First , consistent with the longstanding notion that federal courts of appeals exist to foster reasonably uniform interpretations of federal law, regional parochialism should play no role in either structuring the federal circuit courts or in how these courts decide cases. Indeed, courts of appeals should be structured to encompass diverse populations, geography and interests, and a circuit court should in most instances consist of at least three states. Second , in no event should the restructuring of this or any other circuit result in the division of a single state such that different parts of the state are in different federal circuits. Over the years, various proposals have recommended the splitting of California between two circuits. Practitioners in our Association believe this would be a very poor outcome.
Decisions resolving issues of California law often are landmark rulings of far-reaching import.
It would be impractical and confusing for clients and counsel alike to face the possibility of conflicting rulings on California law in different federal circuits covering different parts of our state. Because there would be no assurance of Supreme Court review, we would face the prospect of confusion over what law applies in our state for months or years at a time. Conflicting interpretation of California law could seriously impede such efforts. Similarly, commercial enterprises operating within California would be subject to potentially conflicting rules governing their operations or transactions in different parts of California. Third , serious consideration should be given to the views on realignment of the present judges of the Ninth Circuit.