Release Date: October 24, 1995

Judicial Conference Supports Courts Improvement Legislation

Representatives of the Judicial Conference of the United States today asked a Senate subcommittee to support an omnibus bill that contains numerous improvements in the operation and administration of the federal courts.

S. 1101, the Federal Courts Improvement Act, contains more than 50 different provisions, which have been endorsed by the Judicial Conference. Many also were recommended by the Federal Courts Study Committee, a three branch committee that five years ago issued a study of the federal court system. A similar bill, H.R. 1989, is pending in the House.

Testifying at the Senate hearing were three judges who chair Judicial Conference committees that have reviewed the various provisions in the legislation. They are Judge Stephen H. Anderson (10th Cir.), chair of the Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction; Judge Gustave Diamond (W.D. Pa.), past chair of the Committee on Defender Services; and Judge Barefoot Sanders (N.D. Tex.), chair of the Committee on the Judicial Branch.

"The Judicial Conference believes that each of the 53 sections of S. 1101 contains a proposed amendment to law which, if enacted, will improve the organization, management, and operation of the federal Judiciary," Judge Sanders said.

Among the provisions contained in S.1101 are those that would accomplish the following:

• Correct a long-standing anomaly in the jurisdiction of the federal courts by eliminating "in-state plaintiff" (ISP) in diversity jurisdiction cases. ISP allows a plaintiff to litigate in federal court a civil claim based on state law, even though the plaintiff is a citizen of the state whose court system the plaintiff seeks to avoid. The reasons that existed in 1789 for granting federal court jurisdiction over ISP cases no longer exist. Currently, about 31 percent of all new diversity filings - 15,318 - are by in-state plaintiffs. Repeal of ISP diversity jurisdiction would remove many of the these cases from federal court and assist the federal courts in meeting the needs of contemporary plaintiffs who seek judicial enforcement of the rights conferred on them by federal law and ensure that scarce judicial resources are used wisely.
• Raise the jurisdictional amount in controversy in diversity jurisdiction cases from $50,000 to $75,000. This amendment also would index this amount for inflation (based on the Consumer Price Index), which would be adjusted at the end of each year that is evenly divisible by five. The jurisdictional amount was last increased in 1986, when it went from $10,000 to $50,000.
• Provide for trial of a petty offense case by a magistrate judge without obtaining the defendant's consent or waiver of right to trial before an Article III judge. These cases often involve traffic violations or violations of regulations governing federal enclaves such as national parks or military bases. The proposed amendment would enhance the efficiency of the courts and remove an opportunity for abuse of the system.
• Increase the filing fee for a civil action in the district courts from $120 to $150. The filing fee was last increased in 1986.
• Mandate the establishment of federal defender organizations in every district with more than 200 appointments of outside counsel under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) annually. Federal defender offices provide a high quality of representation for indigent defendants in a cost-efficient manner. Currently, 63 federal defender organizations serve 73 of the 94 judicial districts.
• Authorize the Judicial Conference to set attorney compensation rates and case compensation maximums under the CJA. The current panel attorney rates of $40 per hour for out-of-court work and $60 per hour for in-court work, which were set by Congress in 1984, prevail in most districts and are seriously deficient. Inadequate compensation has hampered the courts in their ability to recruit and retain experienced attorneys to provide representation under the CJA. This amendment would allow the Conference to more efficiently manage the funds appropriated by Congress for Defender Services to meet the changing circumstances of federal criminal law and economics of law practice.
• Amend the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 to eliminate an exemption from jury service for members of state or local fire or police departments and "public officers" of federal and state governments. Experience has shown that many individuals who fall within the scope of the exemptions could serve as other citizens do. In addition, the definition of "public officer" has been so broad that school board officials and clerks appointed by locally elected justices of the peace are forbidden to serve even if they wish to do so.
• Repeal section 140 of Public No.97-92, which would remove a provision enacted in a continuing appropriations resolution 15 years ago that bars all automatic cost-of-living adjustments for federal judges except as specifically authorized by Congress. This amendment would restore parity with the other two branches of government, as intended by the Federal Salary Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 1975 and the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.
• Modify the age and service requirement for judicial retirement to address an inequity that exists for judges who are appointed before age 50. Under present law, life-tenured judges may not retire from regular active service or take senior status until they reach age 65 with a minimum 15 years of service. The proposed amendment would permit a judge with 20 years of service who has reached age 60 to take senior status. The amendment would not change the requirements for a judge to retire from office.
• Authorize a judge to provide sign language interpreters at court expense to participants in a judicial proceeding, subject to the availability of funds. This amendment promotes accommodation to the hearing impaired by vesting judges with the discretion to provide sign language interpreters at court expense.

###