Richard A. Paez

Richard A. Paez is a senior United States circuit judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton, he first served as a district‑court judge in the Central District of California before being elevated to the appellate level in 2000. After more than two decades on the Ninth Circuit, Judge Paez assumed senior status at the end of 2021 and continues to hear cases on a reduced docket.

Early life and legal career

Born in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1947, Richard Anthony Paez pursued his undergraduate studies at Brigham Young University, receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1969. He continued his education at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, where he earned a Juris Doctor in 1972.

Following admission to the bar, Paez began his legal career with organizations dedicated to providing services for low‑income populations. From 1972 until 1974 he worked as a staff attorney for California Rural Legal Assistance, an agency that offers civil legal aid to farmworkers and other rural residents. He then joined the Western Center on Law and Poverty, serving there from 1974 to 1976 in a similar capacity.

In 1976 Paez moved to Los Angeles to work with the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (now known as Public Counsel). His roles at the foundation progressed rapidly: he entered as senior counsel, became director of litigation between 1978 and 1979, served as deputy director for litigation from 1979 to 1980, and ultimately acted as executive director and director of litigation during 1980‑81. These positions placed him at the forefront of large‑scale civil‑rights and poverty‑law advocacy in Southern California.

Paez’s judicial career began in 1981 when he was appointed a judge on the Los Angeles Municipal Court. He held that position for thirteen years, presiding over a broad array of criminal, civil, and family matters within the city’s trial court system. His municipal‑court service concluded in 1994 when President Clinton nominated him to the federal district bench.

Federal appellate service

President Bill Clinton nominated Paez on March 9, 1994 to fill a vacancy on the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Senate confirmed his appointment on June 15, 1994, and he received his commission the following day. In taking the bench, Judge Paez became the second Mexican‑American jurist to serve on that district court, which encompasses Los Angeles and surrounding counties.

Judge Paez served as a district judge for nearly six years. During that time he handled a wide spectrum of federal cases, ranging from civil rights disputes to complex commercial litigation. On March 17, 2000 his service at the trial level ended when President Clinton elevated him to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The appellate nomination was initially submitted by President Clinton several years earlier but did not receive a vote until 2000. After a confirmation delay of 1,506 days—the longest waiting period for any federal judicial nominee up to that point—Paez’s appointment was finally considered by the Senate on March 9, 2000. He was confirmed by a vote of 59‑39 and received his commission on March 14, 2000. The confirmation process attracted considerable attention; opposition leaders argued that Paez, along with other Ninth Circuit nominees, were overly liberal, while Vice President Al Gore intervened to preside over the vote.

As an appellate judge, Paez contributed to the development of Ninth Circuit jurisprudence across many areas of federal law. He remained in active service until May 10, 2021, when he announced his intention to assume senior status upon the confirmation of a successor. That transition took effect on December 13, 2021, at which point Judge Paez entered senior status but continued to sit on panels and issue opinions.

Jurisprudence and legacy

Judge Paez’s body of work reflects a consistent engagement with civil‑rights, immigration, disability, and administrative law issues. Among his notable majority opinions is a 2004 decision that held the Maricopa County Sheriff’s practice of streaming live video of pretrial detainees over the internet violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. The opinion emphasized the lack of legitimate governmental purpose in turning individuals awaiting trial into “unwilling objects” of public broadcast.

In another case, Paez addressed government liability for hazardous conditions on a military installation. He ruled that the United States Army could not rely on the discretionary‑function exception to avoid responsibility after failing to clear snow and ice from an apartment complex parking lot, thereby underscoring the duty of governmental entities to maintain safe premises.

Judge Paez also authored opinions involving the intersection of government policy and religious expression. In a 2009 ruling, he concluded that a San Francisco resolution urging the Vatican to rescind a directive against gay adoptions did not breach the Establishment Clause, finding that the city’s action was permissible political speech rather than governmental endorsement of religion.

His jurisprudence on immigration matters includes participation in a 2011 panel upholding an injunction against key provisions of Arizona’s SB 1070, a law targeting illegal immigration. The decision affirmed lower‑court findings that certain enforcement mechanisms likely violated constitutional protections for noncitizens. In 2019, Paez joined an en banc majority holding that an immigration judge erred by failing to inform a minor immigrant of potential relief from removal; he wrote separately to argue that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause should guarantee appointed counsel for most minors in deportation proceedings.

Judge Paez has also contributed significant dissenting opinions. In 2020, he strongly opposed a majority ruling upholding the Trump administration’s “Global Gag Rule,” describing the decision as overly deferential to executive policy and characterizing it as partisan. His dissent was joined by several colleagues who shared concerns about judicial independence.

In disability‑law contexts, Paez dissented in a 2021 case involving the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Los Angeles Unified School District. He argued that requiring students with disabilities to undergo full administrative hearings for claims not implicating a free appropriate public education placed an undue burden on the plaintiffs. The dissent highlighted his view of procedural fairness within special‑education disputes.

More recently, in 2022, Paez authored a dissent concerning a subpoena directed at former Secretary of Education Elisabeth DeVos. He contended that compelling testimony from a former cabinet official did not present the same concerns about disrupting executive functions as it would for a sitting official, and he criticized the majority for insufficiently explaining why the trial court’s holistic assessment should be revisited.

Across his career, Judge Paez has been recognized as part of the growing representation of Hispanic and Latino Americans within the federal judiciary. His early appointment to the Central District of California marked an important milestone for Mexican‑American jurists, and his long tenure on the Ninth Circuit contributed to the court’s reputation for addressing complex social‑policy issues.

Overall, Judge Richard A. Paez’s judicial record reflects a dedication to protecting individual rights, ensuring governmental accountability, and interpreting constitutional guarantees within a diverse and evolving legal landscape. His opinions—both majority rulings and dissents—continue to influence the development of federal law across the western United States and beyond.