Chief Justice Raises Concerns On Federalization
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, in addressing the American
Law Institute's annual meeting last month, questioned how much of the complex
system of legal relationships in this country should be determined in
Washington, and how much by state and local governments.
Rehnquist was referring to what he called the propensity of
Congress and the President "to enact more and more legislation which brings more
and more cases into the federal court system"a concern he voiced in his 1997
annual report. He singled out two juvenile crime bills pending before the House
and Senate as examples of legislation that would, if enacted, "be the latest in
a series of laws passed by Congress that have expanded the jurisdiction of the
federal courts."
"These Senate and House bills raise the same concerns because
they contain nearly identical provisions," said the Chief Justice. "First, both
bills eliminate the traditional preference for state prosecutions of juvenile
defendants, particularly if the juvenile is to be prosecuted as an
adult.
Current law favors state prosecution unless the government
certifies to the district court that (1) the state cannot or will not take
jurisdiction; (2) the state's juvenile programs are inadequate; or (3) the
offense is a violent crime or a drug-trafficking offense and there is a
substantial federal interest involved in the case," Rehnquist said. "Either of
the juvenile crime bills presently before Congress would eviscerate this
traditional deference to state prosecutions, thereby increasing substantially
the potential workload of the federal Judiciary."
In 1997, the number of criminal cases reached 50,363, the
highest level since 1933. Ending the preference for state prosecution and
prosecuting juveniles as adults in federal courts, would, according to
Rehnquist, "exacerbate the problem revealed by these numbers because adult
criminal proceedings are far more time-consuming than their juvenile
counterparts." Rehnquist also cited the more formalized structure of adult
proceedings and the likelihood that adult convictions and death penalty cases
may more likely be appealed, all of which adds to the federal
caseload.
Senate Judiciary Committee chair, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT),
and Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), chair of the Youth Violence Subcommittee,
responded to the Chief Justice in a joint letter. Saying that the committee
"does not intend or expect a substantial increase in the number of juvenile
cases adjudicated or prosecuted in federal court," the senators wrote that no
conduct that is not a federal crime now will be if this provision becomes law.
"We are, of course, mindful of the concerns you have raised," the letter read.
"We are particularly sensitive to the fact that, in recent years, Congress has
made federal criminal offenses of conduct that, in the past have only been state
crimes. As you have noted, this expansion of concurrent state and federal
criminal jurisdiction has implications for the duties and workload of the
federal courts. Certainly, when there is concurrent jurisdiction over an offense
and an offender, principles of comity and the traditional primacy of states in
criminal matters dictate that the presumption in both adult and juvenile cases
should be in favor of state prosecution, absent an overriding federal interest
in the case." They went on to assure the Chief Justice that this general policy
would be followed in the revisions to the federal juvenile code.
The Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts, adopted by
the Judicial Conference in 1995, recommends that federal courts should only have
criminal jurisdiction in five types of cases: offenses against the federal
government or its inherent interests; criminal activity with substantial
multistate or international aspects; criminal activity involving complex
commercial or institutional enterprises most effectively prosecuted using
federal resources or expertise; serious high-level or widespread state or local
government corruption; and criminal cases raising highly sensitive local
issues.
Referring to this recommendation, the Chief Justice said,
"There is, I hasten to say, no reason why Congress should slavishly follow the
recommendations of the Judicial Conference. But the Long Range Plan is based not
simply on the preferences of federal judges, but on the traditional principle of
federalism that has guided this country throughout its existence. It is a
principle enunciated by Abraham Lincoln in the nineteenth century and Dwight
Eisenhower in the twentieth century: matters that can be handled adequately by
states should be left to them; matters that cannot be so handled should be
undertaken by the federal government. Reasonable minds will differ on how this
very general maxim applies in a particular case, but the question which it
implies should at least be asked."
The Chief Justice also cited the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992,
the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, the Freedom of Access to Clinic
Entrances Act of 1994, the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992, the Animal
Enterprise Protection Act of 1992, and the arson provisions added to Title 18 in
1993 as examples of legislation expanding the jurisdiction of the federal
courts. "[O]ne senses from the context in which they were enacted that the
question of whether the states were doing an adequate job in this particular
area was never seriously asked," Rehnquist told ALI members.