Archive

November 2, 1998

Commission on Structural Alternatives
For the Federal Courts of Appeals
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington, D. C. 20544

Dear Sir:

This is in response to your request for comments on your Tentative Draft Report.

The Report has not been well publicized. It came to my attention through an article in the National Law Journal.

The suggestion in the Notice that comments should not be repetitious of those already submitted and should address matters not already included in submissions is mystifying. I have not reviewed the materials in the Commission's files as a precursor to making comment.

The recommendations regarding bankruptcy appeals should be rejected. I see nothing in the charge to the Commission or the manner in which it has proceeded to give credibility to its recommendation regarding bankruptcy appeals. The handling of bankruptcy appeals should be dealt with separately from considerations of boundaries and structures of courts of appeals.

The Commission should not make recommendations limiting diversity jurisdiction. This subject is beyond anything Congress had in mind in creating the Commission. Diversity jurisdiction/caseloads is a favorite target of those who view the federal courts as overworked and rests on assumptions regarding the parochialism of state courts which are highly debatable.

If bankruptcy appeals and diversity jurisdiction alternatives are to be recommended to the Congress, they should evolve from a study that allows for notice and debate involving all federal judges with substantial opportunity to comment. Such is not the case here.

Lastly, I would hate to think that the Sixth Circuit might be divided into divisions with Michigan and Ohio separated from Kentucky and Tennessee. Allowing the judges of the Circuit to even consider the idea is disturbing.

Yours truly,

Avern Cohn

AC:nl