FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER

POCKET GUIDE SERIES

Enhancing Cooperation Through 

State–Federal Judicial Councils

Jason A. Cantone

Federal Judicial Center

2017

This Federal Judicial Center publication was undertaken in furtherance 

of the Center’s statutory mission to conduct and stimulate research and 

development for the improvement of judicial administration. While the 

Center regards the content as responsible and valuable, this publication 

does not reflect policy or recommendations of the Board of the Federal 

Judicial Center.
first printing
iii

Contents

Acknowledgments, v

Preface, vii

Introduction, 1

Topics for Council Discussions, 3

Council Activities, 7

Educational Activities, 8

Organizing a Council, 10

Maintaining a Council, 15

Regional Conferences, 17

Conclusion, 18

Other Resources, 19

Appendix A: Topics Most Often Discussed at State–Federal 

Judicial Council Meetings, 21

Appendix B: Sample Charter for State–Federal Judicial 

Council, 23

Appendix C: Sample Notice of Organizational Meeting of a 

State–Federal Judicial Council, 27

Appendix D: Sample Notice of Regular Meeting of a State–

Federal Judicial Council, 29

Appendix E: History of State–Federal Judicial Councils, 31

v

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the Judicial Conference Committee on Federal–State Jurisdiction, as well as Emery G. Lee III, 

Holly Sellers, Karen Kremer, Patricia Levy, and Megan Steffl for 

their assistance in the preparation of this publication.

vii

Preface

As far as the public is concerned, courts are courts. Judges may 

be conscious of distinctions between state and federal courts, 

but those distinctions don’t matter very much to most citizens. 

Because courts depend on public respect for both acceptance 

of their decisions and the resources to operate, it serves the 

best interests of all judges to improve the performance and the 

reputation of all courts. The common interests far exceed the 

differences.

There are things that state and federal judges can do to 

help each other and themselves. Regular communication with 

one another on matters of mutual concern can foster cooperation and joint solutions to common problems. Cooperation 

can help iron out scheduling conflicts, facilitate access to records held by another court, coordinate litigation of common 

issues pending before different judges, encourage the sharing 

of scarce resources, and avoid unnecessary duplication. One 

way to build good working relationships and provide a forum 

for regular communication is through a state–federal judicial 

council.

State–federal judicial councils can take many forms, and 

rightly so, since each state faces unique circumstances. Whatever the form of a council, its establishment provides more 

formal organization and enables regular discussion of recurring issues and matters that might otherwise not be addressed 

systemically. Councils can also provide a framework for coordinating activities, and they can be the impetus for other joint 

activities with mutual benefits, including public outreach and 

civic education. 

This guide is intended to help state and federal judges organize and maintain an active state–federal judicial council. It 

identifies various topics that can be considered and activities 

that can be coordinated through a council. The Judicial Con-
viii

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

ference Committee on Federal–State Jurisdiction hopes that 

this guide helps you to better understand the value of such 

councils. Where they exist, these councils have demonstrated 

that they improve relationships across the court systems and 

encourage cooperation that benefits both the courts and the 

public we serve.

—The Judicial Conference Committee on Federal–

State Jurisdiction
1

Introduction

Federalism envisions state and federal courts operating independently, but their paths inevitably cross and may occasionally collide. The courts serve the same people, so they regularly 

engage with the same parties and lawyers and often grapple 

with the same legal issues and practical problems. Enhanced 

cooperation can help the courts more efficiently resolve scheduling conflicts, facilitate access to records, share limited resources, and resolve similar claims pending in different courts.

For more than fifty years, some states have used state–federal judicial councils as a forum for cooperation, allowing judges 

to discuss these issues in an organized manner and providing 

opportunities for judges to air diverse views and seek consensus to more effectively promote the administration of justice. 

State and federal judges can also productively use state–federal 

judicial councils (hereinafter councils) to develop joint strategies 

for addressing complicated problems and for planning activities, 

including civics education programs.

As this guide will demonstrate, councils offer numerous benefits and can help state and federal judges do the following: 

• Build relationships across court systems 

• Improve communication and prevent misunderstandings

• Examine diverse perspectives on common issues

• Take action to address concerns (e.g., by creating manuals on complex topics like certification of state law 

questions)

• Establish mutually beneficial activities (e.g., educational programs for the bar, bench, or general public)

• Quickly address new issues when a formal mechanism 

for discussion is already in place
2

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

This guide further provides examples of the work of past 

councils that has proven valuable to state and federal courts, 

identifying topics frequently addressed and activities successfully undertaken. Most of these topics and activities are still relevant today and could form the basis of an agenda for a new or 

renewed council. There is also guidance on how to establish or 

renew a council, with sample documents in the appendices.1

As noted by one judge after the first regional state–federal 

conference in 1993, federal and state judges “are all in the same 

boat and [have] more in common than differences; we can and 

should cooperate in achieving common goals and in defending 

[and] preserving the judicial system.”2

1. This guide updates and draws heavily on the 1993 Federal Judicial 

Center publication Organizing and Using a Council of State and Federal Judges, later revised for the 1997 Manual for Cooperation Between State and Federal Courts, coauthored by the Federal Judicial Center, the National Center 

for State Courts, and the State Justice Institute. See Organizing and Using 

a Council of State and Federal Judges 1 (Federal Judicial Center 1993); 

James G. Apple, Paula L. Hannaford & G. Thomas Munsterman, Manual 

for Cooperation Between State and Federal Courts (Federal Judicial Center, 

National Center for State Courts & State Justice Institute 1997).

2. Federal Judicial Center, Evaluation of Western Regional Conference 

on State–Federal Judicial Relationships 9 (1993) (on file with author).
3

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

Topics for Council Discussions 

Councils offer state and federal judges an opportunity to meet 

and discuss topics relevant to both judicial systems. Such discussions can prevent unnecessary misunderstandings and resolve 

potential conflict, as well as promote joint resolutions to shared 

concerns. Successful discussions demonstrate to the bar and the 

community that state and federal judges can work collaboratively to promote efficiency in the courts. 

To better understand the wide scope of topics that councils discuss, in 2016 researchers at the Federal Judicial Center 

(FJC) performed an archival analysis of discussion topics on past 

agendas and council meeting summaries provided to the FJC 

throughout the past thirty years. The forty-three topics most often discussed by councils are included in Appendix A. Judges 

considering what to include on the agenda for their first or an 

upcoming council meeting are encouraged to use this list while 

brainstorming what topics might be relevant. These topics can 

be generally organized into three main categories: 

1. Aiding Cooperation Where Courts Intersect or Overlap.

This category includes such topics as calendar/scheduling conflicts, collateral attacks on state proceedings 

in federal courts (e.g., habeas corpus), bankruptcy conflicts, and certification of issues of state law by federal 

courts. 

2. Sharing Resources. With limited funding, resource allocation is a prime area for discussion. These topics 

include sharing facilities (including courtrooms and 

libraries), information (juror information; records and 

reports), and human resources (interpreters; ADR neutral and pro bono attorney lists; shared jury pools), as 

well as cosponsoring civics education events for the bar 

or general public. 
4

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

3. Addressing Common Concerns. State and federal judges 

often share many of the same concerns. While these 

vary, they include access-to-justice issues, coordination of joint proceedings in parallel cases, regulation of 

the bar and attorney discipline, court technology and 

electronic records, special legal topics (e.g., complex 

litigation, tribal court issues), security and emergency 

preparedness, and state or federal legislation affecting 

courts and/or judges.

Over the years, judges have found discussion of many topics 

in these categories to be valuable. For example, the Subcommittee on State–Federal Relations considered legislative priorities, 

federal rules proposals, and habeas corpus reform when it met 

for the first time in December 1982. The first state–federal regional conference in 1993 featured discussions on overlapping 

and conflicting state–federal jurisdiction, certification and abstention, coordinated case management, federal habeas review, 

court funding and resource allocation, complex litigation, and 

public confidence in the judiciary. State and federal courts have 

also long been concerned about resource allocation and how to 

meet budget demands. More than twenty years ago, Judge William Schwarzer wrote that “perhaps the most serious long-term 

issue confronting both state and federal courts concerns resources” and that state–federal judicial councils offer a unique opportunity for judges to assess their needs and work collaboratively to 

address resource-allocation issues. Additional history is provided 

in Appendix E.

More recent council agendas include discussions on such 

issues as certified questions of state law, judicial health and 

age-related issues, the effect of state plea practices and drug 

laws on federal criminal sentencing, and continuity of operations (COOP) plans for emergency situations affecting the 

courts and the community. 
5

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

To get a better sense of the current practices of state–federal 

judicial councils regarding areas of mutual concern on which 

they collaborate, the FJC surveyed all federal chief district 

judges on a wide range of topics and activities that could be addressed cooperatively by state and federal courts to the benefit 

of both. These judges were presented with forty-two different 

topics and activities that originated from the 2016 archival research and from examination of current council agendas. 

The fifty-nine federal chief district judges who completed 

the survey represented forty-two different states and territories. 

The following were the five most common topics of active collaboration with the state courts: 

• Attorney discipline and misconduct 

• Certification of state law issues by federal courts 

• Shared resources: courtrooms 

• Shared resources: facilities/buildings 

• State court access to federal court records 

The federal chief district judges also identified the topics 

they believed would benefit most from future cooperation with 

the state court. Most often noted were the following:

• Access-to-justice issues (e.g., pro se litigants) 

• Attorney discipline and misconduct

• Certification of state law issues by federal courts 

• Contact directories for state and federal judges 

• Coordinating joint proceedings in related cases 

• Court interpreters 

• Educational programs for the bar

• Emergency preparedness (COOP plans) 

• Repeat filers (frivolous cases)

• Security concerns

• State court access to federal court records 
6

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

Judges interested in establishing a federal–state judicial 

council may want to consider these initial topics, or the entire 

list in Appendix A, for potential topics at the first meeting. 

State–federal judicial councils can, and already have, addressed 

most of these topics and activities, and existing councils could 

provide an organizational framework on which judges seeking 

to start or renew a council can build. 

As noted in Coordinating Multijurisdiction Litigation: A 

Pocket Guide for Judges, mutual respect, two-way communication, and a respect for the principles of federalism are required 

for successful state–federal cooperation.3

 Council discussions 

allow judges to hear and explore diverse perspectives, prevent 

misunderstandings and potential conflict, encourage attentive 

listening to views across federal and state judiciaries, help develop new appreciation for differences between state and federal courts, help judges gain skills to address those differences, 

and increase the understanding of issues of mutual concern 

and the desire to take action. 

There is great value in meeting face to face and establishing relationships, which can create a more cooperative environment for judges to raise issues and, when necessary, craft 

effective solutions to complex problems or plan activities for the 

improvement of both judicial systems. Successful discussions 

also have the potential to show the bar and the community that 

state and federal judges can collaborate to achieve important 

goals. For example, as resource allocation-based concerns arise, 

thoughtful collaboration might lead to innovative approaches 

in sharing resources and establishing continuity of operations 

3. Coordinating Multijurisdiction Litigation: A Pocket Guide for

Judges (Federal Judicial Center 2013). The creation of that pocket guide 

(a joint effort from the FJC, the National Center for State Courts, and the 

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation) started with a Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) resolution in 2011, which led to a working 

group of state and federal judges.
7

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

plans (COOP) that prepare both the federal and state courts, 

as well as the respective legal communities, for emergency situations. 

Stronger communication also allows different stakeholders 

to have a voice in the process. When addressing complex topics, it may be important to weigh not only the views of the federal and state bench but also the opinions of the bar and court 

personnel affected by the issue or decision. This is especially 

true if a council seeks to go beyond discussing a relevant issue 

of concern to take collaborative action, addressing it through a 

council-sponsored activity.

Council Activities

Many times what starts as an informative discussion can lead 

to a coordinated activity to address the concern. This section 

outlines a selection of recent activities by state–federal judicial 

councils that can serve as examples for other councils to emulate.

Council activities are usually developed in response to a 

known need for action. These activities do not need to be complex, and some activities can be performed more informally 

outside of a council meeting. One straightforward example 

comes from Colorado’s council, which created a well-received 

contact directory for the federal and state courts in Colorado 

(the Pick-Up-the-Phone Program) to encourage direct conversations to resolve scheduling conflicts. Removing the roadblocks that can prevent open communication between state 

and federal judges is an essential task before judges can begin 

to work together on areas of mutual concern. Although such a 

contact list requires regular updating, it is extremely useful as 

judges move from discussing issues to planning collaborative 

activities, with or without the assistance of a formal council. 
8

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

Recently, Colorado’s council implemented a program that 

allows state court access to the federal courts’ electronic case 

management system (CM/ECF), after the state court expressed 

concerns about the burden of getting access to relevant federal 

records. In another recent example, Connecticut’s council responded to the federal district court’s concerns about delays in 

the handling of state prisoner habeas cases, and council members worked together to improve the process. 

New York has had one of the more active councils in recent 

years. Some of their most recent products are highlighted here 

and in the Other Resources section (p. 23, infra). In 2010, the 

New York council released a report on federal and state concerns about the prelitigation obligation to preserve electronically stored information. In 2015, the New York council approved a report on recommended best practices for interpreters 

in New York federal and state courts. In 2016, the advisory 

group to the New York council completed the third edition of 

a practice handbook on certification of state law questions, as 

well as a report on the coordination of discovery between New 

York state and federal courts. The council has also established 

procedures to facilitate federal prisoner attendance in family 

court, coordinated pro se efforts in federal and state courts, 

promoted international arbitration, and drafted a uniform rule 

on removal of civil cases. Each of these concerns are relevant to 

courts beyond New York, and the New York council’s activities 

could be readily adapted to fit the needs identified by another 

jurisdiction’s council. 

Educational Activities

The most common council activity is educational programming. In the 2016 FJC survey of federal chief district judges, 

about two-thirds of the responding judges noted cooperation 

with the state court on educational programs for the bar, and 
9

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

about one-third noted cooperation on educational programs 

for students held at a school or programs for the general public. While a council is not necessary for state and federal courts 

to collaborate with each other or with an educational entity, 

councils provide a formalized structure that can streamline 

planning for these activities and can maintain continuity as 

these programs continue into the future. 

The state–federal judicial councils in Maine, California, 

Colorado, and New York have all recently advanced civics education efforts. For example, Maine’s council collaborated with 

Colby College, creating a video to help teachers explain the judicial system. The video features interviews with Maine federal 

and state judges and comes with a study guide. Teachers can 

ask a judge to attend the classroom presentation of the video 

and engage in discussion with the students. The Maine council 

also coordinates judicial educational programs, such as a scenario-based program on how to deal with attorney misconduct 

presented in October 2015. 

In 2015, California’s council invited a Ninth Circuit appellate judge to discuss civics education, specifically the Court 

Works program the judge started in 2004, which welcomes 

Arizona children to participate in mock trials and learn more 

about the judicial system. Colorado’s council recently collaborated with law schools and public schools to promote understanding of the legal profession and the courts. New York 

coordinated education programs for attorneys and judges on 

issues such as mortgage foreclosure actions, attorney–client 

privilege and work-product protections, ethics, matrimonial/

bankruptcy issues, use of affidavits in lieu of direct testimony 

at trial, proper forum selection, plea bargaining, and habeas 

corpus proceedings. New York also created a program to train 

pro bono attorneys in negotiating loan modifications in bankruptcy proceedings and foreclosures. 
10

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

Organizing a Council

When organizing a council, there are many factors to consider. 

Because the authority to create a council is not prescribed by 

statute, the organizers are allowed great flexibility when establishing a council that meets the state’s specific needs. 

Some councils might hold semiannual meetings and employ elaborate subcommittee structures to assist in many 

council activities. Other councils might only meet informally 

during bar meetings, when state and federal judges are already 

present, or might only meet when necessary to collaborate on 

joint events, such as educational programs. However, a more 

structured, well-organized council may be less likely to fall idle. 

Institutionalization of the council allows the initial energy behind its creation to be harnessed so that the council can maintain its vitality through changes in leadership, administrative 

staff, or available resources. Judges should consider formalizing 

the council from inception, when interest in it is high, because 

a strong foundation can position the council for many years of 

success.

There are nine key elements to consider when organizing a 

council. It would be valuable to examine these along with the 

appropriate forms in the appendices. Thoughtful consideration 

of these elements will facilitate more efficient organizational 

meetings in preparation for an inaugural state–federal judicial 

council meeting. 

1. Size

The number of judges on a council can differ—from as few as 

three to as many as twenty. A council should include an equal 

number of state and federal judges to maximize involvement 

from both courts and to make sure that views from both benches are adequately presented at council meetings. The number of 

judges should be large enough to promote diverse viewpoints, 
11

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

but not too large to be unwieldy for involved discussion. Most 

active councils have between eight and fourteen members. 

2. Membership

When deciding on council membership, one should consider all judges whose work has implications for state–federal relations. This includes federal appellate, district, bankruptcy, 

and magistrate judges. State judiciary members will generally be from that state’s highest court, though state trial judges 

involved with federal–state issues should also be considered. 

Some councils, including New York’s, also include administrative members (e.g., clerks of the circuit court and the state 

court of appeals).

Membership should generally be for a period of three to 

five years. Councils should invite new members to continue 

the council’s mission, which can also expand awareness of the 

council across the respective courts, though a council may also 

wish to retain the ability to renew actively engaged members 

for successive terms. 

3. Leadership

The council should elect a chair at the first meeting of the 

council. It is also recommended that the council elect a vicechair. If the chair is a federal judge, the vice-chair should be a 

state judge, and vice versa. The chair should alternate between 

state and federal judges. While many councils (e.g., Colorado, 

New York) employ this leadership structure, other councils differ. The Connecticut council is co-chaired by the chief judge of 

the District Court for the District of Connecticut and a Connecticut supreme court justice. The Maine council is currently 

chaired by a federal judge. 

4. Staffing

The council will require administrative support to perform such 

tasks as sending out meeting notices and agendas, coordinat-
12

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

ing the location of the meeting, and other administrative tasks 

involving travel arrangements, taking official minutes, and 

presenting those minutes to members and interested parties. 

Administrative support may be provided by the office of the 

state court administrator and/or the offices of the clerk of the 

U.S. district court, subject to the approval of the chief judge of 

the district court. The council may also wish to have an official 

reporter who would not be a voting member of the council. 

Effectively staffing a council can be difficult, because resources are limited, and the individuals best suited to staff a 

council might already have heavy workloads at their courts. 

When organizing a council, such staffing and resource discussions should be considered broadly and presented to all relevant stakeholders to ensure that staffing resources match up 

realistically with the council’s goals. 

5. Meetings

Generally, councils meet twice a year, though there is some 

variation among successful councils. New York’s council met 

every two months in the early 1980s, but it now meets quarterly. North Carolina’s council, revived in 2016, plans to meet 

annually. It may be beneficial to hold meetings in conjunction 

with a state bar meeting or judicial meeting, especially when 

some members might travel a great distance to the meeting 

location. For example, the New York council holds its January 

meeting each year in conjunction with meetings of the New 

York Bar Association. The geographic location of the courthouses might also affect meeting schedules. In states where the 

federal district courthouse and highest state court are in the 

same location, meetings might be more frequent than in states 

where meetings involve more expensive travel. 

In the 2016 FJC survey of federal chief district judges, 

most judges who noted that their state had an active state–federal judicial council indicated that meetings were held at least 
13

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

once a year. As technology improves, virtual meetings could 

become more prevalent as a less expensive option. 

6. Agenda

A clear agenda shared in advance will allow members to contemplate issues before the meeting and focus their discussion. 

The amount of time allotted for each topic should include 

ample room for discussion. It might be most efficient to delegate topics to individual council members who would then be 

responsible for leading the discussion for their assigned item. 

Agendas might also include time for a nonmember to clarify 

agenda items that warrant outside expertise (e.g., the creation 

of information systems to streamline case-management procedures). 

7. Committees and Subcommittees

Some councils establish subcommittees to facilitate their work. 

For example, California’s state–federal judicial council has one 

of the more elaborate structures, which includes subcommittees on education, tribal court relations, civil and prisoner pro 

se litigation, complex cases, public confidence in the judiciary, 

jury improvements, and capital habeas. Other committees or 

subcommittees might be warranted depending on the planned 

activities of the council.

8. Advisory Group

When resources permit, a council might consider having an 

advisory group to offer guidance and provide additional views 

from stakeholders in their respective judicial systems. The New 

York council, for example, uses a thirty-seven-member advisory group composed of attorneys and retired judges across the 

state. The advisory group is co-chaired by both an upstate and 

a downstate attorney. 
14

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

9. Outreach

The council should consider outreach efforts early. Possible 

outreach efforts could include making meetings public, allowing time for nonmembers to present pressing concerns about 

state–federal judicial relations, fostering a relationship with the 

media to present activities and respond to inquiries, and creating educational efforts to inform the community of the work 

of the council. Outreach efforts could also involve cooperation 

with universities or legal organizations to take on substantive 

assignments in areas of interest or to promote educational endeavors, like the educational collaboration in Maine. 

It is not necessary to reach final decisions on these topics 

immediately. Still, the state should form a group of interested 

judges and schedule a meeting to address these organizational 

topics, as well as the types of issues the council will consider, 

the activities in which it will be involved, and the resources 

necessary to establish and maintain the council. 

An initial planning meeting can be held via a teleconference or in person, and must include both federal and state 

judges so that both benches have a role in the organization of 

the council. At the inaugural council meeting, the committee 

members should draft an organizing document (Appendix B 

provides a sample charter) and a concise statement of purpose. 

In addition, setting short-term goals will increase the likelihood that the council remains active over time. After initial logistical work is completed and goals are established, the council 

can begin long-term planning to address the areas of mutual 

concern or activities of joint interest. Appendices C and D includes sample notices to use in preparation for organizational 

and regular meetings.
15

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

Maintaining a Council

State–federal judicial councils can prove to be valuable, but they 

must be maintained to consistently achieve their objectives. As 

noted in Appendix E, the number of active councils has varied 

in the more than forty years since their emergence. Some have 

remained active through the years, while others have fallen dormant. Still others have been recently reenergized, such as the 

council in North Carolina. 

There is no known systematic research on why some councils remain active while others go dormant. Anecdotally, shifts 

in judicial leadership from the enthusiastic judges who helped 

start the council to less proactive judges, and changes in administrative support that make logistics more burdensome, can 

result in councils becoming inactive. Members of the council 

should also maintain realistic expectations of what a council 

can achieve, come prepared to council meetings, and consider 

long-term goals (such as when important topics can form the 

basis of council activities or educational efforts). 

Those seeking to form a council should consider the challenges of maintaining it before the inaugural council meeting 

and should reflect on the following considerations. 

Active Involvement. Councils unfortunately do not run 

themselves. It takes active involvement from all the members 

and the administrative staff to maintain a council and obtain 

its greatest benefit: the discovery of mutual areas of concern 

and the creation of a plan to remedy them. Additional involvement between meetings can take the form of subcommittees, 

progress reports on follow-up actions, and involvement in the 

community through education initiatives. The council is encouraged to consider current technology to maintain involvement, including the use of LISTSERVs or a council website 

(private to members only or publicly available). In 2017, the 
16

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

FJC began work on an online resource page for judges interested in learning more about councils. 

Strong Administrative Support. Coordinated support from 

both federal and state administrators is necessary to maintain 

an effectively run council. Strong support allows for the efficient planning of meetings, facilitates coordination of activities across both state and federal systems, and reinforces joint 

ownership of the council by the state and federal judiciaries. 

Both federal and state courts should commit to maintained 

administrative support. 

Focus on Cooperation and Reducing Conflict. Council leadership should promote a collaborative environment, though 

areas of tension might be indicative of topics needing further 

discussion. Diverse opinions on complex topics should be 

encouraged. A cooperative environment is also productive in 

committees, subcommittees, and advisory groups, and at educational programming. 

Agenda Management. Ideally, agendas should be concisely 

written and provided in advance, and should address current 

issues of mutual concern. The agendas should also be written to 

encourage discussion and cooperative action and should take the 

time constraints of the meeting into account. Meeting simply 

for the sake of meeting is unproductive and would likely lead to 

members’ lack of interest in the council. Each meeting should 

be approached as a finite time for discussion and action, and the 

agendas should efficiently seize that opportunity.

Advantage of Continuity. A successful, long-standing council 

needs committed, energetic members to continually address important issues in innovative ways. This is true even when there is 

no immediate concern to address. Councils should pivot to focus on such activities as continuing education, public outreach, 

court responsiveness to emergencies, and other projects, as needed. The opportunities are numerous. 
17

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

Regional Conferences

Councils can expand outside of their states, working alongside 

other states to establish regional state–federal judicial conferences. Though less common than councils, conferences offer 

a unique, broader approach to resolve issues facing both court 

systems. 

Several regional conferences were held in the early 1990s, 

starting in 1992 with the first National Conference on State–

Federal Judicial Relationships, sponsored by the FJC, the National Center for State Courts (National Center), and the State 

Justice Institute (SJI). More recently, in September 2016, the 

Southern Region Inter-Court Conference was held in Asheville, North Carolina. The conference planning committee was 

chaired by North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark 

Martin and included state and federal judges, as well as the 

National Center president and the FJC director. The three-day 

conference focused on the future of the courts, emphasizing 

avenues of cooperation between federal and state courts in the 

southern region of the United States. Panels covered topics often seen on state–federal judicial council agendas, including 

access to the courts, public law, diversity, and restoring public 

trust and confidence in the court system. The attending judges 

provided positive feedback and hoped for a reinvigoration of 

interest in future regional conferences.

Regional conferences often involve more complicated planning committees and funding mechanisms than state–federal 

judicial councils. However, they also allow a more expansive 

opportunity for state and federal judges within a geographic 

region to come together and discuss pressing issues affecting 

all of their courts. Those interested in the organizational process for such a conference are encouraged to examine the State 

Justice Institute’s Regional Conferences Cookbook (see the Other 

Resources section, infra). 
18

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

Conclusion

State–federal judicial councils can be very useful to both state 

and federal courts, providing a forum for communication. 

There judges can build relationships, discuss topics of mutual 

interest, and collaboratively work on activities to better the judicial system. 

As an institution, the council also offers continuity that will 

allow cooperation to continue long after it is first established 

and its initial members have moved on. However, state–federal 

judicial councils cannot run themselves. A strong organizational structure, continued administrative support, and maintained 

participation by judges are all necessary components to a thriving and effective council. 

With a strong council in place, state and federal judges can 

work together to address issues as they arise, plan meaningful activities, and craft collaborative solutions to improve the 

administration of justice in both the state and federal judicial 

systems. 
19

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

Other Resources

One aim of this pocket guide is to remedy the dearth of current 

research on the topic and promote the need for more resources 

on state–federal judicial councils. 

Advisory Group to the New York State–Federal Judicial Council, 

Harmonizing the Pre-Litigation Obligation to Preserve Electronically Stored Information in New York State and Federal 

Courts (2010), available at http://www.courts.state.ny.us/

CTAPPS/news/PreLitReport.PDF

Advisory Group to the New York State–Federal Judicial Council, Interpreters in Federal and New York State Courts: Recommended Best Practices, New York State–Federal Judicial 

Council 2015 Report (2015), in Equal Before the Law?: Civil 

Rights and Access to Justice, Access to Justice for Vulnerable 

Populations Panel (New York Law School 2016), available at

http://www.nyls.edu/impact-center-for-public-interest-law/

wp-content/uploads/sites/140/2013/07/Vulnerable-Popula 

tions-Panel.pdf

Advisory Group to the New York State–Federal Judicial Council, 

Practice Handbook on Certification of State Law Questions 

by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 

to the New York State Court of Appeals (3d ed. 2016), available at https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/forms/certhandbk.

pdf

Coordinating Multijurisdiction Litigation: A Pocket Guide for Judges 

(Federal Judicial Center & National Center for State Courts 

2013) 

Organizing and Using a Council of State and Federal Judges 

(Federal Judicial Center 1993)

Goldfarb Center & the Maine Federal–State Judicial Council, 

Teaching about the Maine Judiciary: Conversations with 
20

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

Maine Judges, http://www.colby.edu/goldfarb/teaching-aboutthe-maine-judiciary-conversations-with-maine-judges (last visited Apr. 24, 2017) 

Jack B. Weinstein, Coordination of State and Federal Judicial Systems, 57 St. John’s L. Rev. 1 (1982)

James G. Apple, Paula L. Hannaford & G. Thomas Munsterman, Manual for Cooperation Between State and Federal 

Courts (Federal Judicial Center, National Center for State 

Courts & State Justice Institute 1997)

Jason A. Cantone, Federal Judicial Center, Report on Federal–State 

Court Cooperation: A Survey of Federal Chief District Judges 

(2016), available at https://www.fjc.gov/content/321583/

report-federal%E2%80%93state-court-cooperation-surveyfederal-chief-district-judges

Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Matthew A. Schwartz, Shane R. Yeargan 

& Justin Lo, Report on the Coordination of Discovery Between New York Federal and State Courts (New York State–

Federal Judicial Council 2016), available at http://www.ca2.

uscourts.gov/state_federal_judicial_councils.html

State Justice Institute, Regional Conference Cookbook: A Practical Guide for Planning and Presenting a Regional Conference on State–Federal Judicial Relationships (1994)

Victor E. Flango & Maria Gibson, Administrative Cooperation 

Between State and Federal Courts, 34 No. 2 Judges’ J. 2 (1995).

William W Schwarzer, Nancy E. Weiss & Alan Hirsch, Judicial 

Federalism in Action: Coordination of Litigation in State and 

Federal Courts, 78 Va. L. Rev. 1689 (1992)
21

Appendix A

Topics Most Often Discussed at State–Federal Judicial 

Council Meetings

The following list of topics stems from research performed by 

the Federal Judicial Center in 2016 that examined the meeting 

agendas and notes of state–federal judicial councils. The topics 

are presented in alphabetical order below: 

• Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs

• Attorney discipline and conduct

• Bankruptcy conflicts (e.g., impact of stays on state 

court proceedings)

• Calendar and scheduling conflicts

• Capital cases (death penalty appeals; habeas corpus; 

exhaustion)

• Case management 

• Case tracking systems

• Case workloads of judges 

• Certification of state law questions

• Complex litigation

• Court interpreters 

• Court security

• Criminal cases (dual prosecution of state and federal 

offenses)

• Discovery disputes and concerns

• Diversity jurisdiction (including removal)

• Drug enforcement cases

• Eliminating racial and gender bias

• Ethics/professional conduct of judges (including recusal) 

• Evaluations of judicial performance
22

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

• Frivolous or improper litigation (how to address)

• Funding and judicial budgeting

• Immigration cases and jurisdiction

• Joint education or CLE programs

• Judicial immunity

• Juries (jury management; selection of jurors)

• Legislation affecting the judiciary (pending or recently enacted) 

• Long-range/strategic planning initiatives

• Plea-bargaining procedures

• Post-conviction relief

• Prison-grievance procedures

• Pro se litigation

• Public access to the courts/public perception

• Reducing delays in the judicial process

• Relationships with the bar (admission to practice; 

surveys of attorneys; pro bono lists)

• Resource allocation/potential sharing of resources 

(including facilities) 

• RICO (civil actions)

• Rules changes for civil, evidence, and/or local rules 

(pending or enacted)

• Sentencing guidelines 

• Significant court opinions (and their impact on both 

the state and federal courts)

• Standards for appointing counsel

• Technology in the courtroom (video teleconferencing for prisoner appearances; use of cameras; media 

coverage)

• Transportation of prisoners to court

• Tribal court issues
23

Appendix B

Sample Charter for a State–Federal Judicial Council 

Charter of the State–Federal Judicial Council of

_____________ (state)

1. Name

The Council shall be known as the State–Federal Judicial 

Council of ________________. 

2. Purpose

The purpose of the Council is to improve and expedite the 

administration of justice by the state and federal courts of the 

state through cooperative efforts; to promote and encourage 

collaborative judicial relationships between the state and federal judicial systems in the state; to promote discussions between 

state and federal judges on issues of mutual interest; to share 

materials and information that could benefit both systems; and 

to provide a forum where state and federal courts can work 

together to explore and solve problems of mutual concern. 

3. Composition

The Council shall consist of at least ____ representatives 

from the state judiciary and ____ representatives from the federal judiciary. 

State Representation. Representatives of the state judiciary shall consist of justices of the state supreme court, one of 

whom shall be the chief justice, judges of the state court of 

appeals, and circuit judges. The state court representatives shall 

be appointed by the chief justice of the state. 

Federal Representation. Representatives of the federal judiciary shall consist of U.S. circuit court of appeals judges who 
24

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

are residents of the state and U.S. district judges, U.S. bankruptcy judges, and U.S. magistrate judges. The federal court 

representatives shall be appointed by the chief judge of the district court in the state. 

Administrative Support. Administrative support for the 

Council shall be provided, when necessary and appropriate, by 

the office of the state court administrator and/or the offices of 

the Court Clerks of the U.S. District Court, subject to approval of their supervisory judicial officers. Administrative support 

staff are nonvoting members of the Council. 

A judge who is member of the Council by virtue of office shall remain a member of the Council while holding that 

office. A judge who is a member of the Council by virtue of 

designation shall remain a member of the Council for the period designated or until the designating judge shall appoint a 

successor.

4. Meetings

The Council shall meet ___ time(s) each year, at a place 

within the state at a time designated by the chair or by majority 

vote of the Council. The chair may call special meetings of the 

Council to consider only matters specified in a written notice 

of the special meeting, provided to the Council members at 

least seven days in advance of the meeting.

5. Officers

Chair. The chief justice of the state shall preside at the inaugural meeting of the Council. At that inaugural meeting, the 

members shall elect a chair, who shall serve a term of two years. 

The chair of the Council shall rotate every term between members of the state and federal judiciary. The chair shall set the 

date of the meetings, preside over meetings, establish agendas 

for the meetings, oversee any subcommittees, and speak for 
25

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

the Council. The chair may also call special meetings as noted 

above.

Vice-Chair. The council shall elect a vice-chair to serve in 

the absence of the chair and perform such other duties as may 

be assigned by the Council. The vice-chair and chair should 

not both be federal judges or state judges. 

Executive Secretary. The council shall appoint a representative from the office of the state court administrator or the offices 

of the Court Clerks of the U.S. District Court as an executive 

secretary to the Council. The executive secretary shall provide 

administrative assistance to the chair and shall take minutes of 

council meetings, provide notice for and arrange meetings, and 

perform other such duties as may be assigned by the chair, vicechair, or Council. The executive secretary may also be asked to 

perform these duties at subcommittee or special meetings.

6. Voting

All motions, resolutions, and other actions of the Council 

shall be adopted by majority vote of the Council taken among 

the duly appointed members in attendance at the meeting 

where the action is considered, providing a quorum is present. 

A quorum shall consist of at least two-thirds each of federal and 

state judge members.

7. Committees

There shall be a standing executive committee, consisting 

of the chair, the vice-chair, and four other voting members of 

the Council appointed by the chair to serve for the duration 

of the chair’s term of office. Three members of the executive 

committee shall be federal judges and three members shall be 

state judges. 

The executive committee or Council may authorize and 

appoint additional standing or special committees. 
26

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

8. Amendments

This charter may be amended at any time by a two-thirds 

majority of the members of the Council. 

Adopted this _____ day of _________, 20____. 

Approved

For the state judiciary: 

________________________________

________________________________

For the federal judiciary: 

________________________________

________________________________
27

Appendix C

Sample Notice of Organizational Meeting of a State–

Federal Judicial Council

Notice of Organizational Meeting for State–Federal 

Judicial Council of ____________ (state)

To: _______________________ (name and email address of 

judge)

Subject: State–Federal Judicial Council of ___________ (state) 

Organizational Meeting

You are cordially invited to attend a meeting of members 

of the state and federal judiciary in ______________ (state) 

to discuss the formation of a state–federal judicial council in 

the state. 

The meeting will be held at _____________ (time 

of meeting) on ______________ (date of meeting) at 

________________ (location of meeting). 

The agenda for the meeting will include the following:

1. Purpose of the Council

2. Composition of the Council

3. Officers of the Council 

4. Frequency and location for the meetings

5. Organizational information include setting the 

agenda for the meeting, administrative support for 

the meeting and travel arrangements, providing for 

written materials prior to each meeting, meeting 

minutes, and reports. 
28

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

We hope you will join us for this initial meeting. 

_______________________________

Chief Justice of _______________ (state)

_______________________________

Chief Judge, United States District Court for _____________ (region/state)
29

Appendix D

Sample Notice of Regular Meeting of a State–Federal 

Judicial Council

Notice of Meeting for State–Federal Judicial Council 

of ____________ (state)

To: ________________________ (name and email address 

of judge)

Subject: State–Federal Judicial Council of ___________ 

(state) Meeting

A meeting of members of the State–Federal Judicial 

Council of ___________ (state) will be held on _________ 

(date of meeting) at ______________ (time of meeting) at 

___________________ (location of meeting). 

The agenda for the meeting will include the following 

items: 

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

We hope you will join us for this meeting. 

_______________________________

Chair, State–Federal Judicial Council of _________________ (state)

31

Appendix E

History of State–Federal Judicial Councils

Most state–federal judicial councils emerged as a result of 

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger’s 1970 State of the Judiciary 

address to the American Bar Association. In his address, Chief 

Justice Burger encouraged the use of state–federal judicial 

councils as the first of eight “major steps for the future . . . that 

in each state there be created a state–federal judicial council to 

maintain continuing communication on all joint problems.” 

Chief Justice Burger noted that such councils may help alleviate tensions spurred by federalism concerns and instead foster 

cooperation, while also restoring public trust in the judiciary.4

He also recommended that councils should not become dormant; maintained, continuous communication is necessary to 

address problems as they arise and evolve. This lesson remains 

true today. 

State–federal judicial councils emerged in the 1960s in connection with judicial administration reform,5

 but it was Chief 

Justice Burger’s comments in 1970 that led to their expansion. 

Only two years later, thirty-five states had established state–

4. Jack B. Weinstein, Coordination of State and Federal Judicial Systems, 57 St. John’s L. Rev. 1 n.32 (1982); see generally James M. Fischer, 

Institutional Competency: Some Reflections on Judicial Activism in the Realm 

of Forum Allocation Between State and Federal Courts, 34 U. Miami L. Rev. 

175, 215–16 (1980). In 1971, Chief Justice Burger proposed the National 

Center for State Courts as a venue for discussions among state judges on 

how to improve their courts. 

5. See John W. Winkle, Toward Intersystem Harmony: State–Federal Judicial Councils, 6 Just. Sys. J. 240 (1981). They also stem from a “longer 

tradition” of councils including state judicial councils that “flourished in 

the 1920s and 1930s” and circuit judicial councils that began in 1939. Organizing and Using a Council of State and Federal Judges 1 (Federal Judicial 

Center 1993).
32

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

federal judicial councils, with some more active than others. 

In 1978, Chief Justice Burger announced at the National Conference on the Judiciary that there were thirty-seven councils 

in place. However, the courts’ interest in forming and maintaining councils was short-lived. By 1980, a survey from the 

National Center for State Courts revealed only nine still-active 

councils, with eleven councils considered “virtually inactive.”6

In the 1980s and 1990s, efforts to promote state–federal 

judicial cooperation shifted from a push toward forming councils to opening new avenues for state–federal cooperation. In 

1982, at the suggestion of Chief Justice Burger, the Judicial 

Conference Committee on Court Administration created a 

subcommittee on state–federal relations to broaden communication and cooperation between the state and federal judicial 

systems. In 1987, the Subcommittee on State–Federal Relations and the Subcommittee on Federal Jurisdiction merged to 

establish the Judicial Conference Committee on Federal–State 

Jurisdiction, which continues to provide a forum for discussion 

between federal and state judges on important issues affecting 

both judicial systems; supports cooperative efforts and activities; and oversaw the creation of this pocket guide. The increase 

in potential venues for state–federal discussions did not correspond with an increase in active state–federal judicial councils, 

but cooperation and collaborative activities could now occur 

through more informal mechanisms. 

In 1992, Chief Justice Rehnquist, in his opening remarks 

of the National Conference on State–Federal Judicial Relationships, urged for the “revitalizing” of state–federal judicial 

councils “to facilitate judicial and administrative cooperation.”7

6. Memorandum from the Nat’l Ctr. for State Courts on State/Federal 

Judicial Councils (June 10, 1991) (on file with author). 

7. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Welcoming Remarks: National 

Conference on State–Federal Judicial Relationships, 78 Va. L. Rev. 1657 (1992). 
33

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

The same year, the Federal Judicial Center created the Interjudicial Affairs Office to monitor state–federal judicial councils, 

assist in the organizing or revival of councils, and publish the 

State–Federal Judicial Observer, which reported on state–federal 

issues throughout the country. Shortly thereafter, in 1993, the 

FJC issued Organizing and Using a Council of State and Federal 

Judges, a guide intended as a “starter kit” for states and federal 

courts seeking to create a council, or for those seeking to either 

reactivate a council that had lapsed into inactivity or seek out 

ways to improve their active council. In 1997, this FJC guide 

was revised and adapted into a chapter of the Manual for Cooperation Between State and Federal Courts, 8

 a joint product of 

the FJC, the National Center for State Courts, and the State 

Justice Institute. These activities corresponded with a proliferation of active councils, with the number rising to thirty-four 

in the mid-1990s, approaching the earlier high in the 1970s. 

Yet interest in state–federal judicial councils again faded, 

and the FJC’s State–Federal Judicial Observer ceased publication in 1999. The FJC has undertaken numerous surveys to 

identify states with active state–federal judicial councils and 

has found that the number decreased from about twenty-four 

in June 2000 to about twelve in 2008. In 2014, the Judicial 

Conference Committee on Federal–State Jurisdiction determined that the number had slightly increased, though a follow-up in May 2016 put the number back to about twelve active councils, while also noting such highlights as the revival of 

the North Carolina council after a nineteen-year hiatus and the 

flurry of activity from councils such as the one in New York.

The 2016 FJC survey of federal chief district judges raised 

new questions about counting the number of active judicial 

8. James G. Apple, Paula L. Hannaford & G. Thomas Munsterman, 

Manual for Cooperation Between State and Federal Courts (Federal Judicial 

Center, National Center for State Courts & State Justice Institute 1997).
34

Enhancing Cooperation Through State–Federal Judicial Councils

councils. For example, while only about one-third of the federal chief district judges said they had an active council, as many 

as two-thirds noted cooperation with the state court. Thus, 

much cooperation likely occurs through more informal means. 

Previous research on the number of active councils might not 

be a sufficient approach to determining how much cooperation 

is actually occurring. It may be that rather than states either 

having an active council or not, the existence of a council falls 

more on a spectrum.
The Federal Judicial Center

Board

The Chief Justice of the United States, Chair

Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana

Judge Curtis L. Collier, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee

Chief Judge Barbara J. Houser, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas

Judge Kent A. Jordan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Judge Kimberly J. Mueller, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

Judge George Z. Singal, U.S. District Court for the District of Maine

Judge David S. Tatel, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

James C. Duff, Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Director

Judge Jeremy D. Fogel

Deputy Director

John S. Cooke

About the Federal Judicial Center

The Federal Judicial Center is the research and education agency of the federal judicial system. It was established by Congress in 1967 (28 U.S.C. §§ 620–629), on the 

recommendation of the Judicial Conference of the United States.

By statute, the Chief Justice of the United States chairs the Center’s Board, 

which also includes the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and 

seven judges elected by the Judicial Conference.

The organization of the Center reflects its primary statutory mandates. The 

Education Division plans and produces education and training for judges and court 

staff, including in-person programs, video programs, publications, curriculum packages for in-district training, and Web-based programs and resources. The Research 

Division examines and evaluates current and alternative federal court practices and 

policies. This research assists Judicial Conference committees, who request most 

Center research, in developing policy recommendations. The Center’s research also 

contributes substantially to its educational programs. The Federal Judicial History 

Office helps courts and others study and preserve federal judicial history. The International Judicial Relations Office provides information to judicial and legal officials 

from foreign countries and informs federal judicial personnel of developments in 

international law and other court systems that may affect their work. Two units of 

the Director’s Office—the Information Technology Office and the Editorial & Information Services Office—support Center missions through technology, editorial 

and design assistance, and organization and dissemination of Center resources.