Court Operations – Annual Report 2025

Modernizing and Safeguarding the Electronic Case Management System

The Judiciary crossed a tipping point in the protection of its electronic case management system from cyberattacks. After a series of consequential cyberattacks, the Judiciary strategically enhanced its existing cybersecurity measures and accelerated its modernization project. Developed with assistance from the courts, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), and outside consultants, this major project is expected to greatly improve the Judiciary’s cybersecurity posture and benefit litigants and the public who need access to court records. 

The Case Management Modernization (CMM) project aims to replace the Judiciary’s aging Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system with a modern, sustainable, and secure platform for the Judiciary to manage cases and provide public access to case documents.  

In 2025, the AO conducted the proof-of-concept and prototype phase to determine the technical feasibility of various aspects of the system and to allow testers to visualize how it will be used. During this phase, proposed solutions could be tested and validated before development of a fully functional product. The approach mitigates risk by allowing for testing of complex requirements before any commitment is made to a particular process or technology. 

The prototypes were developed using modern cloud-based system architecture and security, and operational efficiency considerations were fully integrated into every aspect of the design and development. Development teams included AO staff and court-based user representatives, making it possible to incorporate user representatives' input and feedback into design decisions.  

The first products to be developed will focus on the highest-risk areas of court operations. In the interim, ongoing risks to the current CM/ECF system are being mitigated, including through system security upgrades. 

Development of a replacement for the search functionality of the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service is included as a key component of CMM.

The CMM project is complex on many levels, and its success will depend on the ongoing availability of resources and navigating the many technical, operational, and cultural challenges that accompany the design and implementation of a national case management system.

Developing Artificial Intelligence Policies

In early 2025, the AO established an advisory Artificial Intelligence (AI) Task Force to enable the Judiciary to thoroughly, effectively, and responsibly confront AI as a transformative force. The advent of AI presents a host of opportunities and potential benefits for the judicial branch, as well as concerns about maintaining high ethical standards, preserving the integrity of judicial opinions, safeguarding sensitive data, and ensuring the security of the Judiciary’s IT systems. 

Judge Robert J. Conrad Jr., the AO Director, created the task force and appointed the members, who include judges, court executives, and IT and chambers staff from all court types across the country. The group is charged with coordinating the issues that AI presents for the judicial branch and recommending new or updated policies to the Judicial Conference. 

In the course of the year, the task force developed interim guidance for the Judiciary. The guidance aims to allow for the use of and experimentation with AI tools while preserving the integrity and independence of the federal courts and the judicial process. It was intended to provide temporary guideposts while more permanent guidance and policy was being developed. The guidance: 

• Cautions against delegating core judicial functions to AI, including decision making and case adjudication, and recommends extreme caution in using AI to aid in addressing novel legal questions.
• Recommends that users review and independently verify all AI-generated content or output and reminds judiciary users and those who approve of AI use that they are accountable for all work performed with the assistance of AI.
• Recommends that AI users consider whether the use of AI should be disclosed; to whom it should be disclosed; and whether transparency policies or practices are consistent with other ethical considerations, local rules, practices, professional obligations, confidentiality, and protecting the integrity of the Judiciary.
• Encourages courts to consider defining the tasks for which locally approved AI tools may be used. 

On another front, the Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence considered possible rules or amendments on the use of AI to generate evidence in federal trials. Specifically, the committee weighed possible amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence to address two challenges: whether changes to the authenticity rules are necessary to deal with deepfakes and whether a change is needed to give courts authority to regulate opinion evidence that is the product of machine learning when no expert witness is proffered to testify. 

The committee’s consideration of the second issue resulted in proposed new Rule 707, which was posted for public comment. The committee was scheduled to hold public hearings on proposed Rule 707 in 2026.  

Bankruptcy Case Assignment

In August 2025, the Judicial Conference’s Administration of the Bankruptcy System Committee disseminated to all bankruptcy judges new guidance related to case assignment in the bankruptcy courts. 

The guidance encourages courts to avoid establishing a panel of judges or designating a group of judges for the purpose of assigning Chapter 11 and Chapter 15 cases. The use of panels can result in the concentration of certain types of cases with a limited number of judges rather than the random assignment of cases among all judges in a district or division. Concerns had been raised that local practices that concentrate Chapter 11 and Chapter 15 cases with a designated group of judges might facilitate judge shopping. Bankruptcy courts remain responsible for setting their own case assignment practices based on federal statute, Judicial Conference policy, and local court characteristics. 

Since 1995, the Conference has strongly supported the random assignment of cases and the proposition that all district judges should remain generalists. The new guidance applies these long-standing principles to the assignment of bankruptcy cases. It is designed to promote the impartiality of proceedings and bolster public confidence in the federal Judiciary. The Bankruptcy Committee continues to consider potential policy in this area, in collaboration with the Conference’s Court Administration and Case Management (CACM) Committee. 

In March 2024, the Judicial Conference adopted a policy on district wide random assignment of cases in which parties sought statewide or nationwide relief in district courts. The CACM Committee disseminated related Guidance on Civil Case Assignment in District Courts to all district judges. 

Access to Interpreters

Spanish is the most frequently used language in interpreting proceedings in the courts, comprising 96 percent of all reported interpreting events in fiscal year (FY) 2025. Federal courts used interpreters in 225,773 court proceedings in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025. Overall, 149 languages were used, and American Sign Language was used in 217 cases. The top 10 spoken languages that required interpreting are listed in the chart below.