INSIDE THIS ISSUE The 1999 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary Page 2 Page 3

Click here to go to the Federal Judiciary homepage.

The 1999 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary

Overview

The 1999 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary—my 14^th as Chief Justice—provides an oppor-tunity to review the state of the Judiciary not only for the past year, but also to reflect briefly on its status this past century, which, I hasten to point out, has another year to run. Just ask the makers of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Our society experienced enormous technological and industrial advances in the 20^th century. We entered the century traveling in horse and buggy, on steamboat, or by rail, and we leave it thinking of man's landing on the moon as old news, to use but one example. Changes in the federal Judiciary in the 20^th century may appear less extreme by comparison, but are nonetheless remarkable.

One hundred years ago, there were 108 authorized federal judgeships in the federal Judiciary, consisting of 71 district judgeships, 28 appellate judgeships, and 9 Supreme Court Justices. Today, there are 852—including 655 district judgeships, 179 appellate judgeships and 9 Supreme Court Justices. In 1900, 13,605 cases were filed in federal district courts, and 1,093 in courts of appeals. This past year, over 320,194 cases were filed in federal district courts, over 54,600 in courts of appeals, and over 1,300,000 filings were made in bankruptcy courts alone.

These changes in the federal Judiciary reflect not merely a growth in the population of the United States, but also have been in response to the increasing jurisdiction of federal courts. Some increase in federal jurisdiction has been a natural result of the industrialization and technological development and the corresponding regulation of it in America in the 20^th century; some in recent years, however, has resulted from unnecessary federalization of traditional state law matters. Of course, technological advances have had other profound impacts on the Judiciary. A century that began with some federal judges still riding the circuits con-cludes with judges communicating by video conferencing, using a Federal Judicial Television Network, and in some instances reviewing briefs filed electronically.

Notwithstanding changes and adaptations within the federal Judiciary over the last 100 years, perhaps the greatest contribution it has made to our society and the way in which we govern ourselves has been its stability and relative predictability. These traits—consistent throughout the century—have been secured by the Judiciary's independence and are dependent on a healthy support of the other branches of government.

Public recognition of the strengths of the federal Judiciary is encouraging. In a February 1999 Gallop Poll, 80 percent of Americans surveyed stated that they had a "great deal" or "fair" amount of trust in the judicial branch of government, far exceeding figures for the other branches. And a February 1999 report of an American Bar Association nationwide survey on the American system of justice concluded that "at least conceptually, there is strong support for the justice system. The data indicated that 80 percent of all respondents either strongly agree or agree . . . that in spite of its problems, the American justice system is still the best in the world."

The public's views are a function of more than the structure of our government and the independence of the Judiciary. Those views are shaped by the dedication and hard work of federal judges who continue to dispense justice despite an increasing workload and a relatively decreasing salary. We are particularly indebted to our senior federal judges who continue to help with the courts' workload with little incentive other than devotion to public service.

The past year has been one of improvement in the Judiciary. Last year at this time, I singled out three significant problems facing the Judiciary that needed immediate attention: (1) the need to appoint all seven Commissioners of a vacant United States Sentencing Commission; (2) the continuing relative decline in judicial salaries; and (3) the growing caseload in the federal Judiciary. I noted that all three problems were soluble. This year, I extend thanks on behalf of the entire Judiciary to Congress and the Executive Branch for the significant progress we have made on two of the three problems, and for efforts made to address the third.

First, I am pleased to report that the political impasse on the appointments to the United States Sentencing Commission was overcome in 1999. All seven Commissioners were confirmed by the Senate in November, and U.S. Circuit Judge Diana E. Murphy of Minneapolis, Minnesota, is the new Chair. The Sentencing Commission, among other things, reduces disparity in sentencing, establishes sentencing policies and practices in federal courts, and advises Congress and the Executive Branch in the development of crime policy. This much-needed Commission may now address a backlog of work caused by the vacancies and can promulgate guidelines to implement a significant amount of sentencing and crime-related legislation enacted by the 105^th Congress.

Second, for only the second time since 1993, I can report some adjustment in the salaries of federal judges. Effective today, federal judges will receive a 3.4 percent Employment Cost Index adjustment in accordance with the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (2 U.S.C. § 461). The Judiciary is appreciative of the adjustment, but it should not be confused with a raise in salary. We must continue to work for more appropriate compensation for federal judges to maintain the quality and morale of the federal Judiciary.

And, third, I commend the Senate Government Affairs Committee and its Chair, Senator Fred Thompson, for holding hearings on May 6, 1999, on the issue of controlling the federalization of crimes that are better left to state laws and courts to handle. The hearings were held in part as a response to issues I raised in last year's Report, and focused also on the American Bar Association's Task Force on Federalization of Criminal Law, a bipartisan Task Force chaired by former Attorney General Edwin Meese. The Task Force concluded that the ultimate safeguard for maintaining our balanced Constitutional system must be a "principled recognition by Congress for the long-range damage to real crime control and to the nation's structure caused by inappropriate federalization." As Chairman Meese elaborated at the hearings, the "expanding coverage of federal criminal law, much of which has been enacted without any demonstrated or distinctive federal justification, is moving the nation rapidly towards two broadly overlapping, parallel, and essentially redundant sets of criminal prohibitions, each filled with different consequences for the same conduct. Such a system has little to commend it and much to condemn it."

Eliminating unwarranted federalization of crime will help control growth in federal courts and preserve them as courts of limited jurisdiction. I urge the Congress to continue to examine this issue, and to refer to guidelines on federal courts' criminal jurisdiction set forth in the Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts adopted by the Judicial Conference in 1995 as detailed in my Year-End Report last year.

In the meantime, certain federal courts continue to feel the effects of an increased workload. Congress responded to this problem in 1999 by creating nine new judgeships—four in the Middle District of Florida, three in Arizona, and two in Nevada. The Judicial Conference of the United States seeks additional judgeships in approximately 25 percent of the judicial districts in the United States. Federal courts in U.S. border areas face a crisis in workload created by an unmanageable number of immigration and drug-related cases. The Judicial Conference has been seeking additional judgeships for a number of years, particularly in those areas most affected by such cases, including the Southern District of California, the Southern and Western Districts of Texas, and the Districts of Arizona and New Mexico. More judges are also needed in four Courts of Appeals in the country—the First, Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits need judges to meet their workloads and to maintain the quality of justice provided in those courts.

Clearly, the Judiciary does not advocate growth for growth's sake, but must respond to its workload. In that regard, the workload in some jurisdictions of the federal Judiciary is such that some vacancies will not need to be filled. Four vacancies are thus affected: the existing vacancy in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and prospective vacancies in the United States District Courts of the District of Delaware, the District of Wyoming, and the Southern District of West Virginia will not need to be filled. The Judicial Conference has so advised the Executive and Legislative Branches.