United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Third Circuit
Judgeships
Posts: 22
Judges: 22
Vacancies: 0
Judges
Chief: Wendy Beetlestone
Active judges: Wendy Beetlestone, Mary Kay Costello, Paul Diamond, John Gallagher, Mitchell Goldberg, Catherine Henry, Kelley Hodge, Mark A. Kearney, Chad F. Kenney Sr., Joseph F. Leeson Jr., Karen Marston, Gerald Austin McHugh Jr., John Frank Murphy, Gerald J. Pappert, Mia Roberts Perez, Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro, Juan Sanchez, Jeffrey L. Schmehl, Kai Scott, Gail Weilheimer, Joshua Wolson, John M. Younge Senior judges: Harvey Bartle, Michael Baylson, Anita Brody, Ronald Buckwalter, Legrome Davis, Jan DuBois, Darnell Jones, Robert Kelly, John Padova Sr., Eduardo Robreno, Cynthia Rufe, Timothy J. Savage, Berle Schiller, Joel Slomsky, Richard Barclay Surrick, Petrese Tucker, William Yohn

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is one of 94 United States district courts. It is one of the original thirteen federal judiciary districts created by the Judiciary Act of 1789.

When decisions of the court are appealed, they are appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit based in downtown Philadelphia at the James Byrne Courthouse.

Vacancies

See also: Current federal judicial vacancies

There are two current vacancies on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, out of the court's 22 judicial positions.

Pending nominations

There are no pending nominees for this court.

Active judges

Article III judges

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Paul Diamond	George W. Bush (R)	June 22, 2004 -	Columbia, 1974	University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1977
Juan Sanchez	George W. Bush (R)	June 24, 2004 -	City University of New York, City College, 1978	University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1981
Mitchell Goldberg	George W. Bush (R)	October 31, 2008 -	Ithaca College, 1981	Temple University Law, 1986
Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro	Barack Obama (D)	June 19, 2013 -	University of Puerto Rico, 1972	University of Puerto Rico School of Law, 1975
Jeffrey L. Schmehl	Barack Obama (D)	June 25, 2013 -	Dickinson College, 1977	University of Toledo Law, 1980
Gerald Austin McHugh Jr.	Barack Obama (D)	March 28, 2014 -	St. Joseph's University	University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1979
Wendy Beetlestone	Barack Obama (D)	November 21, 2014 -	Liverpool University, 1984	University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1993
Gerald J. Pappert	Barack Obama (D)	December 4, 2014 -	Villanova University, 1985	University of Notre Dame, 1988
Mark A. Kearney	Barack Obama (D)	December 4, 2014 -	Villanova University, 1984	Villanova University Law, 1987
Joseph F. Leeson Jr.	Barack Obama (D)	December 5, 2014 -	DeSales University, 1977	Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, 1980
Chad F. Kenney Sr.	Donald Trump (R)	October 24, 2018 -	Villanova University	Temple University
Joshua Wolson	Donald Trump (R)	May 28, 2019 -	University of Pennsylvania, 1996	Harvard Law School, 1999
John M. Younge	Donald Trump (R)	August 20, 2019 -	Boston University, 1977	Howard University, 2011
Karen Marston	Donald Trump (R)	December 20, 2019 -	Davidson College, 1990	Wake Forest University School of Law, 1998
John Gallagher	Donald Trump (R)	December 31, 2019 -	Long Island University, 1989	New York Law School, 1994
Mia Roberts Perez	Joe Biden (D)	December 16, 2022 -	Tufts University	Temple University, Beasley School of Law
John Frank Murphy	Joe Biden (D)	December 23, 2022 -	Cornell University, 1999	Harvard Law School, 2007
Kelley Hodge	Joe Biden (D)	December 23, 2022 -	University of Virginia, 1993	University of Richmond School of Law, 1996
Kai Scott	Joe Biden (D)	January 18, 2023 -	Hampton University, 1991	West Virginia University College of Law, 1995
Mary Kay Costello	Joe Biden (D)	September 19, 2024 -	Temple University, 1998	Temple University, Beasley School of Law, 2001
Catherine Henry	Joe Biden (D)	December 6, 2024 -	Drew University, 1991	District of Columbia School of Law, 1995
Gail Weilheimer	Joe Biden (D)	January 2, 2025 -	Hofstra University, 1992	Hofstra University School of Law, 1995

Active Article III judges by appointing political party

The list below displays 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.

• Democratic appointed: 14
• Republican appointed: 8

Senior judges

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Robert Kelly	Ronald Reagan (R)	July 17, 2001 -	Villanova University, 1957	Temple University Law, 1960
Jan DuBois	Ronald Reagan (R)	April 15, 2002 -	University of Pennsylvania, 1952	Yale Law School, 1957
William Yohn	George H.W. Bush (R)	November 20, 2003 -	Princeton, 1957	Yale Law, 1960
Ronald Buckwalter	George H.W. Bush (R)	December 11, 2003 -	Franklin and Marshall College, 1958	College of William and Mary Law, 1962
John Padova Sr.	George H.W. Bush (R)	February 11, 2008 -	Villanova University, 1956	Temple University Law, 1959
Anita Brody	George H.W. Bush (R)	June 8, 2009 -	Wellesley College, 1955	Columbia Law, 1958
Richard Barclay Surrick	Bill Clinton (D)	February 1, 2011 -	Dickinson College, 1960	Dickinson College, 1965
Harvey Bartle	George H.W. Bush (R)	October 1, 2011 -	Princeton, 1962	University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1965
Berle Schiller	Bill Clinton (D)	June 18, 2012 -	Bowdoin College, 1965	New York University Law, 1968
Michael Baylson	George W. Bush (R)	July 13, 2012 -	University of Pennsylvania, 1961	University of Pennsylvania, 1964
Eduardo Robreno	George H.W. Bush (R)	August 31, 2013 -	Westfield State College, 1967	Rutgers University Law, 1978
Legrome Davis	George W. Bush (R)	September 28, 2017 -	Princeton University, 1973	Rutgers University School of Law, Camden, 1976
Joel Slomsky	George W. Bush (R)	October 9, 2018 -	City University of New York, Brooklyn College, 1967	New York Law, 1970
Timothy J. Savage	George W. Bush (R)	March 1, 2021 -	Assumption College, 1968	Temple University Law, 1971
Darnell Jones	George W. Bush (R)	March 15, 2021 -	Southwestern College, 1972	The American University, 1975
Petrese Tucker	Bill Clinton (D)	June 1, 2021 -	Temple University, 1973	Temple University Law, 1976
Cynthia Rufe	George W. Bush (R)	December 31, 2021 -	Adelphi University, 1970	State University of New York, Buffalo, 1977

Senior judges by appointing political party

The list below displays 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.

• Democratic appointed: 3
• Republican appointed: 14

Magistrate judges

Federal magistrate judges are federal judges who serve in United States district courts, but they are not appointed by the president and they do not serve life terms. Magistrate judges are assigned duties by the district judges in the district in which they serve. They may preside over most phases of federal proceedings, except for criminal felony trials. The specific duties of a magistrate judge vary from district to district, but the responsibilities always include handling matters that would otherwise be on the dockets of the district judges. Full-time magistrate judges serve for renewable terms of eight years. Some federal district courts have part-time magistrate judges, who serve for renewable terms of four years.

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Carol Wells		June 3, 1996 -	West Chester University, 1969	University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1985
Timothy Rice		March 21, 2005 -	St. Bonaventure University, 1979	Temple University Law, 1986
David Strawbridge		April 26, 2005 -	Brown University, 1967	Villanova Law, 1971
Elizabeth Hey		April 9, 2007 -	Vassar College, 1983	Villanova University, 1989
Lynne Sitarski		October 29, 2007 -	University of Scranton, 1986	Temple University Law, 1989
Marilyn Heffley		April 21, 2014 -	University of Pittsburgh, 1981	Temple University Law, 1984
Richard A. Lloret		May 5, 2014 -	Rutgers University, 1979	Rutgers Law, 1982
Scott Reid	United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania	May 24, 2021 -	West Chester University	Widener University School of Law
Pamela Carlos	United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania	November 12, 2021 -	Franklin and Marshall College, 1986	Temple University, Beasley School of Law, 1989

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.

Mitchell Goldberg - (2024 - 2025) Juan Sanchez - (2018 - 2024) Lawrence Stengel - (2017 - 2018) Petrese Tucker - (2013 - 2017) Curtis Joyner - (2011 - 2013) Harvey Bartle - (2006 - 2011) James Giles - (1999 - 2005) Edward Cahn - (1993 - 1998) Louis Bechtle - (1990 - 1993) John Fullam - (1986 - 1990)

Alfred Luongo - (1982 - 1986) Joseph Simon Lord - (1971 - 1982) John Whitaker Lord - (1969 - 1971) Thomas Clary - (1961 - 1969) James Ganey - (1958 - 1961) William Huntington Kirkpatrick - (1948 - 1958)

Former judges

For more about the judges of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, see category:Former federal judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Jurisdiction

Pennsylvania counties (click for larger map)

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania has original jurisdiction over cases filed within its jurisdiction. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law.

The geographic jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania consists of all the following counties in the eastern part of the state:

• Berks County
• Bucks County
• Chester County
• Delaware County
• Lancaster County
• Lehigh County
• Montgomery County
• Northampton County
• Philadelphia County

Caseloads

This section contains court management statistics dating back to 2010. It was last updated in September 2024. 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 District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania caseload stats, 2010-2023
Year	Cases Filed	Cases Terminated	Cases Pending	Number of Judgeships	Vacant Judgeship Months	Average Total Filings per Judgeship	Trials Completed per Judgeship	Median time from filing to disposition, criminal	Median time from filing to disposition, civil	Three-year civil cases (#)	Three-year civil cases (%)
2010	56,815	86,453	29,354	22	17	2,583	16	14	6	8,671	31
2011	48,659	55,957	20,144	22	38	2,212	15	14	2	5,690	30
2012	11,799	17,046	15,227	22	60	536	16	16	15	3,045	23
2013	11,274	14,517	12,017	22	74	512	14	15	9	865	8
2014	10,815	12,560	10,335	22	64	492	13	16	5	2,001	23
2015	10,502	12,980	7,870	22	24	477	12	14	5	1,404	22
2016	8,992	8,710	8,156	22	36	409	10	14	6	1,519	22
2017	8,162	8,551	7,747	22	48	371	10	15	6	1,297	20
2018	7,644	7,698	7,689	22	67	347	6	14	6	1,015	16
2019	8,382	7,425	8,704	22	59	381	9	15	6	1,507	21
2020	7,714	6,262	10,123	22	21	351	3	14	6	1,551	18
2021	6,918	7,113	9,892	22	44	314	6	22	7	1,831	21
2022	6,495	7,081	9,280	22	48	295	7	21	7	2,370	30
2023	8,064	8,200	8,090	22	38.4	367	6	22	5	2,057	30
Average	15,160	18,611	11,759	22	46	689	10	16	6	2,487	22

History

The United States District Court for the District of Pennsylvania was one of the original thirteen districts created by the Judiciary Act of 1789. In 1818, it was divided into two districts, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and the Eastern District court.

In 1901, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania was carved out of the Eastern and Western districts.

Date	Event
September 14, 1789	The Judiciary Act of 1789 organized Pennsylvania as one judicial district with one authorized judgeship, appeals going to the United States Court of Appeals for the Middle Circuit.
February 13, 1801	The Judiciary Act of 1801 divided the federal courts into six circuits and assigned the District of Pennsylvania to the Third Circuit.
April 29, 1802	The Judiciary Act of 1802, although repealing the Judiciary Act of 1801, repeated breaking the federal courts into six circuits and assigning the District of Pennsylvania to the Third Circuit.
April 20, 1818	Eastern District is carved out of the District of Pennsylvania with one authorized judgeship and established as court for appeals and writs of error from decisions in the new Western District.
May 15, 1820	Congress decides that the Eastern District will no longer hear appeals and writs of error from the Western District of Pennsylvania.
March 2, 1901	The Middle District of Pennsylvania is newly-created, carved out of parts of the Eastern and Western districts.
April 1, 1904	A second judgeship is authorized for the Eastern District.
February 16, 1914	A temporary judgeship -- never made permanent -- is authorized for the Eastern District.
September 14, 1922	A temporary judgeship -- never made permanent -- is authorized for the Eastern District.
March 3, 1927	A new judgeship is authorized for the Eastern District.
June 16, 1936	A temporary judgeship is authorized for the Eastern District.
June 2, 1938	Temporary judgeship authorized in June 1936 made permanent
May 24, 1940	A temporary judgeship is authorized for the Eastern District.
December 7, 1944	Temporary judgeship authorized in May 1940 made permanent
July 24, 1946	A temporary judgeship is authorized to serve all three Pennsylvania districts.
August 3, 1949	Two additional judgeships authorized.
February 10, 1954	One additional judgeship authorized. The temporary judgeship created in July 1946 for all three districts assigned exclusively to the Middle District.
May 19, 1961	Three additional judgeships authorized.
March 18, 1966	Three temporary judgeships authorized. One of these positions is never made permanent.
June 2, 1970	Six additional judgeships authorized. Two temporary positions authorized in March 1966 made permanent.
December 1, 1990	Three additional judgeships authorized, for a total of 22 permanent judgeships. One temporary judgeship authorized.

Judicial posts

The following table highlights the development of judicial posts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:

Year	Statute	Total Seats
September 24, 1789	1 Stat. 73	1 (Whole state)
April 20, 1818	3 Stat. 462	1
April 1, 1904	33 Stat. 155	2
February 16, 1914	38 Stat. 283	3(1 Temporary)
1914	Post Expired	2
September 14, 1922	42 Stat. 837	3(1 Temporary)
1925	Post Expired	2
March 3, 1927	44 Stat. 1347	3
June 16, 1936	49 Stat. 1523	4 (1 temporary)
June 2, 1938	52 Stat. 780	4
May 24, 1940	54 Stat. 219	5(1 Temporary)
December 7, 1944	58 Stat. 796	5
July 24, 1946	60 Stat. 654	6(1 shared temporary)
August 3, 1949	63 Stat. 493	8(1 shared temporary)
February 10, 1954	68 Stat. 8	8
May 19, 1961	75 Stat. 80	11
March 18, 1966	80 Stat. 75	14(3 Temporary)
1969	Post Expired	13
June 2, 1970	84 Stat. 294	19
December 1, 1990	104 Stat. 5089	22(1 Temporary)

Noteworthy cases

For a searchable list of opinions, please see Opinions of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

• Dismissal of case against the City of Philadelphia for failure to detect child's torture (2014)      Judge(s):Richard Surrick (Weston v. City of Philadelphia, et al, 13-6073)	Click for summary→
On May 6, 2014, Judge Richard Surrick dismissed a lawsuit filed against the City of Philadelphia by Vickie Weston, regarding the abuse of her daughter, Beatrice Weston. Beatrice was placed in the custody of her aunt, Linda Weston, in 2002, whom plaintiffs alleged assaulted Beatrice for ten years. Linda had previously been convicted of murder and was on parole. Linda was granted custody of Beatrice after Vickie suffered an aneurysm. A family court judge approved the arrangement, ordering the Department of Human Services (DHS) to check in on Beatrice in the future. In 2011, Beatrice was found to have suffered abuse after police discovered that Linda had entrapped four adults with mental disabilities in her basement in an alleged attempt to steal their Social Security benefits. Vickie filed suit against the City of Philadelphia, alleging that the city showed "deliberate indifference and a reckless disregard" for her parental rights when it placed her daughter in Linda's custody. She also alleged that had DHS performed its duties as ordered by the court, Beatrice's living conditions would have been discovered earlier. Vickie's complaint alleged that her daughter was forced into prostitution, beaten, starved, and made to drink and bathe in her own urine. Beatrice filed her own lawsuit against the city in 2012. Judge Surrick dismissed the case, noting that the two-year statute of limitations for filing the claim had expired by the time the case was filed in 2014. Surrick said Vickie's lawsuit should have been filed in 2002 in reference to her parental rights. Surrick also said that, based on rumors, Vickie "knew that [her daughter] was being injured and she knew the cause [yet] took no action."

• Rejection of NFL concussion settlement (2014)      Judge(s):Anita Brody (In re: National Football Players' Concussion Injury Litigation, 2:12-md-02323-AB)	Click for summary→
On January 14, 2014, Judge Anita Brody rejected a proposed $675 million settlement between retired professional football players and the National Football League (NFL) over concussion-related issues, citing its potential lack of adequacy. Retired players filed suit in 2011, alleging the NFL's concealment of the risk of and failure to protect players from concussion-related injuries. Almost 5,000 former players filed similar suits, and they were consolidated as multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In August 2013, the parties submitted a proposed settlement, and several months later, in December 2013, Brody assigned a special master to assist her in reviewing it. In January 2014, the retired players structured the case as a class action suit listing more than 20,000 plaintiffs, requesting that Brody grant preliminary approval of the settlement. In her preliminary ruling, Brody said she was concerned about its "fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy." Specifically, Brody was worried that not all retired players with a "qualifying injury" would be paid. Brody requested additional information to prove the veracity of the proposed settlement terms, which would enable parties to seek approval at a later date. The principal terms of the proposed agreement are available here. On April 15, 2014, Brody again rejected terms set in the NFL concussion case, issuing a preliminary ruling requesting additional information as to how the $765 million fund would last for more than six decades (65 years) given the number of current and former professional football players with brain injuries. Brody questioned whether the fund was large enough to cover up to 20,000 players' injuries for an extended period of time.

• Rock band Fishbone ordered to pay fan after stage-diving accident (2014)      Judge(s):Jan DuBois (Myers v. Fishbone, et al., 12-597)	Click for summary→
On February 12, 2014, Judge Jan DuBois ruled that Fishbone, an alternative rock band, must pay approximately $1.4 million to a fan as a result of a poorly executed stage dive. Kimberly Myers filed suit against the band, as well as its lead singer, Angelo Moore, and bassist, John Norwood Fisher, after a 2010 performance in Philadelphia. Moore, the band's lead singer, dove off the stage into the crowd and knocked Myers over, resulting in the fracture of her skull and clavicle and the rupturing of her eardrum. Myers originally filed suit in 2010 and settled with the band's management and concert promoter. She filed suit again in 2012 with claims of negligence against Fishbone, Moore, Fisher, the band's agent, and its touring company. Moore and Fisher failed to respond to the complaint, and a default judgment was entered against them by the court. A hearing was held on damages in May, 2013, but neither Moore nor Fisher made an appearance. In his decision, Judge Dubois noted that both Moore and Fisher "knew that stage diving pose[d] a serious risk of harm to audience members," but band members, and Moore in particular, continued the practice after the incident in question, without any warning to fans in the audience. Dubois awarded Myers $15,846 in out-of-pocket expenses, $351,299 in future medical costs, $750,000 in noneconomic damages, and $250,000 in punitive damages against Moore as he showed, according to DuBois, "little remorse or impetus to change his conduct." The total amount of damages entered in favor of Myers against Moore and Fisher came to $1,367,145.

• Multidistrict asbestos litigation case remanded to Southern Illinois (2014)      Judge(s):Eduardo Robreno (Mann v. Anchor Packing, et al, 2:08-89372-ER / MDL-875)	Click for summary→
On January 30, 2014, Judge Eduardo Robreno remanded plaintiff's suit filed on behalf of decedent J.W. Heggie to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Helen Mann filed suit against Westinghouse Electric Corporation on behalf of Heggie, alleging Heggie was exposed to asbestos after working with Westinghouse’s turbines and switchgear. Mann claimed Heggie developed an asbestos-related disease and lung cancer as a result of the alleged exposure and died as a result. Mann's case was transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in October 2008 as part of the Multidistrict Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, though both parties agreed that Illinois law applied to the case. Westinghouse then filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging there was insufficient evidence to establish causation. Judge Robreno granted Westinghouse's motion in part as to Heggie's alleged asbestos exposure from the company's turbines and denied it in part as to Heggie's alleged asbestos exposure from the company's switchgear. Specifically, Robreno said that there was no "clear statement of Illinois law" as to the issue of the "bare metal defense" which would be determinative as to Westinghouse's liability. In so denying summary judgment as to this aspect of the case, Robreno stated: “ Whether Illinois law recognizes this defense (i.e., whether Illinois law holds a switchgear manufacturer liable for component parts incorporated into its product which it neither manufactured nor supplied) is a matter of policy. A court situated in Illinois is closer to - and has more familiarity with - Illinois law and policy. As such, rather than predicting what the Supreme Court of Illinois would do, the Court deems it appropriate to remand this case for a court in Illinois to decide this issue. ”

• Discrimination claim in workplace firing proceeds (2014)      Judge(s):Lawrence Stengel (Abdul-Latif v. County of Lancaster, et al, 5:12-cv-00948-LS)	Click for summary→
On January 2, 2014, Judge Lawrence Stengel ruled that Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, must answer to former county employee Betzaida Abdul-Latif's complaint that she was fired in retaliation for her opposition to her workplace's policy requiring English as its only spoken language. Before her termination, Abdul-Latif, a Hispanic woman of Puerto Rican descent, worked as a case manager and career adviser in the Lancaster Employment and Training Agency's (LETA) Employment, Advancement, and Retention Network (EARN). LETA required that all participants in EARN speak only English while in attendance. Several of Abdul-Latif's clients expressed concern regarding the policy, so she suggested they file a complaint. They did so, and Abdul-Latif was terminated shortly thereafter. The county claimed Abdul-Latif was fired not for opposing the policy, but rather because she violated the workplace's email policy. In the case, it was said that other county employees who were not Hispanic had also violated the email policy, but were not fired. Abdul-Latif sued the county and her superiors, alleging employment discrimination and violations of her constitutional right to equal protection. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which Stengel granted as to two of Abdul-Latif's claims in January 2014. The judge refused to grant summary judgment as to Abdul-Latif's employment discrimination claims, saying that she "[had] shown that several of her similarly situated co-workers violated the same email policy and received less severe discipline." Stengel further found that the timing of Abdul-Latif's dismissal was "unusually suggestive" due to its "temporal proximity" to her complaints about the county's language policy.

• Death sentence overturned (2013)      Judge(s):Anita Brody (Dennis v. Wetzel, 11-1660)	Click for summary→
On August 21, 2013, Judge Brody ordered the retrial or release of James Dennis, who was sentenced to death in 1992 after he was convicted of killing Chedell Ray Williams for earrings worth $450. The case against Dennis was based on the testimony of three eyewitnesses and no physical evidence. Neither the murder weapon nor the allegedly stolen earrings were found. There was also no forensic evidence found to tie Dennis to the scene of the crime. Dennis claimed that he was traveling by bus during the time of the murder, which was substantiated by the driver of the bus. Judge Brody ordered the retrial after determining that the evidence against Dennis was inadequate. Brody also criticized Dennis' defense lawyer as doing "the bare minimum." She went on to say that the police targeted Dennis based on and that the investigation appeared inconclusive. In her conclusion Judge Brody wrote: “ I am concerned that James Dennis was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to die for a crime he did not commit. Regardless of Dennis’ possible innocence, there can be no question that the Commonwealth violated his right to due process of law by withholding exculpatory evidence that would have made a difference at his trial. As a result, after serving over 20 years in prison, Dennis is entitled to receive either a new trial or his freedom. ” —Anita Brody, Prosecutors for the state sought to appeal Brody's ruling but failed. The state later entered into an agreement with Dennis where he would plead "no contest" and be released. Dennis did so and was released from prison on May 13, 2017.

Federal courthouse

The main courthouse for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is the James A. Byrne United States Courthouse in Philadelphia, named after James A. Byrne, a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Pennsylvania from 1953 to 1973.

The courthouse stands 22 stories high. It houses courtrooms, judges' chambers, jury rooms, and prisoner holding areas. The building was remodeled starting in 2000 because the original brick facade had cracked and weakened from settlement over time.

Judges of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania also hold court at the following locations:

• Edward N. Cahn Federal Building and United States Courthouse in Allentown, Pennsylvania
• Holmes Building in Easton, Pennsylvania
• The Gateway Building in Reading, Pennsylvania.

About United States District Courts

The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal courts. There are 94 such courts. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of both law and equity.

There is a United States bankruptcy court and a number of bankruptcy judges associated with each United States district court. Each federal judicial district has at least one courthouse, and most districts have more than one.

There is at least one judicial district for each state, and one each for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. District courts in three insular areas—the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands—exercise the same jurisdiction as U.S. district courts. Despite their name, these courts are technically not District Courts of the United States. Judges on these territorial courts do not enjoy the protections of Article III of the Constitution, and serve terms of 10 years rather than for life.

There are 677 U.S. District Court judgeships.

The number of federal district judge positions is set by the U.S. Congress in Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 133, which authorizes a set number of judge positions, or judgeships, making changes and adjustments in these numbers from time to time.

In order to relieve the pressure of trying the hundreds of thousands of cases brought before the federal district courts each year, many trials are tried by juries, along with a presiding judge.

Appointments by president

The chart below shows the number of district court judges confirmed by the U.S. Senate through September 1 of the first year of presidents' second term in office. At this point in the term, President Obama had the most district court appointments with 19.

Judges by district

See also: Judicial vacancies in federal courts

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

Judicial selection

The district courts are served by Article III federal judges who are appointed for life during "good behavior." They are usually first recommended by senators (or members of the House, occasionally). The President of the United States makes the appointments, which must then be confirmed by the U.S. Senate in accordance with Article III of the United States Constitution.

Step	A Candidacy Proceeds	A Candidacy Halts
1. Recommendation made by Congress Member to the President	President Nominates to Senate Judiciary Committee	President Declines Nomination
2. Senate Judiciary Committee interviews Candidate	Sends candidate to Senate for confirmation	Returns candidate to President, who may re-nominate to Committee
3. Senate votes on candidate confirmation	Candidate becomes federal judge	Candidate does not receive judgeship

Magistrate judges

The district courts are also served by magistrate judges. Congress created the judicial office of federal magistrate in 1968. In 1990, the position title was changed to magistrate judge. The chief judge of each district appoints one or more magistrate judges, who discharge many of the ancillary duties of district judges so judges can handle more trials. There are both full-time and part-time magistrate judge positions, and these positions are assigned to the district courts according to caseload criteria (subject to funding by Congress). A full-time magistrate judge serves a term of eight years; a part-time magistrate judge's term of office is four years.

See also

• United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• United States District Court for the District of Delaware
• United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
• United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
• United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
• District Court of the Virgin Islands

External links

• Search Google News for this topic
• Official website of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
• Opinions of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
• US Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania