Judicial Capacity: Are the Courts Ready & Able to Navigate Big Change?
Summary
In this episode of FEDtalk, Natalia Castro and Jason Briefel discuss major issues impacting the federal judiciary with guest Ben Robinson, Chair of the Federal Bar Association's Government Relations Committee. They cover topics such as congressional investment in the courts, the impact of increased caseloads, key issues for the Federal Bar Association, challenges in advocating for judicial resources, the impact of judicial vacancies, the perception vs reality of judicial politicization, the role of administrative tribunals, and favorite Supreme Court justices.
Takeaways
Congressional investment in the courts is crucial to ensure the federal judiciary has the resources it needs to handle increased caseloads.
The Federal Bar Association (FBA) top policy advocacy priorities include adequate funding and resources for the courts, increasing the number of judges, and measures to protect judges and the judiciary workforce.
Judicial vacancies can significantly impact the workload and capacity of the courts.
The perception of politicization in the judiciary is important and needs to be addressed to maintain public confidence in the courts and the rule of law.
Administrative tribunals play a role in addressing specific areas of law and can help alleviate the workload on traditional courts.
The Federal Bar Association supports the creation of immigration courts under Article 1 to improve efficiency and due process.
Chapters
00:00Introduction and Overview
01:01About the Federal Bar Association
03:14Congressional Investment in the Courts
06:19Impact of Increased Caseloads
11:32Key Issues for the Federal Bar Association
17:24Challenges in Advocating for Judicial Resources
23:32Impact of Judicial Vacancies
29:20Perception vs Reality of Judicial Politicization
34:25Role of Administrative Tribunals
43:24Favorite Supreme Court Justice
46:10Conclusion
-
Natalia Castro (00:01.533)
Hello and welcome to Fed Talk. My name's Natalia Castro from Shaw, Bransford and Roth. And we are here for the next episode in our season, the Federal Government in Flux, looking at some of the biggest issues impacting the three branches of government at a dynamic time in our nation's history. This episode will focus on major issues impacting the judiciary. And we are going to hear from a...
Jason Briefel (00:05.323)
and I'm Jason Breifel.
Natalia Castro (00:29.833)
practitioner who does a lot of work within the Federal Judiciary and who is also involved in the Federal Bar Association. So let me introduce our guest, Ben Robinson, who is chair of the Federal Bar Association's Government Relations Committee and a partner at the law firm of Holland and Knight. Welcome Ben. Thank you so much for joining us.
Ben Robinson (00:50.038)
Thank you, Natalia. Thank you, Jason. It's good to be here.
Natalia Castro (00:53.405)
To start us off, Ben, can you tell me a little bit about the Federal Bar Association and your role within the organization?
Ben Robinson (01:01.198)
Sure. So, the Federal Bar Association is a voluntary bar association that caters to the federal practitioner or user of the federal court system. We have approximately 15,000 members, most of whom are lawyers. There are roughly 2,000 federal judicial members of the Federal Bar Association. And our mission is to strengthen the federal legal system and administration of justice.
by serving the interests and the needs of the federal practitioner, both public and private, as well as the federal judiciary and the public it serves.
Natalia Castro (01:42.505)
That's so important. We often hear about all the state bar associations and the ABA. And can you tell me a little bit about what distinguishes FBA as a voluntary bar association from some of those bar associations that people might be more traditionally have heard of?
Ben Robinson (01:58.254)
Sure. So I'm a member of several bar associations. I primarily spend most of my civic or public interest participation with the Federal Bar Association. But as a practicing attorney in the state of Florida, I am a member of the Florida Bar, which is a mandatory bar association that I must join and continue to be a member in good standing in order to practice in the state courts here.
in the state of Florida. So there are numerous bar associations, some of which are voluntary, some of which are mandatory, and it sort of depends jurisdiction to jurisdiction what you find yourself.
Jason Briefel (02:44.286)
Yeah, it's really fascinating, Ben. My wife is an attorney and works for the government. You know, I went to law school in a state where there isn't that state requirement. And so she never had to do, you know, the state requirements. And I'm honestly not sure if any bar association is something that she has to do. But I think that those different organizations provide people opportunities to engage at the level that they're practicing. And for the FBA and the issues that we're talking about here in terms of judicial capacity.
We're really happy that you're able to join us today because the reality is Congress, you know, keeps pouring it on. We're passing new laws, particularly on the criminal side, but we really expanded the scope of federal law in the past several decades. And our first question for you as we dive into the conversation today is, has Congress provided the courts with the investment?
to match that expanded docket, that expanded remit within the context of federal law.
Ben Robinson (03:47.942)
That's a great question. I'll say I primarily practice in the area of civil litigation. So my interactions with criminal defendants and the criminal justice system are limited. But I have been employed by the judicial branch of the federal government and worked on criminal policy and procedural issues. I think it's a tough thing to quickly...
gather a sound bite that yes or no, the federal judiciary has what it needs or as much of what it needs to carry out its mission, particularly in the criminal context. As you mentioned, there's been an expansion of federal criminal laws and prosecutions over the last several decades and really since the founding of our republic. But one of the questions can be,
Is there enough money? Are there enough judges? There are so many different ways to slice and dice that and think about the numbers. One, I think, particularly useful metric, which again would vary at sort of the regional or district level is how much of our judicial resources are being devoted to criminal...
cases, and in particular, what percentage of a trial docket for a particular trial judge and the magistrate judges that support a U.S. district judge, what percentage of their trial docket is devoted to criminal trials and criminal cases versus civil cases? And I'm not sure there's a good answer of where it should be, but if it's being consumed
by criminal cases to the extent that civil cases are being delayed and justice is being denied, that civil cases are being referred to alternative adjudicatory venues or alternative dispute resolution, and increasing costs for civil litigants. I think a discussion needs to be had about whether the courts have enough resources to address the expansion of criminals.
Ben Robinson (06:15.75)
sentencing, charging, and trials.
Jason Briefel (06:15.906)
Yeah.
Natalia Castro (06:19.085)
Yeah, one of the interesting conversations that Jason and I have had a lot is within the context of assisting US attorneys. We work really closely with some associations representing AUSAs, and they kind of raise this issue very similar to the way you describe it, where previously there would be kind of in some of the larger offices maybe...
three people or a select number of people dedicated to compassionate release cases. But since the first step back, since some of these other compassionate release expansions during COVID and other times, we've seen offices need to dedicate and pull people from other sectors to work on those types of cases. These compassionate release, just one example of where we've seen significant growth in the law recently. And so I think you highlight the right point of
It's not just a question of, you know, what is on the judge's docket or something like that, but it's how are we diverting resources away from one place to put them into a new place? Whenever there is a new law, Congress passes, unless it provides the resources to handle that new law, they gotta be taken from somewhere. And so that idea of the potential for justice delayed or justice denied.
is very interesting and very important and why we wanted to have a conversation today about judicial capacity.
Ben Robinson (07:44.288)
Yeah, what I would add to that is that there are various measurements and one is not necessarily a silver bullet to understanding capacity and workload. And there have been increases in the...
budgeting and allocation of United States attorney, attorney billets, as I would call them, or slots for AUSAs over time. It doesn't necessarily track an increase in judgeships or an increase in funding for pretrial services or probation or other sort of ancillary aspects of the criminal.
Jason Briefel (08:13.11)
Yeah.
Ben Robinson (08:31.694)
trial process.
Jason Briefel (08:34.006)
Yeah, and you know, kind of just continuing on this line, you said there's, you know, there's this is complicated, as you said, this isn't a sound biteable answer. And there are different metrics. But I'm curious, you know, do courts have that data about the split of their docket and where their resources are going? How does that feed into discussions between the judiciary, you know, the Justice Department and other law enforcement agencies, and ultimately Congress about
Ben Robinson (08:37.416)
Thank you.
Jason Briefel (09:04.374)
what that right balance is. And I'm curious kind of how that conversation looks and if that data and information is there for people to start from.
Ben Robinson (09:14.21)
So for the audience member who's curious about caseload statistics, judicial workload, within the federal judicial branch, there is a government agency or office called the administrative office of the United States courts. And it's adjacent to the Capitol. They do a tremendous job of tracking and analyzing case judge district.
appellate court, all sorts of statistics. The data is there. The statisticians and researchers are there and work in conjunction with the Federal Judicial Center, both their education division and their research division. And the information is available. Again, what story does it tell is subject to some debate. I think good, healthy debate. And there are folks
who study this issue. A friend of mine, Professor Sarah Sundeal, comes to mind. She's a criminal law, criminal procedure professor at Duke Law School. And I think she has looked at some of these statistics and also said, what does this tell us? Does it tell us that too much of our federal resources are devoted to criminal law?
does it tell us that there's a need for more judgeships or more funding, more support with reentry, et cetera. And I think those are the important questions and discussions that we as a country have to have and certainly our elected officials.
Jason Briefel (11:02.838)
Yeah, absolutely. And I know one of the reasons that we designed this season of Fed Talk to look at the three different branches is asking that question, is everybody paying attention to how this shakes out? Because if we need to make changes, if we need to make investments, if we need to change up allocations, that can't happen overnight. And so whatever we can do to use that data to inform the way ahead sounds great. And I think that feeds into our next question for you here, which is, what are the?
You know, as you use that data and as you frame up the agenda of the Federal Bar Association through its Government Relations Committee, what are the key issues that the FBA is looking at and are there, you know, is capacity one of those key issues that you're looking at, judicial capacity to handle the workload?
Ben Robinson (13:28.27)
Sure. So the Federal Bar Association serves as a catalyst for communications between the bench and the bar, but also advocates for resources and to address problems that rise through our issues agenda and advocate for those issues on the Hill. So later in March, delegates from almost our 100.
nationwide chapters, we'll meet on the Hill, meet with their elected officials to discuss sort of the workload and capacity issues we're talking about here. And that is one of our policy priorities. We want to ensure that the courts and the judicial branch and those that support it have adequate funding. And that can be sort of the funding that keeps the lights on.
year to year that builds courthouses that fills judgeships and the support staff, whether it's clerks, courtroom deputies, probation and pretrial services, etc., but also that protects the judges. So, for example, a key issue that the Federal Bar Association has been persistent in advocating for is adequate funding to protect judges. We have all read of...
of stories in which family members and loved ones of federal and state judges have been the subject of horrific violence. And some of that has happened because judges personally identifying information is widely available. And of course, our personal information is ubiquitous and easy to find. But that's particularly concerning for federal judges and
and other judicial branch staff who are interacting with civil and criminal litigants who may be upset or may need other assistance and are a danger to the folks overseeing their cases. So the Federal Bar Association has been very proactive in advocating for not just legislation that would protect judges,
Ben Robinson (15:53.754)
that legislation so that the rubber hits the road. As well, when we talk about workload and capacity, the Federal Bar Association works closely with the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, with other judicial associations like the Federal Magistrate Judges Association or the Federal Judges Association, Bankruptcy
Ben Robinson (16:22.638)
their finger on the pulse of what judgeships are needed. And I'll say that virtually every time we are aligned with the judicial branch, with the AO and the Judicial Conference of the United States, ask of Congress. It's often a targeted and almost always a modest ask of what is needed in terms of judgeships. So there are committees.
of bean counters and judges alike who decide, we really need a dozen judges here. I think that the most recent ask was approximately 63 to 66 judgeships that are desperately needed to support the workload and capacity issues facing the federal courts. And we're hopeful that Congress will review some of the legislation, which is bipartisan in nature.
and consider adding those jet ships.
Jason Briefel (17:24.862)
Yeah, well, it sounds like, you know, two things, like there's some teamwork, some information sharing and the attempt to align between the frontline needs, you know, the judges, different members of the judiciary system, and you know, the agency that has that data. And you're bringing that to bear with Congress and trying to tell a story.
Ben Robinson (17:28.877)
Thank you.
Jason Briefel (17:48.91)
I also know that the bill that funds you all is one of the smallest appropriations bills out there, and so not a lot of room to grow headcount there. And so I think, you know, if judges may often be a recommendation or the answer, is Congress listening when you come with those monos tasks or to the extent that they have not been, what is stopping these recommendations from gaining traction?
Ben Robinson (18:15.702)
That's a great question. So I think Congress listens. I think when the Federal Bar Association in particular shows up on the Hill and highlights some of these issues, we're treated as a plain dealer and trusted partner. We are a nonpartisan organization. And I think they are listening. However,
As you mentioned, we are rounding error. And that's hard to grab attention sometimes when there are other important policy priorities confronting Congress or distracting Congress. And it would be inaccurate for me to say we're being ignored. But this is a difficult issue, right? Let's take the addition of...
of dozens of additional judgeships. It's hard for either major political party to say, you know what, we desperately need these judgeships and we're gonna give the current president the power to nominate and confirm these 60 additional judgeships. So again, I think that thoughtful,
elected officials are listening and saying, okay, well, how can we make this a jump ball? Let's stagger the introduction of these judgeships arbitrarily so that everyone knows what's in play and we can meet the needs of the judicial branch.
Jason Briefel (20:04.558)
That sounds like a prudent compromise, or at least a prudent way to try to find the way ahead. You know, politics pervade what we do here, but at the end of the day, the system has to work, or else it engenders distrust in the system.
Natalia Castro (20:04.745)
I think it's...
Ben Robinson (20:15.159)
That's right.
And yet, I don't think, my facts could be slightly off, but I don't think there has been a substantial addition of judgeships since about 2002, and that was the addition of 12 judgeships. So, there are various ways to look at whether justice is being done, and one of those will be how many Article III judges do we have in chambers and...
Jason Briefel (20:31.542)
Wow.
Ben Robinson (20:46.958)
and with their butts in the chair judging cases and trying cases. It's easy to look at statistics such as case filings or case terminations, case aging, how long cases have been around, but I think a case can be made that it's important that our judges judge.
Natalia Castro (21:10.501)
It's interesting that there haven't been that many new or haven't been any potentially new judges since the kind of 2002 time. It is interesting to me because I think since then there has been so much more emphasis on getting judges confirmed in connection with the president, right? Like, so the president has, we've seen President Trump in a lot of ways made the fact that he got so many judges on the bench.
from the Supreme Court down to the district courts, a real point in his campaigns and his promoting his presidency. I think there's been a lot more focus on the judiciary over the last couple of decades. And so I'm unfortunately not surprised that has added an additional political lens to this debate and made it harder for us to accept new judges when there is a potential that it would be benefiting one party over another.
I think we're gonna talk a little bit later in the show about kind of the perception versus reality of the politicization of the judiciary. But I think it is a little hard to separate that conversation from this one when people view judges as an actor of the person who nominated them, the idea of adding judges, even staggered through different presidencies can seem really scary to people. So I think...
from a 10,000 foot level, that conversation about what politics looks like in the judiciary and wanting judges to judge, definitely clouds the debate a little bit and has made it harder for Congress to make traction on some of these issues.
One thing I want to touch on is judicial vacancies. So, you know, as I just mentioned, there has been a lot more interest on getting judges confirmed, but at the same time, there seems to always be new vacancies and vacancies on the bench, some longstanding, some newer. So I'm curious about how judicial vacancies impact these capacity issues.
Natalia Castro (23:20.885)
And if you've noticed any trends in terms of vacancies, particularly as some of these conversations around politics and the judiciary get a little bit more difficult.
Ben Robinson (23:32.201)
Yes, we keep close tabs on vacancies, confirmations, nominations through the GRC at the Federal Bar Association, and vacancies affect different regions and districts very differently.
It depends on the party in control of the Senate seats in a particular state and whether those match or do not match with the current president.
Ben Robinson (24:07.686)
It depends on when a judge takes leave or retires, takes senior status. I think judges want to help their colleagues, particularly when they know their fellow judges in the district have an overwhelming caseload. The decision may be made not to retire because a judgeship may not be filled.
quickly, but perhaps he or she takes senior status so that they can continue assisting in resolving cases and lightening the load for their colleagues while they await the nomination and hopefully confirmation of qualified replacement judges. One interesting statistic that the administrative office of the United States courts tracks is the
vacant judgeship months, taking into account the number of cases filed, the type of case, the number of judgeships available, for example, in the district courts, and whether a substantial body of unconfirmed or unfilled judgeships contributes to a drag on judicial and judicial branch efficiency. I think it does and for
2023, for example, I believe the vacant judgeship months was approximately 600. So that's going to affect the number of cases you can resolve, whether it's criminal, civil bankruptcy or so forth.
Jason Briefel (25:45.208)
Wow.
Natalia Castro (25:52.265)
Absolutely, and when you're already kind of on the low end regarding the number of district courts and district court judges in the system, and so there's already kind of a step behind the judiciary is one could say, then when you add this additional layer of vacancies, that only exacerbates the problem and makes those capacity issues more, more tight. I really am interested in that.
you raised about senior judges and how senior judges can play a role in smoothing that transition. I think that is an important insight and something that, you know, Congress can almost think more about, like how does, and I'm not sure if the senior judgeships are a congressionally.
mandated or if that's statutory or if that's something that's kind of done culturally within the judiciary. But I do think it is an interesting point to think about is how we can utilize senior judges to ease up some of those caseload problems. I mean, we think about back in early US history when Supreme Court justices rode circuit and we're going around acting as circuit court judges when it was needed. And I think
that idea of how we can tap into the incredible expertise of judges who have been on the bench for a long time in order to help with these issues. There are a lot of unique ways that Congress can address these issues and maybe part of the problem is a lack of creativity.
Ben Robinson (27:22.651)
That's correct. But I do want to point out that senior status judges, and this is just my particular reaction, they strike me as akin to the working mom. And occasionally I've seen incredibly talented full-time attorneys who want to raise a family and perhaps...
a mother, for example, wants to go part-time. Well, I've seen a lot of part-time lawyers who end up being paid part-time, but working close to full-time. And that's the reality for our senior status judges. They end up taking in their 70s and 80s, a significant caseload and...
Of course, they're not obligated to, but they're human beings and they care, they care about justice and they care about their colleagues and the parties before them. So they stay on and continue to work while these judgeships that should be filled, unfortunately, are not.
Natalia Castro (28:36.005)
Yeah, and that has a huge impact on them as individuals too. You know, a lot of you go into senior status because you think you're making that transition to retirement and that, as you rightly point out, can be a much heavier load than initially anticipated. I wanna shift this conversation a bit toward the public pressures that the judiciary faces.
With several high profile decisions coming out of what some have described as an ideologically conservative court over the last few terms, are the concerns about politicization of the court more perception or reality from your perspective?
Ben Robinson (29:20.222)
I'm not sure it matters whether it's perception or reality because it's there and it's important. And I believe that if there's a perception politicization of the Supreme Court in particular, but the judicial branch at large, that's important. And it needs to be considered. It needs to be...
at the top of a list of considerations about the smooth functioning of government, and particularly of a co-equal branch. There are a lot of criticisms directed at our legislative branch, and whether it's broken, whether it can accomplish its work, and should there be structural or other reforms or measures so that the Congress can carry out its duties.
Well, the same is true of the courts. And if they're perceived as a political tool, that is a problem. And if they are perceived as not providing justice and justice in equal measure to all, that is a problem. So I think it would be easy to dismiss public polls or perception, but...
but that is important and I think it does stay on the minds of the Judicial Conference, the AO, and all who serve the federal judicial branch.
Natalia Castro (31:05.745)
Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head there with saying it really just, it doesn't matter. It's a reality and that's the, you know, it's how people feel and therefore it matters. It reminds me of, oh, I wanna say it was Hamilton in one of the Federalist Papers where he says, the judiciary is the least dangerous branch because it has neither force nor will, just judgment. And it really emphasizes the fact that the judiciary,
It doesn't have the power to send an army out to enforce its decisions. Um, it doesn't have the power to really force people into compliance. It relies on the trust, respect, and, um, that are kind of public perception of the judiciary as making good, solid judgments. And so when the judiciary has these problems in terms of perceptions, it impacts their ability.
to have judgments that people listen to.
Ben Robinson (32:05.83)
I agree, I agree.
Jason Briefel (32:33.842)
Um, and we are almost, almost at the end so we can let you go in a few minutes, Ben. Um, you know, in my mind, I just, just one thing that I would add to connect what you and Natalia were just talking about back with one of your FBA priority issues that you talked about earlier around, um, funding the safety enhancements for members of the judiciary. Um, you know, that's something that we've seen writ large, you know, against the tax against public servants at all levels.
certainly federal civil servants, including federal judges. And I just draw that connection to this issue that we're talking about public confidence in our institutions. And, you know, if we're gonna enable and allow people kind of to talk trash in society in the way that is happening now, that is gonna be what it is, but we've got to help protect people, good people who are just trying to do their job. Otherwise we're in a race to the bottom and those jobs are gonna be increasingly hard to fill.
with good people into the future. And that all matters too. You know, we need to be able to make judgments. We need to have a fair society that's governed by the rule of law.
So thank you for your advocacy around those issues.
Ben Robinson (33:50.414)
Absolutely, absolutely.
Natalia Castro (33:57.309)
So, okay, Ben, so one of the areas where the judiciary has faced some increased scrutiny recently, particularly by the Supreme Court itself, is in this idea of administrative tribunals. We often hear about them in the context of
Congress creating a specialized court that is not housed within the judiciary, but rather a federal agency or kind of a quasi-judicial role. And some courts and commentators have questioned whether or not there should be any adjudication outside of an Article III court.
Ben Robinson (34:48.53)
Thank you.
Natalia Castro (34:49.945)
And this is something that FBA, I think, has thought about a little bit, particularly within the context of immigration courts. And so I'm curious if you can explain a little bit more about FBA's position on that and how these administrative courts play a role in addressing some of the judicial capacity issues that the judiciary faces.
Ben Robinson (35:11.618)
Well, there's a lot to unpack there. I think it implicates a few of the things we've already talked about, which is politicization of jurisprudence and judging and administering the law. It hits on workload and capacity. A United States that does not have administrative tribunals would not function.
Well, I'm thinking in particular of some of our Article 1 courts, of our bankruptcy judges, the critical work that federal magistrate judges contribute to disposing of cases, to the Court of Claims and of Veterans Affairs, and of course, immigration. And I think that a discussion of...
non Article 3 adjudications and administrative tribunals naturally implicates a discussion about the administration of our immigration system. And presently, the immigration courts are housed within the Department of Justice, the executive branch. There's a policy priority.
adopted by the Federal Bar Association to encourage Congress to consider the creation and administration of immigration courts under Article 1. That would be within the judicial branch, but would not require Article 3 judgeships. And it's important to point out that
the implementation would be focused on procedure and structure rather than immigration policy. And the Federal Bar Association is not weighing in on a particular administration or political party's approach to immigration policy, but rather how we move immigration matters from initiation to resolution.
Ben Robinson (37:35.658)
smoothly and cost effectively.
Natalia Castro (37:43.014)
I think you raise an important point here about balance and this idea of balancing actual and perceived political issues and potentially viewing a court that's like the immigration courts that are inside of DOJ as potentially having too much of a policy or political lens with the need to balance resources and burdens imposed on the judiciary.
It is true that I cannot see a world, at least not today, where every administrative tribunal is just pushed, no longer exists and is pushed into the judiciary, especially given some of the vacancies and issues related to that we have. But it is all about striking a right balance and making sure that these courts can serve the people who need them while also being faithful to our constitutional structure and the separation of powers.
Ben Robinson (38:37.71)
That's right. Let's tie this back to our discussion of the expanded scope of criminal laws and judicial resources dedicated to criminal cases. If administrative tribunals writ large, or poof, disappeared, the resources that would need to be devoted to traditional courts, if you will,
within our federal system would have to increase. It kind of is staggering to think about the resources that would be needed. But as well, there are types of cases that have to yield to others. And when we're talking about the importance of administrative tribunals, having one's matter considered
by the EEOC or administrative requirements exhausted prior to seeking relief in a United States district court. That's really important because the Criminal Justice Act requires that certain deadlines be met and certain types of proceedings and cases be prioritized so that we can comply with due process in the Constitution.
Jason Briefel (40:07.426)
So just to, I guess, put a finer point and answer a question that I had in my mind as you both were talking about, especially the immigration courts function, which is currently part of the Department of Justice. If that moved over, say, into the federal courts, in the position that the FBA has taken in the, I presume there's a bill that you might have supported.
Would the funding that currently is going into the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Bill be shifted over into the APPROPS accounts that are covering the federal judiciary? If that's true, does that probably it complicates things, but it also expands your aperture for pulling in policymakers whose hands touch this in one way or another?
Ben Robinson (40:57.638)
That's a great question, and I am not an approach expert, but I think there would probably need to be some hard discussions about what moves and what stays and why. But this has been done before. The United States Tax Court, I think, may have resided in the executive branch for a period. And so there is precedent for...
alleviating the politics by moving a judging body into the judicial branch.
Jason Briefel (41:43.274)
Yeah, so we should look to history for some of those lessons. Got it, love it.
Natalia Castro (41:47.889)
Yeah, I was about to say, it's always, nothing is ever quite as novel as we think it is. You're right, there was a similar issue with the tax court back in the day. And I do think it is interesting balancing the need for this kind of really specialized knowledge and the importance of the due process requirements, as you mentioned. And Jason, to your point,
Jason Briefel (41:53.864)
Thank you.
Natalia Castro (42:14.473)
I think there would have to be some reshuffling on the appropriations end. And I think that's why organizations like FBA are so critical because a lot of times Congress thinks of the end goal, but doesn't always think of every step needed and how to get there. And so having practitioners with real experience in these fields guide them along the way is critical and makes for better policy at the end of the day, I think.
Jason Briefel (42:40.698)
Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. Ben Robinson, we've really appreciated having you here with us to talk about your work with the Federal Bar Association and your Government Relations Committee. It'll be interesting to see how these issues play out, you know, over the next years and months. We wish you and your team on your upcoming fly in success and helping lawmakers to understand these really complicated issues.
Before we send you away, we like to end Fed Talk here with a fun question with our guests. So our question for you today is, who is your favorite Supreme Court justice in United States history and why?
Ben Robinson (43:24.287)
That is a fun question. I guess it's hard to pick one, right? There are many amazing Supreme Court justices. I'm lucky to have been able to meet many of the sitting justices, as well as some retired and deceased justices. Rather than focus on particular jurisprudence or...
or certain courts, I'm going to give you a different answer. I would like to have had dinner with William O. Douglas, and he is perhaps the most liberal justice described by some and prolific writer. But the reason I would like to meet him and would have liked to have had dinner with him is because he impacted my life for a decade in such a...
tangible way. He was a naturalist and an avid hiker and marshaled dozens of folks to take a full-length hike of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal towpath, when it was threatened with destruction to pave it over and provide yet another highway into our nation's capital.
I had the pleasure of riding my bicycle to and from work along the towpath for about 10 years. And it was so important and such a wonderful experience for me. And I think I have him in part to thank for that as well as the National Park Service. So preserving that treasure through the advocacy of a lawyer and Supreme Court justice makes me
for reasons other than the typical answer to this question, want to have met him.
Jason Briefel (45:21.438)
I love that answer so much. That's why we like that.
Natalia Castro (45:23.009)
Yeah, that's a great answer because so much of what we talk about is so like big picture and like, you know, the government from the 10,000 foot level. But what you've just done is really bring it back down to the individual person. And it's a great reminder that so much of what these justices do, no matter how kind of far removed it feels, actually do impact the lives of people every single day. And that's why these conversations are so important because
you know, whether it's something like what you just described or any of the other issues that the judiciary faces, there are real people at the other end. There are people on both sides of that V who this is everything to them. So I think that was a really awesome answer. We appreciate that.
Ben Robinson (46:10.434)
Thank you. Well, it's been a pleasure to be with you. Thanks for having me.
Natalia Castro (46:14.973)
Thank you so much, Ben Robinson, Chair of the Federal Bar Association's Government Relations Committee and a partner at the law firm of Holland and Knight. Thank you for joining us today on Fed Talk and thank all of you for listening. We will be back in just a couple episodes. We'll have a lot more to talk about with the Judiciary, Congress and the Executive Branch. So stay tuned and we look forward to hearing from you next time.
