News

Recent Historical Society Events
Other Historical Society Programs
Historical Society Newsletters
Join the Historical Society of the D.C. Circuit

Nominations for the Gribbon Award are managed by the D.C. Circuit Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Pro Bono Legal Services and are due each year in March. For information, please contact Scott Memmott at smemmott@morganlewis.com or by telephone at 202-739-5098.

Mock Court Program for High School Students

Nine federal judges sat in their courtrooms and heard arguments presented by 85 Washington area high school students who appeared before them on April 9, 2010. (See scenes from the Mock Court Program.) The students, from Cardozo Senior High School, Idea Academy, Maret School, McKinley Tech, Roosevelt Senior High School, School Without Walls, St. Albans/National Cathedral School, and Woodrow Wilson Senior High School, were strong, well-trained advocates, answering the judges' searing questions and arguing forcefully the issues presented in cases previously heard in the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Helping the students prepare for their day in court were 25 lawyer volunteers from 10 Washington, DC law firms: Chadbourne & Parke; Covington & Burling; Goodwin Procter; Greenberg, Spence & Taylor; Howrey; O'Melveny & Myers; Shook, Hardy & Bacon; Williams & Connolly; Wilmer Hale; and Zuckerman Spaeder.

At an awards ceremony following the students' arguments, each judge named first, second and third place winners while complimenting all the students for their hard work, commitment, and skill. Each student received a certificate for participating in the Mock Court Program.

A reception followed the awards ceremony in the Atrium of the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse.

Directors of the Society's Mock Court Program were Kate McSweeny and Louis Cohen. They were assisted by Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, Vicki C. Jackson, William B. Schultz and Judith A. Winston.

Review of Agency Rules in the D.C. Circuit: Back to the Future?

In the 1970’s influential judges on the D.C. Circuit engaged in a well-publicized debate about the appropriate scope of judicial review of federal agency rulemaking. One faction led by Chief Judge Bazelon believed that judges were experts on procedure not the substance of regulation and wanted the courts to ensure that agencies used whatever procedures were necessary to make the best decision and build the sort of record necessary to make the best decision. On the other hand, Judges Leventhal and Wright believed that mandating additional procedures, beyond those required in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), would lead to over-proceduralization and would ultimately slow down the rulemaking process. They believed that, instead, judges should examine and try to understand the technical matters at issue in the rulemaking in order to determine whether the agency had exercised reasoned discretion. This review, conducted under the arbitrary-and-capricious test of the APA, was labeled “hard look” review—a term coined by Judge Leventhal.

This debate was ended by the Supreme Court’s 1978 Vermont Yankee decision, in which a decision written by Judge Bazelon was reversed on the grounds that this sort of “Monday-morning quarterbacking” of the rulemaking process would cause agencies to err on the side of formal procedures and that “all the inherent advantages of informal rulemaking would be totally lost.” But hard look review of agency fact finding and policy choice under the arbitrary and capricious test survived, spurred on by the Supreme Court’s rigorous substantive review in the 1983 State Farm decision.

Today, these debates are being rekindled by academic criticism of the hard look doctrine itself, arguing that it has produced the same sort of slowdown of agency rulemaking. An interesting partial dissent by Judge Brett Kavanaugh in American Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC, 524 F.3d 227, 247-48 (D.C. Cir. 2008) takes this position. On the other hand, the panelists discussed the question, raised by the moderator, whether a relatively stringent arbitrary-and-capricious test might be even more necessary today, given that courts now tend broadly to defer to agency’s procedural choices and legal interpretations.

The panel discussing these issues included Judge Kavanaugh; Paul Verkuil, a commentator on rulemaking and newly confirmed Chairman of the re-established Administrative Conference of the United States; Howard Fox, Counsel to Earthjustice, an environmental group that often litigates rulemaking cases before the D.C. Circuit; and Michael Fitzpatrick, Associate Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, the White House office that reviews all significant executive agency rules before they are issued. Patricia Wald, former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, introduced the panelists, and Professor Jeffrey Lubbers of Washington College of Law, American University, provided some historical background and moderated the discussion.

You may watch the entire video or a particular segment: the introduction, discussion, and questions and answers, using Windows Media Player.

Timeless Elements of a Great Closing Argument: Lessons from the Teapot Dome Trials

Almost 200 people listened intently on July 23 as Roger M. Adelman and William D. Nussbaum made closing arguments drawn directly from the transcripts of two of the Teapot Dome trials (United States v. Albert Fall and United States v. Edward Doheny), arguments that were actually made by defense counsel Frank Hogan and Special Prosecutor and future Supreme Court Justice Owen J.Roberts years ago.

David C. Frederick introduced the program with an historical account of the Teapot Dome scandal and prosecutions after which Roger Adelman and William Nussbaum presented their mock closing arguments. They then joined Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, Timothy G. Lynch and Jacob A. Stein for a discussion on the challenges and requirements of a good closing argument.

Federal Judicial Center staff videotaped the program. You may watch the entire video or a particular segment: the introduction, background information, the beginning of the trial, and the historical postscript and discussion with judges using Windows Media Player.

Preservation of Non-Official Judicial Papers

On Friday, June 5, 2009, members of the DC Circuit Historical Society Committee on Archival Preservation and Historical Research participated in a lively two-hour panel presentation on the preservation of judges' non-official papers at the DC Circuit Judicial Conference at the Bedford Springs Resort in Bedford, Pennsylvania.

Committee members Maeva Marcus, Director, Institute for Constitutional Studies, The George Washington University Law School, and Daun van Ee, Historical Specialist, Library of Congress, joined Professor Polly Price, Associate Dean of Faculty and Professor of Law, Emory Law School and author of Richard Arnold: A Legacy of Justice on the Federal Bench, and Bruce Ragsdale, Chief Historian, Federal Judicial Center ("FJC"), on the panel. Committee chair George W. Jones, Jr., Sidley Austin LLP served as moderator.

Not surprisingly, one of the most hotly debated topics was the age-old question of whether judges should make any of their work product or communications about cases other than final opinions available to the public. Whether judges should preserve electronic correspondence with colleagues presented this issue in 21st Century garb. Points of view all along the spectrum of opinion were ably represented at the conference. Suffice to say, the historians on the panel had a very different view than some of the judges.

The key "takeaways" from the presentation are:

• the non-official papers of federal judges may constitute indispensable supplemental material for historians and scholars trying to understand and describe the history of the United States, the operations of the federal judiciary, and the role that individual judges played in the great events of our times; it is impossible to determine today what will be relevant and important to the questions that will be studied 50 years from today;
• as participating witnesses to the history of the United States, all federal judges - not just those who have established national reputations or who have participated in cases of national import -- should consider preserving their non-official papers; it is never too early for a judge to begin thinking about preserving his or her non-official papers;
• preserving non-official papers is not nearly as burdensome as some may fear;
• the first step is to identify those repositories that may be most interested in taking a particular judge's non-official papers; judges who have national reputations or who have handled cases of national significance should consider the Library of Congress; others should consider repository institutions the judge attended or with which the judge has some other relationship, institutions that already have the papers of other judges from the judge's court, or institutions that have an interest in a particular subject matter that makes up a portion of the judge's work;
• some institutions want everything; others may be more selective and can provide useful guidance as to what should be preserved; and
• concerns about confidentiality or sensitive materials can be addressed by restricting access to the papers for some specified time or limiting access to particular scholars or appointing one or more trustees with authority to determine access to the papers.

The FJC recently completed work on a second edition of A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges' Papers, its useful primer on what types of papers should be preserved and how to go about preserving them. Copies of the recently released second edition were distributed at the conference.

For judges considering which repositories might be most interested in archiving their papers, the Historical Society website includes a list of all repositories that currently house the papers of judges who have served on the Courts of the District of Columbia Circuit. The list was prepared by the FJC.

Mock Court Program for Washington Area High School Students

On Friday, April 3, 2009, the Courts of the D.C. Circuit hosted 80 Washington, D.C. high school students participating in the Historical Society's fifth annual Mock Oral Argument Program. (See scenes from the Mock Court Program.) Each student prepared and presented arguments before one of eight judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals or the U.S. District Court. The students addressed issues, selected from actual cases decided by the Courts of the Circuit, including whether private property may be condemned for the benefit of a school athletic field, the implementation of a curfew for juveniles, the Fourth Amendment considerations involved in police traffic stops, and whether WMATA has authority to arrest a student for eating a french fry on a METRO platform. Students from every public, charter, and private high school in Washington, D.C. were invited to participate. This year's participants attend Cardozo Senior High School, Collegiate Academy, McKinley Technology High School, St. Albans, Theodore Roosevelt Senior High School, Thurgood Marshall Academy, and Woodrow Wilson Senior High School.

Attorneys from Washington, D.C. law firms helped students prepare their arguments. Each week during the months of February and March, attorneys from Covington & Burling, Goodwin Procter, Howrey, O'Melveny & Myers, Shook Hardy & Bacon, and Wilmer Hale met with a group of the students to discuss the constitutional issues in the cases and to help the students hone their arguments. Each student selected a case to argue from among nine decisions considered to be of particular interest to young people.

Torrential rains had not put a damper on the students' spirits when they began their day in the Ceremonial Courtroom of the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse. Following opening remarks by Historical Society President, Stephen J. Pollak, Esq. of Goodwin Procter and Program Chair Kate McSweeny of Chadbourne & Parke, the students moved to their assigned courtrooms to present their arguments. Following the arguments, each of the judges talked with the students and answered their questions, after which the students and their attorney-mentors returned to the Ceremonial Courtroom where they were joined by the judges for the awarding of prizes. The top three advocates in each courtroom were awarded a cash prize, and all participants received a Certificate of Participation.

The Historical Society was honored to have the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge of the District Court for the District of Columbia, provide the closing remarks. A reception for the students, their mentors and teachers followed in the Atrium of the Courthouse.

A Special Historical Exhibition

Many of the highlights of the 200-year history of the Courts of the D.C. Circuit are revealed in an exhibition prepared by the Historical Society for the Courts. The exhibition was unveiled at the opening of the William B. Bryant Annex to the Courthouse. Ten display panels which capture the Courts' history include photographs, articles, and text on the creation of the Courts and many of their high-profile cases as well as a tribute to Judge William Benson Bryant, who was appointed to the U.S. District Court in 1965, served as the Court's Chief Judge, and was one of the Court's most respected judges.

"FCC Indecency Cases in the D. C. Circuit: An Historical Perspective"

The Hon. Patricia M. Wald, Hon. Timothy B. Dyk and Hon. Glen O. Robinson discussed the FCC indecency cases heard in the D.C. Circuit in a wide-ranging panel discussion on October 14, 2008. The panel was moderated by Christopher J. Wright, Esq. Mr. Wright, who previously served as General Counsel of the FCC and argued the Action for Children's Television case before the en banc D.C. Circuit in 1994, provided an overview of the FCC's indecency jurisprudence.

Professor Robinson from the University of Virginia was an FCC Commissioner in 1975 when the Commission issued its decision in the Pacifica case arising from the late George Carlin's famous "seven dirty words" monologue. Professor Robinson described the Commission's decision holding that Carlin's monologue was not suitable for broadcast and his own concurring statement which emphasized his conclusion that indecent language is a "nuisance" when broadcast at times when a large number of children are likely to be in the audience.

Judge Dyk of the Federal Circuit, who represented broadcasters in numerous indecency cases before taking the bench in 2000, provided perspective on the FCC's regulation of broadcasters in the 1970s through the 1990s. He also reviewed the decisions the D.C. Circuit issued reversing the FCC's judgment - in a majority opinion by Judge Tamm, a concurring opinion by Judge Bazelon, and a dissenting opinion by Judge Leventhal - and the Supreme Court's subsequent decision overturning the D.C. Circuit's decision.

Judge Wald, who served on the D.C. Circuit from 1979 to 1999, addressed the lengthy litigation culminating in Action for Children's Television, in which the en banc court upheld the 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. ban on indecent broadcasting. Judge Wald also described the en banc decision concerning indecency on cable channels that was heard by the en banc court on the same day as the broadcast case, and noted how indecency is now regulated very differently depending on whether it is on a broadcast channel or a cable channel, even though only 14% of households now obtain free over-the-air signals.

A lively question-and-answer period included discussion of whether counsel in the upcoming Supreme Court case involving the FCC's decision to ban "fleeting expletives," FCC v. Fox Broadcasting, should use those expletives in oral argument. You may watch the entire video or a particular segment: the panel discussion or the discussion and conclusion following the panel using Windows Media Player.

"Technology in the Courtroom: Could it Change the Course of History?"

On July 31, 2008, the Historical Society sponsored "Technology in the Courtroom: Could it Change the Course of History?" The program explored the relative advantages and disadvantages of the use of technology to present evidence and arguments in a jury trial.

As a catalyst for discussion of the issues, two mock closing arguments were presented from the historic District of Columbia trial of Charles Guiteau, the assassin of President James Garfield. An overview of the historic setting of the 1881-1882 trial was first provided by Suzanne M. Woods, Esq., professor of history at St. Albans School in the District of Columbia. David Kendall of Williams & Connolly then presented a traditional closing argument, without the use of technology, much of it drawn directly from the transcripts of the prosecution's closing argument in the Guiteau trial. Judge James Boasberg of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia then followed with a newly-created mock closing argument for the prosecution, which was supported with a variety of technological images and animations.

The mock arguments were followed by a panel discussion moderated by Eva Petko Esber of Williams & Connolly LLP. The panelists for the program were Judges James Robertson and Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Francis D. Carter of Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, as well as Mr. Kendall and Judge Boasberg.

FOIA, National Security and the D.C. Circuit: A Safeguard or a Sham?

On November 29, 2007, the Historical Society of the D.C. Circuit presented a program on the role of the Courts of the District of Columbia Circuit in developing the law respecting the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") and national security. Particular attention was given to the origins and history of Exemption 1, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1), pertaining to national defense and foreign policy; problems such as delay and over classification; how the line should be drawn between the public interest in disclosure and the needs of national security; what the drafters envisioned and whether those objectives are feasible in today's circumstances; and relevant judicial interpretations. You can now view in full the Society's program on the role of the Courts of the District of Columbia Circuit in developing the law respecting the Freedom of Information Act and national security. You may watch the entire video or a particular segment: the introduction or panel discussion using Windows Media Player.

The Hon. Patricia M. Wald, formerly Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, moderated the discussion, which was in Q and A format. Panelists included Stewart A. Baker, Assistant Secretary for Policy for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and former General Counsel of the National Security Agency; Thomas S. Blanton, Director of the National Security Archives at George Washington University; the Hon. Royce C. Lamberth, U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia; and James T. O'Reilly, Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law, and publisher of the FOIA Reporter.

The Steel Seizure Case in Historical Perspective

June 2007 marked the 55th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in the Steel Seizure Case. On June 2, 1952, the Supreme Court decided in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, that President Truman's seizure of most of the nation's steel mills to avert a nation-wide strike of steelworkers and keep the mills operating during the Korean War was an unauthorized, unconstitutional executive action that could not stand. The steel companies presented their claims initially to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which ruled against the Government on all points and issued a preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit promptly stayed the injunction, deeming it best that the issues raised be decided by the Supreme Court.

In a special program, "The Steel Seizure Case in Historical Perspective: Presidential Power in Wartime," a panel of experts brought together by the Society analyzed the decision and its enduring ramifications. "The Steel Seizure Case in Historical Perspective" is available for viewing. You may watch the entire video or a particular segment: introduction, panel discussion, or Q&A using Windows Media Player. Panelists included: Patricia Bellia, Constitutional Law Professor, Notre Dame Law School; John Q. Barrett, Professor, St. John's University School of Law and Biographer of Justice Robert H. Jackson; Louis Fisher, Senior Specialist in Separation of Powers with the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress and Author of "Presidential War Power;" Maeva Marcus, Author of "Truman and the Steel Seizure Case;" and Stanley L. Temko, Senior Counsel, Covington & Burling LLP, and Attorney for Petitioner United States Steel Corporation in the Steel Seizure Case. Carl Stern, former Legal Affairs Correspondent for NBC-TV, moderated the discussion. Over 250 judges, lawyers, professors, law clerks, law students and others attended the panel discussion.

The program was held on July 25, 2007, in the Ceremonial Courtroom of the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse. A reception followed the program.

Panel Discussion on The Pentagon Papers: Did the Courts Get it Right?

Anthony F. Essaye, counsel representing the Washington Post in the Pentagon Papers case before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

William H. Jeffress, Jr., law clerk to District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell when he heard and decided the Pentagon Papers case (United States v. The Washington Post Company)

David Rudenstine, Dean, Cardozo Law School, and author of "The Day the Presses Stopped: A History of the Pentagon Papers case"

Whitney North Seymour, Jr., U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and lead counsel for the United States in presenting the Pentagon Papers case (United States v. New York Times Company) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Geoffrey R. Stone, Harry Kalvern, Jr., Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School, and author of "Perilous times: Free Speech in Wartimes from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism"

The Art of Cross-Examination: Historical and Current Perspectives

On July 26, 2006, the Historical Society staged a reenactment of the cross examination of a government witness from the Independent Counsel prosecution of former Secretary of Agriculture, Michael Espy. The Honorable James Robertson presided over this unique program and moderated a discussion among the participants afterward on the art of cross examination and the unusual challenges presented by the Espy trial. The Ceremonial Courtroom was packed with an audience that included numerous judges and prominent members of the Bar along with many summer associates and law clerks.

Barry Coburn, a partner with Trout, Cacheris PLLC, played the witness, Richard Douglas, a former executive of agricultural corporation Sun-Diamond Growers. Coburn was very familiar with the facts of the case, having served on the Espy trial team while working for the Office of Independent Counsel. Reid Weingarten, head of the White Collar Criminal Defense practice at Steptoe and Johnson, and Michele Roberts, a partner with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, took turns demonstrating the cross examination and serving as government counsel for purposes of objections during the other's cross.

Weingarten opened his cross of Douglas by eliciting many sympathetic highlights of Espy's career and personal history. To defeat the bribery charges, Weingarten had Douglas admit that the gifts he provided Espy were given in friendship and not in exchange for official acts. Though the cross examination was mostly friendly, Weingarten forced Douglas to admit that he would lie to protect his own interests, an important point to help defeat some of the testimony that would have damaged Espy.

Roberts then demonstrated a different approach, mostly using Douglas to paint the Independent Counsel as the bad guy. Displaying the physical nature of effective cross, Roberts pointed repeatedly at Weingarten, who had switched roles to play the Independent Counsel, asking whether "that man" had singled Douglas out for persecution and scrutinized every aspect of his life and career. Douglas agreed wholeheartedly, which of course is atypical for a witness who was supposed to be cooperating with the government, but proved true in this unusual prosecution. As Roberts later explained, these points supported the defense theory that the government had overcharged the case.

Judge Robertson, who presided over a related case prosecuted in District Court, began the discussion by asking questions of the participants drawn from the reenactment. Coburn described the facts of the direct examination and the cross from the actual case, offering fascinating commentary on the obvious antipathy between Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz and witness Douglas.

One of the most significant points to emerge from the lively discussion was the tendency of Independent Counsel investigations to venture too far. Weingarten, who defended Espy at trial, expressed his view that the Espy case should have never been brought. President Clinton fired Espy after learning about his conduct, which should have ended the matter, according to Weingarten. Coburn offered a slightly different view, suggesting that the prosecution might have turned out differently had the investigation remained narrowly focused on violations that would not have made the prosecution look so overzealous. All agreed, however, that the case illustrated some of the inherent problems with the Independent Counsel statute, which may help explain why Congress has ultimately allowed the statute to lapse.

Panel Discussion on The Landmark AT&T Divestiture Case and its Economic and Regulatory Repercussions

Photograph by Julie Reynolds, Courtesy of the D.C. Bar
Chief Judge Ginsburg raised the fascinating history of the Defense Department's efforts to stop Justice from pursuing the case. He described Assistant Attorney General Bill Baxter - who took over for Litvack as head of the Antitrust Division in 1981 and became the Department's principal negotiator toward the consent decree - as a model of integrity. The mention of DOD's involvement led to insightful comments from one member of the audience, Richard Levine, Director of Policy Planning for the Antitrust Division when the case was being developed and tried. Levine described how a communique from Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger to Assistant Attorney General Baxter about the case lay neglected in a safe in the Justice Department because it had been marked "secret" by the Defense Department and Baxter did not have a clearance when it arrived; yet even after it was uncovered, the communique had little influence on Baxter, who was confident that pursuing the breakup was the right course.

The trial spawned activity on Capitol Hill as well. Gene Kimmelman described the extensive lobbying efforts on behalf of AT&T and how they affected debate in the Senate and the House. Interestingly, as Kimmelman pointed out, the drive to break up the company was not a populist campaign, as consumers were overall not unhappy with the status quo. Given the uncertainty of these efforts, the company eventually pushed to settle the case. Trienens suggested that Judge Greene's handling of the trial was one of the most influential factors that led AT&T to negotiate; convinced that it would lose at trial, the AT&T Board ultimately agreed that a consent decree was the best alternative for the company.

Michael Kellogg described how the industry has evolved since the breakup and the difficulties that plagued the companies and regulators prior to the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The general consensus of the panel was that overall, the market has benefitted from the breakup, and the problems that the Defense Department and others predicted might result have not been realized.

Chief Judge Greene is unfortunately no longer here to add his thoughts, but thanks to the Society's Oral History Project, he left us with these words on the case: "I'm perfectly content with my own view that the breakup was a good thing. It brought competition into a field where there hadn't been any competition, and that's the American way." Hear those words for yourself in Judge Greene's unique voice by visiting his Oral History page on the Society's website and selecting the sound clip "Reflections on the AT&T Case." You may also wish to review the transcript of his oral history on the website.

Other Historical Society Programs

The Watergate Cover-Up Trial - A Panel Discussion

Carl Stern, Moderator    On November 17, 2004, the Society put on an exciting program, "Reflections on Watergate." Nearly 30 years after the jury returned its verdict finding President Nixon's closest advisors guilty of obstruction of justice, the key participants in that historic trial came together for the first time since the trial to discuss its historic significance and the lessons learned. Lead prosecutor, James F. Neal; Attorney General John Mitchell's counsel, Plato Cacheris; the lead government witness, former Counsel to the President John Dean; and Judge John Sirica's law clerk, D. Todd Christofferson, gave their unique perspectives on the events that led to President Nixon's resignation and the subsequent cover-up trial. Former NBC News Correspondent Carl Stern moderated the panel discussion.

Some highlights of the program included details of how taped conversations made in the Oval Office, together with John Dean’s testimony, identified those who participated in the cover-up of the Watergate break-in; how Dean spent hours in the basement of the Courthouse painstakingly reviewing each tape prior to the trial; and how the White House became, in James Neal’s words, a place where “anything goes.” Both James Neal and John Dean expressed the view that President Nixon did not know beforehand of the plans for the break-in.

The panel shed new light on this important event in history and provided anecdotal information about the trial and the participants that fascinated the audience of judges, attorneys, law clerks, and others.

For bios of the panelists, click here.

The first edition of the Historical Society's electronic newsletter, October 2009.

The second edition of the Historical Society's electronic newsletter, January 2010.

The third edition of the Historical Society's electronic newsletter, April 2010.

The fourth edition of the Historical Society's electronic newsletter, July 2010.

The Historical Society of the D.C. Circuit offers individual and law firm members a variety of programs of interest as well as opportunities for participation, including: public education programs, panel discussions, archival preservation, facilitating oral histories, and contributing to the Society's website. Future events include lectures, mock court arguments, and discussions of high-profile cases.