User:Chetsford/ncp

Several proposals for a National Court of Appeals in the United States were made in the 1970s and 1980s.

Background
In 1891, the United States Congress created the United States courts of appeals as intermediate appellate tribunals placed between the United States district courts and the United States Supreme Court. By 1980, the courts of appeals had expanded into 12 geographic circuits.

Despite the addition of intermediate courts of appeal, the Supreme Court — by the middle of the 20th century — saw its caseload increase exponentially, driven by corresponding increases in population, the growth of the legal profession, and the expanding complexity of American law. Between the beginning and the end of the 1950s alone, the court experienced a 58 percent increase in its caseload.

Opposition to the creation of a national court of appeals was widespread. Concerns about the Supreme Court's caseload were resolved, in part, with the 1982 enactment of the Federal Courts Improvement Act, which created the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Kurland proposal (1967)
The first proposal for a "national court of appeals" came in 1967 from Philip B. Kurland who suggested an intercircuit tribunal be created immediately below the Supreme Court comprised of seven to nine United States federal judges. This panel would "review, at its discretion, all cases involving the interpretation and application of Federal statutes and common law, whether arising in state or Federal courts". The Supreme Court would sit as a constitutional court and only review cases from the intercircuit tribunal if a constitutional question was at stake. Kurland's proposal met with a cool reception.

Freund proposal (1971)
In 1971, Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger appointed a seven-member panel headed by Paul Freund, officially known as the Study Group on the Caseload of the Supreme Court, but more commonly as the Freund Committee. Among the committee's recommendations to decrease the court's caseload was the creation of a "national court of appeals" to consist of seven judges chosen to overlapping three year terms from among the existing circuit court judges. The national court of appeals would act as both a screening and reconciliation body. In the former role, it would be charged with initial review of petitions for writs of certiorari to the Supreme Court. In the latter capacity, it would resolve conflicting decisions between the courts of appeal.

The proposal was not well-received. Retired chief justice Earl Warren sought to mobilize opposition to the Freund proposal, while William O. Douglas stated that the Supreme Court was, in fact, "underworked, not overworked".

ABA proposal (1974)
A 33-member panel of the American Bar Association (ABA), the Advisory Council for Appellate Justice, released a number of recommendations, one of which included the creation of a national court of appeals that was - unlike the Freund proposal - of a fixed membership. The ABA proposal also imagined such a court of significantly less power than that suggested by Freund.

Burger proposal
In 1985, Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger proposed an "intercircuit panel" be created on an experimental basis. Under the Burger proposal, the intercircuit panel would be comprised of judges drawn from the 13 circuit courts and charged with resolving conflicting holdings from those circuits. It would have a mandate of five years after which the results of its work would be evaluated to determine if such a tribunal was effective.