Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Federal Judgeship Act of 2009

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 was introduced by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) as Senate Bill 1653 on September 8, 2009. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) introduced the legislation in the House as H.R.3662. The bill sought to establish 63 new federal district and circuit court judgeships.

The bill died in committee and never went to a vote in the U.S. Senate or House.[1]

Background

The Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 was based on similar legislation introduced by Sen. Leahy in March 2008 (S. 2774) to address the backlog of cases in the federal judiciary.[2] The 2008 bill, which was supported by over 20 senators, died after Republicans on the Judiciary Committee boycotted a hearing on the bill in June 2008.[3]

The last comprehensive judgeship bill to be passed was in 1990. That measure created 11 additional circuit court judgeships and 61 permanent and 13 temporary district court judgeships.[4]

Summary

The official summary of the bill, written by the Congressional Research Service, is as follows:[5]

Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 - Directs the President to appoint specified additional:

  • (1) permanent circuit judges for the first, second, third, sixth, and ninth circuit courts of appeals and temporary circuit judges for the third, eighth, and ninth circuits; and
  • (2) permanent district judges for various districts in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington and temporary district judges for Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, and Virginia.

SB 1653

Timeline

Co-Sponsors

A total of 20 senators co-sponsored S.1653. All of them were Democrats. Seventeen of these were original sponsors. Below is the full list of co-sponsors and the date they co-sponsored.[6]

HR 3662

Timeline

Co-Sponsors

A total of 8 representatives co-sponsored HR 3662. All of them were Democrats. Four of these were original sponsors. Below is the full list of co-sponsors and the date they co-sponsored.[6]

Support

Supporters

Arguments

  • The main argument for the legislation was that federal courts were facing increased caseloads and the creation of new judgeships would enable courts to get caught up on the backlog.[3]

Full text of Sen. Leahy's introduction of the bill:[3]

Today, I am reintroducing a comprehensive bill to address the resource needs of the Federal judiciary by authorizing additional courts of appeals and district court judgeships. This good government bill will improve the effectiveness of our federal courts and provide federal judges with the tools to promptly render the justice that Americans so desperately need.

The Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 establishes 12 new judgeships in six courts of appeals and 51 new judgeships in 25 district courts across the country. The legislation I introduce today is based on the recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which identified the judiciary’s resource needs during the completion of its biennial survey in March.

Last Congress, I joined Senator Hatch and 20 other Senators from both sides of the aisle to introduce this legislation. A bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee voted to report the bill to the Senate last year. Unfortunately, the Senate did not act on the bill before the end of the last Congress.

We used to consider judgeship bills at six year intervals. It has been 19 years since the last comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted to address the growth in the workload of the Federal judiciary. That legislation established 11 additional circuit court judgeships, as well as 61 permanent and 13 temporary district court judgeships. Since 1990, case filings in the Federal appellate courts have increased by 42 percent, and case filings in the district courts have risen by 34 percent. Congress has authorized only a few additional district court judgeships and extended a few temporary judgeships. We should pass a comprehensive judgeship bill in this Congress that will ease the strain of heavy caseloads that has burdened the courts and thwarted the administration of justice.

Last year, the weighted number of filings in district courts, which takes into account an assessment of case complexity, was 472 per judgeship. This figure is well above the Judicial Conference’s standard of 430 weighted filings per district court judgeship. In the 25 district courts that would receive additional judgeships under this bill, the weighted filings averaged 573 per judgeship, and 10 courts had caseloads near or above 600 weighted filings per judgeship. Today, the national average circuit court caseload per three-judge panel has reached 1,104 filings. That statistic approaches the record number of 1,230 cases recorded in 2005 and far exceeds the 773 average circuit court caseload filings recorded in 1991.

Federal judges are working harder than ever, but in order to maintain the integrity of the Federal courts and the promptness that justice demands, judges must have a manageable workload. To address the excessive caseloads that burden Federal courts, the Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 would add nine permanent circuit court judgeships, 38 permanent district court judgeships, and convert five existing temporary judgeships into permanent positions. These additional judgeships would help to alleviate the significant increase in caseloads that the Federal courts have seen over the nearly two decades since the last comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted.

The bill would also add 13 temporary district court judgeships, three temporary circuit court judgeships, and would extend one existing temporary district court judgeship. These additional temporary judgeships will allow Congress some flexibility with regard to future judgeship needs. If caseloads continue to increase, Congress has the option to introduce legislation making permanent or renewing these temporary judgeships. If those caseloads do not increase, when the next judge in that circuit or district retires they will not be replaced.

After years of debate and Federal courts struggling to adjudicate cases despite the overwhelming burden of heavy caseloads, the time to enact a comprehensive Federal judgeship bill is long overdue.

The ability of Federal courts to effectively administer justice will continue to be challenged unless adequate resources are provided. The Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 responds to the increasing workload of the Federal judiciary, and it is long overdue. I thank Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Kaufman, Franken, Harkin, Bingaman, Murray, Brown, Bayh, Bennet, Boxer, Shaheen, Inouye, Akaka, and Kerry for their support. I urge Senators on both sides of the aisle to give this legislation their serious consideration and support. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the record

Full text of Rep. Johnson's introduction of the bill:[9]

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Federal Judgeship Act of 2009, which calls for the creation of additional federal judgeships in the courts of appeals and district courts.

The United States legal system is the envy of the world. Our legal system has historically provided fair, timely, and expert adjudication of civil disputes and criminal prosecutions for hundreds of years. There are, however, a number of challenges facing our federal legal system that must be addressed if it is to maintain the standard of service our citizens expect and deserve. One of these challenges is an overworked judiciary.

Many of our federal courts are in desperate need of new judges. It has been nearly 19 years since Congress has passed a comprehensive judgeship bill. In this time, caseloads for district courts have gone up 31 percent and the caseloads for appeals courts have gone up 38 percent, placing significantly increased demands upon our federal court system. This unfairly burdens our judges and leads to delays in the administration of justice. If we are to avoid realization of the old adage, ``justice delayed is justice denied, we must not delay in providing our judiciary with the resources it needs.

The Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 calls for 12 additional court of appeals judgeships and 51 additional district court judgeships. The number of judgeships called for in this legislation mirrors those called for by the Judicial Conference of the United States in its 2009 recommendations.

The Judicial Conference's recommendations are based on a comprehensive analysis of the workload of federal judges, which took into consideration not only the number, but also the nature and complexity of the cases before the various courts. According to this analysis, the average weighted case filings for the 25 district courts receiving additional judgeships under this bill were 573, while the target number of case filings is only 430. In other words, the workload before these courts is 133 percent of what is considered the normal capacity of these courts. Clearly, this is stretching our judiciary beyond reason.

In the interests of timely and effective administration of justice, we must pass comprehensive judgeships this Congress. I thank my colleagues Representatives John Conyers, Silvestre Reyes, Sheila Jackson-lee, and Robert Wexler, who have worked with me on this very important piece of legislation. I also ask the rest of my colleagues in the House of Representatives to support rapid passage of this legislation.

Opposition

Opponents

  • Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat, former Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit[10]

Arguments

Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat, the former Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit, opposed the Federal Judgeship Act of 2009. Testifying against the bill on September 30, 2009, he provided two main arguments:[10]

  • Negative Impact on Efficiency: "Increasing the number of judges actually creates more work [and that a]dding judges decreases a court's efficiency by diminishing the trust and collegiality that are essential to collective decision-making."[10]
  • Negative Impact on the Stability of The Rule of Law: "increasing the number of judges ... leads to inconsistencies within, and uncertainty about, courts' case law."[10]

Impact of legislation

The legislation proposed adding 12 new judgeships in six courts of appeals and 51 new judgeships in 25 district courts. The breakdown of proposed new judgeships was as follows:[3]

Circuit Courts (Permanent)

Circuitjudgeships.png
  • First Circuit – 1
  • Second Circuit – 2
  • Third Circuit – 1
  • Sixth Circuit – 1
  • Ninth Circuit – 4
  • 9 total

Circuit Courts (Temporary)

  • Third Circuit – 1
  • Eighth Circuit – 1
  • Ninth Circuit – 1
  • 3 total

District Courts (Permanent)

Permanentdistrictjudgeships.png
  • Arizona – 1
  • California – 12
    • Northern District – 4
    • Eastern District – 4
    • Central District – 4
  • Colorado – 1
  • Florida – 7
    • Middle District – 4
    • Southern District – 3
  • Indiana (Southern District) – 1
  • Minnesota – 1
  • New Jersey – 1
  • New Mexico – 1
  • New York – 3
    • Southern District – 1
    • Eastern District – 1
    • Western District – 1
  • Oregon – 1
  • South Carolina – 1
  • Texas – 7
    • Eastern District – 1
    • Southern District – 2
    • Western District – 4
  • Washington (Western District) – 1
  • 38 total

Temporary District Judgeships Made Permanent

  • Arizona – 1
  • Kansas – 1
  • Missouri (Eastern District) – 1
  • New Mexico – 1
  • Texas (Eastern District) – 1
  • 5 total

District Courts (Temporary)

Tempdistrictjudgeships.png
  • Alabama (Middle District) – 1
  • Arizona – 1
  • California - 3
    • Northern District – 1
    • Eastern District – 1
    • Central District – 1
  • Florida (Middle District) – 1
  • Idaho – 1
  • Iowa (Northern District) – 1
  • Minnesota – 1
  • Nebraska – 1
  • New York – 2
    • Southern District – 1
    • Eastern District – 1
  • Virginia (Eastern District) – 1
  • 13 total

Extended Existing Temporary Judgeships

  • Ohio (Northern District) – 1
  • 1 total

Grand total

If passed, the Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 would have created 9 permanent and 3 temporary Circuit Court judgeships and 43 permanent and 13 temporary District Court judgeships. It would also have extended a temporary judgeship in the Northern District of Ohio.

Additional reading

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ OpenCongress.org, "S.1653 - Federal Judgeship Act of 2009"
  2. ↑ United States Courts, "Judgeship Bill "Long Overdue," April 2008
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Patrick Leahy, "Leahy Introduces Bill To Authorize Federal Judgeships," September 8, 2009
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 American Bar Association, " Statement of the American Bar Association," September 30, 2009
  5. ↑ GovTrack, "S. 1653 (111th): Federal Judgeship Act of 2009," accessed March 30, 2013
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Congress.gov, "S.1653 - Federal Judgeship Act of 2009", accessed March 26, 2013
  7. ↑ The Desert Sun, "District court faces overwhelming caseload, low salaries," October 5, 2009
  8. ↑ Federal Bar Association, "Re: S. 1653, The Federal Judgeship Act of 2009," September 29, 2009
  9. ↑ Capitol Words, "Introduction Of The Federal Judgeship Act Of 2009," September 29, 2009
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 DRI, "The Reasoned Opposition To The Federal Judgeship Act Of 2009: Why More Judges Are Not The Solution To The "Crisis of Volume"
UScapitol.jpg
v • e
Notable federal judicial legislation
Landmark federal legislation

Article III of 1787 • Judiciary Act of 1789 • Judiciary Act of 1801 • Judiciary Act of 1802 • Jurisdiction and Removal Act of 1875 • Judicial Code of 1911 • Conference of Senior Circuit Judges Act of 1922 • Judges Act of 1925 • Administrative Office Act of 1939 • Federal Judicial Center Act of 1967 • Federal Magistrates Act of 1968 • Federal Magistrates Act of 1979 • Customs Court Act of 1980 • Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 • The Court Security Improvement Act of 2007 • United States court reorganization legislation • United States Bankruptcy Courts legislation

Proposed federal legislation

Inspector General Act of 2009 • State Court Interpreters Grant Program Act of 2009 • Federal Judgeship Act of 2009

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Federal_Judgeship_Act_of_2009&oldid=8203993"