United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals
Judgeships
Posts: 12
Judges: 12
Vacancies: 0
Judges
Chief: Jerome Holmes
Active judges: Robert Bacharach, Joel Carson, Allison Eid, Richard Federico, Harris Hartz, Jerome Holmes, Scott Matheson, Carolyn McHugh, Nancy Moritz, Gregory Alan Phillips, Veronica Rossman, Timothy Tymkovich Senior judges: Stephen Anderson, Bobby Baldock, Mary Briscoe, Wade Brorby, David Ebel, Paul Kelly, Carlos F. Lucero, Michael R. Murphy, Terrence O'Brien, John Porfilio, Stephanie Seymour

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is a federal appellate court with appellate jurisdiction. It hears appeals from all of the circuit courts within its jurisdiction and its rulings may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Appeals are heard in the Byron White U.S. Courthouse in Denver.

One judge from the Tenth Circuit has served on the Supreme Court of the United States. Neil Gorsuch was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2017 by Donald Trump (R).

This page contains the following information on the Tenth Circuit.

• An overview of the court's jurisdiction
• A list of the court's active and senior judges
• A list of the court's current vacancies
• A brief history of the court
• Case reversal statistics by the Supreme Court of the United States
• Noteworthy cases heard by the court
• A list of the court's former judges
• Information about U.S. Courts of Appeals
• Where the court is located

Vacancies

See also: Current federal judicial vacancies

There are no current vacancies on the Tenth Circuit, out of the court's 12 judicial positions.

Pending nominations

There are no pending nominees for this court.

Active judges

Article III judges

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Harris Hartz	George W. Bush (R)	December 10, 2001 -	Harvard College, 1967	Harvard Law School, 1972
Timothy Tymkovich	George W. Bush (R)	April 1, 2003 -	Colorado College, 1979	University of Colorado School of Law, 1982
Jerome Holmes	George W. Bush (R)	August 9, 2006 -	Wake Forest University, 1983	Georgetown University Law Center, 1988
Scott Matheson	Barack Obama (D)	December 27, 2010 -	Stanford University, 1975	Yale Law School, 1980
Robert Bacharach	Barack Obama (D)	February 28, 2013 -	University of Oklahoma, 1981	University of Washington School of Law, 1985
Gregory Alan Phillips	Barack Obama (D)	July 9, 2013 -	University of Wyoming, 1983	University of Wyoming College of Law, 1987
Carolyn McHugh	Barack Obama (D)	March 14, 2014 -	University of Utah, 1978	University of Utah College of Law, 1982
Nancy Moritz	Barack Obama (D)	July 29, 2014 -	Washburn University, 1982	Washburn Law School, 1985
Allison Eid	Donald Trump (R)	November 3, 2017 -	Stanford University, 1987	University of Chicago Law School, 1991
Joel Carson	Donald Trump (R)	May 17, 2018 -	Texas Tech University, 1994	University of New Mexico School of Law, 1997
Veronica Rossman	Joe Biden (D)	September 28, 2021 -	Columbia University, 1993	University of California, Hastings College of the Law, 1997
Richard Federico	Joe Biden (D)	December 13, 2023 -	Indiana University, 1999	University of Kansas School of Law, 2002

Active Article III judges by appointing political party

Below is a display of 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.

• Democrat appointed: 7
• Republican appointed: 5

Senior judges

Senior status is a classification for federal judges at all levels who are semi-retired. Senior judges are Article III judges who, having met eligibility through age and service requirements, continue to serve on federal courts while typically hearing a reduced number of cases. Some senior judges, however, elect to retain a full caseload after taking senior status. According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, senior judges "typically handle about 15 percent of the federal courts' workload annually." The date listed under assumed office in the table below reflects the date that the judge took senior status.

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
John Porfilio	Ronald Reagan (R)	October 15, 1999 -	University of Denver, 1956	University of Denver College of Law, 1959
Stephen Anderson	Ronald Reagan (R)	January 1, 2000 -		University of Utah School of Law, 1960
Bobby Baldock	Ronald Reagan (R)	January 26, 2001 -	New Mexico Military Institute, 1956	University of Arizona College of Law, 1960
Wade Brorby	Ronald Reagan (R)	May 25, 2001 -	University of Wyoming, 1956	University of Wyoming College of Law, 1958
Stephanie Seymour	Jimmy Carter (D)	October 16, 2005 -	Smith College, 1962	Harvard Law School, 1965
David Ebel	Ronald Reagan (R)	January 16, 2006 -	Northwestern University, 1962	University of Michigan Law School, 1965
Michael R. Murphy	Bill Clinton (D)	December 31, 2012 -	Creighton University, 1969	University of Wyoming College of Law, 1972
Terrence O'Brien	George W. Bush (R)	April 30, 2013 -	University of Wyoming, 1965	University of Wyoming College of Law, 1972
Paul Kelly	George H.W. Bush (R)	December 31, 2017 -	University of Notre Dame, 1963	Fordham University School of Law, 1967
Carlos F. Lucero	Bill Clinton (D)	February 1, 2021 -	Adams State College, 1961	George Washington University Law Center, 1964
Mary Briscoe	Bill Clinton (D)	March 15, 2021 -	University of Kansas, 1969	University of Kansas, School of Law, 1973

Senior judges by appointing political party

Below is a display of 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.

• Democrat appointed: 4
• Republican appointed: 7

Former chief judges

In order to qualify for the office of chief judge in an Article III circuit or district court, or on the United 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.

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.

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.

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.

On the United States Court of Federal Claims, the chief judge is selected by the president 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.

Mary Briscoe - (2010 - 2015) Robert Henry - (2008-2010) Deanell Tacha - (2001-2007) Stephanie Seymour - (1994-2000) Monroe McKay - (1991-1993) William Holloway - (1984-1991)

Oliver Seth - (1977-1984) David Thomas Lewis - (1970-1977) Alfred Murrah - (1959-1970) Sam Gilbert Bratton - (1956-1959) Orie Leon Phillips - (1948-1956) Timothy Tymkovich - (2015-2022)

Former judges

To learn more about the judges of the Tenth Circuit, see former federal judges of the Tenth Circuit.

Jurisdiction

Map of the Tenth Circuit. Click on a district to find out more about it.

The Tenth Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over cases heard in one of its subsidiary districts. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law. Appeals of rulings by the Tenth Circuit are petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Neil Gorsuch is the circuit justice for the Tenth Circuit.

The United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit has jurisdiction over the United States district courts in the following federal judicial districts:

• District of Colorado
• District of Kansas
• District of New Mexico
• Eastern District of Oklahoma
• Northern District of Oklahoma
• Western District of Oklahoma
• District of Utah
• District of Wyoming

Caseloads

This section contains court management statistics dating back to 2010. It was last updated in August 2023.

Click [show] below for more information on caseload terms and definitions.

Caseload statistics explanation
Term	Explanation
Cases filed and terminated	The number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated or decided by the court in a calendar year. The chart below reflects the table columns Cases filed and Cases terminated.
Average time from filing to disposition	The 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 columns Median time (Criminal) and Median time (Civil).
Starting case load	The number of cases pending from the previous calendar year.
Cases filed	The number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated in a calendar year.
Cases terminated	The total number of civil and criminal lawsuits decided by the court in a calendar year.
Remaining cases	The 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 cases	The number and percent of civil cases that were filed more than three years before the end of the given calendar year.
Vacant posts	The number of months during the year an authorized judgeship was vacant.
Trial/Post	The 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 Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit caseload stats, 2010-2022
2010	2,225	2,375	1,341	242	102	82	12	9	18	9
2011	2,294	2,250	1,372	263	123	85	12	9	18	9
2012	2,156	2,176	1,353	322	62	105	12	8	24	8
2013	2,071	2,155	1,264	314	58	106	12	10	28	8
2014	1,964	2,058	1,171	295	51	101	12	10	6	8
2015	1,975	1,888	1,259	264	40	86	12	8	0	8
2016	2,281	2,256	1,288	346	46	118	12	8	0	6
2017	1,861	1,914	1,231	284	42	96	12	6	9	8
2018	1,788	1,805	1,214	252	39	85	12	6	12	9
2019	1,792	1,775	1,231	240	40	79	12	7	0	10
2020	1,700	1,725	1,206	244	35	81	12	7	0	10
2021	1,588	1,697	1,096	218	23	72	12	8	17	10
2022	1,647	1,622	1,123	218	32	73	12	7	12	9
Average	1,949	1,977	1,242	269	53	90	12	8	11	9

History

Court history

The Tenth Circuit was established on February 28, 1929, under Tenth Circuit Reorganization Act of 1929, which broke the then-Eighth Circuit into the Eighth Circuit and the Tenth Circuit. All of the judges who resided in the newly created Tenth Circuit were transferred to the new appellate court. Over time, eight additional seats were added to the circuit, resulting in a total of 12 seats. The court's current jurisdiction contains 560,625 square miles or roughly 20% of the total U.S. landmass. For a full history of the Tenth Circuit, please see the Tenth Judicial Circuit Historical Society's Official website.

Judicial posts

The following table highlights the development of judicial posts for the Tenth Circuit:

Year	Statute	Total Seats
February 28, 1929	45 Stat. 1346	4
August 3, 1949	63 Stat. 493	5
May 19, 1961	75 Stat. 80	6
June 18, 1968	82 Stat. 184	7
October 20, 1978	92 Stat. 1629	8
July 10, 1984	98 Stat. 333	10
December 1, 1990	104 Stat. 5089	12

Reversal rate

See also: SCOTUS case reversal rates (2007 - Present)

Since 2007, SCOTUS has released opinions in 1,188 cases. Of those, it reversed a lower court decision 847 times (71.3 percent) while affirming a lower court decision 332 times (27.9 percent).

In that time period, SCOTUS has decided 44 cases originating from the Tenth Circuit, affirming in 16 cases and reversing in 28 cases, for a reversal rate of 63.6 percent. At the end of the 2022 term, the Tenth Circuit had the fourth-lowest reversal rate of all the federal appeals courts.

Noteworthy cases

The following were noteworthy cases heard before this court.

• States cannot require citizenship documents to register to vote (2014)

Click for summary→

On November 10, 2014, the Tenth Circuit struck down Kansas and Arizona laws requiring individuals to show citizenship documents when registering to vote. The ruling was an affirmation of action taken by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which blocked the states from requiring those documents and led both states to sue in federal court. The federal court found that the agency exceeded its authority in blocking the states from requiring citizenship documents. Th ethree-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit, consisting of Judges Jerome Holmes, Carlos Lucero and Gregory Alan Phillips, said that the states lacked the authority to require the federal government to include citizenship documents as a requirement on the voter registration form, which the states argued the agency had to do in compliance with the states’ own laws. Further, Judge Lucero, writing for the panel, said that the states failed to show that requiring proof of citizenship decreased fraudulent voting. Articles: Courthouse News, "Citizenship-Proof Rules in Kansas and Arizona for Registered Voters Struck Down," November 10, 2014 Election Law Blog, "Breaking: 10th Circuit, in Major Voting Case, Rejects Kansas and Arizona Citizenship Proof Requirement," November 7, 2014

• Utah same-sex marriage ruling upheld (2014)      Judge(s):Paul Kelly, Carlos Lucero and Jerome Holmes (Kitchen v. Herbert, 13-4178)	Click for summary→
Judge Carlos Lucero wrote the opinion in the appeal of Kitchen v. Herbert, a case that involved a same-sex marriage in Utah. The Tenth Circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of District of Utah's ruling that ended the ban on same-sex marriage on the grounds that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. Judge Lucero wrote and Jerome Holmes concurred: “ In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny. ” Judge Paul Kelly dissented on the point that marriage was a fundamental right. He wrote: “ If the States are the laboratories of democracy, requiring every state to recognize same-gender unions—contrary to the views of its electorate and representatives—turns the notion of a limited national government on its head. Marriage is an important social institution commonly understood to protect this and future generations. That states sincerely differ about the best way to do this (including whether to extend marriage to same-gender couples) is inevitable. ”

• Tenth Circuit refuses stay on injunction against online streaming company Aero (2014)

Click for summary→

Aereo, a company that retransmits television signals to subscribers, was enjoined by federal Judge Dale Kimball from operating in six states in February 2014. Judge Kimball found that Aereo was “indistinguishable” from a cable provider and should have the proper licenses necessary to stream broadcast network signals to subscribers. The injunction covered six states: Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Kansas, and Oklahoma. The company sought to have the injunction lifted with a preliminary stay until after trial by appealing to the Tenth Circuit. Judges Mary Briscoe and Robert Bacharach, the majority of a three-judge panel, refused to lift the injunction, stating that Aereo did not sufficiently show that it would likely succeed at trial, one of the requirements to order a stay. Further, the Tenth Circuit judges found no other factors that weighed in favor of staying the injunction. Judge Harris Hartz dissented from the majority. Articles: Courthouse News, "Six-State Ban Against Aereo Upheld on Appeal," March 10, 2014 Law 360, "Aereo Loses Bid To Stop Utah Judge's 10th Circ. Injunction," March 7, 2014

• Horse slaughterhouses may reopen prior to resolution of appeal (2013)      Judge(s):Gregory Alan Phillips and David Ebel (Front Range Equine Rescue, et al v. Vilsack, et al, 13-2187)	Click for summary→
On December 13, 2013, Judges Gregory Alan Phillips and David Ebel of the Tenth Circuit denied an emergency motion filed by animal rights groups for an injunction seeking to halt horse slaughterhouses from resuming operations for the first time since 2007. Plaintiffs requested a stay on those activities pending the final resolution of their appeal but "failed to meet their burden," according to the judges' decision. In the underlying case, animal rights groups sought to prevent the slaughter of horses in New Mexico, Missouri, and Iowa, claiming that the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued inspection permits to three slaughterhouses but failed to prepare various documents essential to determining the environmental impact of their intended operations, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act. Chief Judge Christina Armijo of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico temporarily enjoined the slaughter of horses while considering the case but later dismissed the proceedings with prejudice. The plaintiff animal rights groups appealed to the Tenth Circuit, and on November 5, 2013, the appeals court issued a temporary stay of Judge Armijo's decision pending further review. About one month later, Judges Phillips and Ebel lifted that stay, citing the plaintiffs' likelihood of success in the final resolution of their appeal, making way for horse slaughterhouses to begin operations.

• Court sides with Abercrombie in religious discrimination case (2013)      Judge(s):Paul Kelly, David Ebel, and Jerome Holmes (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 11-5110)	Click for summary→
On October 1, 2013, the Tenth Circuit vacated a trial court summary judgment ruling in a suit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of a Muslim job applicant after the clothing store Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F) declined to hire her because she wore a headscarf. Judge Jerome Holmes wrote for the majority, joined by Judge Paul Kelly. Judge David Ebel wrote separately, concurring in part and dissenting in part. In the underlying case, the plaintiff Samantha Elauf interviewed for a job at A&F while wearing a religious headscarf but did not specifically inform her interviewer that she wore it for a religious purpose. The interviewer assumed that it was worn for a religious purpose. Elauf was not hired because her headscarf violated A&F's dress code. In the ruling, Holmes said that the trial court's decision was erroneous because there could be no religious discrimination without notification of the need for a religious accommodation. Here, because Elauf failed to tell her interviewer that she would need accommodation for her religious headscarf, the EEOC would not have been unable to conclusively establish that A&F had actual notice of her religious needs. In his separate opinion, Ebel agreed that the trial court's decision was incorrect but argued that the question of discrimination should have been sent to a jury. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling in October 2015, finding that accommodation was not the issue but rather if Elauf's headscarf was a "motivating factor" in deciding against hiring her. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the 8-1 majority, " “[A]n employer who acts with the motive of avoiding accommodation may violate [the law] even if he has no more than an unsubstantiated suspicion that accommodation would be needed.”

Before the U.S. Supreme Court

This section focuses on cases the U.S. Supreme Court heard that originated in this court. To suggest cases we should cover here, email us.

2023-2024 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024

The following case was scheduled for argument before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2023-2024 term.

2023-2024 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 10th Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Office of the United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC	Ketanji Brown Jackson	reversed and remanded	6-3

2022-2023 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023

The following cases were scheduled for argument before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2022-2023 term.

2022-2023 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 10th Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis	Neil Gorsuch	reversed	6-3
Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc.	Samuel Alito	vacated and remanded	9-0

2021-2022 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022

The following cases were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2021-2022 term.

2021-2022 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 10th Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Denezpi v. United States	Amy Coney Barrett	affirmed	6-3

2020-2021 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

The following cases were scheduled for argument before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2020-2021 term.

2020-2021 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 10th Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Torres v. Madrid	John Roberts	vacated and remanded	5-3
Carr v. Saul (Consolidated with Davis v. Saul)	Sonia Sotomayor	reversed and remanded	9-0
HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Association	Neil Gorsuch	reversed	6-3

2019-2020 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2019-2020

The following cases were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2019-2020 term.

2019-2020 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 10th Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Sharp v. Murphy	Per curiam	affirmed	NA
Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation	Neil Gorsuch	vacated and remanded	9-0
Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez	Elena Kagan	affirmed	9-0
Colorado Department of State v. Baca	Per curiam	reversed	8-0

Federal courthouse

The Tenth Circuit is located in the Byron White U.S. Courthouse in Denver. The courthouse was built between 1910 and 1916 replacing a previous building. The exterior of the building uses local Colorado Yule marble, the same material used on the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. Originally, the building held all of the federal agencies located in Denver. Over time, as the federal agencies grew, the building came to be occupied by only the Post Office. The building was expanded and renovated in 1994 to rehouse the federal courthouse, with the current value of the building estimated at $200 million.

About United States Court of Appeals

The United States courts of appeals (or circuit courts) are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal courts. The court of appeals was originally created in 1891 and has grown to include thirteen courts.

A court of appeals decides appeals from any of the district courts that are in its federal judicial circuit. The appeals courts also can hear appeals from some administrative agencies. Decisions of the federal appeals courts can, in turn, be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

There are thirteen United States courts of appeals. In addition, there are other federal courts (such as the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which hears appeals in court-martial cases) that have "Court of Appeals" in their titles.

The eleven "numbered" circuits and the D.C. Circuit are defined by geography. The thirteenth court of appeal is the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This court has nationwide jurisdiction over certain types of appeals based on what the underlying legal case is about.

All of the courts of appeals also hear appeals from some administrative agency decisions and rulemaking. The largest share of this type of case is heard by the D.C. Circuit. The Federal Circuit hears appeals from specialized trial courts, primarily the Court of International Trade and the Court of Federal Claims, as well as appeals from the district courts in patent cases and certain other specialized matters.

Federal circuit court judges are appointed for life. They are paid approximately $179,500 annually. At the age of 65, a federal judge may choose to retire with his or her full salary. Judges may also choose to go on senior status at age 65, if they have served actively for 15 years.

Appointments by president

The chart below shows the number of appeals court judges confirmed by the U.S. Senate through July 1 of the fourth year of each president's term in office. At this point in the term, President Trump had the most appeals court appointments with 53.

Judges by circuit

See also: Judicial vacancies in federal courts

The table below displays the number of judges in each circuit and indicates how many were appointed by presidents from each major political party. It also includes the number of vacancies on a circuit and how many pending nominations for that circuit are before the United States Senate. The table can be sorted by clicking the column headers above the line. It is updated every Monday.

See also

• Tenth Circuit Reorganization Act of 1929
• Federal courts
• Federal judge
• United States Court of Appeals
• District of Colorado
• District of Kansas
• District of New Mexico
• Eastern District of Oklahoma
• Northern District of Oklahoma
• Western District of Oklahoma
• District of Utah
• District of Wyoming

External links

• Search Google News for this topic
• United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Judges of the Tenth Circuit
• Published Opinions