It's misleading to compare the number of appeals per judge between the D.C. Circuit and other circuits, because the D.C. Circuit has a very different docket composition. Certain kind of appeals are much easier and quicker to resolve than others: criminal sentencing appeals, habeas petitions, immigration appeals, routine civil matters like foreclosures or certain benefits awards, etc. While the D.C. Circuit does hear these sorts of cases, it does so only for the ~600k people in the District of Columbia. The other circuits, on the other hand, have a much larger number of these cases because they cover several states and usually 20-35 million people each.

The D.C. Circuit's docket consists very disproportionately of highly complex regulatory appeals, which take much more time than simpler types of cases. These cases are not only often very factually complex, but of a nature that leaves more scope for appellate review. Roughly speaking, when a circuit court reviews the factual findings or discretionary actions of a lower court, it does so deferentially. E.g. an appellate court reviews sentences imposed by a district court only for abuse of discretion. However, a circuit court reviews the legal conclusions of a lower court from scratch (de novo). Regulatory appeals in the D.C. Circuit are much more likely to turn on complex issues of legal interpretation that the appellate court must review from scratch, than on factual disputes that the appellate court need only review for clear error.

You're certainly right that the DC Circuit will get a disproportionate number of regulatory appeals, but we don't know whether that fact actually matters without knowing what percentage of their workload involves complex cases, and whether they need equal staffing numbers. (I don't know the answer.)

http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/caseman2.pdf/$file/... (Figure 4).

The D.C. Circuit has 10% criminal cases. 5 circuits have above 25% criminal cases. The D.C. Circuit has over 30% administrative cases, most circuits have under 10%. The D.C. Circuit has almost no private prisoner cases (cases by prisoners against state officials for violations of rights), while most circuits have over 15%. The D.C. Circuit has over 20% U.S. civil cases (civil cases in which the U.S. is a defendant), while most circuits have under 5%.

Even within those divisions there are relevant distinctions. An appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals is an "administrative" case, but it's a much simpler matter to resolve, usually, than say a challenge to an EPA regulation. So while the 9th Circuit has almost 30% "administrative cases," each of those are likely much simpler to resolve than each administrative case on the D.C. Circuit's docket (not many people are getting deported from D.C.)

Counting cases per judge is a legitimate method of weighing workload only if the cases are drawn from a similar universe. Among the geographical circuits other than the DC Circuit, this may be reasonable, given that their appellate jurisdiction is similar in subject matter. But given that the DC Circuit handles comparatively few of the kinds of cases that the other circuits handle (having only a single subordinate district court from which to handle regular appeals of the type other circuit courts handle), but has a special role handling appeals of federal regulatory decisions, you aren't comparing like cases to like cases when you compare case numbers between the DC Circuit and the other circuits. You'd run into the same kind of issue comparing the Federal Circuit to other circuits.

Of course, I'm not at all surprised to see a News Corp outlet overlook a critical distinction that is inconvenient for the propaganda interests of the Republican Party.

That is entirely irrelevant. I say outright that the exact reason I want to see more judges appointed to this court is to pack it with judges who are more likely to produce decisions I agree with. You respond by accusing my of wanting to do exactly what I want to do. So?

As an aside, why do you say that the DC Circuit is "underworked" instead of saying that the 11th Circuit is "overworked"?

Points for honesty, but unless other HN readers share your own particular political preferences, saying "I want it!" isn't exactly a compelling policy argument. I mean, I want ponies.

If you're right that the 11th Circuit is overworked, then that point actually cuts against your argument: let's put more judges there where they need more help, and not the DC Circuit.

I think it's a much easier argument to make. It is not necessary to convince people that they want the President's nominees -- presuming they are qualified -- confirmed to the judiciary. It is only necessary to convince people that it is fair for the President's nominees to be confirmed. People like fairness, so it's an easy argument.

The system is, we have these seats, created by acts of Congress, which need to be filled. The President nominates candidates -- ideally candidates recommended by the Congressmen in the region, for regional appointments -- and the Senate vets them, and confirms or denies their appointment. The Republicans, however, aren't playing fair: they have been refusing to even allow votes on the candidates, even while admitting the candidates are qualified. Furthermore, they are not cooperating in the nomination process, refusing to recommend candidates to the President.

It's not fair, and everything after that is camouflage. If it was really a concern about the workload of the judiciary, and act of Congress could add or remove seats as necessary. But it isn't, and Congress isn't acting -- they are refusing to act, never in good faith and rarely at all.