Newsletter of the Federal Courts Vol. 30 Number 6 June 1998

		CONTENTS Chief Justice Raises Concerns On Federalization Senate Bankruptcy Bill Would Require Travel Reports In other legislative news: Oversight Hearing Scheduled Courtroom Makeover Shows Value of Electronic Technology Videoconferencing Links Federal Courts and Public For Judges, a Recusal Reminder Appellate Commission Wraps Up Hearings An Interview with Judge Stephen H. Anderson Judicial Milstones/Boxscore
		Chief Justice Raises Concerns On Federalization Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, in addressing the American Law Institute's annual meeting last month, questioned how much of the complex system of legal relationships in this country should be determined in Washington, and how much by state and local governments. Rehnquist was referring to what he called the propensity of Congress and the President "to enact more and more legislation which brings more and more cases into the federal court system"a concern he voiced in his 1997 annual report. He singled out two juvenile crime bills pending before the House and Senate as examples of legislation that would, if enacted, "be the latest in a series of laws passed by Congress that have expanded the jurisdiction of the federal courts." "These Senate and House bills raise the same concerns because they contain nearly identical provisions," said the Chief Justice. "First, both bills eliminate the traditional preference for state prosecutions of juvenile defendants, particularly if the juvenile is to be prosecuted as an adult. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist Current law favors state prosecution unless the government certifies to the district court that (1) the state cannot or will not take jurisdiction; (2) the state's juvenile programs are inadequate; or (3) the offense is a violent crime or a drug-trafficking offense and there is a substantial federal interest involved in the case," Rehnquist said. "Either of the juvenile crime bills presently before Congress would eviscerate this traditional deference to state prosecutions, thereby increasing substantially the potential workload of the federal Judiciary." In 1997, the number of criminal cases reached 50,363, the highest level since 1933. Ending the preference for state prosecution and prosecuting juveniles as adults in federal courts, would, according to Rehnquist, "exacerbate the problem revealed by these numbers because adult criminal proceedings are far more time-consuming than their juvenile counterparts." Rehnquist also cited the more formalized structure of adult proceedings and the likelihood that adult convictions and death penalty cases may more likely be appealed, all of which adds to the federal caseload. Senate Judiciary Committee chair, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), chair of the Youth Violence Subcommittee, responded to the Chief Justice in a joint letter. Saying that the committee "does not intend or expect a substantial increase in the number of juvenile cases adjudicated or prosecuted in federal court," the senators wrote that no conduct that is not a federal crime now will be if this provision becomes law. "We are, of course, mindful of the concerns you have raised," the letter read. "We are particularly sensitive to the fact that, in recent years, Congress has made federal criminal offenses of conduct that, in the past have only been state crimes. As you have noted, this expansion of concurrent state and federal criminal jurisdiction has implications for the duties and workload of the federal courts. Certainly, when there is concurrent jurisdiction over an offense and an offender, principles of comity and the traditional primacy of states in criminal matters dictate that the presumption in both adult and juvenile cases should be in favor of state prosecution, absent an overriding federal interest in the case." They went on to assure the Chief Justice that this general policy would be followed in the revisions to the federal juvenile code. The Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts, adopted by the Judicial Conference in 1995, recommends that federal courts should only have criminal jurisdiction in five types of cases: offenses against the federal government or its inherent interests; criminal activity with substantial multistate or international aspects; criminal activity involving complex commercial or institutional enterprises most effectively prosecuted using federal resources or expertise; serious high-level or widespread state or local government corruption; and criminal cases raising highly sensitive local issues. Referring to this recommendation, the Chief Justice said, "There is, I hasten to say, no reason why Congress should slavishly follow the recommendations of the Judicial Conference. But the Long Range Plan is based not simply on the preferences of federal judges, but on the traditional principle of federalism that has guided this country throughout its existence. It is a principle enunciated by Abraham Lincoln in the nineteenth century and Dwight Eisenhower in the twentieth century: matters that can be handled adequately by states should be left to them; matters that cannot be so handled should be undertaken by the federal government. Reasonable minds will differ on how this very general maxim applies in a particular case, but the question which it implies should at least be asked." The Chief Justice also cited the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992, the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992, and the arson provisions added to Title 18 in 1993 as examples of legislation expanding the jurisdiction of the federal courts. "[O]ne senses from the context in which they were enacted that the question of whether the states were doing an adequate job in this particular area was never seriously asked," Rehnquist told ALI members.
Back to contents Next