Opportunity and Challenge: An Interview with Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges

Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges represented the Judicial Conference in hearings before congressional committees.

Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges was appointed to the District Court for the Middle District of Florida in 1971. He has served on Judicial Conference committees since 1982. He has been a member of the Executive Committee since 1994, and the committee’s chair since 1996..

Q:What is the role of the Executive Committee and how does it function?

A: The Executive Committee has several functions. One of its functions is to establish the calendars of the Judicial Conference, that is, the consent and discussion calendars.

Recommendations that come from the various committees are reviewed by the Executive Committee in advance of the two meetings of the Conference each year, and a decision is made as to whether a particular recommendation seems to be debate worthy or is entirely routine. If it seems to be a routine matter it is put on a consent calendar. If it seems to be a matter that might prompt discussion, it is put on the discussion calendar. This expedites the work of the Conference so that at the beginning of the meeting the Committee recommendations on the consent calendar are approved, and we then move on to the discussion calendar. However, any single member of the Conference can move an item, within a certain time frame before the meeting, from the consent calendar to the discussion calendar if he or she wishes to have it discussed on the floor of the Conference. That occurs with some frequency, so the establishment of the consent and discussion calendars by the Executive Committee, while important, is not so powerful as it might seem.

The tradition of the Conference has always been one of conducting its business in executive session, which, in my opinion, affords the best opportunity for full debate of the issues. Any member of the Conference is free to express his or her view without fear of some misunderstanding or some report that might take a comment out of context.

Secondly, the Executive Committee makes suggestions, from time to time, to the program committees of the Conference concerning developing issues that the Executive Committee thinks should be considered for the purpose of making a recommendation to the Conference. Thirdly, the Executive Committee, under its jurisdictional statement, is empowered to act for the Conference itself between sessions when matters arise of an emergency nature and there is insufficient time to poll the Conference, or if it involves a matter as to which Conference policy is already established. The Chief Justice has been very careful during my time on the Executive Committee to make it clear that, in the absence of an emergency, we are not to act for the Conference where Conference policy is not clear.

Q:You’ve served on Judicial Conference committees since 1982, you’ve been a member of the Executive Committee since 1994, and its chair since 1996—certainly a history of service to the Judiciary. Why do you choose to serve, in addition to your judicial duties?

A: My committee work, while it requires an investment of time, does not involve an inordinate investment and it is one that I’ve always been able to manage. To me, committee service is an opportunity for both a diversion and a challenge. It’s a diversion in the sense that it affords a respite from which all judges can profit. And it’s a challenge in the sense that the work being considered by the Conference committees is very important work. Some vital issues come before the committees so that committee service is an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process relating to the governance of the courts. I have never heard any judge who has served on a committee express any regret at having done so. It has been a positive experience for everyone who has served, especially because it affords the opportunity to meet and come to know other judges in the system—some of the finest and brightest people in the world. The judges I have met on Judicial Conference committees have been inspiring to me, and many have become close personal friends. I would have missed that opportunity altogether had I not been serving on committees with them. For me, the experience has been the highlight of my work as a judge.

Q:The Middle District of Florida is one of the busiest districts in the nation. What perspective did this give you as chair of the Executive Committee and when considering committee recommendations to the Judicial Conference?

A: I’m fortunate in that I come from a busy district, and we have a varied docket, both civil and criminal. Over the years I’ve seen just about all that one could see on the district bench. So when I look at the report of one of our committees, I’m familiar with the subject matter generally and know something about the issue. I think it has been advantageous in that respect.

Q:The Chief Justice normally presides over a Judicial Conference session, but on occasion, the chair of the Executive Committee is tapped to take over the duties. What is it like chairing the Conference?

A: It was a little daunting at first, looking forward to the prospect of presiding over the Conference, but once it happened I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. The debates of the Conference are sometimes intense but they’re never rancorous, always marked by collegiality and mutual admiration and respect, so that chairing such a meeting is very easy and very exciting. It is something now that I look forward to, if the opportunity affords itself.

Q:As chairman of the Executive Committee you also have inherited the duty of briefing the press about the Conference’s actions. What is this experience like? And, generally, how do you think the press and the public view the federal Judiciary?

A: Talking to the press is a bit of a challenge, because you have to walk a line between candor and discretion. I try to be candid with the press and answer their questions as fully and as frankly as I can. On the other hand I don’t feel at liberty to disclose the views of individual members of the Conference for the reasons we’ve discussed: the session was conducted in camera and the members of the Conference have both the expectation and the right of privacy.

It hasn’t been difficult for the most part. The matters decided by the Conference are often mundane in so far as the press is concerned, except for an occasional issue such as cameras in the courtroom. I just try to explain to the press what action was taken by the Conference and why it was taken—when I can clearly discern that from the overall debate.

On the second part of your question, I think the press views the federal Judiciary as an institution very much as the public does, and that is with some considerable measure of respect. Indeed, public respect for the judicial process is no doubt attributable in large part to the influence of the press and it is vital, in my view, that we conduct ourselves in a way that does not invite adverse publicity. Of course I do not mean that we should avoid hard decisions in the adjudicatory process; there are times when we simply have to take the “heat.”

Q:As chair of the Executive Committee, you have had an opportunity to interact with Congress and the Attorney General on issues of interest and concern to the Judiciary. How would you assess the current relationship between the judicial branch and the legislative and executive branches?

A: Our relationship with the Attorney General could not have been better during my term on the Executive Committee. She has been generous with her time in agreeing to meet with the Executive Committee at least twice a year, sometimes more often. We have always had an agenda of matters of mutual interest or concern. She has been uniformly responsive and helpful. We have tried to respond in like manner with respect to her suggestions and requests concerning the obvious interests of the Department of Justice in the operation of the courts. The relationship has been excellent and I hope it continues that way in the future.

Unfortunately our relationship with the Congress, at least on the surface, is somewhat more contentious. If you listen to press accounts or to some of the congressional committee reports, they will contain criticism of the Judiciary or individual judges. But in the end, if you stop and step back and look at exactly what happened in Congress in regard to the Judiciary, we have done rather well in getting the Judiciary's point of view across. I attribute that, by the way, to the excellent work of Director Mecham and his staff in continuously working with Congress in the interests of the Judiciary. So I suppose the bottom line is that while our relationship with the Congress is somewhat testy from time to time, in the final analysis Congress has managed to provide for the Judiciary in a generally acceptable manner.

Q:You’ve served on the federal bench for close to 30 years. Do you have any observations on how the Judiciary has changed in that time (if it has). Are there any changes you would make or any problems that need addressing?

A: I think the greatest change I’ve seen in the Judiciary in the last 30 years is growth—both in terms of the number of judges, including magistrate and bankruptcy judges, and the entire supporting staff of the Judiciary. This growth is owing in part, of course, to the increased jurisdiction Congress has created for us during that same time period. Such growth is a matter of concern to me and to many other judges because continued enlargement of the federal Judiciary can, in my view, pose a threat to our ability to effectively carry out our very narrow and paramount function, which is, in the final analysis, to protect and defend the Constitution. If the federal Judiciary and its jurisdiction grows to the point that as an institution it becomes indistinguishable from federal administrative agencies or the state judiciary as a whole, then there is the possibility of erosion of the public confidence and respect we discussed earlier, and that could ultimately pose a threat to the ability of the federal courts to command willing public obedience to its decisions. Most judges, I think, would agree with that. Where we have disagreement is what to do about it. That’s a matter of ongoing discussion. The Judicial Resources Committee recommended last year to the Executive Commit-tee that a study be made of how we might better utilize our resources and reduce our requests for additional judgeships in the future. The Executive Committee, in turn, recommended to the Chief Justice that a working group be created to study that very issue, and the Chief Justice was kind enough to follow that recommendation and appointed a working group under the leadership of Judge Julia Gibbons, who is also the chair of the Judicial Resources Committee.

In terms of the near future, I think it is vital that the federal courts and the Congress come to grips with the necessity that the growth of the federal Judiciary be curtailed in some way.

Q:You took senior status as of May, 1999, but I notice you’re still working as hard as ever. What are your plans as a senior judge?

A: I enjoy my work, as I said, both the committee work as well as sitting on the bench, and I’m going to continue to do that work as long as my health and energy remain at present levels. I’m looking forward to the future with no changes as far as my work is concerned.