A federal court of appeals recently decided an employee benefits case. The majority affirmed the denial of disability benefits to a recovering drug addict. One judge dissented, and the dissent included the following passage:

My inquiry thus far has been an inquiry of law, for I think the moral opprobrium that underlies the special exclusion for drug addicts is not grounded in the language of the Plan or the evidence in this case. But if we do take up the moral issue, I believe my colleagues mistake the moral balance. [The appellant] is not currently taking drugs; he is trying to cease taking drugs. We should give people like him a chance to get back on their feet. To put him to the cruel choice of losing his disability benefits or returning to the environment that impelled his addiction is not right. Judge-made exceptions are often assumed to be humane, while law is thought to be a cold, hard thing. But equity here is a sword that strikes against the needy but unfavored. Law would be kinder.

  The question is, who is the dissenting judge? Here are your choices:

1. Alex Kozinski
2. Diane Wood
3. Stephen Reinhardt
4. Rosemary Barkett
5. Harvie Wilkinson