Milan Dale Smith Jr.

Milan Dale Smith Jr. is a senior United States circuit judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2006. Born in Oregon in 1942, he built a career that combined private practice, public‑sector legal leadership, and extensive appellate service. Over more than a decade on the federal bench, Judge Smith has authored numerous majority opinions, particularly in First Amendment cases, and remains an active member of the Ninth Circuit as of 2026.

Early life and legal career

Milan Dale Smith Jr. was born on May 19, 1942, in Pendleton, Oregon, into a family with ties to federal government service; his father, Milan D. Smith Sr., served as chief of staff for the United States Department of Agriculture under Secretary Ezra Taft Benson. Smith pursued higher education at Brigham Young University, where he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1966. He then attended the University of Chicago Law School on a full‑tuition scholarship, receiving his Juris Doctor in 1969.

Following law school, Smith entered private practice as an associate with O'Melveny & Myers, a prominent Los Angeles firm. In 1972 he left that firm to co‑found a new practice, initially named Smith & Hilbig. The firm later expanded and was renamed Smith, Crane, Robinson & Parker, reflecting the addition of new partners and its growth within California’s legal community.

Beyond private practice, Smith assumed significant public‑sector roles. From 1983 until his judicial appointment in 2006 he served as President and General Counsel of the Los Angeles State Building Authority, overseeing legal matters for a major municipal entity. His involvement in state regulatory affairs also included service as Vice Chairman of the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission between 1987 and 1991, where he helped administer anti‑discrimination statutes and related enforcement policies.

Smith’s personal life includes his marriage to Kathleen Denise Crane, an attorney specializing in trust and estates law. He is the brother of former United States Senator Gordon H. Smith, though Judge Smith has described himself as politically independent.

Federal appellate service

President George W. Bush nominated Smith to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 14, 2006, to fill the vacancy created by Judge A. Wallace Tashima’s departure. The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary evaluated his qualifications and assigned him its highest rating of “well qualified.” Following Senate deliberations, Smith was confirmed unanimously by a vote of 93–0 on May 16, 2006, and received his commission two days later, on May 18, 2006.

Smith’s appointment marked the fifth time President Bush placed a judge on the Ninth Circuit and represented the first such nomination after the confirmation of Judge Carlos Bea in 2003. Since joining the bench, Smith has remained an active circuit judge, participating in panels that address a broad spectrum of federal law ranging from constitutional issues to complex civil litigation.

In a 2022 interview with the Deseret News, Smith indicated his intention to continue serving on the court without plans for retirement, expressing a desire to “die with my boots on.” This statement underscores his long‑term commitment to judicial service and reflects the lifetime tenure characteristic of Article III judges.

Jurisprudence and legacy

Judge Smith’s jurisprudential output is notable both for its volume and for the substantive themes that recur in his opinions. A periodical analysis covering a three‑year span ending May 10, 2013 identified him as the Ninth Circuit judge who authored the most majority opinions during that interval, highlighting his role in shaping the court’s legal reasoning.

First Amendment doctrine features prominently among Smith’s published decisions. In *United States v. Alvarez* (2010), he authored the majority opinion striking down the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 on the grounds that criminalizing false statements about military honors infringed upon protected speech. The Supreme Court later affirmed this judgment, underscoring the panel’s influence on national free‑speech jurisprudence.

Smith also contributed to First Amendment case law in *Comite de Jornaleros v. City of Redondo Beach* (2011), where an en banc Ninth Circuit panel held that a municipal ordinance prohibiting day laborers from soliciting work from vehicle occupants violated the Free Speech Clause. His reasoning emphasized the protection afforded to expressive conduct, even when the speech is unpopular or controversial.

In *Protectmarriage.com‑Yes on 8 v. Bowen* (2014), Smith wrote for a divided panel addressing donor disclosure requirements related to California’s Proposition 8 campaign. While the opinion rejected a challenge to certain reporting deadlines, it also noted that other aspects of the plaintiffs’ claims were moot or not ripe because the contested information had already entered the public domain.

Smith’s engagement with religious expression and government neutrality surfaced in *Kennedy v. Bremerton School District* (2017). Writing for an undivided panel, he concluded that a high‑school football coach’s post‑game prayers constituted speech made as a public employee, thereby subjecting the conduct to governmental interest in avoiding Establishment Clause violations. Although the Ninth Circuit later denied rehearing and the Supreme Court ultimately reversed the decision, Smith’s analysis contributed to ongoing national debate over the intersection of personal faith and public employment.

More recent opinions illustrate his continued involvement in contemporary First Amendment disputes. In *Herring Networks, Inc. v. Maddow* (2021), he dismissed a defamation suit brought by a media company against commentator Rachel Maddow, finding that her statements describing the outlet as “paid Russian propaganda” were protected speech and not actionable under defamation law.

Smith’s jurisprudence also extends to regulatory and municipal authority matters. In *Tucson v. City of Seattle* (2024), he authored the majority opinion reversing a district court injunction against Seattle’s anti‑graffiti ordinance, emphasizing that the lower court had overreached by enjoining the regulation without recognizing its legitimate applications unrelated to protected speech. The decision was portrayed in local media as a victory for city officials seeking to address public disorder.

Another 2024 case, *NetChoice v. Bonta*, saw Smith participate in adjudicating issues surrounding internet platform regulation and state authority, further demonstrating his engagement with evolving legal questions at the intersection of technology, commerce, and constitutional rights.

Collectively, Judge Smith’s body of work reflects a consistent focus on safeguarding expressive freedoms while balancing governmental interests. His opinions often articulate detailed analyses of First Amendment precedent, and his willingness to address novel factual contexts—ranging from military honor statutes to modern digital speech controversies—has contributed to the Ninth Circuit’s reputation as a leading forum for constitutional litigation.

Beyond specific rulings, Smith’s legacy includes mentorship of younger judges and attorneys through panel participation and opinion drafting. His prolific authorship has provided clear guidance on complex legal issues for practitioners across the western United States, where the Ninth Circuit holds jurisdiction over a diverse array of states and territories. As an active judge who has signaled no intention to retire, Smith’s influence on federal appellate jurisprudence is likely to continue shaping legal discourse well into the future.