# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted April 23, 2019 *

Decided April 23, 2019

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge

No. 18-3608

IN RE: ROBERT M. KOWALSKI, Appeal from the United States District Appellant . Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 18 C 7228

Rubén Castillo, Chief Judge

.

O R D E R

The Executive Committee of the Unit ed States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued an order requiring attorney Robert Kowalski to sign in upon entering the federal courthouses in the distri ct and to be escorted by a United States Marshal while inside. Kowalski appeals th at order, raising several constitutional arguments. But because the Executive Committ ee’s order is not the result of judicial action, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

* We have agreed to decide the case wi thout oral argument because the brief and record adequately present the facts and le gal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(C). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp . P. 32.1No. 18-3608 Page 2

According to the Executive Committee’s order, it “became aware” that Kowalski “has been loud and disrespectful of the court and court personnel,” “has become verbally combative with judges,” and “often refuses to follow court procedures or respect the authority of the judge.” On appe al, Kowalski disputes all these statements and challenges both the ex parte nature of the proceedings and the Executive Committee’s power to enter the order restrict ing how he accesses the courthouses. The Committee, he argues, has “branded and silenc ed Attorney Kowalski as an enemy of
the state,” in violation of his constituti onal rights to free speech, due process, confrontation, and trial by jury.

The Executive Committee can issue two types of orders: judicial and

administrative. See In re Chapman , 328 F.3d 903, 904 (7th Cir. 2003); In re Palmisano

, 70 F.3d 483, 484 (7th Cir. 1995). We have jurisdiction over appeals from the Executive Committee’s judicial actions; administrative ac tions, on the other hand, are reviewed by this circuit’s Judicial Council. See Chapman , 328 F.3d at 904. Here, the order requiring Kowalski to sign in and be escorted by a marshal while at the federal courthouses is

administrative. See In re Long , 475 F.3d 880, 880–81 (7th Cir. 2007).

Kowalski tries to compare the order to ot her judicial actions, such as entering injunctions and imposing sanctions. See Chapman , 328 F.3d at 904–05 (filing restrictions are judicial actions); Palmisano , 70 F.3d at 484 (disbarment is judicial action). But no such order was issued against Kowalski. To curtail Kowalski’s disruptive conduct, the Executive Committee issued the order in its “p roprietary capacity, just like a restaurant that expels an unruly custom er and forbids him to return.” Long , 475 F.3d at 880–81. The order impacts only how Kowalski accesses the courthouses, not whether he may. See id. at 881. And although the Executive Committee thre atened sanctions (which might include options that are judicial in nature) if Kowals ki should fail to comply with its order, it has not yet done so.

We therefore lack jurisdiction to cons ider the order and DISMISS the appeal.