The Role of U.S. Magistrate Judges in the American Legal System:

A Conversation with Judge Robert Numbers

Interview Conducted and Transcribed by Maclain Conlin (All errors are my own).

The Role of U.S. Magistrate Judges in the American Legal System (4).pdf

Download PDF • 139KB

(All views expressed in this interview are those of the guest and do not necessarily represent the position of the Clemson Law Review or its leadership.) 

Maclain Conlin: Good afternoon, and welcome to the Clemson Law Review’s interview series. Today, we are joined by a very special guest, The Honorable Robert T. Numbers, in his chambers in Raleigh. Mr. Numbers is a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina, a position that he has held for over ten years. He holds degrees from Wake Forest University and Notre Dame Law School, where he served with distinction on the Notre Dame Law Review. Upon graduation, he joined the Winston-Salem office of a large North Carolina-based law firm, and from 2005 to 2010 his practice focused on civil rights claims against local municipalities and government contractors. In 2010, Judge Numbers joined the firm’s Raleigh office, focusing on complex business litigation in state and federal courts. He is admitted to all North Carolina state and federal courts, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. Since his appointment to the bench in December 2014, he has conducted thousands of initial appearances and detention hearings as well as dozens of bench trials. An active member of the Federalist Society, he has given speeches to chapters around North Carolina. Today, he joins us to discuss the role that federal Magistrate Judges play in the American legal system. Judge Numbers, thank you for your time, and for inviting us into your chambers!

Robert Numbers: Absolutely. Thank you for being here!

MC: Of course! Before we dive into your time on the federal bench, many of our readers here at the Clemson Law Review are undergraduate students who are deciding whether or not they want to pursue a legal career. When did you decide the law was your passion, and what were your reasons for doing so? 

RN: I’ve always had an interest in law and politics and the way our system of government works. As I made my way through college, I was a Political Science and Economics major and those two fields have a lot of overlap in terms of public policy issues. I spent time during my summers in college interning on Capitol Hill, so I got a very good feel for politics and government and the role that both play in people’s lives. I debated, when I got to the end of my time in college, whether I should try to go work in Washington and politics or go to law school. Weighing all of my options, I decided to go to law school and pursue that route, and see where that took me. 

MC: Was there something in particular about the law that drew you to it? 

RN: One of the things that I enjoy about both the practice of the law and being a judge is the intellectual challenge that it brings. The ability to work, particularly in this role, on a variety of different topics and issues on a regular basis, that’s very attractive to me. The courts and politics play an incredibly important role in people’s lives and in our liberty. This is something that I wanted to be involved in somehow. I didn’t come out of law school wanting to be a judge. That is something that fortunately happened, but it wasn’t part of my original plan. 

MC: Thank you for that answer, sir. If you don’t mind, I’d like to start with that last point you just mentioned about becoming a judge. You became a Magistrate Judge in 2014. Let’s begin there. What is the selection process for a Magistrate Judge, and how does that differ from other federal judges? 

RN: Federal judges come out of Article III of the Constitution (at least, most of them do). They are nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and ultimately appointed by the President to their seat. That’s for District Court Judges, Court of Appeals Judges, and Supreme Court Justices. For United States Magistrate Judges, we are appointed outside of those procedures in a process whereby District Judges appoint Magistrate Judges. Congress has specified the number of Magistrate Judges in each district. When there’s an opening, there’s an application process and the District Judges appoint what is called a “merit selection panel” of attorneys and laypeople to evaluate the applications. They narrow it down to a group of five finalists. Those five meet with the District Judges for an interview, and the District Judges vote on who they want to pick. You need a majority vote of the District Judges to be selected. If that happens, you then have to go through an extensive FBI background check where they dig into every place you’ve lived and everywhere you’ve gone. If you pass that, you can begin your term. For me, it is an eight-year term as a Magistrate Judge. At the conclusion of that term, you go through a similar process where if you’d like to continue in the role, there’s a new merit selection panel that reviews your work and takes public comment. They make a recommendation to the District Judges on whether your term should be renewed and they again vote on whether to keep you around for another term. 

MC: And you were recently reappointed, correct? 

RN: I was. I went through the process recently. I started in December of 2014, so my last term expired in December of 2022. I was very fortunate to be reappointed to this role again for another eight years. 

MC: What is the history of this office? When was it created, and what was its purpose? 

RN: The role of someone outside of Article III has always been around in our system of government. Even in 1793, Congress appointed people learned in the law to do certain things in the federal system–setting bail, for example. The system has grown over time. It used to be known as the U.S. Commissioner System. In the 1960s, the U.S. Magistrate System was created, which basically transformed the Commissioner System to the Magistrate System. It’s grown since then. We became Magistrate Judges in the 1990s when Congress changed our title. 

We serve in a bunch of different roles and can handle a variety of different matters. District Judges obviously maintain control over the cases, but they will refer various matters to us to handle as both civil and criminal cases move forward. We’re very much involved in everything that’s going on at the court. 

MC: Has the fact that Magistrate Judges are not appointed through the Article III process ever created any constitutional problems? 

RN: There is some interesting academic discussion about the constitutionality of Magistrate and Bankruptcy Judges. Will Baude from Chicago and Phillip Hamburger from Columbia have both written papers on that. But the Supreme Court has always approved Magistrate Judges as well as Bankruptcy Judges. There are some limitations on what we can do and the power we can exercise, and that has been fleshed out over time, but overall, we’re constitutionally sound, I believe. 

MC: In a previous lecture, you explored how trial judges and other legal professionals can put originalism into practice in their daily lives. As a U.S. Magistrate Judge, how have you integrated originalism into your daily work?

RN: It’s a very interesting area, because a lot of the attention on originalism is directed at the Supreme Court, and understandably so, given the importance of the issues that that court decides. Oftentimes, they receive very thorough amicus briefing and briefing from the parties about originalist issues and history and tradition. It’s been less so at the lower courts. Lately, though, in the past few years, there have been more and more originalist opinions coming out of the lower courts. 

That speech was about discussing some of those examples and then looking at, if you are a lower court judge, how do you apply originalism if you are an originalist? It’s interesting. Obviously, we are subject to binding precedent from the courts above us, whether it be the U.S. Supreme Court or the circuit courts of appeals. We can’t deviate from those rules even if we might think they are contrary to what originalism might yield, but there are opportunities to do originalist work. If it’s an issue of first impression, you’re writing on a clean slate. You can engage in originalist analysis if appropriate. 

If it’s an area of law, such as the Second Amendment, where the Supreme Court has placed a lot of emphasis on originalist analysis, that provides an opportunity to do it. Some judges, recognizing that we’re bound by precedent, will say the precedent compels a certain decision, but will say that, “I as an originalist think the outcome should be different.” They are applying the law as it is, but they are also engaging in a discussion about what the law should be. That’s always part of the role of a judge, to have conversations about the law and how it can be improved. 

Those are three examples of how lower court judges can and have put originalism into practice. 

MC: Have you ever addressed any constitutional issues as a U.S. Magistrate Judge that you would like to share, such as Fourth Amendment claims?

RN: We have the opportunity to do that. Some District Court judges will refer motions to suppress in criminal matters to us to resolve. I have had the opportunity to engage in originalist analysis directly on several occasions. Several months ago, I issued a recommendation on a Second Amendment issue that dealt with the Bruen decision’s “history and tradition” analysis. Over the years, I have had several other opportunities to do so. I’m always excited to do it, because it is a chance to delve into the history of the law and originalism in general. 

MC: What are the most frequent kinds of cases that you hear as a U.S. Magistrate Judge? 

RN: We hear a wide variety of different cases. Here in Raleigh, we have two Magistrate Judges and one kind of semi-retired Magistrate Judge. We split up our criminal court responsibilities amongst the three of us. The two of us that are here full-time do criminal court two weeks out of every month. That means, when a criminal is arrested, they come in for an initial appearance. We advise them of their rights and the charges against them. We then hold bail hearings to decide if they get out on bail or if they are detained pending trial. We conduct preliminary hearings to determine whether there is probable cause to keep someone in custody if they haven’t been indicted by a grand jury. We also do competency hearings if there are concerns about a defendant’s competency. 

That takes up two weeks out of every month for me, and if I am not actually in court, I’m working on search warrant applications or electronic surveillance applications for the surveillance of people under investigation. Sometimes, I am considering requests for arrest warrants for people that have potentially committed crimes. 

Two weeks out of every month is mostly criminal work, and then the other two weeks I spend a lot of my time in-chambers with my clerks researching and writing documents in civil matters. 

MC: Many of our readers are just starting their “legal writing” careers. Do you have any advice on how they can improve their skills?

RN: I do. Try to read good writing if you are interested in the law. There are many judges who are fabulous writers, including some justices on the Supreme Court. Some of the more prominent advocates are also great writers. Reading their work gives you an idea of what great legal writing looks like. 

I think, more generally, reading any good writing helps to improve your skills. Reading good books, well-written magazines, and smart op-eds in the newspapers can all help you to internalize what good writing is. Devote your time also to reading about writing. There are many excellent books out there on how to be a great writer. 

Finally, actually engage in writing. Learn how to be critical of your own work and ask how it can be more concise, more persuasive, and more interesting to read. Over time, you will develop strong skills. I’m a much better writer now than I was when I first graduated from law school. I continue to work on it in the hope that I will be a better writer five years from now than I will be today. 

MC: What kind of books do you like to read in your spare time?

RN: I kind’ve go all over the place. I’ve recently read a few books on the state of affairs in the Middle East and that region’s recent history. For fun, I have recently completed The Terminal List series, which is a very interesting work by Jack Carr. I’ll read some law-related books. I’m reading one right now about how, when you are working through a case, how to deal with different kinds of personalities and help people reach resolution of issues that they might have. 

MC: Moving to a separate topic, you also recently gave a lecture entitled, “Originalism and Trial Procedure.” Many of our readers here at the Clemson Law Review are interested in becoming trial attorneys. Why do you believe that people who are interested in trial litigation, as opposed to appellate law, should still study originalist theory? 

RN: It’s a very good question, and it goes back to what I was saying before. For a long time, originalism was really the purview of the Supreme Court alone, but it is becoming a more widely accepted mode of analysis, both in the lower federal courts and in the state courts. Regardless of what your views are on whether originalism is the best way to interpret the Constitution, it’s still a tool that you need to have in your toolbox because it’s hard for you to anticipate what a judge is going to want to hear. If you get a judge who is an originalist, and the originalist argument is what will advance your client’s interest, you need to be able to make it and make it well. I always encourage people, regardless of how you feel about originalism, to at least have a working knowledge of it so that, if it is appropriate and in your client’s interest, you can make those arguments to make the best case possible for your client. 

If you are an originalist, the same thing applies to living constitutionalism and the other modes of constitutional analysis. Your job as a lawyer is to get the best possible result for your client and you need to employ the various tools you have available to do it. 

MC: What criteria do you use in selecting your clerks? 

RN: Law clerks are very important to a judge. They do a lot of work for us in terms of getting an opinion out the door and helping us prepare for trials. Here, as with most courts in general, it’s a very fast-paced environment with a lot of work and a lot of demand. It’s very important to me that clerks have strong intellectual credentials, including a thirst for knowledge and learning and intellectual curiosity. I’m looking for a demonstrated ability to work hard and get things done, the ability to think independently, and to share alternative perspectives. 

MC: Are there any schools or regions that you look to first in the application process?

RN: Judges are very different on that front. There are some judges who have schools that they favor. I have had clerks from all over the country. I’ve had some from as far away as BYU. I’ve had a couple from Notre Dame, where I went to law school. I’ve had a couple from Duke, a couple from UNC. My current clerk is from the University of Virginia. My career clerk went to Villanova. It’s all over the place. You can find really smart, talented people at any school and I always want to hire the best person possible for the job. 

MC: Many undergraduate students may never have the opportunity to hear about U.S. Magistrate Judges because they are not discussed in most civics classes. As a concluding note, why should young people study this component of our government, and what broader purpose does it serve?

RN: Absolutely. First of all, that’s not just reserved to high school students or college students. I think a lot of people come out of law school not knowing what a Magistrate Judge is. I tried to explain, in a separate speech, what exactly Magistrate Judges do. 

But on a big-picture note, we serve an important role in helping to keep everything moving forward. The federal courts are very busy. We serve the role of helping to deal with a lot of things that would otherwise take much longer to resolve. Discovery motions need to be resolved. Dispositive motions to be resolved. If they aren’t, cases will be held up. We help do that because District Court Judges are very busy and have lots of other obligations beyond what we have. It is to provide assistance to them, to help them do their job so that justice can be administered in a timely and organized manner. 

MC: Thank you for your helpful insights, sir, and for offering your time!

RN: My pleasure.