Silverman was nominated by President Bill Clinton on November 8, 1997, to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated by Judge William Canby. Silverman's nomination enjoyed bipartisan support, with backing from Republican Senator Jon Kyl, a key member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Silverman's nomination was sent by the Senate Judiciary Committee to the floor of the Senate on November 13, 1997. The Senate confirmed Silverman by a voice vote on January 28, 1998. He received his commission on February 4, 1998.[4] After Silverman's confirmation, he told the Jewish News of Greater Phoenix in an article that appeared on February 6, 1998, that he was "really grateful" to President Clinton, Senator John McCain, Senator Jon Kyl and Representative Ed Pastor for their help and support in securing his confirmation.[5] "I am going to try to live up to their confidence," he told the paper. In an article in the East Valley Tribune that ran on August 31, 2007, Silverman explained the support for him by two Republican senators by noting that he must have been a "registered Democrat that Republicans would be able to stomach. It just sort of fell in my lap, really."[6] He assumed senior status on October 11, 2016, on his sixty-fifth birthday.[7][8]
Significant rulings
Since joining the Ninth Circuit, Silverman probably has become most known for writing the dissenting opinion for the 2-1 ruling in May 2002 that overturned a Sacramento federal district court's decision barring male prisoners the constitutional right to procreate and mail their sperm from jail.[9][10] As the lone dissenting member of that earlier three-judge panel, Silverman famously wrote in September 2001 that the ruling would permit prisoners "to procreate from prison via FedEx," according to a September 6, 2001, article in the Los Angeles Times.
Additionally, Silverman wrote the opinion for the 3-judge panel in Ides v. The Boeing Company, pertaining to the "whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(1)" ruling against the employees, that employee leaks to the media are not protected under the provisions of the law.[citation needed]