Legislation that would improve various court operations, a discussion of Article III judgeship needs, and a bill that would require all courts to establish arbitration programs were addressed by representatives of the Judicial Conference of the United States, who testified today before a House subcommittee.
Appearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property were Judge Philip Pro (D.Nev.), chair of the Judicial Conference's Committee on Magistrate Judges; Chief Judge Julia Smith Gibbons (W.D.Tenn.), chair of the Committee on Judicial Resources; and Chief Judge D. Brock Hornby (D. Me.), chair of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management.
Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1997
In his testimony, Judge Pro identified specific provisions in H.R. 2294, the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1997, that "would each contribute, in some measure, to the efficiency of the judicial branch of government by saving time, money, and resources." The provisions highlighted by Judge Pro would extend contempt authority to magistrate judges, transfer an annual report on federal wiretaps to the Department of Justice, and enhance security for federal judges by establishing a firearms training program as a condition to allowing federal judges the option of carrying a handgun."Presently, the lack of adequate contempt authority by magistrate judges undermines both the magistrate judge's and the court's authority when confronted with misconduct or failure to obey court orders," Judge Pro told the subcommittee. Under this provision, magistrate judges would have summary criminal contempt authority to punish any misbehavior by witnesses, parties, counsel, and others present at court proceedings.
The bill also would provide magistrate judges with additional criminal and civil contempt authority in civil consent cases under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and in misdemeanor cases under 18 U.S.C. § 3401.
Another provision of H.R. 2294 would address a federal wiretap report currently prepared by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts by transferring the report to the Department of Justice.
H.R. 2294 also seeks enactment of a statute authorizing federal judges to carry firearms for purposes of personal security and to establish a firearms training program.
Judicial Resources and Judgeships
In her testimony Judge Gibbons told the subcommittee that the Judicial Conference uses a formal, systematic methodology for evaluating judgeship needs in the courts of appeals and district courts. The Judiciary also has adopted a variety of approaches to maximize the use of judicial officer resources including the use of new, more conservative formulas to evaluate judgeship requests in the courts, requesting temporary rather than permanent judgeships, use of senior judges, intercircuit and intracircuit assignment of judges, use of magistrate judges, and use of alternative dispute resolution."The Judicial Conference is constantly evaluating the need to control growth and the need to seek resources that are appropriate to the workload," said Judge Gibbons. "In an effort to place that policy in effect, the Conference has requested far fewer judgeships than the caseload increases would suggest are now required."
Nevertheless, Judge Gibbons said, both the appellate and district courts are facing dramatic increases in their caseload. Currently the number of appeals filed per authorized appellate panel is 939, more than 160 above the number in 1991. Despite the substantial increases, the Judicial Conference has requested only 17 additional appellate judgeships, a 10 percent increase over the current number.
Judge Gibbons said the change in the caseload of the district courts has been even more pronounced. Since 1991, the number of case fillings has grown by 24 percent to over 300,000 cases. "When these cases are weighted for complexity, the increase is 27 percent," said Judge Gibbons. "By way of comparison, the Judicial Conference has requested the addition of 36 judgeships in the district courts, an increase of less than six percent."
H.R. 2603 Alternative Dispute Resolution and Settlement Encouragement Act
Judge Hornby expressed concern over H.R. 2603, the Alternative Dispute Resolution and Settlement Encouragement Act, which would require district courts to establish an arbitration program. "The Judicial Conference believes this is unwise—and considering that the vast majority of districts already use ADR—unnecessary," Judge Hornby told the subcommittee. The proposed bill would require courts specifically to set up an arbitration program, even though 80 of the 94 district courts already use some form of ADR. The Judicial Conference of the United States supports the use of ADR by district courts. Recommendation 39 of the Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts, encourages district courts to "make available a variety of alternative dispute resolution techniques, procedures, and resources to assist in achieving a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of civil litigation."The proposed legislation also could encourage the use of mandatory arbitration, thereby requiring all litigants to automatically go through the extra step of arbitration, before having access to the traditional trial process. "This could add to the cost and delay of civil litigation rather than reducing it," Judge Hornby said. "The Conference's view is that well run voluntary programs will attract participants and provide an effective form of ADR without demanding that all litigants participate regardless of their circumstances." The Conference, Judge Hornby said, supports giving the courts the authority to utilize voluntary courtannexed arbitration as one form of ADR, but not the expansion of mandatory courtannexed arbitration programs.