A Guide to the Preservation of

Federal Judges’ Papers

Second Edition

Federal Judicial History Offi ce

Federal Judicial Center 2009

This Federal Judicial Center publication was undertaken in furtherance of the Center’s 

statutory mission to “conduct, coordinate, and encourage programs relating to the 

history of the judicial branch of the United States government.” While its publication 

signifi es that the Center regards the information herein as responsible and valuable, it 

does not refl ect offi cial policy or recommendations of the Board of the Federal Judicial 

Center.
Blank pages included to preserve pagination for double-sided printing.
iii

Contents

Preface, v 

Acknowledgments, vii 

Introduction, 1 

Completing the Historical Record: The Significance of Judges’ Papers, 3 

Biographical Studies, 4 

Institutional Histories, 5 

Legal History, 7 

The Organization of Chambers Papers: What to Save and How to Save It, 9 

Identifying Documents for Preservation, 10 

Series 1. Case-Related Files—Separating the Case Files and 

Chambers Papers, 10 

Series 2. Other Court-Related Activities, 17 

Series 3. Nonjudicial Activities, 19 

Managing Chambers Documents for Preservation, 20 

Electronic Records, 21 

Storage, 22 

Manuscript Repositories, 23 

Selecting a Repository, 23 

The National Archives and Records Administration, 24 

The Library of Congress, 25 

Court Libraries, 25 

Determining Policies on Access to a Manuscript Collection, 25 

Periods of Restriction, 26 

Equal Access, 26 

Judicial Confi dentiality, 27 

Sensitive Records and Privacy Concerns, 27

Digitizing Records, 28 

Preparing a Donor Agreement, 28 

Bequests, 31 

Tax Deductions for Donations of Papers, 31 

Transfer of Papers, 31 

Conclusion, 33 

Bibliography, 35 

Appendix A: Survey of Access Restrictions Placed on Manuscript Collections 

by Federal Judges, 37 

Appendix B: Sample Donor Agreements, 43 
iv A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

Appendix C: Selected Inventories of Judicial Collections in Repositories, 51

1. Papers of Charles Fahy, 52

2. Papers of Gerhard Gesell, 60

3. Papers of Wade H. McCree, Jr., 70

4. Papers of Bruce Van Sickle, 76
v

Preface

A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers was fi rst published 

in 1996 and has proved to be one of the most frequently requested 

publications from the Federal Judicial Center’s History Offi ce. Many 

judicial biographies and court histories rely on the collections of judicial papers that federal judges donate to research libraries and archives. 

From these scholarly works come the educational materials that contribute to public understanding of the federal judiciary. This guide is 

designed to help judges when they are considering the historical value 

of their chambers papers and selecting a repository for donation of 

their personal records. 

 Since 1996, the nature of judges’ “papers” has changed as more and 

more of the work of the federal courts is documented in electronic 

records. The record-keeping practices of the courts have also changed. 

This second edition discusses the preservation challenges of new media, the protocols surrounding sensitive and classifi ed documents, and 

the range of access restrictions that might be appropriate for a collection of judicial papers. This edition includes updated samples of donor 

agreements and inventories of judicial collections. 

 I believe that judges who are interested in preserving their personal papers will fi nd this publication to be extremely valuable. I urge 

anyone with additional questions to contact the staff of the Federal 

Judicial History Offi ce at the Federal Judicial Center.

Barbara Jacobs Rothstein

Director, Federal Judicial Center
Blank pages included to preserve pagination for double-sided printing.
vii

Acknowledgments

The second edition of the guide was prepared by Bruce A. Ragsdale, 

director of the Federal Judicial Center’s Federal Judicial History Offi ce, 

and Jonathan W. White, assistant historian.

 The authors are grateful for the assistance and advice of Stephen 

Cooper of the National Archives and Records Administration, Ernest 

Emrich of the Library of Congress, Christine E. Gunning of the Department of Justice, Curt Hanson of the Department of Special Collections at the University of North Dakota, Louis Jones of the Walter 

P. Reuther Library at Wayne State University, A.J. Lutz of the National 

Archives and Records Administration, Robert Timothy Reagan of the 

Federal Judicial Center, Janice Ruth of the Library of Congress, Mike 

Smith of the Walter P. Reuther Library at Wayne State University, Lee 

Stout of Pennsylvania State University, Daun Van Ee of the Library 

of Congress, David Warrington of the Harvard Law School Library, 

and Alison White of the University of Virginia Law School Library. Lee 

Stout, Daun Van Ee, David Warrington, and Alison White read a draft 

of the guide and offered valuable suggestions.
Blank pages included to preserve pagination for double-sided printing.
1

Introduction 

The preservation of a judge’s chambers papers and other personal records establishes a foundation for historical studies that document the 

role of the federal judiciary in American life. The personal papers of a 

judge offer a perspective and a level of detail not available in the offi cial 

records of the courts. Research collections based on judges’ papers are 

often the most valuable source for illuminating the judicial process. Yet 

all too often this critical portion of the historical record of the federal 

courts has been lost, and with it a full appreciation for the contributions of individual judges.

 The chambers papers of a federal judge remain the private property of that judge or the judge’s heirs, and it is the prerogative of the 

judge or the judge’s heirs to determine the disposition of those papers. 

Neither federal statute nor the policies of the Judicial Conference of 

the United States make any provision for the preservation of federal 

judges’ papers. Judges’ staffs or the clerks of court cannot determine 

where the papers go, and the National Archives cannot accept the collections as part of the records of the courts. Nor are court funds available for the preservation of judges’ papers, and the federal records centers do not provide temporary storage of judges’ chambers papers.

 Judges can preserve their personal papers and make them available 

for eventual study by donating the materials to a library or archival 

repository. In response to frequent requests for information about the 

disposition of the papers of federal judges, the Federal Judicial Center 

offers this publication to answer questions regarding the preservation 

of personal papers and the process of making those materials available 

for research. This publication encourages all federal judges to consider 

the historical value of their personal papers and explains how students 

of the federal courts use judges’ research collections. The guide offers 

recommendations for the management of noncurrent records, and it 

suggests guidelines for the selection of a proper repository for a collection of a judge’s papers.

 Judges will fi nd numerous advantages in contacting repositories. 

Discussions with a potential repository will offer judges an understanding of the kinds of documents that will make a collection valuable and contribute to public understanding of the federal judiciary. 
2 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

Staff from the repository will also inform the judge of the types of 

personal and nonjudicial papers that can enhance a research collection. Before the transfer of documents, archivists can meet with the 

judge’s staff and work with them to devise an effi cient system for the 

organization of noncurrent materials. A repository may then accept 

the transfer of noncurrent records and relieve the court or the judge of 

the burden of storing and maintaining those fi les.

 This guide should help federal judges take the fi rst step in preserving their chambers papers. The staff of the Federal Judicial History 

Offi ce at the Federal Judicial Center is available to answer any questions regarding the papers of a federal judge and can assist in locating 

a manuscript repository that might be interested in accepting a judge’s 

collection. 

 The Federal Judicial History Offi ce maintains a listing of all manuscript collections related to federal judges. The Offi ce has identifi ed 

manuscript collections with papers of nearly 750 federal judges, including more than 550 personal collections of judges. A complete description of these collections was published in A Directory of Manuscript Collections of Federal Judges (Washington, DC: Federal Judicial 

Center, 1998). Research collections identifi ed since that publication 

are regularly added to individual judges’ entries in the Biographical 

Directory of Federal Judges on the Federal Judicial Center’s website, at 

http://www.fjc.gov.

 Anyone with questions about the donation of judges’ papers or 

who wishes to report the location of recently donated collections is 

encouraged to contact the Federal Judicial History Offi ce at the Federal Judicial Center. The Offi ce may be reached at (202) 502-4180, 

uhistory@fjc.gov, or Federal Judicial Center, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle, N.E., Washington, DC 

20002-8003.
3

Completing the Historical Record: 

The Signifi cance of Judges’ Papers 

Among the most valuable of a judge’s personal records are chambers 

papers, which are the case-related documents, correspondence, and 

documentation of court administration distinct from the offi cial record of the court. Most judicial collections donated to research institutions will include these and other personal papers documenting a 

judge’s professional career on and off the court. In ways not duplicated 

by the offi cial case fi les, chambers papers help to explain the internal work of the federal courts and the process of judicial deliberation. 

Chambers papers are also a source for understanding a judge’s interaction with the bar, and with the public and the press in high-profi le 

cases. These kinds of documents form the foundation of an historical 

narrative that can bring judicial history alive for students of the courts.

 Chambers papers frequently include predecisional material, such 

as case notes, orders, jury instructions, draft memorandums, draft 

opinions, correspondence, and research. Chambers papers might include documents relating to court administration, service on the Judicial Conference or circuit councils, and membership on the Board 

or committees of the Federal Judicial Center and other agencies of the 

judiciary. Media reports concerning the judge or specifi c cases, personnel fi les, and miscellaneous records of the judge’s activities, such as 

speeches, awards, and photographs, are also valuable parts of a judge’s 

chambers papers. These materials are a critical source for learning 

about the judicial service of individual judges and for documenting 

a judge’s professional career. Chambers papers also refl ect the diverse 

backgrounds and experiences of judges who make up the judiciary at 

any given time and, in the fi nal analysis, promote a broad public understanding of the judicial process and the men and women who carry 

out the responsibilities of the federal courts. 

 The signifi cance of these materials is not always apparent to those 

involved in the daily work of the federal courts. Students of the courts, 

however, recognize the unique perspective offered in a judge’s chambers papers and personal papers. Recent scholarship on the history of 

the federal judiciary, briefl y reviewed below, offers abundant examples 

of the richness of detail and context to be found in research collections 
4 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

donated by federal judges. From this scholarship, in turn, comes the 

foundation for educational materials and popular understanding of 

the history of the federal courts. Educators who teach the history of 

our court system report that a full appreciation of the judiciary’s role 

in public life requires the study of diverse sources that tell us not just 

about offi cial actions but also describe the individuals who participate 

in the judicial process, including the citizens who approach the courts, 

the lawyers involved in cases, and, of course, the judges. And it is the 

judges’ personal papers that often are the richest single source for illuminating the human aspects of the judicial process.

 While judges’ manuscript collections have potential value for the 

study of a broad range of topics dealing with public life and the judiciary, judicial collections are particularly valuable for three general areas of research: biographical studies; institutional histories of a single 

court or the courts of a circuit; and more general studies of legal history. 

Biographical Studies

Chambers papers and other personal papers will enrich a judge’s biography. The papers created by a judge are often a key to understanding that individual’s distinct impact on the work of the courts. Files 

maintained in chambers chronicle professional and community relationships as well as the work of jurisprudence. Interest in biographical study extends beyond the well-known fi gures in the history of the 

federal courts. Many trial and appellate judges who may not be nationally known play signifi cant roles in the legal affairs of their districts, 

circuits, or states. Their papers offer valuable insights into the history 

of those jurisdictions. The availability of personal papers from a cross 

section of judges also makes possible collective biographies, which are 

an important way of studying the development of the federal judiciary 

and the diversifi cation of the bench.

 Judicial biography has attracted increased attention in recent years, 

as demonstrated by the growing number of scholarly publications not 

only on Supreme Court justices, but also district and appellate court 

judges, such as Learned Hand, Sarah T. Hughes, Willis Ritter, Edward 

Weinfeld, and John Minor Wisdom.1 These biographies rely in part on 

 1. Gerald Gunther, Learned Hand: The Man and the Judge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994); Darwin Payne, Indomitable Sarah: The Life of Judge Sarah 
Completing the Historical Record 5

personal papers, which bring life and texture to the offi cial records of 

those judges’ courts. In his study of Judge Weinfeld, William Nelson 

found that only “an unusually rich collection of personal papers” enabled him to trace the challenges that Weinfeld faced in establishing his 

professional career. The authors of Judge Ritter’s biography acknowledged that their book “would be seriously defi cient” without access to 

the judge’s papers. The “voluminous” papers of Judge Hughes allowed 

the biographer to recount the full career of one of the most important 

women leaders in Texas public life during the mid-twentieth century.

 The presence or absence of a judicial collection can determine the 

historical legacy of a judge. In his recent history of the Supreme Court 

during the Franklin Roosevelt era, William Wiecek found that “Owen 

Roberts remains an enigma today, in some measure because he destroyed all his personal papers,” while “the extensive collections of [Felix] Frankfurter’s papers at the Library of Congress and the Harvard 

Law School disclose a man of prodigious industry, with an incisive 

mind and nearly omnivorous interests.”2

Institutional Histories

In his history of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, George 

Dargo found that a single judge’s collection “documented the history 

of the court . . . in ways that could not be duplicated.” Discovery of the 

collection “proved to be a turning point in [the] search for a First Circuit history.”3

 Since the publication of the First Circuit history, recent 

circuit and district court histories have drawn on judicial collections 

to enrich their narratives. Histories of the district courts for the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the Southern District of Ohio, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District 

T. Hughes (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 2004); Patricia F. Cowley and 

Parker M. Nielson, Thunder Over Zion: The Life of Chief Judge Willis W. Ritter (Salt 

Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2007); William E. Nelson, In Pursuit of Right and 

Justice: Edward Weinfeld as Lawyer and Judge (New York: New York University Press, 

2004); Joel William Friedman, Champion of Civil Rights: Judge John Minor Wisdom 

(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2009).

 2. William M. Wiecek, The Birth of the Modern Constitution: The United States 

Supreme Court, 1941–1953 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 63, 89.

 3. George Dargo, A History of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: Volume 1, 1891–1960 (Boston: U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 1993), 

217.
6 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

of Tennessee, and the Southern District of Texas all rely on research 

collections documenting the careers of judges on those courts. Peter 

Fish’s history of the early years of federal courts in the current Fourth 

Circuit draws from the private correspondence of judges who served 

on those courts.4

 In a model study of the early federal courts in one state, Mary K. 

Bonsteel Tachau used the personal papers of judges to analyze the role 

of the federal judiciary in Kentucky. In one of the most thorough investigations of the relationship between judicial appointments and 

partisan politics, Kermit L. Hall examined the personal correspondence of numerous judges appointed to the federal bench during the 

mid-nineteenth century. Peter Fish’s study of the origins of modern 

judicial administration examines the papers of judges who served on 

the Judicial Conference of the United States in the 1930s.5

 Recent court histories also make clear the challenge of writing a 

narrative history without access to judges’ personal papers. In his history of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Mark 

Lender noted that the “dearth” of papers for a prominent early judge 

made it diffi cult to reconstruct the judge’s extensive legal career. Ro-

 4. Richard Cahan, A Court That Shaped America: Chicago’s Federal District Court 

from Abe Lincoln to Abbie Hoffman (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 

2002); George W. Geib and Donald B. Kite, Sr., Federal Justice in Indiana: The History 

of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis: 

Indiana Historical Society Press, 2007); Roberta Sue Alexander, A Place of Recourse: 

A History of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, 1803–2003 (Athens: Ohio University Press, 2005); Mark Edward Lender, “This Honorable Court”: The 

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 1789–2000 (New Brunswick, 

NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2006); Patricia E. Brake, Justice in the Valley: A Bicentennial Perspective of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee 

(Franklin, TN: Hillsboro Press, 1998); Charles L. Zelden, Justice Lies in the District: 

The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, 1902–1960 (College Station: Texas 

A & M University Press, 1993); Steven Harmon Wilson, The Rise of Judicial Management in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, 1955–2000 (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2002); Peter Graham Fish, Federal Justice in the Mid-Atlantic 

South: United States Courts from Maryland to the Carolinas, 1789–1835 (Washington, 

DC: Administrative Offi ce of the U.S. Courts, 2002).

 5. Mary K. Bonsteel Tachau, Federal Courts in the Early Republic: Kentucky, 1789–

1816 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978); Kermit L. Hall, The Politics of 

Justice: Lower Federal Judicial Selection and the Second Party System, 1829–1861 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979); Peter Graham Fish, The Politics of Judicial 

Administration (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973).
Completing the Historical Record 7

berta Alexander found that the scarcity of judicial collections for the 

Southern District of Ohio forced her to dig into “the pigeon holes of 

musty archives” to fi nd the history of the court.

 Wider availability of judges’ papers would enrich future court histories with more individual perspectives and give these institutional 

studies a broader importance for understanding the legal culture of 

the districts and circuits. A judge’s personal fi les give a broader dimension to an institutional history by offering what is often the only 

documentation of the public response to a case before the courts. The 

chambers papers of judges who broke barriers of gender or race on 

their courts may provide a unique resource for study of the diversifi cation of the bench.

Legal History

Perhaps the greatest potential contribution to be made by judges’ 

papers is toward broad studies of legal history. The papers of federal 

judges can help to explain a wide variety of topics related to law and 

public life, including the evolution of legal doctrine, court enforcement of federal legislation, and popularly organized litigation campaigns. Judges’ papers can also be useful for analyzing a specifi c case 

or related cases.6

 Unfortunately, the relative scarcity of judges’ collections in repositories, and the diffi culty in locating these scattered 

papers, have deterred many researchers from taking advantage of this 

kind of historical resource. The preservation of more collections from 

a wider variety of judges and the availability of guides, such as the listings of research collections in the Federal Judicial Center’s “Biographical Directory of Federal Judges” (available at http://www.fjc.gov), are 

supporting further examination of aspects of judicial history that are 

relevant to cultural, political, and economic histories. As a personal 

record of service on the federal bench and a unique indicator of the 

judiciary’s interaction with other public institutions, the collections 

of federal judges attract researchers who might not consult the offi cial 

court records. Judges’ papers are excellent sources for integrating the 

 6. See, e.g., John Henry Schlegel, American Legal Realism and Empirical Social 

Science (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995); Robert J. Kaczorowski, 

The Politics of Judicial Interpretation: The Federal Courts, Department of Justice and 

Civil Rights, 1866–1876 (1985; reprint, New York: Fordham University Press, 2005).
8 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

history of the federal judiciary and legal culture into broader studies of 

American government and public life.
9

The Organization of Chambers Papers: 

What to Save and How to Save It

Federal judges and their staffs frequently inquire about which materials among judges’ papers merit preservation. The most valuable 

judicial research collections are those that complement rather than 

duplicate the case fi les, administrative records of the courts, or published sources. Those documents unique to a judge’s chambers will 

be the most illuminating about the court, the particular accomplishments of that judge, and the era and region in which the judge served. 

Documents, such as memorandums between judges or between the 

judge and staff, that explain the process of judicial deliberation, and 

other predecisional materials that illuminate the judge’s formulation 

of opinions, management of cases, or approach to court administration, will contribute to a better appreciation of the responsibilities of 

federal judges.

 For judges who wish to provide their staffs with some specifi c 

guidelines concerning categories of materials to preserve, the following section offers some brief recommendations. Following that is a 

section providing guidance for staff implementing a records-management program for chambers. Such a system will help staff to keep fi les 

orderly and accessible to others. It also will facilitate the transfer of 

personal or chambers papers to a repository for preservation. Whether 

a judge adopts these records-management suggestions or relies on another system, the organization of chambers papers itself becomes an 

important record of the work of the judge. Repositories that accept 

judicial collections will usually be interested in maintaining the same 

organizational structure used in the judge’s chambers. 

 Repositories vary in their policies about retaining different categories of materials, and each collection of judges’ papers presents different issues. A judge who decides to preserve chambers papers will fi nd it 

helpful to consult with the archivists of a potential repository to make 

sure that they agree about issues each considers important. Archivists 

will welcome the opportunity to meet with judges and their staffs so 

that valuable records will be preserved in chambers. An archivist’s visit 

to chambers will be invaluable for later processing of the collection. 

Judges may use the lists below as a basis for discussion with archivists 
10 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

and for instructions for staff who will be responsible for managing 

the records. In addition, judges may wish to consult the inventories of 

other judges’ collections already in the possession of repositories. (See 

sample inventories in Appendix C.)

Identifying Documents for Preservation

Papers routinely found in the chambers of a federal judge fall into the 

following categories:

• case-related correspondence and background material, including but not limited to memorandums between judges and law 

clerks, memorandums between judges on an appeals panel, 

drafts of orders and opinions, and letters from the public;

• records of court administration and governance;

• documents related to participation on judicial committees;

• communications between judges and members of the bar concerning legal activities in the community;

• correspondence concerning public affairs;

• papers related to nonjudicial activities of the judge, such as service to non-law-related organizations and participation in civic 

affairs; and 

• personal papers related to the judge’s private life.

Chambers papers might be organized in three series:

1. Case-related fi les.

2. Other court-related activities.

3. Nonjudicial activities.

Series 1. Case-Related Files—Separating the Case Files 

and Chambers Papers

Practice varies among courts and chambers regarding the contents of 

case fi les and fi les that the judge maintains separately in chambers. 

In some instances, local rules specify those materials that are to be 

placed in the case fi le. Federal records statutes obligate courts to “preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the 

organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential 

transactions” of the court (44 U.S.C. § 3101). Therefore, all materials fi led offi cially with the court in support of litigation belong in the 
The Organization of Chambers Papers 11

court’s case fi le—such materials include briefs, depositions, and exhibits made part of the record. The District Court Clerks Manual7

 lists the 

types of documents usually included in case fi les:

• Form JS-44, Civil Cover Sheet, and any local cover sheets

• Pleadings (e.g., complaint, answer) as defi ned in Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 7(a), and exhibits attached to the pleadings

• Indictment, information, or other initiating documents

• Warrants

• Motions, other documents, and exhibits attached to the motions and other documents

• Certifi cates of service

• Orders

• Depositions and interrogatories (e.g., papers, audiotapes, videotapes), if required by the local rules

• Exhibits made part of the record (e.g., papers, audiotapes, videotapes)

• Courtroom minute sheets

• Jury instructions 

• Transcripts and recordings (audio and video) of proceedings

• Briefs

• Judgments

• Correspondence (if important)

 For their own reference, judges may wish to instruct staff to include in the chambers fi les copies of documents from the case fi les. 

The other documents in the case fi les retained in the judges’ chambers 

will differ considerably, both in size and content, according to the type 

of court. The criteria for preservation, however, are the same. The documents that make a judge’s case-related fi les historically valuable are 

those that provide information not available in the court record and 

those that illustrate the decision-making process of the judge or panel 

of judges. 

 The following suggestions, listed according to type of court, offer 

guidelines for the organization and preservation of judges’ case-related 

fi les.

 7. Guide to Judiciary Policies and Procedures, Vol. 4—District Court Clerks 

Manual, Ch. 21, Records Management, § 21.02 “Records Which the Clerk’s Offi ce 

Must Keep.”
12 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

District Courts

Each district court judge usually maintains a series of chambers case 

fi les. If the judge maintains fi les of predecisional material, these items 

will offer insight into the judge’s work that is not conveyed in the court 

record. It is the work fi les that will make a district court judge’s papers 

an interesting and important part of the historical record. Judges may 

also choose to retain duplicates of the original documents fi led in the 

court’s case fi les. These copies of documents will help to explain the 

other material in the chambers papers and will assist researchers who 

may not have easy access to the original case fi les at the National Archives, although some repositories may not be interested in case fi les 

that only contain information that is also available elsewhere.

 Arrangement by docket number will permit cross-referencing to 

the court’s permanent case fi les. Some judges’ staffs create name indexes to permit easy access, and these would be helpful for repositories 

and researchers as well. The following table lists the suggested disposition of a judge’s case-related documents.

Type of Document Disposition

Judge’s memorandums 

to law clerks or motions 

clerks

Preserve permanently.

Law clerk memorandums 

related to the specifi c case

Preserve permanently.

Judge’s notes on oral 

argument

Preserve permanently.

Draft opinions or orders Preserve permanently.

Opinion galleys and 

proofs

Retain those with revision of contents noted; discard unmarked proofs 

upon receipt of slip opinion.

Slip opinions Preserve permanently; fi le one copy 

in chambers case fi le and one copy 

in judge’s opinion fi le (if separate 

opinion fi le is maintained).

Correspondence with the 

public

Preserve permanently; if voluminous, 

fi le separately from other case-fi le 

material and label with case name, 

noting “public correspondence.” 
The Organization of Chambers Papers 13

Courts of Appeals

Like district court judges, appellate judges routinely maintain a series 

of case fi les. These fi les are usually arranged by docket number. Any 

indexes created by the judge or staff will facilitate use of the collection. The chambers case fi les of appellate judges are likely to include 

a different kind of predecisional material because of the frequency of 

communications between judges serving on a panel. Judges concerned 

about the preservation and donation of confi dential communications 

may refer to the discussion of restrictions on access that are discussed 

below (see infra pages 25–28). 

 The following table lists the suggested disposition of appellate 

court judges’ case-related documents:

Type of Document Disposition

Judge’s notes on oral 

argument

Preserve permanently.

Judge’s memorandums 

to law clerks or motions 

clerks

Preserve permanently.

Legal research; related 

opinions

Save memorandums; discard photocopies of cases and law review articles 

after case is closed, provided that 

the cases and articles are cited in the 

judge’s opinion. If they are not cited, 

archivists will be interested in a list of 

consulted authorities.

Bench memorandums Preserve permanently.

Voting memorandums Preserve permanently.

Conference notes Preserve permanently.

Draft opinions with the 

judge’s notes

Preserve permanently.

Judicial correspondence Preserve permanently.

Opinion galleys and 

proofs

Retain those with revision of contents noted; discard unmarked proofs 

upon receipt of slip opinion.

Correspondence regarding publicationPreserve permanently.
14 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

Slip opinions Preserve permanently; fi le one copy 

in chambers case fi le and one copy 

in judge’s opinion fi le (if separate 

opinion fi le is maintained).

Note on Bankruptcy and Magistrate Judges

As with the chambers papers of district and appellate judges, the records of bankruptcy and magistrate judges distinct from the offi cial 

case fi les will be the records of the greatest historical value. Although 

the court record generally encompasses a higher proportion of the 

documents created by the work of bankruptcy and magistrate judges 

than of those created by district and appellate judges, bankruptcy and 

magistrate judges will have fi les containing internal memorandums, 

documents related to court governance, and records of judicial committee work. These chambers papers remain the responsibility of the 

judges, and for these papers to be preserved for research a judge needs 

to donate them to a repository.

Closing a Case File 

When a case is closed, the closing date should be clearly identifi ed, and 

the case should be fi led separate from pending cases—this will keep 

these records in order until their transfer to a repository.

 If the judge’s fi le contains any original documents that belong 

in the court’s case fi le, such as briefs and exhibits, the clerk will accept these records for completion of the offi cial record. Copies for the 

chambers fi le will provide convenient reference for the judge and staff.

 If a fi le contains material that a judge wishes to keep confi dential, 

either because of agreements between the parties or to protect the personal privacy of third parties, the fi le should be fl agged and marked 

with the date when it may be opened. Filing such materials in a separate box marked “confi dential records” will further ensure security. 

(For a discussion of confi dential communications among judges, see 

infra page 27.)

 Once the records of closed cases are fi led separate from open case 

fi les, the boxes should be labeled with the docket numbers and closing 

dates of the enclosed cases.
The Organization of Chambers Papers 15

Sealed and Classifi ed Records

A judge’s chambers papers may contain materials of a sensitive nature, 

including documents from a sealed case or classifi ed materials. The 

sealing of cases or case papers is in some matters pursuant to statute 

and more frequently governed by judicial discretion or the rules of 

each judicial district or circuit. Classifi ed materials, by contrast, are 

closed to public inspection by a department or agency of the executive branch and must be declassifi ed by the agency or department that 

classifi ed the documents, or they may be declassifi ed by the staff of 

the National Archives and Records Administration, before they can be 

made available to researchers.

 Judges whose papers contain notes or documents from sealed cases ought to consult their local court rules, and the access restrictions 

on the chambers fi les should parallel those imposed on the case fi les. 

Some courts specify that sealed records must remain sealed for a set 

amount of time, while others leave the time of sealing to the discretion 

of the judge or clerk of court. The Federal Judicial Center has compiled a survey of local court rules relating to records sealing in Sealed 

Settlement Agreements in Federal District Court, Appendix B (2004), 

that judges and archival repositories can use as a guide to the various 

ways of handling sealed case materials.8

 Most classifi ed records handled by the federal courts are now 

turned over to the Department of Justice’s Security and Emergency 

Planning Staff (SEPS) upon the termination of a classifi ed case. SEPS 

holds classifi ed materials, as well as judges’ notes from classifi ed trials, 

in perpetuity. Some judges designate their notes and papers from classifi ed cases for destruction upon receipt by SEPS, while other judges 

make no such determination. Classifi ed materials, however, occasionally remain in the chambers papers of some judges, particularly those 

who served before this transfer process was established.

 Classifi ed materials must be held at a facility and under conditions approved by the U.S. Department of Defense or another authorized government agency. The Library of Congress and the presidential libraries are equipped to hold classifi ed materials, although many 

libraries and archival repositories are not. After materials are declas-

 8. Robert Timothy Reagan, Shannon R. Wheatman, Marie Leary, Natacha Blain, 

Steven S. Gensler, George Cort, and Dean Miletich, Sealed Settlement Agreements in 

Federal District Court (Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center, 2004).
16 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

sifi ed, they may be transferred with the rest of the judge’s papers to a 

private repository.

 The staffs of SEPS and the National Archives are available to answer the questions of judges and their staffs regarding classifi ed materials in their collections. SEPS can be reached by phone at (202) 

514-9016. The Initial Processing and Declassifi cation Division at the 

National Archives can be reached at (301) 837-0584, and the Information Security Oversight Offi ce (ISOO) at the National Archives can be 

reached at (202) 357-5250, or online at http://www.archives.gov/isoo/. 

In 2007, the Federal Judicial Center published Keeping Government Secrets: A Pocket Guide for Judges on the State-Secrets Privilege, the Classifi ed Information Procedures Act, and Court Security Offi cers, which may 

be a useful guide for handling classifi ed materials at the courthouse 

prior to delivery to an archival repository.9

Opinions and Orders

Some judges keep comprehensive fi les of their orders and opinions 

separate from the specifi c case fi les. Whether a judge maintains such a 

fi le or not, copies of orders and opinions placed in the chambers case 

fi les would be helpful for archivists and researchers. If a judge creates 

a separate fi le of opinions and orders, a repository may wish to accept 

the fi le intact, even if a signifi cant proportion of the writings have already been published. Repositories will also be interested in preserving 

all unpublished opinions. Indexes and fi nding aids for these fi les are an 

important addition to the collection.

Public Correspondence 

Judges involved in a high-profi le case may receive letters from the 

public commenting on the case. This public correspondence can be 

some of the most valuable documentation of the impact of the work 

of the federal judiciary. The papers of J. Skelly Wright at the Library of 

Congress include extensive public correspondence from the late 1950s 

to early 1960s regarding the New Orleans school desegregation case 

that Wright presided over while he was a district judge. The collection 

maintains the judge’s arrangement of the letters in fi les marked “favorable” and “unfavorable,” and the correspondence offers a vivid sense of 

 9. Robert Timothy Reagan, Keeping Government Secrets: A Pocket Guide for Judges 

on the State-Secrets Privilege, the Classifi ed Information Procedures Act, and Court Security Offi cers (Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center, 2007).
The Organization of Chambers Papers 17

the confl icts surrounding the case and of the challenges facing a lone 

district judge. Even in less controversial cases, public correspondence 

can offer researchers and educators one of the few sources explaining 

reaction to the work of the courts. Public correspondence can be kept 

in the case-related fi les or organized, as Wright’s chambers did, in general correspondence fi les.

Series 2. Other Court-Related Activities

Federal judges participate in numerous activities related to judicial 

business, including work on committees, court governance, personnel 

matters, and bar functions. The documentation of these activities illustrates an important dimension of a judge’s career and may enhance 

the collection of papers.

 Judges who retain these kinds of materials may wish to establish 

sub-series of such fi les in whatever arrangement they fi nd suitable. 

Chronological fi ling will allow documents arranged by year to be retired to off-site storage after suitable intervals. 

Administrative Papers and Offi ce Files

The administrative papers of a judge can be a valuable documentation 

of institutional history as well as the history of judicial administration. 

The fi les of a chief judge will probably hold the richest documentation 

in this area, but the fi les of other judges are likely to contain valuable 

administrative material. Records may include correspondence, printed 

policy papers, memorandums, studies, minutes, and committee reports. Additional papers may relate to Judicial Conference and judicial council activities, committee service, and extrajudicial activities. A 

judge may also preserve the following: general correspondence, offi ce 

personnel fi les, travel vouchers, appointment books, diaries, speech 

fi les, seminar fi les, news clippings, biographical fi les, and law clerk fi les.

 Documents that illuminate court administration and operations—particularly interactions between chief judges and the other 

judges on the court, or between the court and the Administrative Offi ce, the Federal Judicial Center, and the circuit judicial council—will 

make a valuable addition to the historical record. As with the case fi les, 

the most signifi cant documents within a judge’s collection are those 

not found in published form or included in the records of a judicial 

agency. Printed materials received from the Administrative Offi ce, the 
18 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

Federal Judicial Center, the Judicial Conference, or other agencies will 

be a part of the respective agency’s permanent record, although those 

materials that pertain to an area in which the judge was active will help 

to explain documents unique to the judge’s collection. Papers relating 

to circuit judicial conferences and judicial council business usually duplicate materials saved by the clerk or circuit executive, but again those 

papers related to activities or subjects in which the judges were directly 

involved, particularly policy documents they helped draft or minutes 

of committees on which they played a substantive part, will be a helpful addition to a manuscript collection.

 Papers that document a judge’s service on the Judicial Conference or its committees, the Board or committees of the Federal Judicial Center, or other judicial branch advisory boards also will be of 

research value. Although most such materials will be preserved by the 

respective agencies, those general records that illuminate the unique 

documents and correspondence among a judge’s papers will be of interest, particularly any such documents containing the judge’s annotated comments.

Appointment Books and Calendars

Appointment books and calendars of offi cial responsibilities can be 

important reference sources that will help make sense of other parts 

of a collection.

Biographical and Clippings Files

Files that contain updated résumés, copies of entries in various biographical sources, clippings of biographical articles, newspaper and 

journal articles related to cases, and fi nancial disclosure forms often 

make a valuable addition to a manuscript collection. The access restrictions that a judge applies to the broader collection can keep fi nancial records confi dential for a stipulated period of time.

Invitations and Trip Files

Judges receive invitations to a wide array of professional and community events, and the invitations are one way of documenting 

events in which a judge has participated. Routine materials related to 

trips—such as correspondence concerning transportation and local 

arrangements, and vouchers—are less likely to provide information 

not available elsewhere in the collection. Materials such as speeches, 
The Organization of Chambers Papers 19

background materials for meetings, agendas, and lists of invited guests, 

however, are useful sources documenting the judge’s role in professional activities.

Photographic Files

Photographs are valuable sources of historical information if they are 

labeled with the names of the participants, the dates of the photographs, the locations, or the events. 

Speeches and Writings Files

Speaking engagements may constitute a signifi cant part of a judge’s 

interaction with the bar and the public. A collection of the judge’s 

speeches as well as a fi le of articles or other writings, will be an informative and convenient resource. If the sources the judge relied on are 

documented in the text of the speech, basic reference materials will be 

redundant. If the judge keeps notices concerning press coverage of the 

speech, either in the speech fi les or in a separate set of scrapbooks, such 

material will offer an extra dimension to these materials.

Files on Law Clerks

If judges maintain fi les on law clerks and preserve correspondence or 

other documents that go beyond typical personnel information, the 

fi les will help to explain the working relationship between judges and 

their law clerks, and any continuing correspondence will document 

the judge’s role as a mentor to the clerk.

Series 3. Nonjudicial Activities

This series should include fi les related to nonjudicial activities of the 

judge, such as service to organizations or participation in civic affairs. 

It also could include personal correspondence and documents such as 

diaries. Judges who keep diaries create an important historical record 

of an individual’s service on the federal bench and a source that offers 

a personal perspective on the court’s broader work. 

 The fi les relating to nonjudicial activities will include correspondence and papers related to the judge’s professional and private life. 

The papers documenting earlier as well as subsequent professional 

activities can illuminate the relationship between judicial service and 

other career work, particularly that related to the law. The gathering in 
20 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

one repository of all of the historically signifi cant materials created by 

an individual greatly enriches a collection. A repository interested in 

the papers of a federal judge will want to know of all personal papers 

that might be available for donation.

Managing Chambers Documents for 

Preservation

If a judge’s staff has instituted a chambers fi ling system or uses the 

judiciary’s fi ling scheme, that system is itself a document of the court’s 

work and will help a manuscript repository to process and catalog the 

collection. The Administrative Offi ce of the U.S. Courts has developed a model fi ling system for district judges. For information on the 

system, contact the Records Management Branch in the Applications 

Management and Development Division of the Offi ce of Information 

Technology, (202) 502-2500.

 When fi les are no longer needed in chambers, a judge may choose 

to transfer them from chambers to a repository and permit the archivists to process the material, disposing of papers that in the judgment 

of the archivist have no historical signifi cance. Most repositories do 

not require donors or their staffs to select fi les prior to transfer to the 

research facility, and many archivists encourage donors to consult with 

the repository staff before making any decisions about destruction of 

materials. Archivists will also welcome the donor’s clear instructions 

about the preservation of materials that might otherwise be discarded.

 Whether a judge or staff arranges for the regular transfer of fi les or 

retains fi les in chambers until the end of the judge’s career, a few special preservation measures are suggested for chambers staff apart from 

the standard record-keeping practices necessary for the usual conduct 

of business. Such measures include the following:

• noting the date a document is created and the person who created it;

• keeping papers in clearly labeled folders that are later boxed as 

they were fi led in chambers;

• maintaining an inventory that lists fi les by name and describes 

their arrangement; and

• photocopying newspaper clippings and older fax papers so that 

they will prove more durable.
The Organization of Chambers Papers 21

Electronic Records

The chambers “papers” of federal judges are becoming increasingly full 

of “documents” that are “born digital”—records such as emails, electronic calendars, word-processing fi les, computer-based presentations, 

and websites. Such records, which have complicated the archival process, raise issues that potential donors should consider when discussing their personal collections with an archivist at a research institution. 

Because offi ce systems vary so widely, archivists will benefi t from a 

visit to a judge’s chambers to see how electronic records are created 

and maintained and to offer suggestions for archiving such records.

 Judges and chambers staff who take an active role in the accessioning and processing phases of the donation can help ensure that 

electronic records are organized and cataloged properly. Some donors 

add a sentence or two to the beginning of each “born digital” record to 

provide context, such as where a speech was given or the circumstances 

under which an email was written. When a collection includes both paper and electronic copies of the same documents, donors may be able 

to advise the archivists of signifi cant differences between the paper and 

digital copies (such as emphasis or notes that were handwritten into 

the printed version of speeches). If related records are maintained in 

electronic and paper format, electronic directory structures should 

mirror as closely as possible the fi ling schemes used for paper documents. Donors who have developed personalized systems for naming 

computer fi les (e.g., “Speech.2008.1,” “Speech.2008.2”) ought to inform the repository of their naming scheme. Digitized photographs 

or documents should be accompanied by directories or indexes that 

clearly identify each digital fi le.

 Some judges may have created electronic records using computer 

programs that have since become obsolete. In such cases, the donor 

should provide the repository with a copy of the program to ensure 

that the records are “readable.” Some donors simply give their personal 

computer, including its software and fi les, to the repository. Most repositories will convert fi les created on obsolete software into fi les compatible with currently used programs, such as Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat. Conversion of word-processing fi les into PDF or image 

fi les also helps protect them from corruption or alteration. In order 

to protect against loss of electronic information during the accession 

and conversion processes, donors may wish to provide a repository 
22 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

with backed-up copies of their fi les (on a CD-ROM or external hard 

drive). Donors ought to label these external memory devices clearly to 

simplify the accessioning and processing of the collection. Donors may 

also choose to keep a back-up copy of their fi les for themselves.

 Donors should discuss with the repository how electronic records 

will be made available to the public for research. Some libraries only 

make hard copies of digital fi les available to researchers, although this 

policy will become increasingly problematic as more and more digital records are donated to research facilities. Other repositories make 

PDF fi les of digital records available online, sometimes linking to them 

directly from the collection’s online fi nding aid. One pitfall of this approach, however, is that records available online may be more heavily 

used than the nondigital records that are only available at the repository, even though the digital records may not be the most important or 

representative documents in the collection.

Storage

Space is at a premium in many courthouses, and inadequate storage 

areas could result in the loss or damage of historically valuable materials. The staffs of judges who arrange for the donation of chambers 

papers can often ship to the repository materials no longer needed 

in chambers. The repository will hold the materials until the judge 

permits their research use, thereby lessening demands on the court’s 

space. The federal records centers, however, do not have the authority to accept judges’ papers, even temporarily. In order to secure any 

collections inadvertently sent to the records centers, a court’s staff can 

recall a judge’s papers for storage elsewhere.
23

Manuscript Repositories 

Selecting a Repository

The following services will ensure that a repository can properly care 

for a judicial collection:

• an ongoing, professionally managed manuscript collection 

program available to researchers and offering professional reference services;

• established, written policies governing access to and use of the 

collections;

• equal access to all unrestricted collections for all responsible 

users;

• climate-controlled areas for storage, protected against fi re and 

fl ood;

• secure storage, processing, and reference areas with controlled 

access by the public;

• storage of documents in archival containers;

• capacity to handle nonpaper media (e.g., audiotapes, videotapes, and microfi lm) if necessary; and

• established policies and procedures for accepting, preserving, 

and making available electronic records.

 Many repositories have the resources to accept and process a comprehensive collection of judicial papers, and many are eager to accession the papers of a federal judge. Before making any decision about 

where to donate personal papers, meetings between the judge and 

representatives of a prospective repository will help to determine if 

the institution is fully committed to processing and managing the collection. Once an agreement is reached, the judge can instruct chambers staff on the proper arrangement of personal fi les; the repository 

can prepare for the accession of the papers; noncurrent fi les might be 

transferred to the repository on a regular basis; and family and staff 

will be fully apprised of the judge’s intentions.

 The choice of a repository will help to determine the accessibility 

and the scholarly use of a judge’s collection. Collections will be most 

useful if they are placed in a repository with an established archives or 
24 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

special-collections program and staff to process and make available 

the materials donated by the judge. A repository that houses complementary collections, such as those of other members of the judge’s 

court or leaders of the legal community, will provide access to scholars 

of judicial and legal history.

 Possible repositories include universities, historical societies, or 

law school libraries. Some institutions develop specializations in subject matter and may seek the papers of a judge whose career, both on 

and off the bench, relates to the institution’s area of concentration. 

Similarly, the presidential libraries often accept papers of public fi gures who had close relationships with the president whose papers the 

library maintains.

 Judges often express interest in donating papers to an alma mater, 

usually their law school. If the school has an established manuscript 

program, that may be a suitable choice. Law schools with such collections often seek the papers of graduates. If a school does not have 

an existing special-collections program, a single collection of papers, 

without the benefi t of professional archivists or facilities for researchers, could prove to be virtually inaccessible. If a judge chooses an 

institution that does not already have a special-collections program 

established, a written agreement might include an arrangement for 

processing the papers and making them available to researchers.

 The National Historical Publications and Records Commission 

published a list of repositories in its Directory of Archives and Manuscript Repositories in the United States, 2d ed. (1988). The Library of 

Congress also provides a link to a listing of repositories at its website, 

http://www.loc.gov/coll/nucmc/index.html. The Federal Judicial History Offi ce can provide judges with suggestions for repositories that 

may be interested in a donated collection or those that have already 

accessioned collections from judges of the same court. 

The National Archives and Records Administration

The National Archives holds the permanent records of the federal 

courts. It does not normally accept personal papers into the regular 

archival collections. The only exception to this policy applies to the 

presidential libraries, which are administered by the National Archives.
Manuscript Repositories 25

The Library of Congress 

The Library of Congress accepts the papers of federal judges who, in 

judicial service or in nonjudicial careers, have made what the library 

believes are exceptional contributions in an area where the library’s 

collections are particularly strong. Most of the Library of Congress’s 

recent collections of judicial papers are from Supreme Court justices 

and trial and appellate court judges whose work had particular signifi -

cance for the role of federal regulatory agencies or for federal government policies and operations.

Court Libraries 

Most court libraries are not equipped to handle the processing and reference services required to administer collections of manuscripts and 

to accommodate outside researchers. Court librarians, however, can 

be an excellent resource for identifying regional archival repositories 

that may be interested in accessioning the collections of judges from 

the district or circuit.

Determining Policies on Access to a Manuscript 

Collection

A judge who wishes to limit access to a manuscript collection should 

discuss the potential restrictions in detail with representatives of a repository. Archival institutions seek to preserve historically signifi cant 

materials and make them available for research purposes without excessive delay. Repositories, however, recognize that donors often have 

legitimate reasons for restricting access to some papers and will generally agree to administer restrictions that a judge wishes to apply to a 

collection.

 Many repositories may not have the resources to administer unduly complicated restrictions or those contingent on something other 

than the passage of time. Restrictions that require the regular supervision of archival staff may prove too time-consuming or costly. It also 

is preferable not to apply restrictions that depend on the discretion 

of a third party. For example, closing case fi les until a specifi c date is 

preferable to allowing access with the permission of an executor, who 

may be unfamiliar with the collection or who may be diffi cult to locate, 

especially years after the judge has died.
26 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

 When deciding to donate papers, judges should know that many 

of their papers can be made available for research at the time of deposit, after a relatively brief period of restriction, or upon their death. 

Speech fi les, correspondence fi les on matters related to nonjudicial activities, and fi les documenting work long since completed might be 

opened immediately after the fi les are deposited.

 In determining what, if any, access restrictions are proper, a judge 

might consider several key issues: periods of restriction, equal access, 

judicial confi dentiality, and privacy concerns.

Periods of Restriction

The easiest restriction for a repository to administer, and one likely to 

provide the best protection of confi dentiality, is a provision that limits 

access to all or part of a collection to all users for a specifi c period of 

time.

 Judges who choose to embargo fi les might consider opening case 

fi les some years from the date of termination of the case rather than 

from the date when the judge’s service ends. If a judge dies while serving, restriction until the death of the donor would permit immediate access to chambers case fi les for recently terminated cases. For a 

judge with thirty years on the bench, closure until the judge’s death 

would result in lengthy restrictions on cases long concluded. An access 

date keyed to the date of the termination of the case offers protection 

of confi dentiality and reasonable access. The judge may choose to offer earlier access to fi les not related to cases, such as administrative or 

committee papers.

 In practice, judges and their families impose widely varying terms 

of access. In addition to the restrictions cited above, frequently used 

provisions include immediate access with permission of the judge, no 

restrictions, and access restricted until the death of all participating 

judges. (See Appendix A for a survey of selected access restrictions.)

Equal Access

Most repositories, concerned that privileged access would hinder a fair 

scholarly exchange, prefer to open materials to all researchers or close 

them to all researchers. When determining restrictions for papers in 
Manuscript Repositories 27

a repository, judges should be aware of current archival practices and 

standards that accord all qualifi ed researchers equal status. 

Judicial Confi dentiality

The chambers papers of almost every judge will contain communications from other judges on the court. Particularly regarding appellate 

courts, judicial tradition honors the practice of confi dential discussions among judges during their decision making and recognizes the 

need to have those discussions remain confi dential long enough to 

protect the integrity of the judicial process. Some judges believe that 

confi dentiality prevents a judge from making such communications 

public during the lifetimes of the other judges, if at all. Others believe 

that, because every judge is a public offi cial, work-related materials 

should be made available at the point when disclosure will not interfere with the business of the court.

 Judges who wish to donate their papers need not purge their fi les 

of communications from other judges. The imposition of a longer embargo period on this part of a collection would satisfy concerns about 

confi dentiality without diminishing the historical record by removing 

integral documents.

 Restriction of access until the death or retirement of all participating judges would satisfy many concerns about confi dentiality, but it 

may be diffi cult for repositories to enforce because of the problems of 

tracking a number of individuals. Before imposing such a restriction, 

a judge should consult with the repository to see if it would be able to 

comply.

Sensitive Records and Privacy Concerns

When defi ning the terms of their donation, judges should discuss the 

presence of any records from sealed cases within their collections to 

determine whether the repository is prepared to restrict use of those 

records for an agreed upon amount of time. Most libraries are willing 

to accommodate reasonable and uniform restrictions of use on certain 

records within a judge’s collection, but staff limitations may prevent 

some repositories from being able to implement complicated restrictions that would require periodic reassessment of the records.
28 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

 A judge involved in a case that resulted in the fi ling of an unusual 

amount of personal information may have concerns about the protection of privacy. Particularly if the collection is to be digitized or made 

available in electronic form, the ease of public searching might threaten the privacy of third parties by prematurely exposing Social Security 

numbers, medical information, or educational records. It is not necessary to embargo all material of this kind, and the Judicial Conference 

policies regarding public access to electronic transcripts may be helpful for determining what personal information a judge might want to 

close to researchers for a stated period of time.

 Federal or state privacy laws may apply to some personal information about third parties. Repositories differ about the nature of their 

responsibility to protect the privacy of third parties. Most repositories 

prefer to have donors identify fi les that require access restrictions and 

specify what those restrictions are. To avoid misunderstandings about 

the responsibility for protecting the privacy of individuals, the repository should provide the judge with a full description of its policy. Archivists processing the collection may apprise the donor of materials 

that raise privacy concerns.

Digitizing Records

It is becoming increasingly common for archival repositories to digitize collections, or portions of collections, to make them available to 

researchers online or on CD-ROMs. Donors ought to discuss the possibility of digitization of their manuscript collections with potential 

repositories. Most repositories are unlikely to commit to digitizing collections upon receipt, but they will likely want to keep the option of 

future digitization open. The benefi t of digitization is that the records 

become widely available to researchers throughout the world, rather 

than simply to those who can visit the repository.

Preparing a Donor Agreement

The donation of papers to a repository requires an instrument of gift 

that specifi es the circumstances under which the actual transfer of the 

materials takes place, conveys ownership of the materials, transfers 

copyright where appropriate, and stipulates conditions under which 

researchers may view and copy documents. Most repositories will supply a standard form. (A sample agreement is attached in Appendix B.) 
Manuscript Repositories 29

Donors, however, often draft a wide range of stipulations in conjunction with a repository. 

 If a donor wishes to deposit material in a repository without 

transferring title to the documents and the repository agrees to this 

arrangement, the donor agreement should so state and indicate the 

point at which title to the material will transfer. Many repositories will 

be reluctant to accept a judge’s papers without a transfer of title.

 The essential components of a donor agreement include the 

following:10

• Name of the donor and statement of ownership—That is, the 

person holding title to the material. For a judge’s chambers papers, the owner is either the judge or the heirs to the papers.

• Name of the recipient—Before proceeding with a donation, a 

donor must ensure that the designated recipient wishes to accept the collection. The repository must be contacted in advance of the donation, and it should supply the wording for 

specifying the recipient, which may differ from the title of the 

repository. For example, a donation that will be held in a state 

university library may require deeding the papers to the state. 

• Transfer of title—The donor agreement should specify that the 

title passes to the repository. Rights (of access, use, copyright) 

should be addressed separately.

• Description of the materials and circumstances of transfer—Donors should include a narrative description of the materials 

included in the donation, including the types of records, the 

quantity of materials, and the date range of the collection. 

Where a judge arranges for donation before the end of his or 

her service on the bench, the agreement should specify the 

times at which materials will be transferred (e.g., “Chambers 

fi les will be deposited annually in February and will comprise 

fi les related to cases terminated at least two years earlier. Other 

offi ce fi les will be transferred annually and will consist of material no longer needed in chambers.”). The agreement should 

state that the judge may consult the material as is necessary and 

 10. See Gary M. Peterson and Trudy Huskamp Peterson, Archives & Manuscripts: 

Law (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1985), 24–27; Menzi L. Behrnd-Klodt, 

Navigating Legal Issues in Archives (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2008), 

52–55.
30 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

that the repository will return requested fi les or boxes to the 

judge for use in chambers.

• Additional shipments—If the judge is transferring material periodically, the agreement should note that such transfers will 

occur in accordance with the present agreement. This provision 

will eliminate the need for a new document for each addition to 

the collection. 

• Copyright—Although chambers papers are the personal property of the judge and subject to the judge’s disposal, the law 

concerning copyright (Copyright Act of 1976, Title 17 of the 

U.S. Code) stipulates that materials created by government 

employees while carrying out their duties are not protected by 

copyright. The materials are therefore in the public domain, 

and the judge cannot claim a copyright in them.

 Judges’ donations, however, may also include materials created outside their work for the federal courts and in which they 

hold copyright. In the donor agreement, judges should clearly 

indicate their intentions concerning any material to which they 

hold copyright. It is easiest for both the repository and future 

researchers if copyright is transferred with the documents; otherwise, researchers will need to contact the holder of the copyright before using any unpublished material. Some repositories 

may be reluctant to accept a collection if the donor does not 

assign the copyright. The judge can transfer copyright to the 

repository and still preserve the right to use the material or to 

restrict access, but any such provisions should be spelled out in 

the donor agreement. The copyright may also be transferred to 

the public domain, in which case researchers can freely publish 

from the collection. Again, any such transfers must be explicitly 

stated in writing.

• Disposal—The repository may wish for a grant of authority to 

dispose of material that it determines unworthy of permanent 

preservation. The judge may ask that such items be returned 

rather than destroyed. The agreement may also permit transfer 

of paper records to other formats (such as microfi lm or CD) to 

provide fl exibility to an archive with space constraints. If such 

a provision is included, judges will want to specify that access 

conditions pertain to material regardless of format.
Manuscript Repositories 31

• Access for processing—A clause should explicitly grant access to 

the archivists (under the burden of confi dentiality) for the purpose of processing materials otherwise restricted. 

• Access for research—The donor agreement should specify whatever access restrictions the judge decides to apply to the collection.

• Subpoena clause—Such a clause specifi es the responsibility of 

the repository to contact the donor in the event a portion of the 

collection is subpoenaed. 

 It is important to put all conditions in writing. Written agreements, explicitly and clearly stated, prevent misunderstandings and 

clarify for users, colleagues, and family members precisely what the 

judge intends. 

Bequests

If a judge plans to bequeath chambers papers to a repository, it is important to make plans in advance of such a donation and to work out 

agreements with the potential repository about the terms of the donation.

Tax Deductions for Donations of Papers

Collections donated by a judge’s heirs may under some circumstances 

qualify as a charitable gift for purposes of tax deductions, but the law 

is complicated, and since 1969 the law has not permitted deductions 

by the creator of the records for anything other than the cost of the 

materials used to create the records. Heirs who believe their gift may 

qualify should consult a lawyer who can advise on the appraisal process and possible deductions. The archival repository cannot provide 

an appraised value of the collection, but the repository staff may be 

able to recommend several professional appraisers.

Transfer of Papers

Many repositories will accept papers on an ongoing basis as a judge 

determines that the papers are no longer needed in chambers. Older 

fi les can be transferred to the repository while newer ones are boxed 

and kept in chambers. 
32 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

 Repositories will have different transfer procedures. Some will 

send archivists to chambers to assist in shipping fi les, some will ask 

that all papers be sent to the repository, and some will request that 

only certain categories of papers be sent. Repositories also have varying policies concerning paying for the shipment of donated papers. 

Some repositories will pick materials up or pay for shipment. Others 

ask donors to bear the cost of shipping.

 Repositories will appreciate any assistance the judge’s staff can 

provide regarding the contents of the fi les being shipped. Ideally, each 

shipment will contain a fi le list for each box of fi les and the list will 

describe the contents and the dates of the fi les. For example:

Box 1: Case fi les, terminated January–March, 2003.

Box 2: Case fi les, terminated April–August, 2003.

Box 3: Case fi les, terminated September–December, 2003.

 If possible, it would be helpful to have a more detailed list for each 

box:

 Box 1: Case fi les, terminated January–March, 2003.

8800821 Smith v. Jones

8802586 White v. Gray

8803597 Green v. Blue

 If a case fi le contains sensitive material (e.g., personal information concerning a minor child) that would require an unusually long 

embargo period, the fi le should be fl agged, separated, and placed in a 

special container with a date affi xed indicating when it may be opened.
33

Conclusion

This guide provides some basic assistance to judges wishing to offer 

their papers as a resource for future researchers and thereby contribute 

to a better public understanding of the work of the federal courts. As 

judges and their staffs organize collections, questions undoubtedly will 

arise that this handbook does not answer. The Federal Judicial History 

Offi ce can provide further advice and can suggest contacts at specifi c 

repositories. 
Blank pages included to preserve pagination for double-sided printing.
35

Bibliography

Menzi L. Behrnd-Klodt, Navigating Legal Issues in Archives (Chicago: 

Society of American Archivists, 2008).

National Archives and Records Administration, Records Management 

in Federal Courts; A NARA Evaluation (Washington, DC: 1992).

National Historical Publications and Records Commission, Directory 

of Archives and Manuscript Repositories in the United States, 2d ed. 

(Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1988).

Karen Dawley Paul, Records Management Handbook for United States 

Senators and Their Archival Repositories. S. Pub. 102-17 (1992).

Robert Timothy Reagan, Keeping Government Secrets: A Pocket Guide 

for Judges on the State-Secrets Privilege, the Classifi ed Information 

Procedures Act, and Court Security Offi cers (Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center, 2007).

Robert Timothy Reagan, Shannon R. Wheatman, Marie Leary, Natacha 

Blain, Steven S. Gensler, George Cort, and Dean Miletich, Sealed 

Settlement Agreements in Federal District Court (Washington, DC: 

Federal Judicial Center, 2004).
Blank pages included to preserve pagination for double-sided printing.
37

Appendix A: Survey of Access 

Restrictions Placed on Manuscript 

Collections by Federal Judges

Access Policies for Selected Research Collections 

of Federal Judges Who Have Donated Their 

Papers to Manuscript Repositories

Judge: Morris S. Arnold

Repository: Torreyson Library, University of Central Arkansas

Access policy: Materials available to researchers as they are processed 

by the repository; judge regularly transfers noncurrent records to the 

repository.

Judge: Norman W. Black

Repository: Tarlton Law Library, University of Texas Law School

Access policy: Unrestricted

Judge: John D. Butzner

Repository: University of Virginia Law School Library

Access policy: Unrestricted

Judge: Harry T. Edwards 

Repository: Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan

Access policy: The collection is open to researchers, with permission 

from the judge or his surviving spouse or children.

Judge: George E. MacKinnon

Repository: Minnesota Historical Society

Access policy: Access with permission of the judge prior to his death; 

opened after his death.
38 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

Judge: Abner J. Mikva

Repository: Lincoln Presidential Library

Access policy: Restricted until ten years after death; earlier access with 

permission of the donor or executor.

Judge: Giles S. Rich

Repository: Library of Congress

Access policy: Case fi les closed during the lifetime of all judges who 

participated in the decision of individual cases.

Judge: Harold Barefoot Sanders, Jr.

Repository: Tarlton Law Library, University of Texas Law School

Access policy: Unrestricted

Judge: William S. Sessions

Repository: Library of Congress

Access policy: Access with permission of the judge. Following his 

death, access will require permission of surviving spouse, and subsequently the executor for fi fteen years following the death of the judge’s 

last surviving spouse.

Judge: Patricia Wald

Repository: Yale University

Access policy: Closed until ten years after death of the judge; earlier 

access with permission of executor.

Access Policies for Research Collections of 

Recent and Sitting Justices of the Supreme Court 

of the United States

Justice Hugo Black

Repository: Library of Congress

Access policy: Access to the collection is restricted during the lifetime 

of the heirs; permission to use the collection must be obtained from 

the executors and further permission to publish any writings in the 

collection, or writing for publication about them, must be obtained.
Appendix A 39

Justice Harry Blackmun 

Repository: Library of Congress

Access policy: Opened to researchers fi ve years after the death of the 

justice.

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.

Repository: Library of Congress

Access policy: During the justice’s lifetime, access was restricted to researchers with his permission; some materials opened upon his death; 

“Personal Annual Reviews of the Term’s Work” remain closed during 

the lifetime of all justices who participated in the cases.

Chief Justice Warren Burger

Repository: College of William and Mary

Access policy: Closed to researchers until the later of (a) January 1, 

2026, or (b) the tenth anniversary of the death of the survivor of the 

group of justices with whom Burger served on the Supreme Court. 

Justice William O. Douglas

Repository: Library of Congress

Access policy: Materials were originally restricted until the justice’s 

death; later additions to the collection were restricted for fi ve years.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 

Repository: Library of Congress

Access policy: During the lifetime of the justice, access restricted to 

researchers with her approval; following the death of the justice, individual case fi les will be closed during the lifetime of justices or judges 

who participated in the decision of that case.

Justice John Marshall Harlan

Repository: Seeley G. Mudd Library, Princeton University

Access policy: After donation of the papers in 1972, all materials were 

restricted until July 8, 1979, with the possibility of an extension for an 

additional year. At the request of the executor, the restrictions were 

extended for the additional year. The papers were opened to the public 

on July 9, 1980, without restriction, at the discretion of the university 

archivist.
40 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

Justice Thurgood Marshall

Repository: Library of Congress

Access policy: Collection opened upon the death of the justice.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

Repository: Library of Congress

Access policy: During the lifetime of the justice, access restricted to 

those with her permission; all but case fi les open upon the death of the 

justice; individual case fi les closed during the service of any justice who 

participated in the case.

Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Repository: Washington and Lee University School of Law

Access policy: Judicial papers not already public information are restricted during the service of any justice or judge who served with 

Powell, unless access granted by the donor, or granted after the justice’s 

death by the archivist in consultation with the dean of the law school.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist

Repository: Hoover Institution, Stanford University

Access policy: Supreme Court case fi les and related material for October terms 1975–2005 closed during the lifetime of justices who served 

with Rehnquist during each term; remainder of collection open to researchers upon processing of the collection in 2008.

Justice Potter Stewart

Repository: Yale University

Access policy: Court materials closed during the service of all justices 

who served on the Supreme Court with Stewart.

Justice Earl Warren

Repository: Library of Congress

Access policy: Originally restricted until 1985; terms of his will modifi ed restriction to ten years after his death in 1974.
Appendix A 41

Justice Byron White

Repository: Library of Congress

Access policy: Closed until ten years after his death; open to the public 

without restriction after that date.

Sources: Congressional Record, May 27, 1993, pp. S6724–6726; U.S. Supreme Court, Offi ce of the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice; repository websites.
Blank pages included to preserve pagination for double-sided printing.
43

Appendix B: Sample Donor 

Agreements

Below are two sample donor agreements:

1. Harvard Law School Library donor form

2. Deed of Gift (reprinted from Records Management Handbook 

for U.S. Senators and Their Archival Repositories)

Also, the Society of American Archivists has prepared a short guide to donor agreements, which is available online at http://www.archivists.org/

publications/deed_of_gift.asp.

Harvard Law School Library

CERTIFICATE OF GIFT

 I, [Name of donor], hereby give, convey and transfer to the President and Fellows of Harvard College (“Harvard”) acting through the 

Harvard Law School Library (the “Library”) the papers and other 

materials described on Appendix I attached hereto, to be known as 

the Papers of [Name of subject]. (Those papers and materials, and any 

other papers and materials I may deliver to the Library in the future, 

are referred to herein as the “Collection.”) My gift of the Collection is 

made subject to the following terms and conditions:

1. Title to the Collection will pass to Harvard on the date on which 

I sign this instrument, except that title to any papers and other 

materials I subsequently transfer to the Library will pass on the 

date of the future transfer. With the exceptions noted below, 

the Librarian of the Library and/or others so authorized for 

this purpose by the Librarian will have the right and authority 

to make all decisions affecting the conveyance, arrangement, 

description, preservation, accessibility, use, and disposition of 

the Collection.

2. The Library agrees to provide for the preservation, arrangement 

and cataloging of the Collection. The Library will have the right 

to transfer all or part of the Collection to other formats, such as 

microfi lming or digital imaging. In processing the Collection, 
44 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

inappropriate and duplicate material may be disposed of in accordance with the Library’s usual procedures.

3. The Library agrees to make the Collection, subsequent to its 

cataloging, available to researchers [option: who have obtained 

my written permission]. The Library further agrees to provide 

me and/or any agent authorized by me access to the Collection during the regular hours of the Library’s Department of 

Special Collections. [After my death,] [include foregoing only 

with preceding option] [a]ccess to the Collection may be given 

to any person whom the Librarian or the Librarian’s designees, 

in their complete discretion, may deem appropriate.

4. By this instrument, I give, convey and transfer to Harvard 

all of my right, title and interest in the Collection and each 

work contained therein, including, without limitation, all of 

my copyrights and other intellectual property rights therein, 

throughout the world. This gift and transfer includes, without 

limitation, all renewal copyrights I now or hereafter may have. 

[option: I reserve the right to defer the transfer of copyright 

and other intellectual property rights for selected material I 

have so designated on Appendix III attached hereto. With respect to any such selected material, however, I agree that, at the 

discretion of the Librarian, the Library may make, or permit 

researchers to make, copies of those materials solely for the recipient’s personal, noncommercial research or educational use 

or for use that otherwise would not infringe copyright.]

5. The Library agrees to secure from all users of the Collection, 

prior to providing access to the materials contained therein, a 

signed “Application for the Examination of Manuscripts” form, 

which limits use of unpublished materials. The fi nal responsibility for securing permission to use copyrighted material, 

however, rests with the user of materials protected by copyright.

6. I hereby represent that I am the sole owner of the entire tangible property interest in the Collection, free and clear of liens 

and adverse claims; that I have not previously granted or transferred any rights in the Collection or the copyrights or other 

intellectual property rights therein to any other party, except 

as may be described on Appendix II attached hereto; and that I 

have the full right, power and authority to make this gift.
Appendix B 45

7. I agree to execute such further documents and to take such 

further actions, at Harvard’s expense, as Harvard may request 

from time to time to perfect, confi rm or protect the rights conveyed and transferred hereunder to Harvard. This instrument 

is executed under seal, and will be governed by and construed 

in accordance with the laws of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, without giving effect to its choice of law principles. 

The terms of this instrument will be binding upon my heirs, 

executors, and personal representatives. This agreement will remain in effect unless and until superseded by a revised written 

agreement entered into by me and the Library.

________________________________ _________________

(Donor) (Date)

The gift described above is accepted on behalf of Harvard, subject to 

the terms, conditions, and restrictions herein set forth.

________________________________ _________________

Librarian for Special Collections (Date)

Harvard Law School Library

APPENDIX I

Description of Collection

APPENDIX II

Rights Previously Granted

The following is a description of all rights in the Collection or the 

copyrights or other intellectual property rights therein that I (the donor) have previously granted or transferred to any party other than 

Harvard:

APPENDIX III

Material as to which Copyright Transfer Is Deferred

With respect to the following materials comprising part of the Collection, I (the donor) wish to defer transfer to Harvard of the copyright 
46 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

and other intellectual property rights until immediately before my 

death or such earlier time as may be specifi ed below:

The transfer to Harvard of all copyrights and other intellectual property rights in the materials listed above will occur automatically as of 

the date described above, as part of the gift of the Collection, without 

the need of any further act or deed by me (the donor).
Appendix B 47

Deed of Gift

Gift of Papers and Other Historical Materials

(reprinted from Records Management Handbook for U.S. Senators and Their 

Archival Repositories)

 1. Senator ____________ (hereinafter referred to as the Donor), 

hereby give, donate, and convey to the _________________ Library 

(hereinafter referred to as the Donee), my papers and other historical 

materials.

 2. Title to the Materials shall pass to the Donee upon their delivery to the Donee. Copyright in that portion of the Materials in which 

copyright resides is retained by the Donor. Upon the Donor’s death, 

copyright is transferred to the ___________________ Library of 

_________________ University.

 3. Following delivery, the Materials shall be maintained by the 

Donee in the _________________ Library. At any time after delivery, 

the donor shall be permitted freely to examine any materials during 

the regular working hours of the _______________ Library.

 4. It is the Donor’s wish that the Materials be made available for research as soon as possible following their deposit in the 

_____________ Library. At the same time, the Donor recognizes that 

the Materials may include some information which, at present, should 

not be released. Accordingly, the Donee shall, for the present, restrict 

access to the following classes of materials:

 a. Papers and other Materials, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or a libel of 

a living person.

 b. Materials relating to the personal, family, and confi dential business affairs of the Donor or other persons referenced by the Materials.

 c. Material relating to investigations of individuals and organizations, to proposed appointments to offi ce, or to other personal matters 

affecting individual privacy.

 d. Materials relating to the work of political consultants in campaigns.

 e. All offi ce fi nancial accounting and personnel records found in 

the Materials will be sealed and destroyed after (determine the date).
48 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

 5. It is the responsibility of the Donee to identify the classes of 

Materials listed in Paragraph 4. This responsibility will be administered in good faith to the best of the Donee’s abilities within the policies of the Library. (Or other language to refl ect that this is a diffi cult 

responsibility and even with careful stewardship, in the unlikely event 

that something may happen, this contract is not voided.)

 OR

 5. The Donor shall have the Materials reviewed to identify the 

classes of Materials listed in Paragraph 4 and any other Materials which 

should be restricted. The type and location of restricted materials shall 

be communicated to the Donee as soon as possible as no part of the 

Materials will be opened until this review has taken place.

 6. Materials which have been restricted from access in accordance 

with Paragraph 4, sections a–d, can be reviewed from time to time and 

opened to public access when both Donor and Donee agree that conditions no longer require restrictions. Otherwise, these Materials shall 

be restricted until ______________________.

 There are several options available for paragraph 6:

 a. A date can be named.

 b. If the classes listed in Paragraph 4, sections a–d have different 

lengths of time restrictions, the wording in Paragraph 6 can follow 

each section. Lengths of restrictions normally run from fi ve to twenty 

years.

 c. Or, restrictions can run from when the material was created. 

For example, the specifi ed material is closed for “X” number of years 

from date of creation (usually twenty years).

 7. Materials restricted shall not be made available for inspection, 

reading, or use by anyone except the regular employees of the Donee, 

in the performance of normal archival work on such Materials, and the 

Donor, or persons authorized by him in writing to have access to such 

materials.

 8. The Donee reserves the right to restrict access until such time 

as the Materials which have been restricted from access in accordance 

with Paragraph 4 are identifi ed and until the Materials have been fully 

processed and can be made available to the researcher.

 9. Subject to the restrictions imposed herein, the Donee may dispose of any of the Materials which the Donee determines to have no 
Appendix B 49

permanent value or historical interest. If in the opinion of the Donee 

the Materials should be preserved in a different physical format, such 

as microfi lm, the Donee may perform the necessary processing and the 

original materials shall be disposed. During the lifetime of the Donor, 

and at the Donor’s request, the Materials proposed for disposal shall be 

returned to the Donor.

 10. As required by Senate Rule XL, Section 5, the Donee stipulates that any machine readable records shall be used only for research 

purposes and that lists of individual names and addresses found in the 

records in whatever format shall not be provided to other parties for 

political or profi t purposes.

 11. As provided by Senate Rule XXVI, Section 10(a), all offi cial 

committee records are the property of the Senate and when found in 

the Materials will be returned to the appropriate committee, and the 

Senate Archivist will be noticed.

 12. In the event that the Donor may from time to time hereafter, 

give, donate, and convey to the Donee, for deposit in the Library, additional papers and other historical materials, title shall pass to the Donee upon their delivery and this instrument of gift shall be applicable 

to all additional materials.

Date: ___________________

Signatures of both parties:

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________
Blank pages included to preserve pagination for double-sided printing.
51

Appendix C: Selected Inventories of 

Judicial Collections in Repositories

After processing a manuscript collection, most repositories prepare a 

detailed fi nding aid to help researchers navigate the collection. The 

content and scope of fi nding aids vary widely from institution to institution. Some libraries create fi nding aids that describe their collections 

down to the box, folder, or item level. Other libraries provide more 

general descriptions of their collections. Judges who include box or 

folder lists when they transfer their records to a library will assist the 

archivists in creating a detailed fi nding aid.

 Appendix C presents a selection of excerpts from fi nding aids prepared for judicial collections at several repositories. 

1. Papers of Charles Fahy

2. Papers of Gerhard Gesell

3. Papers of Wade H. McCree, Jr.

4. Papers of Bruce Van Sickle

Each offers an example of how judges have organized their judicial and 

nonjudicial papers. The complete fi nding aids, which are available at 

each institution’s website, include more detailed information, and in 

some cases include descriptions of individual fi les.
52 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

1. Papers of Charles Fahy, U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia, Library of Congress

Charles Fahy

A Register of His Papers in the Library of Congress

Prepared by Grover Batts 

Revised and expanded by Connie L. Cartledge 

with the assistance of Michael W. Giese

Manuscript Division, Library of Congress 

Washington, D.C.

2004

Contact information: h ttp://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/mss/address.html 

Finding aid encoded by Library of Congress

Manuscript Division, 2004 

Finding aid URL: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.ms004013

Latest revision: 2004-07-02

C ollection Summary 

Title: Papers of Charles Fahy 

Span Dates: 1857–1985 

Bulk Dates: (bulk 1942–1975) 

ID No.: MSS20164

Creator: Fahy, Charles, 1892–1979 

Extent: 35,000 items; 103 containers; 40.2 linear feet

Language: Collection material in English 
Appendix C 53

Repository: Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, 

D.C. 

Abstract: Jurist, lawyer, United States solicitor general, and United 

States delegate to the United Nations. Diaries, correspondence, legal 

case fi les, subject fi les, speeches and writings, and other papers. Primarily related to Fahy’s service on the United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit. Other papers relate to Fahy’s role 

as an advisor and representative of the presidential administrations of 

Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John 

F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson. Also documents Fahy’s professional activities and associations, as well as his World War I experience 

as a naval aviator. Includes family papers.

S elected Search Terms 

The following terms have been used to index the description of this 

collection in the Library’s online catalog. They are grouped by name of 

person or organization, by subject or location, and by occupation and 

listed alphabetically therein.

N ames: 

Fahy, Charles, 1892–1979

Eisenhower, Dwight D. (Dwight David), 1890–1969

Fahy family

Fahy, Thomas, 1844–1917

Frankfurter, Felix, 1882–1965--Correspondence

Hesburgh, Theodore Martin, 1917- --Correspondence

Johnson, Lyndon B. (Lyndon Baines), 1908–1973

Kennedy, John F. (John Fitzgerald), 1917–1963

Levy, Philip, d. 1970--Correspondence

O’Meara, Joseph, 1898- --Correspondence

Roosevelt, Franklin D. (Franklin Delano), 1882–1945

Sobeloff, Simon Ernest, 1894–1973--Correspondence

Truman, Harry S., 1884–1972--Correspondence

Wilson, Ellen Axson

Committee Appointed to Review the Decartelization Program in 

Germany (U.S.)

United Nations

United States. Court of Appeals (District of Columbia Circuit) 
54 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

United States. President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and 

Opportunity in the Armed Services

American Bar Association

Bar Association of the District of Columbia

Georgetown University

University of Notre Dame

S ubjects: 

Cartels--Germany

Civil law--United States

Courts--Washington (D.C.)

Criminal law--United States

Industries--Germany

Lend-lease operations (1941-1945)

Practice of law--New Mexico--Santa Fe

Practice of law--Washington (D.C.)

World War, 1914–1918--Aerial operations, American

Germany--History--1945–1955

Great Britain--Foreign relations--United States

United States--Foreign relations--Great Britain

United States--Politics and government--1945-

United States--Politics and government--1933–1945

O ccupations: 

Jurists

Lawyers

Public offi cials

A dministrative Information 

P rovenance:

The papers of Charles Fahy, jurist, lawyer, solicitor general, and delegate to the United Nations, were given to the Library of Congress by 

Fahy. The fi rst group of manuscripts was received in 1967, with additional papers given through 1977. Gifts of material related to Fahy 

were received from his sister, Sister Peter Claver, from 1984 to 1986.
Appendix C 55

P rocessing History: 

The papers of Charles Fahy were arranged and described in 1983. Additional material received from 1984 to 1986 was incorporated into the 

collection in 1999. The fi nding aid was revised in 2004.

T ransfers: 

An audiotape has been transferred to the Library’s Motion Picture, 

Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound Division where it is identifi ed as 

part of these papers.

C opyright Status: 

Copyright in the unpublished writings of Charles Fahy in these papers 

and in other collections of papers in the custody of the Library of Congress has been dedicated to the public.

P referred Citation: 

Researchers wishing to cite this collection should include the following information: Container number, Charles Fahy Papers, Manuscript 

Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

Biographical Note

Date Event

1892, Aug. 27 Born, Rome, Ga.

1910–1911 Attended University of Notre Dame, 

Notre Dame, Ind.

1914 LL.B., Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.

Admitted to District of Columbia 

bar

1914–1924 Practiced law in the District of Columbia except for the period when 

he served in the armed forces

1917–1919 Naval aviator during World War I

1924–1933 Practiced law in Santa Fe, N. Mex.

1929 Married Mary Agnes Lane

1933–1935 First assistant solicitor, Department 

of the Interior
56 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

1935–1940 General counsel, National Labor 

Relations Board

1940–1941 Assistant solicitor general

1941 Member, President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt’s Naval and Air Base Commission to London

1941–1945 Solicitor general

1942 LL.D., Georgetown University, 

Washington, D.C.

1945 Adviser to U.S. delegation to San 

Francisco Conference, United Nations

1945–1946 Legal adviser to military governor of 

Germany

1946–1947 Legal adviser, Department of State

1948–1950 Chairman, President’s Committee 

on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services

1949–1979 Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

1979, Sept. 17 Died, Washington, D.C.

S cope and Content Note 

The papers of Charles Fahy (1892–1979) span the years 1857–1985, 

with the bulk of the items concentrated in the period 1942–1975. The 

collection consists of the following series: Diaries; Family Correspondence; General Correspondence; Court of Appeals File; Subject File; 

Speeches, Writings, and Related Material; Miscellany; and Addition.

 Fahy’s papers include documents from the earliest phase of his 

career, such as a fl ight log book, offi cial records, and several pages 

describing experiences during his service as a naval aviator in World 

War I. There are also diary entries for the years 1931–1933 when he 

practiced law in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

 Included in the General Correspondence are letters from numerous political and judicial fi gures associated with the administrations of 
Appendix C 57

presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson. Correspondents represented by extensive groups of letters include Felix Frankfurter, Theodore Martin Hesburgh, Philip Levy, Joseph O’Meara, Simon Ernest 

Sobeloff, and Harry S. Truman.

 The bulk of Fahy’s papers consists of the Court of Appeals series. Covering the years 1949–1976, this series contains majority, dissenting, or concurring opinions written by Fahy while a judge of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 

Among the more notable cases for which Fahy wrote the majority 

opinion are Shachtman v. Dulles, 1955, in which it was decided that 

the government may not arbitrarily deprive Americans of the right to 

travel abroad; Easter v. District of Columbia, 1966, which determined 

that chronic alcoholics cannot be jailed as criminals; Hobson v. Hansen, 

1967, which prohibited the selection of school board members for the 

District of Columbia by judges of the United States District Court; and 

Hoffman v. United States, 1971, which reversed the conviction of Hoffman for defi ling the American fl ag.

 The Subject File reveals Fahy’s activity in behalf of judicial groups 

such as the American Bar Association and Bar Association of the District of Columbia and religious organizations such as the Catholic 

Association for International Peace, Loyola Retreat House, and the 

Washington League of Laymen Retreatants. Numerous manuscripts 

relate to his continuing association with Georgetown University and 

the University of Notre Dame. A large fi le concerns the work of the 

Ferguson Commission which established policies for the decartelization of German industry after World War II. Although Fahy did not 

accompany the group to Germany, he acted as counsel for the commission.

 Another group of papers, made up of correspondence and lectures, relates to the Salzburg Seminar in American Studies. Fahy participated in legal seminars for this organization in 1963 and 1966. Of 

interest also is a subject fi le concerning Ziang Sun Wan, a Chinese student sentenced to death for the murder in 1919 of three members of 

a Chinese educational mission in Washington. Largely through Fahy’s 

efforts, Wan’s conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court on the 

grounds that his confession had been obtained from him involuntarily 

by the police. A few manuscripts concern Fahy’s work as chairman of 

President Truman’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Oppor-
58 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

tunity in the Armed Services and others dealing with his participation 

in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s commission to London in 1941 to 

negotiate terms for the exchange of United States naval destroyers for 

the use of air and naval facilities in British transatlantic territories.

 Also in the collection are a small group of speeches, radio broadcasts, articles, and book reviews, as well as miscellaneous items consisting of biographical information, invitations, memoranda and notes, 

and name and address fi les.

 The Addition includes correspondence, photographs, and the naturalization papers of Thomas Fahy, Charles Fahy’s father. The majority of the items pertain to family history and reminiscences. One of 

the reminiscences and a photograph relate to the death of Ellen Axson 

Wilson.

 Most of Fahy’s papers prior to his appointment to the United 

States Court of Appeals are located in other repositories. Papers relating to his work on the Committee on Equality of Treatment in the 

Armed Services are in the Truman Library at Independence, Missouri; 

those for the period 1933–1949 are housed in the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library at Hyde Park, New York. A list of the latter group of papers titled “Rough Notes of the Files and Papers of Charles Fahy taken 

for the Roosevelt Hyde Park Library, 23 Nov. 1959” is available in the 

Manuscript Division Reading Room.

O rganization of the Papers 

The collection is arranged in eight series:

• Diaries, 1918–1949 

• Family Correspondence, 1917–1965 

• General Correspondence, 1933–1967 

• Court of Appeals File, 1949–1976 

• Subject File, 1917–1976 

• Speeches, Writings, and Related Material, 1938–1966, n.d. 

• Miscellany, 1934–1967 

• Addition, 1857–1985 
Appendix C 59

Description of Series

Container Series

BOX 1 Diaries, 1918–1949

Diaries of Charles Fahy.

Arranged chronologically.

BOX 2 Family Correspondence, 1917–1965 Letters 

exchanged with various family members.

Arranged alphabetically by name of the family member.

BOX 2–16 General Correspondence, 1933–1967 Correspondence sent and received. Arranged 

alphabetically by name of correspondent.

BOX 17–85 Court of Appeals File, 1949–1976

Case fi les in which Fahy wrote majority, dissenting, or concurring opinions.

Arranged chronologically by year and alphabetically therein by case title.

BOX 86–99 Subject File, 1917–1976

Correspondence, memoranda, reports, legal 

papers, and printed matter.

Arranged alphabetically by name of organization or topic.

BOX 100–101 Speeches, Writings, and Related Material, 

1938–1966, n.d.

Speeches, radio broadcasts, articles, and 

book reviews.

Arranged by type of material.

BOX 102 Miscellany, 1934–1967

Biographical information, invitations, 

memoranda and notes, names and addresses, 

and a passport.

Arranged alphabetically by type of material.

BOX 103 Addition, 1857–1985

Correspondence, photographs, naturalization papers, a newspaper clipping, and other 

family papers.

Arranged chronologically.
60 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

2. Papers of Gerhard Gesell, U.S. District Court 

for the District of Columbia, Library of Congress

Gerhard Alden Gesell

A Register of His Papers in the Library of Congress

Prepared by Connie L. Cartledge 

with the assistance of John R. Monagle 

Manuscript Division, Library of Congress 

Washington, D.C.

1993

Contact information: http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/mss/address.html 

Finding aid encoded by Library of Congress

Manuscript Division, 2003 

Finding aid URL: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.ms003019

Latest revision: 2004-08-12

Collection Summary 

Title: Papers of Gerhard Alden Gesell 

Span Dates: 1956–1993 

Bulk Dates: (bulk 1968–1992) 

ID No.: MSS81163

Creator: Gesell, Gerhard Alden, 1910- 

Extent: 60,000 items; 171 containers plus 1 classifi ed; 67.2 linear feet

Language: Collection material in English 

Repository: Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, 

D.C.
Appendix C 61

Abstract: Judge and lawyer. Correspondence, memoranda, manuscripts of writings, speeches, agenda and minutes of meetings, opinions, orders, dockets, notes, sentencing information, case fi les, and 

other legal papers and material pertaining primarily to Gesell’s career 

as judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and documenting his cases in the areas of civil rights, constitutional law, antitrust matters, patent cases, and government regulations.

Selected Search Terms 

The following terms have been used to index the description of this 

collection in the Library’s online catalog. They are grouped by name 

of person or organization and by subject or location, and listed alphabetically therein.

Names:

Gesell, Gerhard Alden, 1910-

Acheson, Dean, 1893–1971

Bancroft, Harding F. (Harding Foster), 1910- 

Bratton, Howard C. (Howard Calvin), 1922–1964

Burger, Warren E., 1907- 

Cox, Archibald, 1912- 

Fitzpatrick, Joseph M. (Joseph Mark) 

Harlan, John M. (John Marshall), 1899–1971

Humphrey, Hubert H. (Hubert Horatio), 1911–1978

Johnson, Lyndon B. (Lyndon Baines), 1908–1973

Kaufman, Irving R. (Irving Robert), 1910–1992

Lumbard, J. Edward

North, Oliver

O’Brian, John Lord, b. 1874

Remington, Frank J., 1922- 

Sirica, John J.

Stewart, Potter.

Walsh, Lawrence E.

Warren, Earl, 1891–1974

Wilson, Frank M.

United States. Court of Appeals (District of Columbia Circuit) 

United States. District Court (District of Columbia) 

United States. Constitution
62 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

Subjects:

Pentagon Papers

Abortion--Law and legislation

Administrative law

Antitrust law

Civil rights

Constitutional amendments--United States

Constitutional law

Crime

Demography--Washington (D.C.)

Family

Iran-Contra Affair, 1985–1990

Justice, Administration of

Patent laws and legislation

Race relations

Riots--Washington (D.C.)

Watergate Affair, 1972–1974

Washington (D.C.)--Economic conditions

Occupations:

Jurists

Lawyers

Administrative Information 

Provenance:

The papers of Gerhard Alden Gesell, lawyer and judge, were given to 

the Library of Congress by Gesell in 1991. Subsequent additions have 

been received since that time.

Transfers:

Items have been transferred from the Manuscript Division to other 

custodial divisions of the Library. Video recordings have been transferred to the Motion Picture, Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound 

Division. Thirteen original drawings of political cartoons have been 

transferred to the Prints and Photographs Division. All transfers are 

identifi ed in these divisions as part of the Gerhard Alden Gesell Papers.
Appendix C 63

Copyright Status: 

Copyright in the unpublished writings of Gerhard Alden Gesell in 

these papers and in other collections in the custody of the Library of 

Congress has been dedicated to the public.

Re strictions: 

Restrictions apply governing the use, photoduplication, or publication 

of items in this collection. Consult a reference librarian in the Manuscript Division for information concerning these restrictions.

Se curity Classifi ed Documents: 

Government regulations control the use of classifi ed material in this 

collection. Manuscript Division staff can furnish further information 

concerning access to and use of classifi ed material.

Preferred Citation: 

Researchers wishing to cite this collection should include the following 

information: Container number, Gerhard Alden Gesell Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

Bi ographical Note

Date Event

1910, 16 June Born, Los Angeles, Calif.

1932 A.B., Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

1935 LL.B., Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

1935–1941 Attorney, Securities and Exchange Commission

1936 Married Marion Holliday Pike

1941–1967 Member, law fi rm of Covington and Burling, 

Washington, D.C.

1945–1946 Chief assistant counsel, Joint Congressional 

Committee on Investigation of the Pearl 

Harbor Attack

1962–1964 Chairman, President’s Committee on Equal 

Opportunity in the Armed Forces
64 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

1968–1993 Judge, United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia

1976–1981 Member, District of Columbia Judicial Tenure and Disability Commission

1993, 19 Feb. Died, Washington, D.C.

Scope and Content Note 

The papers of Gerhard Alden Gesell (1910–1993) span the years 1945–

1993, with the majority of the papers concentrated from 1968–1992. 

Documenting Gesell’s career as judge of the United States District 

Court for the District of Columbia, the papers consist of nine series: 

General Correspondence, Chronological File, Case File, Bench Books, 

Dockets, Sentencing File, Offi ce File, Miscellany, and Classifi ed.

 The General Correspondence series, 1968–1992, consisting chiefl y 

of incoming letters from the public, pertains primarily to Gesell’s Watergate cases, United States v. Ehrlichman and United States v. Chapin. 

In addition, there is correspondence relating to other cases of national 

and constitutional signifi cance such as United States v. Washington Post 

Company (Pentagon Papers case) and United States v. Vuitch (legality 

of abortions in the District of Columbia). Also included are a few letters from friends, lawyers, and judges relating to Gesell’s professional 

activities.

 Because of its location in the nation’s capital and its jurisdiction 

over cases involving federal agencies, the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia is considered one of the most important 

venues in the country. Papers in the Chronological File, 1968–1993, refl ect the wide range of civil and criminal cases Gesell heard as a district 

judge for this court: civil rights, constitutional law, antitrust matters, 

patent cases, and government regulations. This series consists of correspondence and memoranda, primarily between Gesell and judges, 

lawyers, prison offi cials, clerks, and staff, as well as an array of extensive legal papers such as opinions, orders, stipulations, and reports. 

Arranged by Gesell’s staff, papers in the Chronological File relating 

to individual cases are scattered throughout the series rather than assembled in specifi c case fi les and provide some sense of the judge’s 

day-to-day work. Although there is some overlap between the Case File 

series and this series, the Case File contains papers that are not includ-
Appendix C 65

ed in the Chronological File. Also included are a few personal letters 

and notes, particularly concerning his farm near Arcola, Virginia. The 

docket sheets in the Dockets series may assist readers in locating specifi c documents of interest in the Chronological File, as they contain 

dated entries by the judge’s staff documenting many details of each 

case. In order to use the docket sheets, a reader must know the document number for a case or know the year the case fi rst appeared on the 

docket and search the docket sheets to locate it.

 The Case File, 1956–1991, consists of two subseries: General and 

Special Case fi les. This series, also arranged by Gesell’s staff, chronicles his rulings in some of his most signifi cant and complex cases. 

The General subseries, 1956–1990, containing chiefl y memoranda and 

orders, documents a wide range of civil, criminal, and miscellaneous 

cases. Arrangement is alphabetical by type of case and therein alphabetical by case title. This subseries includes papers pertaining to the riots at local universities in 1969 (George Washington Univ. v. Mann and 

Howard Univ. v. Abel), the riots in Washington, D.C., in 1969 (criminal 

riot cases), and the application of broadcasters for access to the Watergate tapes in order to air them for public broadcast (United States v. 

Mitchell). The General File is not as complete as the Special Case File 

and should be used in conjunction with the Chronological File. 

 The Special Case File, 1969–1991, contains individual cases which 

were maintained in case fi les rather than in the Chronological File or 

General case fi le. Many of the cases pertain to issues of national and 

constitutional signifi cance, such as a variety of First Amendment cases 

(Hentoff v. Ichord and United States v. Washington Post Co.; the legality 

of abortions in the District of Columbia prior to the Supreme Court 

decision of Roe v. Wade (United States v. Vuitch); the fi ring of Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox (Nader v. Bork); the break-in 

at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate complex (United States v. Ehrlichman); and Oliver L. North’s role 

in the congressional investigation of the Iran-Contra Affair (United 

States v. North). The United States v. North fi les comprise the bulk of 

the Special Case File and include correspondence, memoranda, orders, 

transcripts, dockets, and press fi les. Two items pertaining to the North 

case are worthy of mention: a diary in which Gesell recorded notes at 

home at the close of the day and a letter from Gesell to Lawrence E. 

Walsh, head of the Offi ce of Independent Counsel that investigated the 

Iran-Contra Affair, of 20 September 1991 that complimented Walsh 
66 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

on the way he and his staff had conducted themselves during the trial. 

Located in the folder “Correspondence: General, Feb. 1990–Oct. 1991,” 

this letter is an attachment to a 24 September 1991 letter from Walsh to 

Gesell.

 The Bench Books series, 1968–1993, contains Gesell’s notes about 

the cases which came before his court. Arrangement is chronological, 

except for three volumes that are alphabetical by topic or case title. 

Dates written by Gesell’s staff on the cover of the bench books are not 

always accurate.

 Papers in the Dockets series, 1959–1992, provide a record of the 

name and docket number of individual cases. Also included are brief 

notes by the judge’s staff recording many of the legal documents issued 

and fi led. Arrangement is alphabetical by type of case, civil or criminal, 

and therein chronological by year. The Dockets series may assist readers in locating entries to specifi c cases, particularly the chronological 

fi le and the bench books.

 The Sentencing File, 1968–1992, constituting almost half the collection, includes correspondence, memoranda, presentence reports, 

orders and other papers relating to the sentencing process of Gesell’s 

criminal cases. A presentence report was prepared by a probation offi -

cer to assist the judge in determining a defendant’s sentence. It generally contains information on the offense, the defendant’s prior criminal 

record, family history, marital status, education, employment, health, 

military service, and fi nancial condition, and an evaluation and recommendation by the probation offi cer. Serving as a record of every 

person sentenced by Gesell, the fi le refl ects the vast economic and 

demographic changes in the District of Columbia over a twenty-year 

period and contains valuable social data about families, crime, the judicial system, and race relations. Papers in the presentencing fi le are 

arranged into three chronological sequences, 1968–1979, 1980–1989, 

and 1990–1992. The earlier sequences contain more extensive background information, while the later fi les indicate the judgment and 

terms of the sentence. Also included in this series are two card fi les arranged by defendant’s name, one recording the sentences and the other 

indicating the cases in which charges were dropped or the defendant 

was found not guilty.

 The Offi ce File series, 1965–1993, relates to Gesell’s administrative 

and professional duties as a district judge. The majority of the papers 

chronicle his activities with various committees and his sitting by des-
Appendix C 67

ignation with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit.

 The fi nal series, Miscellany, 1945–1993, includes speeches and 

writings by Gesell, reminiscences written by his law clerks, photographs and political cartoons, and tributes to Gesell after his death. 

One of the more important items in this series is a notebook containing Gesell’s memoirs, “My Jealous Mistress,” and background memoranda about signifi cant cases and events.

 Among the most signifi cant and frequent of Gesell’s correspondents are Dean Acheson, Harding F. Bancroft, Howard C. Bratton, 

Warren E. Burger, Joseph M. Fitzpatrick, John M. Harlan, Hubert H. 

Humphrey, Lyndon B. Johnson, Irving R. Kaufman, J. Edward Lumbard, John Lord O’Brian, Frank T. Remington, John J. Sirica, Potter 

Stewart, Lawrence E. Walsh, Earl Warren, and Frank W. Wilson.

Organization of the Papers 

The collection is arranged in nine series:

• General Correspondence, 1968–1992, n.d. 

• Chronological File, 1968–1993 

• Case File, 1956–1991, n.d. 

• Bench Books, 1968–1993 

• Dockets, 1959–1992 

• Sentencing File, 1968–1992 

• Offi ce File, 1965–1993, n.d. 

• Miscellany, 1945–1993, n.d. 

• Classifi ed, 1968–1979 

Description of Series

Container Series

BOX 1–5 General Correspondence, 1968–1992, n.d.

Correspondence, primarily incoming, 

between Gesell and lawyers, judges, friends, 

acquaintances, and the general public relating to his activities as a federal district court 

judge.

Arrangement is chronological.
68 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

BOX 5–44 Chronological File, 1968–1993 

Correspondence, memoranda, orders, opinions, interrogatories, stipulations, reports, 

schedule sheets, and other legal papers pertaining to Gesell’s professional activities.

Arrangement is chronological.

BOX 44–69 Case File, 1956–1991, n.d.

BOX 44–48 General, 1956–1990, n.d.

Correspondence, memoranda, orders, briefs, 

transcripts, notes, and printed matter for 

civil, criminal, and miscellaneous cases.

Arrangement is alphabetical by type of case 

and therein alphabetical by case title.

BOX 49–69 Special Case File, 1969–1991, n.d.

Correspondence, memoranda, opinions, 

orders, stipulations, transcripts, dockets, 

background information, notes, lists, a diary, 

and printed matter.

Arrangement is alphabetical by case title.

BOX 70–77 Bench Books, 1968–1993

Bound volumes containing Gesell’s notes 

about the cases that came before his court.

Arrangement is chronological, except for 

three volumes that are alphabetical by topic 

or case title.

BOX 77–89 Dockets, 1959–1992

Docket sheets for civil and criminal cases.

Arrangement is alphabetical by type of case, 

then chronological by year, and therein numerical by docket number.

BOX 90–157 Sentencing File, 1968–1992 

Correspondence, memoranda, presentence 

reports, orders, card fi les, and related sentencing information for Gesell’s criminal 

cases.
Appendix C 69

Arrangement is alphabetical by type of 

material or topic and therein alphabetical by 

name of defendant, except the presentencing 

fi le which is arranged chronologically and 

therein alphabetically by name of defendant.

BOX 158–170 Offi ce File, 1965–1993, n.d.

Correspondence, memoranda, reports, background information, agendas and minutes 

of meetings, notes, press fi les, and printed 

matter.

BOX 170–171 Miscellany, 1945–1993, n.d. 

Chiefl y speeches and writings by Gesell and 

his clerks. Also included are slides, photographs, political cartoons, and tributes to 

Gesell after his death.

Arrangement is alphabetical by topic or type 

of material.

BOX CL 1 Classifi ed, 1968–1979 

Government classifi ed documents containing sensitive security information.

Presentencing material organized and described according to the series, boxes, and 

folders from which the items were removed.
70 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

3. Papers of Wade H. McCree, Jr., U.S. District 

Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 

Walter P. Reuther Library, Wayne State University

Wade H. McCree, Jr. Collection

Papers, 1937–2003

(Predominantly, 1954–1987)

76 linear feet

Accession #822

OCLC #

The papers of Wade H. McCree, Jr. were placed in the Archives of Labor and Urban Affairs between 1977 and 1989 by Judge McCree and 

his wife, Dores McCrary McCree, and were opened for research in July 

of 1998. Additional papers were placed in the Archives in December of 

2004 and opened for research in May of 2005.

 Wade Hampton McCree, Jr. was born in Des Moines on July 3, 

1920, the second child of the fi rst black proprietors of a pharmacy in 

the state of Iowa. In the 1920’s, his father went to work for the federal 

government as a narcotics inspector. His assignments took the family fi rst to Hilo, Hawaii, then to Chicago, and fi nally to Boston, where 

Wade, Jr. attended Boston Latin School, America’s oldest public school. 

He worked his way through Fisk University, his parents’ alma mater, 

but his studies at Harvard Law School, which he had entered on scholarship after graduating from Fisk in 1941, were interrupted by World 

War II. During the war he served with the 92nd Infantry Division in 

Italy and after his discharge as a captain in 1946, he married Dores 

McCrary, a library science student at Simmons College in Boston and 

a native of Ecorse, Michigan. Two years later he earned his law degree 

and moved his family to Detroit to join the fi rm of Harold E. Bledsoe 

and Hobart Taylor.

 In 1952, Wade McCree was appointed by Michigan Governor G. 

Mennen Williams to the state’s Workmen’s Compensation Commission and in 1954 to a vacancy on the Wayne County Circuit Court. He 

won election to the unexpired term in 1955, the fi rst African American 
Appendix C 71

elected to a court of record in Michigan, and to a full six-year term in 

1959. In 1961 President Kennedy appointed Judge McCree to the U.S. 

District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, where he served 

until his appointment in 1966 to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. He resigned from that court in 1977 to accept appointment as 

U.S. Solicitor General in the Carter administration.

 As an appeals court judge, McCree took part in a number of school 

desegregation cases in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, the 

states in his circuit, and issued important opinions in Stifel v. Hopkins (1973), Environmental Defense Fund v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1972) and U.S. v. Griffi n (1970). As the government’s lawyer, he 

argued a number of signifi cant cases before the Supreme Court, most 

notably the Bakke reverse discrimination lawsuit against the University of California at Davis. In 1981 he accepted appointment as Lewis 

M. Simes Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, where he 

taught until his death on August 30, 1987. During these years he also 

consulted on various cases and served as Special Master for the U.S. 

Supreme Court in cases in which it exercised original jurisdiction.

 Judge McCree’s professional, educational, civic and charitable 

activities were legion. To name a few: He was a Trustee of Fisk University and a Harvard University Overseer, Chairman and co-founder 

of the Higher Education Opportunities Committee for fi nancially 

disadvantaged Michigan high school students, a founding Trustee of 

the Friends School in Detroit, a founding member of the UAW Public 

Review Board, Vice Moderator of the Unitarian Universalist Association, Board member of the Community Health Association of Detroit, 

founding member of the Federal Judicial Center Board, member of 

the American Bar Association Advisory Council on Appellate Justice, 

Fellow of the American Bar Foundation and Director of the American Judicature Society. He was the recipient of numerous honors and 

awards, including the Fordham-Stein Award for his “talent, professionalism and nobility of spirit” and honorary Doctor of Laws degrees 

from Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and Howard University, 

among many others.

 The Wade H. McCree, Jr. Collection contains his personal and 

professional correspondence, speeches and writings, voluminous case 

fi les, including his notes and opinions, meeting minutes, publications 

and other material relating to Judge McCree’s service on the bench and 

as the federal government’s chief lawyer as well as his work on pro-
72 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

fessional committees and his involvement with a wide range of civic, 

fraternal and charitable organizations.

PLEASE NOTE: Folders are computer-arranged alphabetically within 

each series in this fi nding aid, but may actually be dispersed throughout several boxes in the collection. Note carefully the box number for 

each folder heading.

Important subjects in the collection:

African American judges

African American law students

African American lawyers

African American Unitarian Universalists

African Americans--Education--Michigan--Detroit

Appellate procedure--United States

Bakke, Allan Paul--Trials, litigation, etc.

Bradley, et al. v. Milliken

Carter, Billy

Chavis, et al. v. North Carolina (Wilmington 10)

Court administration--United States

Davis et al. v. School District of the City of Pontiac (Michigan)

Federal Judicial Center

Fisk University

Free press and fair trial--United States

Harris v. McRae, et al.

Harvard University Afro-American Studies Department

Higher Education Opportunities Committee

Kelley, et al. v. Nashville and Davidson County Board of Education

Mapp, et al. v. Chattanooga Board of Education

Massachusetts v. Feeney

National Bar Association

Newburg Area Council, et al. v. Board of Education of Jefferson 

County (Kentucky)

Nixon v. GSA (Nixon tapes)

Race relations--United States

Reverse discrimination--Law and legislation--United States

School integration--Law and legislation--United States

United States. Circuit Court (6th Circuit)

United States. District Court (Michigan: Eastern District)

Wade H. McCree, Jr. Collection
Appendix C 73

United States. Solicitor General

United States. Supreme Court

U.S. v. Feodor Fedorenko

Important correspondents in the collection:

Alexander, Raymond Pace

Baker, Oscar and James

Bell, Griffi n

Bok, Derek C.

Brown, Bailey

Burger, Warren E.

Buttenwieser, Benjamin

Coleman, William T., Jr.

Diggs, Charles C., Jr.

Edwards, George C., Jr.

Edwards, Harry T.

Ford, Geraldine Bledsoe

Gilmore, Horace

Gould, William B. IV

Kaplan, Kivie

Kelman, Maurice

Kennedy, Cornelia

Lawson, James R.

Levin, Theodore

Lively, Pierce

McAllister, Thomas

Meador, Daniel

Neef, Arthur

Norris, Harold

Peck, John W.

Phillips, Harry T.

Reed, A. Lachlan

Richardson, Scovel

Smith, Otis M.

Tate, Albert, Jr.

Vanderbilt, Helen C.

Webster, William H.

Weick, Paul

Williams, G. Mennen
74 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

Non-manuscript material:

A number of photographs, Judge McCree’s Goodfellows badge, a videotape of his 1985 Northern Michigan University commencement address and audiotapes of a symposium on the Bakke case in which he 

participated and the University of Michigan Law School Fund’s memorial tribute to him have been placed in the Archives Audiovisual 

Collection. A 3-volume work by Harold Norris, Some Refl ections on 

Law, Lawyers, and the Bill of Rights, has been transferred to the Archives Library.

Contents

76 storage boxes

Series I, Wayne County Circuit Court, 1954–1959, Box 1

Series II, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 1960–1968, 

Boxes 1–6

Series III, U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1965–1978, Boxes 7–23

Series IV, U.S. Solicitor General’s Offi ce, 1975–1981, Boxes 24–34

Series V, University of Michigan Law School, Special Master and Consulting, 1981–1987, Boxes 35–40

Series VI, Organizations, 1937–1987, Boxes 41–51

Files refl ect Judge McCree’s involvement in numerous professional, 

civic, fraternal and charitable organizations.

Series VII, Subject Files, 1954–1987, Boxes 52–54

Series VIII, Personal Correspondence, 1953–1987, Boxes 54–63

Series IX, Speeches, Writings, Honors, Publicity, 1954–2003, Boxes 

63–68

In addition to Judge McCree’s speeches and articles, series includes his 

poetry, honorary degrees and other awards he received, biographical 

information and publicity about him, his FBI fi le and memorial tributes and obituaries.

Series X, Invitations Accepted, 1952–1987, Boxes 68–71

Series includes correspondence, programs, etc. related to speaking engagements, but not texts of speeches.
Appendix C 75

Series XI, Appointment Calendars, 1955–1977, Boxes 71–76

Series includes correspondence, programs, etc. related to the events attended.

Series XII, Family and Early Career, 1945–1985, Box 76

Series includes family correspondence and fi les related to his military service and his job with the Michigan Workmen’s Compensation 

Commission.
76 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

4. Papers of Bruce Van Sickle, U.S. District Court 

for the District of North Dakota, Chester Fritz 

Library, University of North Dakota

Judge Bruce Van Sickle Papers

COLLECTION: OGL# 1432

DATES: 1956–2007 [Bulk Dates, 1971–2000]

SIZE: 22.5 linear feet

INTRODUCTION

ACQUISITION: The Judge Bruce Van Sickle Papers were deposited 

in the Orin G. Libby Manuscript Collection by Bruce Van Sickle, Bismarck, North Dakota, on September 27, 2001 (Acc.#2001–2530).

ACCESS: Available for inspection under the rules and regulations of 

the Department of Special Collections.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Bruce Marion Van Sickle was born in Minot, North Dakota, on February 13, 1917. He was the son of Guy and Hilda (Rosenquist) Van Sickle. 

Bruce Van Sickle graduated from high school in Minot in 1935, and 

from the University of Minnesota in 1941 with a law degree. 

 During World War II, Bruce Van Sickle was a Captain in the United States Marine Corps Reserves. Following the end of the war, he 

served as an adjudicator in the U.S. Veteran’s Administration in 1946. 

He practiced law on his own in Minot from 1947–1952, after which he 

formed the fi rm of McGee and Van Sickle. He also served in the North 

Dakota House of Representatives in 1957 and 1959. 

 He was named to the United States District Court by President 

Richard Nixon in 1971. Van Sickle’s tenure on the federal bench is notable for two important rulings he handed down. First, in the Association of Retarded Citizens case, the judge ruled that North Dakota’s 

system for the care of the developmentally disabled violated the constitutional rights of its residents by being overcrowded, underfunded 

and understaffed. Van Sickle issued a series of rulings forcing the state 
Appendix C 77

to institute reforms. Chief among these changes was the movement of 

developmentally disabled persons from large state-run institutions at 

Grafton and San Haven to smaller, community-based group homes.

 In the second case, Coleman vs. Block, Van Sickle issued an injunction that forced the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) to change 

its loan-repayment and foreclosure policies. The decision affected over 

250,000 farmers, and ordered the FmHA to allow delinquent borrowers to defer making loan payments due to fi nancial hardships caused 

by factors beyond their control. This case was part of the inspiration 

for the 1984 fi lm “Country.” 

 Judge Van Sickle assumed Senior Status in February 1985, and 

continued to hear cases both in North Dakota and the rest of the United States as he was needed. He formally retired from the bench in February 2002. The Federal Building in Minot was named in his honor in 

August 2002.

 Bruce Van Sickle married Dorothy Hermann of Olympia, Washington, on May 26, 1943. They had four children: Susan, John, Craig, 

and David. Bruce Van Sickle died on April 21, 2007, in Bismarck.

Source: Patronage: Histories and Biographies of North Dakota’s Federal 

Judges by Ardell Tharaldson (found in Box 1, Folder 1 of the Judge 

Bruce Van Sickle Papers).

SCOPE AND CONTENT NOTE

The Judge Bruce Van Sickle Papers date from 1956–2007, with the bulk 

of the material dating from 1971–2000. The collection has been divided into seven series as follows:

Series I: Biographical/Personal

This series contains biographical and personal materials, and has been 

sub-divided into fi ve sub-series. Sub-Series A: Biographical Materials, chiefl y contains newspaper clippings, photocopies of various biographical legal sources, and publications created by the court in honor 

of signifi cant milestones in Judge Van Sickle’s career on the bench. The 

sub-series also contains the chapter on Van Sickle from Ardell Tharaldson’s Patronage: Histories and Biographies of North Dakota’s Federal 

Judges, published in 2002. Sub-Series B: Correspondence, dates from 

1973–2000, and contains general letters to and from the Judge. Correspondence regarding individual court cases was kept with the fi le 

for that case, and can be found in Series III. Sub-Series C: Speeches, 
78 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

contains the text of speeches delivered by Van Sickle to various community and civic groups, as well as high school commencements. Also 

included are the remarks spoken by Van Sickle at his investiture ceremony in December 1971. Sub-Series D: Writings, mainly contains articles authored or co-authored by Van Sickle for several different legal 

journals. Also included is a handbook for Van Sickle’s law clerks, as 

well as the humorous “A Federal Judge’s Prayer.” The authorship of 

the prayer has not been concretely determined, although it appears to 

have North Dakota origins. Sub-Series E: Miscellaneous, contains one 

fi le related to the Bruce M. Van Sickle Chapter of the Delta Theta Phi 

Legal Fraternity at UND, and one fi le regarding the (Jerry) Van Sickle 

Education Center at the Grand Forks Air Force Base.

Box 1, Folder 1 – Box 3, Folder 2

Series II: Bench Books

Judge Van Sickle recorded his hand-written notes regarding cases tried 

in his court in thirty six ledger books. The ledgers date from January 

1972–January 2000, and encompass Van Sickle’s tenure on the North 

Dakota bench, as well as the cases he heard in numerous other districts 

and circuits. The ledgers were kept in the original order given to them 

by Van Sickle, who arranged them in chronological order. 

Box 3, Folder 1 – Box 5, Folder 10

Series III: Case Files

Judge Van Sickle’s case fi les have been divided into numerous subseries, either by case, district, or circuit. Most of the case fi les contain 

orders from Van Sickle, although correspondence to and from attorneys and other judges, newspaper clippings, and transcripts are also 

included. The case fi les were arranged in case number order, with the 

exception of the fi rst two sub-series.

 Van Sickle’s most notable cases, ARC and Coleman v. Block, have 

been arranged fi rst into two sub-series. In the ARC case, Van Sickle 

found that North Dakota’s system for the care of the developmentally disabled violated the constitutional rights of its residents by being 

overcrowded, underfunded and understaffed. In Coleman v. Block, Van 

Sickle ordered the Farmers Home Administration to change its loanrepayment and foreclosure policies.

Sub-Series A: ARC Case

Sub-Series B: Coleman v. Block
Appendix C 79

Following this are cases heard by Van Sickle in the District of North 

Dakota, divided into four separate sub-series by division. 

Sub-Series C: District of North Dakota–Northeastern Division

Sub-Series D: District of North Dakota–Northwestern Division

Sub-Series E: District of North Dakota–Southeastern Division

Sub-Series F: District of North Dakota–Southwestern Division

The remaining cases were divided by the district or circuit the case was 

heard in. The districts have been divided into alphabetical order:

Sub-Series G: District of Arizona

Sub-Series H: District of Arkansas–Eastern District

Sub-Series I: District of Arkansas–Western District

Sub-Series J: District of California

Sub-Series K: District of Columbia

Sub-Series L: Northern District of Illinois

Sub-Series M: Southern District of Iowa

Sub-Series N: District of Maine

Sub-Series O: District of Massachusetts

Sub-Series P: District of Minnesota–3rd Division

Sub-Series Q: District of Minnesota–4th Division

Sub-Series R: District of Missouri–Eastern District

Sub-Series S: District of Missouri–Western District

Sub-Series T: District of Nebraska

Sub-Series U: District of New York–Eastern District

Sub-Series V: District of Oklahoma–Northern District

Sub-Series W: District of South Dakota–Central Division

Sub-Series X: District of South Dakota–Northern Division

Sub-Series Y: District of South Dakota–Southern Division

Sub-Series Z: District of South Dakota–Western Division

Sub-Series AA: Southern Division Texas–Houston Division

Sub-Series BB: 7th Circuit, Court of Appeals

Sub-Series CC: 8th Circuit, Court of Appeals

Sub-Series DD: 9th Circuit, Court of Appeals

Sub-Series EE: 10th Circuit, Court of Appeals

Box 5, Folder 11 – Box 12, Folder 49
80 A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges’ Papers

Series IV: Court Administrative Documents

The fourth series consists of administrative documents, including Van 

Sickle’s personal calendar, which records where and when he heard 

cases. The series also contains administrative reports, including the 

monthly report of trials, which documents Van Sickle’s court activity, 

and designation for service within another district, which authorized 

Van Sickle to hear cases outside of North Dakota.

Box 12, Folder 50 – Box 13, Folder 6

Series V: Subject Files

This series consists of various subject fi les, arranged alphabetically. The 

types of documents included in the fi les typically include correspondence, court reports, newspaper clippings, and legal journal articles.

Box 13, Folder 7 – Box 16, Folder 7

Series VI: Organizations

This series contains fi les from various legal organizations in which Van 

Sickle was involved. The fi les have been arranged in alphabetical order 

by the name of the organization. Material from the Eighth Circuit Historical Society constitutes the bulk of the series.

Box 16, Folder 8 – Box 17, Folder 11

Series VII: Conferences, Meetings, and Workshops

The fi nal series consists of fi les from many different conferences, meetings, and workshops attended by Judge Van Sickle from 1972–1991. 

The fi les have been placed in alphabetical order by the name of the 

event. 

Box 17, Folder 12 – Box 18, Folder 21

Three photographs were separated and placed in the Photograph File 

Cabinets.
The Federal Judicial Center

Board

The Chief Justice of the United States, Chair

Judge Susan H. Black, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Judge David O. Carter, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Magistrate Judge Karen Klein, U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota

Judge Loretta A. Preska, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Judge Philip M. Pro, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada

Judge Stephen Raslavich, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania

Judge William B. Traxler, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

James C. Duff, Director of the Administrative Offi ce of the U.S. Courts

Director

Judge Barbara J. Rothstein

Deputy Director

John S. Cooke

About the Federal Judicial Center

The Federal Judicial Center is the research and education agency of the federal judicial 

system. It was established by Congress in 1967 (28 U.S.C. §§ 620–629), on the recommendation of the Judicial Conference of the United States.

 By statute, the Chief Justice of the United States chairs the Center’s Board, which 

also includes the director of the Administrative Offi ce of the U.S. Courts and seven 

judges elected by the Judicial Conference.

 The organization of the Center refl ects its primary statutory mandates. The Education Division plans and produces education and training programs for judges and 

court staff, including satellite broadcasts, video programs, publications, curriculum 

packages for in-court training, and Web-based programs and resources. The Research 

Division examines and evaluates current and alternative federal court practices and 

policies. This research assists Judicial Conference committees, who request most Center research, in developing policy recommendations. The Center’s research also contributes substantially to its educational programs. The two divisions work closely with 

two units of the Director’s Offi ce—the Systems Innovations & Development Offi ce 

and Communications Policy & Design Offi ce—in using print, broadcast, and online 

media to deliver education and training and to disseminate the results of Center research. The Federal Judicial History Offi ce helps courts and others study and preserve 

federal judicial history. The International Judicial Relations Offi ce provides information to judicial and legal offi cials from foreign countries and assesses how to inform 

federal judicial personnel of developments in international law and other court systems that may affect their work.