United States COURT OF APPEALS
For THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEX KOZINSKI (626) 229-7140
Chief Jud Fa 9-74
tie Judge August 14, 2014 x: 229-7444

alex@kozinski.com

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit and therefore a member of the Judicial
Conference of the United States, the policy-making body of the Federal Judiciary.
For the last six and a half years or so, I have had the pleasure of seeing you appear
at our semi-annual meetings, held in the Supreme Court East Conference Room.

I am writing in regard to a letter sent to you on August 5, 2014, by The
Honorable John D. Bates, Director of the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts. In that letter, Director Bates comments on legislation now pending
in the Senate, namely the USA FREEDOM Act, S. 2685. In so doing, Director
Bates purports to speak “on behalf of the Judiciary,” and frequently uses the
first-person-plural pronoun “we” in stating his views. I understand “we” to refer to
the federal judiciary.

I was not aware of Director Bates’s letter before it was sent, nor did I receive
a copy afterwards. I first learned of the letter this past weekend when a copy was
sent to me by a distinguished law professor. I write to clear up any
misunderstanding that might arise as to whose views the letter represents.

As Judge Bates states in an earlier letter to you, one dated January 13, 2014
(a letter of which I was also not aware until it was brought to my attention by said
professor), “[t]raditionally, the views of the Judiciary on legislative matters are
expressed through the Judicial Conference of the United States, for which [Judge
Bates] serve[s] as Secretary. However, because the matters at issue here relate to
special expertise and experience of only a small number of judges on two

125 South Grand Avenue * Pasadena © California 91105



The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Page Two
August 14, 2014

specialized courts, the Conference has not at this time been engaged to deliberate
on them.” This situation has not changed between the January 13 letter and the
August 5 letter.

The matters raised by S. 2685 and Director Bates’s letters are of profound
significance and merit the closest consideration. I have not, however, had an
opportunity to study them and make an informed decision because, as Director
Bates notes, “the [Judicial] Conference has not at this time been engaged to
deliberate on them.” Were the matter put before the Judicial Conference, I would
certainly take the time to study it, form an opinion and cast a vote, after
considering the views of my Judicial Conference colleagues. And, whatever the
outcome, I’d feel bound by that decision. But, having given the matter little
consideration, and having had no opportunity to deliberate with the other members
of the Judicial Conference, I have serious doubts about the views expressed by
Judge Bates. Insofar as Judge Bates’s August Sth letter may be understood as
reflecting my views, I advise the Committee that this is not so.

VV —
Alex Kozinski
AK/dms

cc: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
The Honorable Saxby Chambliss
The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
The Honorable John D. Bates