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 United 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 district and to be escorted by a United States 

Marshal while inside. Kowalski appeals that order, raising several constitutional 

arguments. But because the Executive Committee’s order is not the result of judicial 

action, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

 *

 We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the brief and 

record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not 

significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 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 appeal, 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 restricting how he accesses the courthouses. The 

Committee, he argues, has “branded and silenced Attorney Kowalski as an enemy of 

the state,” in violation of his constitutional 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 actions, 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 other 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 “proprietary capacity, just like a restaurant 

that expels an unruly customer 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 threatened sanctions (which might include 

options that are judicial in nature) if Kowalski should fail to comply with its order, it 

has not yet done so. 

We therefore lack jurisdiction to consider the order and DISMISS the appeal.