Are we Ready? Electronic Access to Bankruptcy Courts Boon to Public ABA Urges Filling of Judicial Vacancies Judicial Conference Appointments Announced Circuits Participate in COOP Workshop Judicial Milestones Judicial Boxscore An Interview with FBA President Russell Del Toro

Click here to go to the Federal Judiciary homepage.

Are We Ready?

Are we ready? Can every federal court function in the aftermath of natural or man-made disasters? The events of the last year show the federal courts are resilient and adept at dealing with unforeseen disasters. But can we say that we are better prepared now than we were a year ago? Are we ready for tomorrow’s potential emergency?

Security always has been a priority of the federal Judiciary. In 1983, the Judiciary established the Judicial Facility Security Program, funded out of the Judiciary’s Court Security appropriation and managed by the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS). The Program provides for court security officers (CSOs), all with previous law-enforcement experience, who are dedicated to providing entry control, interior courthouse security, and security systems and equipment. The number of CSOs has risen from 405 in 1983 to 3,797 in 2002.

In 1988, a Judicial Conference Committee was created by the Chief Justice, specifically to oversee court security. The Judicial Conference Committee on Security and Facilities has dual responsibility for facilities and security. The Committee, chaired by Judge Jane Roth (3^rd Cir.), continues to work closely with the USMS and the General Services Administration to ensure courthouse security and to make the Judiciary’s security and facility funding needs known to Congress.

The overall courthouse security program has been periodically evaluated to ensure courts adapt to changing standards for facility security. This gave the Judiciary an immediate security advantage after September 11, 2001. Since that time the Judiciary has moved swiftly to obtain additional funding to further enhance the level of security at courthouses.

U.S. Marshals, CSOs and Circuit Coordinators Added

Following the terrorist attacks, a higher security level was implemented at courthouses. With funding from the Judiciary’s security supplemental appropriation, CSO staffing was increased 10 percent in each district to assist the USMS in providing an after-hours security presence and increased perimeter security patrols at court facilities. Also, 106 supervisory-level deputy U.S. marshal positions were created at the urging of the Administrative Office and the Committee on Security and Facilities to be funded by the Judiciary. These senior-level deputy marshals, over half of whom are in the process of being selected, coordinate the on- and off-site security of judges; oversee work performed by court security officers; develop building security plans, policies and procedures; and conduct security surveys.

"We felt that full-time supervisory-level deputies for court security were needed at the local level," said Administrative Office Director Leonidas Ralph Mecham. "The addition of deputy U.S. marshals dedicated to this task is critical to our responsiveness and the overall protection of the courts in the event of any emergency."

Recognizing that the courts of appeals bear a unique responsibility both to develop emergency response plans at the circuit level and to coordinate plans within the circuit, the Judiciary also has established emergency preparedness coordinator positions in the circuit executives’ offices.

Both the deputy U.S. marshals and the circuit-level coordinators will work with the court security committees already in place in every district. These committees are responsible for addressing district-wide security issues and approving USMS security requests. They also work with local GSA representatives on facility security enhancements.

Security Priorities Funded

Additional CSOs, overtime for CSOs, more deputy U.S. Marshals positions, improved security equipment at courthouses, enhancements to perimeter security—all cost money. A week after the September 11 terrorist attacks, Mecham briefed the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies on the Judiciary’s security funding needs. Mecham presented a detailed list of immediate emergency funding requirements for 414 courthouses across the country, the Supreme Court, and the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building. Congress responded favorably with two fiscal year 2002 emergency supplementals that gave the Judiciary $129 million. The most recent of the supplementals to give the Judiciary additional funding for security needs, P.L. No. 107-206, the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks, was signed by the President August 2. While it had been hoped the Judiciary would receive over $17 million for security in this Act, this amount was cut by $4 million when the President declined to submit an official budget request designating certain funds in the Act as an emergency requirement.

When the fiscal year 2003 budget was considered by Congress, Chief Judge John G. Heyburn, chair of the Judicial Conference Budget Committee, and Mecham again presented the Judiciary’s need to continue the enhanced security measures taken after September 11. The Judiciary’s FY 2003 budget request for Court Security would maintain this higher level of security. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported the FY 2003 Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, fully funding the Court Security Account. The House has not marked up its version of the bill.

COOPs and Occupant Emergency Programs Developed

Are we ready? Federal Courts are assessing their readiness in the face of a disaster.

"As you know, the tragic events of September 11, 2001, have caused government agencies to rethink issues relating to emergency preparedness," Mecham wrote within weeks of the attacks to all chief judges. "While depending for space and security on others, courts are responsible for planning for the continuity of court operations in the event of a disaster that extends beyond a few days."

His memorandum urged all courts to develop Occupant Emergency Programs (OEPs) and Continuity of Operations Plans (COOPs), and went on to list the minimum components of a viable COOP. The OEP is a short-term emergency response program that establishes procedures safeguarding lives and property during emergencies, including plans for evacuations, securing facilities and records, and communicating with employees and the public on the court’s status. The COOP not only ensures safety of employees and public, it ensures that essential functions and activities are conducted without unacceptable interruption and that normal functions are resumed as quickly and safely as possible.

The Fifth Circuit was one of the first to assess its ability to handle disasters. Chief Judge Carolyn Dineen King (5^th Cir.), with the support of the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council, put together a two-day workshop that focussed on emergency preparedness plans and security issues in the circuit. The workshop also was attended by chief judges of district and bankruptcy courts within the Fifth Circuit and their clerks and designated staff. Subsequently, other circuits and districts around the country began examining their own plans. In June 2002, the AO awarded a contract to Booz Allen Hamilton to develop a model template for a COOP. The contractor began working on the template with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Southern District of New York—courts selected because of their experiences coping with the aftermath of September 11. By August, representatives from all the circuit courts of appeals and participants from the district courts had gathered at the AO to review the model plan. Their review will produce a template for the entire Judiciary.

The AO’s William Lehman coordinates the Judiciary’s Emergency Response Team, providing support to courts affected by a crisis, from the Oklahoma City bombing to Hurricane George. This team went into action following 9/11. To focus the national effort, the AO formed the Judiciary Emergency Preparedness Office (JEPO) in November 2001. In the year since 9/11, Lehman, now JEPO chief, has met with dozens of advisory groups, addressed circuit conferences, and briefed numerous judges one-on-one, on COOPs and emergency preparedness in the courts.

Safe Mail Handling Practices Established

The Judiciary faced a different, but equally serious security concern with the discovery of anthrax-contaminated letters in the U.S. mail. Several mail handlers at a facility in Washington, DC, were exposed to anthrax, and the Supreme Court’s mail facility also was discovered to have tainted mail, prompting the move of the Court while remedi-ation of the facility was carried out.

To avoid potentially contaminated mailings, the AO began more extensive use of e-mail to deliver time-sensitive information to the courts. The AO had used electronic transmission, including e-mail and fax, for its court communications for some time, but recipients were generally limited to chief judges and court unit executives. The expansion of this capability replaced many paper mailings to appellate, district, bankruptcy and magistrate judges. The Judiciary’s websites were already repositories for many of the Judiciary’s statistical publications and directories. Now, many more forms and reports, previously mailed in hard copy to the courts, are posted to the websites for court access.

Lessons Learned On September 11, 2001, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the District Court for the Southern District of New York at Foley Square, and the Court of International Trade were just blocks from the World Trade Center and literally in harms’ way. But even as the courts evacuated and closed, Second Circuit Chief Judge John M. Walker and Chief Judge Michael B. Mukasey of the Southern District of New York were determined to be back in business as soon as possible. District Court Executive for the Southern District of New York Clifford Kirsch with Bankruptcy Clerk Kathleen Farrell, arranged for filings to be accepted at the White Plains facility while the Manhattan courts were closed. Circuit Executive Karen Milton and court staff, including Assistant Circuit Executive for Automation Joel Turner and Clerk of Court Roseann B. MacKechnie, rerouted e-mail and computer networks, distributed cell phones to key employees, kept the public and employees informed on the courts’ status through websites and phone trees, and, before re-opening, arranged for the structural evaluation, cleaning, and air quality testing of the court buildings. The Administrative Office through its emergency response team ensured paychecks reached employees, funding was available for immediate needs, and help was available to reroute telecommunication services. T he AO also requested additional assistance from the U.S. Marshals Service for heightened security at all courthouses. Judge Chester J. Straub (2nd Circuit), head of the Circuit’s Committee for Facilities and Security, acknowledged that it was the ability of the Circuit Executive’s Office to anticipate and make the necessary arrangements that got the court back on its feet. Planning meant the difference between disabled courts and courts that returned to normal function quickly. The lessons learned by the Second Circuit later were shared with circuit executives when they began the development of their own continuity of operations plans. (See story here)

Meanwhile, the Judicial Conference Committee on Security and Facilities addressed ways to guarantee safe mail handling. The AO contracted with specialized companies to provide anthrax testing of any courthouse when requested by the court, and to provide expert scientific service and assistance to courts concerned about, or contaminated with, biological agents. In January 2002, the AO contracted with an architectural firm to study seven existing courthouse mail facilities and practices. This would lead to the development of procedures, standards and infrastructure for safe mail handling in federal courthouses. In July 2002, the Judicial Conference, by mail ballot, approved recommendations regarding mail handling procedures and the construction of centralized mail rooms in courthouses.

Free to Operate in a Secure Environment

In a letter to all federal judges following the September 11 attacks and the anthrax contamination of mail, Judge Jane Roth, chair of the Conference Committee on Security and Facilities, wrote, "The Committee and the Director of the Administrative Office have made every effort to ensure that the courts are free to operate in a secure environment."

That effort predates the terrorist attacks and continues in their wake. The federal courts dealt expeditiously with those emergencies because the security groundwork, in large part, had been laid, and because court unit leadership was accustomed to taking a proactive role. Thanks to the continual reassessment and refining of the court security program, and the on-going emergency preparedness planning, the federal courts are better prepared today to deal with potential disasters.

As Mecham wrote to the judges and court staff in New York following September 11, "Through hard work and an unwavering sense of duty, you have kept the federal Judiciary operating in New York. You have not let the closing of buildings, the loss of telephone service, the lack of public transportation, or personal grief interfere with the uninterrupted administration of justice. In doing so, you have not only provided a critical service to our fellow citizens, but you have also sent an unmistakable message to those responsible for the attacks that the United States will not yield to terrorism."