Lack of Judgeships Prompts Judicial Emergency

In a general order signed by every active judge in the Southern District of California, a judicial emergency in the district has been declared by Chief Judge Marilyn L. Huff (S. D. Cal.) over the acute need for judgeships. "Due to the heavy criminal felony caseload and lack of new judgeships, the district continues to rank as one of the busiest courts in the nation," Huff wrote in the order. But with the death of two senior judges, the remaining eight active judges and five senior judges—one of whom was recently injured in a car accident and another who will soon turn 87—Huff said the district can no longer handle its criminal caseload.

"We have the highest weighted caseload per judge in the country," said Huff, "magnified by the high number of criminal cases. These are particularly demanding because of speedy trial concerns." The weighted caseload filings in the Southern District of California numbered 1,029 in 1999. Generally, the Judicial Conference will consider a request for additional judgeships from a court when the weighted caseload exceeds 430 per authorized judgeship. The Conference has recommended that the Southern District of California receive eight new judgeships, five permanent and three temporary.

"This was the highest number of new judgeships recommended for any court in the nation," Huff said in declaring the judicial emergency. "Despite the Judiciary’s recommendation, no new judgeships have been created for our district in pending judgeship legislation. Consequently, the needs of the litigants in our district for new judgeships have not been met. Without new judgeships, the district will operate under judicial emergency procedures as required by the needs of justice."

The fiscal year 2001 Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary appropriations bill still pending in Congress contains 10 new judgeships but ignores the Southern District of California’s judgeship needs. Despite urgent requests by Huff, Administrative Office Director Leonidas Ralph Mecham, and others, no new judgeships have been authorized by Congress for the district since 1990.

In the past, according to Huff, senior judges were able to handle the overflow criminal cases. In 1998, senior judges handled about 50 percent of the criminal jury trials. In the first eight months of 2000, and before an automobile accident in August, one senior judge handled 600 sentencings. It is not expected that he will be able to return to his former level of activity. Two active judges also have had medical and family disabilities that have reduced their availability for criminal trials. If the court is unable to provide sufficient trial judges in the future, criminal cases may be dismissed.

"If any court in the United States can make a case for new judgeships," said Huff, "it is ours."

New Federal Judgeships Still a Possibility in Lame Duck Session

There was no lack of judgeship bills in the 106th Congress. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) co-sponsored S. 3071, the Federal Judgeship Act of 2000, which included the latest Judicial Conference judgeship recommendations. Also introduced this session were S. 2730 and H.R. 4704, both titled the Southwest Border Judgeship Act of 2000, and both of which would create judgeships for the border courts. But by the end of the 106th Congress, none of these bills had made it to a floor vote. Instead, a provision creating 10 new judgeships was attached to the Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriation bill, which passed both Houses. Four of five border courts would each receive one judgeship under the current appropriations bill. However, as The Third Branch went to press, the President had indicated he would veto the appropriations bill for other reasons. When Congress returns in lame duck session in mid-November, the Judiciary may ask Congress to once again take up any or all of the judgeship bills, in addition to the judgeships now included in the appropriations bill, leaving the status of new judgeships uncertain.

Even as he introduced S. 3071 in September, Hatch acknowledged the difficulties ahead. "Given that there are only a few weeks remaining in this Congress, it is going to be difficult to achieve consensus on a comprehensive judgeship bill. Nevertheless, it is important that the views of the Judicial Conference on the issue of judgeships be brought to the attention of the Congress and given the appropriate level of consideration." S. 3071 would create 10 circuit judgeships and 53 district judgeships, a response to the Judicial Conference revised and expedited request for new judgeships sent to Congress in August. The recommendations reflected the impact of a growing caseload throughout the Judiciary, particularly in the southwest border courts, and the failure of a major judgeship bill to pass Congress in nearly a decade.

"Implicit in our legislation," said Leahy, "is acknowledgment that the federal Judiciary does not just have 64 current vacancies with nine on the horizon, but that even if all those vacancies were filled, the federal Judiciary would remain 70 judges short of those it needed to manage its workload, try the cases and provide the individual attention to matters that have set a high standard for the administration of justice in our federal system. In other words, considering vacancies and taking into account the judgeships authorized by our bill, the federal Judiciary is today in need of more than 130 more judges."

Article III Judgeship Recommendations
Court	Currently Authorized	Judicial Conference Recommendation	CJSJ** Proposed
Courts of Appeals
First	6	1T
Second	13	2P
Sixth	16	2P
Ninth	28	2P,3T
District Courts
AL-N	7	1P,1T
AL-M	3	1P
AL-S	3	1T
AZ	11	1P/4T	1
CA-N	14	1P
CA-E	6	2P,T/P
CA-C	27	2T
CA-S	8	5P,3T
CO	7	1P,1T
FL-M	15	1P,1T
FL-S	16	2P	1
HI	3	T/P
IL-C	3	T/P
IL-S	3	T/P
IN-S	5	1T
KY-E	4	1T	1
NE	3	T/P
NV	6	1T	1
NM	5	2P,1T	1
NY-N	4	1T,T/P
NY-E	15	3P
NY-W	4	1T
NC-W	3	2P
OH-N	11	Extend T*
OR	6	1T
SC	9	1P	1
TX-E	7	1T
TX-S	18	2P	1
TX-W	10	3P,1T	1
VA-E	9	2P,T/P	1
WA-W	7	1T
WI-E	2	0	1
T:	Temporary judgeship. Temporary judgeships are created for a minimum time period, but where the first judicial vacancy occurring after that time period is not filled.
P:	Permanent judgeship.
T/P:	Temporary judgeship made permanent.
*	The first vacancy occurring 15 years or more after the confirmation date of the judge named to fill the temporary judgeship shall not be filled.
**	Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001.

AO Wins ABA Law Day Award

The Administrative Office Law Day program, Judicial Independence Is for You, has won a 2000 Outstanding Law Day Activity Award, given by the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Public Education. The annual award will be presented at the ABA’s midyear meeting in 2001.

On Law Day 2000, satellite technology linked more than 1,300 high-school seniors at 34 federal courthouses around the country. The students were asked to consider, then decide amid simulated public pressure, a case in a mock trial featuring a search and seizure case arising from a fictitious school incident. The 90-minute broadcast from the Washington, D.C., studios of the Federal Judicial Television Network featured moderators Judge Ann Williams (7th Cir.) and AO attorney Daniel A. Cunningham, with a student audience. Students’ decisions and the rationales for their decisions were shared via satellite, fax, and Internet during the broadcast. Federal judges, court staff, and members of the local legal communities were available at the participating federal courthouses to answer students’ questions and share their observations on the process after the live national broadcast.

Law Day was established in 1958 to celebrate and strengthen the American heritage of liberty, justice, and equality under the law.