleging a violation of their First Amendment rights. In 2016, Judge Manuel Real, appointed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California by President Lyndon Johnson (D), found in favor of the plaintiff and enjoined the state from collecting Schedule B information from Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit unanimously overturned Real's ruling in 2018. That panel comprised Judges Raymond Fisher, Richard Paez, and Jacqueline Nguyen. Fisher and Paez were appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton (D); Nguyen was appointed by President Barack Obama (D). Americans for Prosperity Foundation petitioned the Ninth Circuit for en banc review. That petition was rejected on March 29, 2019, with five judges dissenting.

Judge Sandra Ikuta, appointed to the court by President George W. Bush (R), wrote the following in the dissent: “Under the panel’s analysis, the government can put the First Amendment associational rights of members and contributors at risk for a list of names it does not need, so long as it promises to do better in the future to avoid public disclosure of the names. Given the inability of governments to keep data secure, this standard puts anyone with controversial views at risk. We should have reheard this case en banc to reaffirm the vitality of NAACP v. Alabama’s protective doctrine, and to clarify that Buckley’s watered-down standard has no place outside of the electoral context." Judges Consuelo Maria Callahan, Carlos Bea, Mark J. Bennett, and Ryan D. Nelson joined the dissent. Callahan and Bea were appointed to the court by Bush; Bennett and Nelson were appointed by President Donald Trump (R).

Judges Fisher, Paez, and Nguyen wrote in response to the dissent, "Requiring the nonpublic disclosure of Schedule B information comports with the freedom of association protected by the First Amendment because it allows state and federal regulators to protect the public from fraud without exposing contributors to the threats, harassment or reprisals that might follow public disclosure."

Dave Abrams, a spokesman for Americans for Prosperity Foundation, said, "We’re assessing the order and reviewing options. We appreciate the dissent’s recognition of why this case is so important. We’re committed to championing First Amendment liberties for all Americans and speaking out against measures that risk chilling diverse public discourse."

Ninth Circuit strikes certain Arizona campaign rules for judicial candidates (2014)

The Arizona code of judicial conduct stated that judicial candidates, individuals who have not yet been elected but are seeking office, may not engage in certain activity related to campaigning. The precluded activity included raising funds for your own campaign or other candidates, endorsing candidates, campaigning for others or giving speeches on behalf of other candidates. Though a federal district court judge upheld these provisions, the Ninth Circuit, in an ‘’en banc’’ decision, held that they were unconstitutional.

Writing for the majority, Judge Richard Paez said that these types of provisions run afoul of the First Amendment. They prevent a candidate from speaking out, which is his right. He went on to provide a solution to Arizona and other states that wish to avoid a politicized judiciary: do not elect judges.

Judge Marsha Berzon concurred in the holding, but her concurrence emphasized that the majority holding applied only to judicial candidates, not incumbent judges running for re-election. Judge Richard Tallman dissented in part with the majority; he found that some of the code struck down was narrowly tailored, in particularly the two provisions on candidate campaigning.

Articles:

• FindLaw, "En Banc Granted in Ariz. Judge's Campaign Funding Case," September 30, 2014
• Courthouse News, "Would-Be Judge Gets 9th to Nix Campaign Rules," May 9, 2014
• University of Denver Law School, "Ninth Circuit Rejects Campaign Restrictions for Judicial Candidates in Arizona," May 13, 2014

Judges go to court over salaries (2012-2013)

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Peter H. Beer, et al., v. United States, 09-CV-037)

Judge Paez was one of six judges who sued the government on a claim that Congress violated the Constitution's compensation clause and the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 by failing to honor promised judicial salary increases in five separate years. Earlier reports of the case indicated Judges Thomas Hogan and James Robertson were part of the suit, though they were not named parties in the final opinions and orders.

The Ethics Reform Act requires automatic adjustment of judicial salaries every year based on the Employment Cost Index--which measures inflation of wages and benefits--unless severe economic conditions make the raise inappropriate. Congress claimed its withholding of salary adjustments for federal judges was due to a lack of funds.

On October 16, 2009, a federal claims court judge dismissed the lawsuit, citing the decision in Williams v. United States. In that case, Congress was allowed to decide not to grant the cost of living adjustments so long as they did so in the fiscal year prior to that in which the increase would be payable. The judges expected and acknowledged the decision based on precedent, but said that their hope was to overturn the Williams decision and planned an immediate appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On October 5, 2012, the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of the judges, overturning the 11-year old Williams precedent, and finding that Congress' withholding of the cost-of-living salary raises were illegal. The en banc opinion was written by Judge Randall Rader, who quoted Alexander Hamilton, saying, "next to permanency in office, nothing can contribute more to the independence of the judges than a fixed provision for their support." The judges commented that members of their profession should not have to fear that their livelihood will be subject to reprisals from other branches of government, and that as the "weakest of the three branches of government," the judiciary "must...not place its will within the reach of political whim."

The panel decided that "all sitting federal judges are entitled to expect that their real salary will not diminish due to inflation or the action or inaction of the other branches of government," and ordered the Court of Federal Claims to calculate the judges' damages and any other additional compensation to which they were entitled.

Judges Timothy Dyk and William Bryson dissented. They wrote that although the decision seemed just in consideration "to the nation's underpaid Article III judges," the overturning of the Supreme Court's clear interpretation of the law in Williams, as well as a previous refusal to re-hear the issue by the highest court, indicates that the majority overstepped its authority.

In June of 2013, Judge Eric G. Bruggink ruled that each of the judges could recover about $150,000 of back-pay from the government. He also ordered the government to pay interest on the pre-tax amount of the judgment.

• The other plaintiffs were Judges Peter Beer, Wallace Tashima, U. W. Clemon, Laurence Silberman and Terry Hatter.
• Judge Bruggink's opinion on remand and the order directing back pay may be found here.

See also

• United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
• United States District Court for the Central District of California

External links

• Search Google News for this topic
• United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
• Biography from the Federal Judicial Center

Footnotes

Political offices
Preceded by: NA-New Seat 104 Stat. 5089	Central District of California 1994–2000 Seat #25	Succeeded by: James Otero
Preceded by: Cecil F. Poole	Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 2000–2021	Succeeded by: Lucy H. Koh