Today in Calhoun v. General Services Administration, __ Fed. App’x __ (Fed. Cir. 2016)(per curiam)(Prost, C.J., Moore, Taranto, JJ.), the panel provides further evidence that the court has too many law clerks in its nonprecedential affirmance:
Roughly half the text relates to the background which should be of no interest to the general public.  The opinion once again raises the issue:  Why does each active member of the court require the services of four (4) law clerks?

Further details are found in the pdf version of this note.

CalhounOpinionJan12

Regards,
Hal