Vol. 36, Number 8—August 2004

Is Congress Listening?
Federal Courts Are Sending the Message, but is It Being Heard?

It is shaping up to be, as one chief judge put it, "a financial crisis unlike anything in modern history." And federal judges, alarmed that Congress may fund the Judiciary for fiscal year 2005 at or barely above fiscal year 2004 levels, are writing to their members of Congress. They're describing how court services and the delivery of justice would be affected by cuts in funding. Their message is clear. Without sufficient funding, the federal courts can't function.

In June, Chief Judge Donald Molloy of the District of Montana wrote to his fellow small court chief judges urging them to bring this impending crisis to the attention of their congressional delegations.

"It is important to take the time to help them understand how we operate shorthanded, before they can comprehend the magnitude of having no lapse funds to cover operations," Molloy wrote.

The chief judges of the Southern, Central, Eastern and Northern Districts of California joined in a letter to Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), all 53 California members of the House of Representatives and the chairs and ranking members of key appropriations committees and subcommittees. "The courts are in peril," they wrote. "Our ability to provide justice in a timely and responsible fashion is being jeopardized." The chief judges detailed how court staffing, supervision and treatment of defendants, and court proceedings would be impacted. They urged adequate funding for the courts in FY 2005, otherwise they would have no choice but to drastically cut services to the public.

In Alaska, Chief Judge John W. Sedwick presides over a district that serves an area twice the size of Texas, with, he notes, a minimal number of employees. All the court's judges joined in a letter to Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, describing a district in which the probation unit has no staff except in Anchorage and Fairbanks, and where district and bankruptcy courts at Juneau and Ketchikan already have pooled funds to keep one person in the Juneau office for a full work week and in the Ketchikan office for about one-quarter of a work week. Further staff reductions were inconceivable at all but the Anchorage court.

"Bluntly put," Sedwick and his fellow judges wrote, "the courts stand on the brink of a fiscal abyss. If Congress chooses to fund the courts at FY 2004 levels next year, it will plunge the courts over the precipice." Administrative Office Director Leonidas Ralph Mecham hand delivered the letter to Stevens.

Earlier this year, the judges of the Northern District of Ohio signed a letter to appropriators asking for a FY 2005 budget "adequate for us to maintain our constitutional and statutory obligations." In the Northern District of Ohio, a hard freeze for FY 2005 would cost the jobs of 15-20 employees in the clerk's offices, nearly a dozen probation office employees, and initiate a rolling staff furlough in the pretrial services office.

"We don't have bloated budgets," the judges protested in their letter. "We have been struggling in recent years to manage the demands of criminal and civil filings that have been increasing in both number and complexity. Our dedicated court employees have been doing more with less. While nobody questions the priorities of national defense and the war against terrorism, the decimation of the judicial branch should not be a byproduct. . . . Please do your utmost to insure an adequate level of funding for the federal Judiciary in FY 2005."

The Districts of Oregon, the Western District of Pennsylvania, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin were among the courts writing to their congressional delegations. Chief Judge Rudolph T. Randa's (E.D. Wis.) letter also sounded a growing concern for the courts—time is running out in this Congress. As Randa wrote in mid-June, the House appropriations subcommittee had approved the Judiciary funding at $391 million over FY 2004, but $159 million below the full request.

"We are deeply appreciative of the encouraging funding news but know very little time remains for our appropriation bill to be passed by the full House and considered by the Senate. We respectfully urge you to act expeditiously to avoid operation by the Judiciary under any continuing resolution or freeze. This would be extremely harmful."

Harmful indeed. Randa wrote that a hard freeze would result in an estimated cut of between 10 and 25 percent in the Judiciary's staffing, and a 50 percent cut in operating funds.

"Rest assured that we will continue on the cost containment measures started by our Judicial Conference Executive Committee," Randa wrote, "but these efforts will never be enough to cover any significant cut in the Judiciary's request."

In fact, in courts like the Southern District of Illinois where they are already operating below the prescribed staffing formula, cutting positions to cover the expected shortfall is not an option.

"Instead," Chief Judge G. Patrick Murphy wrote in a memo to the court family, "the court has determined that hours of operation will be reduced and salaries will be commensurately reduced." The entire federal Judiciary confronts, as Murphy expressed in his memo, "a financial crisis unlike anything in modern history."

Administrative Office Director Leonidas Ralph Mecham has encouraged judges to educate local members of Congress about their impending budgetary hardships.

"Too often we hear that since the federal courts don't have a constituency, Congress fails to hear about Judiciary concerns," Mecham said. Not anymore. "Judges throughout the country are demonstrating admirable leadership by speaking out about what lies ahead for the judges, court staff, and litigants who use their courts. If the funding level is not adequate, staffing and service will be compromised. It is a sobering message," said Mecham.

Financial Plan Includes Cost-Containment Proposals