Text-Size -A+

January 2006

  • print
  • FAQs

This article is in the news archives --- for current news go to the Third Branch News.

 

2005 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary


Introduction

New Year's Day in America means football, parades, and, of course, the Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary. I am pleased to carry on the tradition launched by Chief Justice Burger, and continued for the past 19 years by Chief Justice Rehnquist, of issuing on New Year's Day a report on the state of the federal courts. I recognize that it is a bit presumptuous for me to issue this Report at this time, barely three months after taking the oath as Chief Justice. It remains for me very much a time for listening rather than speaking. But I do not intend to start the New Year by breaking with a 30-year-old tradition, and so will highlight in this Report issues that are pressing and apparent, even after only a few months on the job.

First and foremost: the state of the federal judiciary is strong. We celebrated on September 24th the 250th anniversary of the birth of Chief Justice John Marshall. If Marshall were able to observe the work of the federal courts today, there doubtless would be much that would surprise him. But he would see in the work of the men and women who took the same judicial oath he did the same commitment to uphold the Constitution and to fulfill the Framer's vision of a judicial branch with the strength and independence "to say what the law is," without fear or favor. Marbury v. Madison (1803).

Violence Directed at Judges

No review of the year just passed can ignore the violent events that took place in Illinois and Georgia in February and March. The Nation was shocked by the horrific murders of a U. S. District Court judge's husband and mother by a disappointed litigant, and the terrible incident in Atlanta in which a judge, court reporter, and deputy were killed in the Fulton County courthouse. These attacks underscored the need for all branches of government, state and federal, to improve safety and security for judges and judicial employees, both within and outside courthouses. We see emerging democracies around the world struggle to establish court systems in which judges can apply the rule of law free from the threat of violence; we must take every step to ensure that our own judges, to whom so much of the world looks as models of independence, never face violent attack for carrying out their duties.

Appropriations and Judicial Independence

Article III of our Constitution seeks to protect judicial independence by providing that district and appellate judges serve during good behavior and receive "a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." These provisions alone, important as they are, cannot guarantee judicial independence, and a strong and independent judiciary is not something that, once established, maintains itself. It is instead a trust that every generation is called upon to preserve, and the values it secures can be lost as readily through neglect as direct attack.

In recent years, the budget for the federal judiciary and the ever-lengthening appropriations process have taken a toll on the operations of the courts. There are two areas of concern that have come to the fore and now warrant immediate attention and action. The first may come as a surprise to many: unlike many other elements of the federal government, the judiciary is required to pay a large and ever-increasing portion of its budget as rent to another part of the government—the General Services Administration (GSA). According to information compiled by the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts, while the judiciary spends almost sixteen percent of its total budget on GSA rent—twenty-two percent of its "salaries and expenses" appropriations—only three percent of the Department of Justice budget goes toward GSA rent, and the Executive Branch as a whole spends less than two-tenths of one percent of its budget on GSA rent. During fiscal year 2005, the judiciary paid $926 million to GSA in rent, even though GSA's actual cost for providing space to the judiciary was $426 million. The disparity between the judiciary's rent and that of other government agencies, and between the cost to GSA of providing space and the amount charged to the judiciary, is unfair. The federal judiciary cannot continue to serve as a profit center for GSA.

Escalating rents combined with across-the-board cuts imposed during fiscal years 2004 and 2005 resulted in a reduction of approximately 1,500 judicial branch employees as of mid-December when compared to October 2003. We are grateful that our fiscal year 2006 appropriation provides the judiciary with a 5.4 percent increase over fiscal year 2005. While this should allow the courts to restore some of these staffing losses, the judiciary must still find a long-term solution to the problem of ever-increasing rent payments that drain resources needed for the courts to fulfill their vital mission.

A more direct threat to judicial independence is the failure to raise judges' pay. If judges' salaries are too low, judges effectively serve for a term dictated by their financial position rather than for life. Figures gathered by the Administrative Office show that judges are leaving the bench in greater numbers now than ever before. In the 1960s, only a handful of district and appellate court judges retired or resigned; since 1990, 92 judges have left the bench. Of those, 21 left before reaching retirement age. Fifty-nine of them stepped down to enter the private practice of law. In the past five years alone, 37 judges have left the federal bench—nine of them in the last year.

There will always be a substantial difference in pay between successful government and private sector lawyers. But if that difference remains too large—as it is today—the judiciary will over time cease to be made up of a diverse group of the Nation's very best lawyers. Instead, it will come to be staffed by a combination of the independently wealthy and those following a career path before becoming a judge different from the practicing bar at large. Such a development would dramatically alter the nature of the federal judiciary.

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote often about the need to raise judicial pay—going so far as to say in his 2002 Year-End Report that he felt at risk of "beating a dead horse." Despite his entreaties, however, the situation has gotten worse, not better. According to information gathered by the Administrative Office, the real pay of federal judges has declined since 1969 by almost 24 percent, while the real pay of the average American worker during that time has increased by over 15 percent.

Three years ago, in January 2003, the National Commission on the Public Service concluded that "Congress should grant an immediate and significant increase in judicial, executive and legislative salaries" and that "[i]ts first priority in doing so should be an immediate and substantial increase in judicial salaries." Yet no effective action has been taken to address this problem. I am not the first person to observe that the way judicial and other high-level government salaries are set—llowing the salaries to stagnate until large increases are required—simply does not work. And all those in public service whose pay scales are tied to those of higher-level officials feel the pinch of compressed salaries.

I understand that it is difficult for Congress to raise the salaries of federal judges, especially in a tight budget climate. I also understand that it is the responsibility of Congress to do difficult things when necessary to preserve our constitutional system. Our system of justice suffers as the real salary of judges continues to decline. Every time an experienced judge leaves the bench early, the judiciary suffers a real loss. Every time a judge leaves the bench for a higher paying job, the independence fostered by life tenure is weakened. Every time a potential nominee refuses to be considered, the pool of candidates from which judges are selected narrows.

If Congress gave judges a raise of 30 percent tomorrow, judges would—after adjusting for inflation—be making about what judges made in 1969. This is not fair to our Nation's federal judges and should not be allowed to continue. Unfortunately, judges do not have a natural constituency to argue on their behalf. They do not serve a particular group, and courts—by their very design—often have to render unpopular decisions. Judges must rely on the Congress and the President to increase their pay.

The federal judiciary, as one of the three coordinate branches of government, makes only modest requests of the other branches with respect to funding its vital mission of preserving the rule of law under our Constitution. Those of us in the judiciary understand the challenges our country faces and the many competing interests that must be balanced in funding our national priorities. But the courts play an essential role in ensuring that we live in a society governed by the rule of law, including the Constitution's guarantees of individual liberty. In order to preserve the independence of our courts, we must ensure that the judiciary is provided the tools to do its job.

A New Year inevitably kindles fresh hope. In the coming year, the men and women of the federal judiciary will faithfully discharge their heavy responsibility of ensuring equal justice under law. The other two branches of government can aid us in that effort by, first, enacting a significant pay raise for federal judges, and, second, eliminating or at least sharply lowering the courthouse rent that the judiciary is required to pay GSA. These two steps—whose budgetary impact would be vanishingly small—would go a long way toward maintaining a strong and independent federal judiciary with the resources to administer justice efficiently and fairly. And that is priceless.

In Memoriam

On September third, the Nation lost a distinguished and dedicated public servant, and we in the judiciary lost a good friend and colleague. William H. Rehnquist led the Third Branch of our government for almost 19 years. He will be counted by history—an avocation to which he offered four books of his own—as among the handful of great Chief Justices of the United States. For the many of us both within and outside the judiciary who were fortunate enough to know him personally, he will always be remembered as a fair, thoughtful, and decent man.

Conclusion

I want to thank the judges and court staff throughout the country for their continued hard work and dedication to our common calling over the past year. I extend to all my wish for a Happy New Year.