69–010 

Calendar No. 891 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 110–427 

FEDERAL JUDGESHIP ACT OF 2008 

JULY 21 (Legislative day JULY 17), 2008.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

SUPPLEMENTAL AND MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 2774] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill 

(S. 2774), to provide for the appointment of additional Federal circuit and district judges, and for other purposes, having considered 

the same, reports favorably thereon, without amendment, and recommends that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Background and Purpose of the Federal Judgeship Act of 2008 ............... 1 

II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration ....................................... 9 

III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill ...................................................... 10 

IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 11 

V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation ...................................................................... 14 

VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 14 

VII. Appendix A—Judicial Vacancies, 1990–2008 .............................................. 15 

VIII. Appendix B—Circuit Court Vacancies, 1990–2008 ..................................... 16 

IX. Supplemental and Minority Views ............................................................... 17 

X. Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 21 

I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE FEDERAL JUDGESHIP ACT OF

2008 

Chief Justice Rehnquist referred to our independent judiciary as 

the crown jewel of our government. Our Federal courts must have 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
2 

1 Judicial Improvement Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101–650, §§ 202–203, 104 Stat. 5089, 5098–5104 

(1990). This was during the presidency of President George H.W. Bush. The previous comprehensive judgeship act was enacted in 1984 during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. 2Table H U.S. District Courts Additional Authorized Judgeships (visited Jul. 9, 2008) <http:// 

www.uscourts.gov/history/tableh.pdf>. 3 154 Cong. Rec. S2138–01, S2153 (daily ed. Mar. 13, 2008) (statement of Chairman Leahy). 4 ‘‘Judgeship Recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States 2007,’’ p. 3. 5See id. 

6See A & B apps. 

an adequate number of judges in order to safeguard our most cherished liberties and rights. Yet, rising caseloads threaten to diminish the quality of the justice system. The Federal Judgeship Act of 

2008 responds to the resource needs of the Federal judiciary by authorizing certain additional U.S. courts of appeals and district 

court judgeships. 

Article III of the United States Constitution provides, in part, 

that Congress oversee the administration of the judicial branch and 

create such inferior courts ‘‘as the Congress from time to time may 

ordain or establish.’’ Additional judgeships in the courts of appeals 

and district courts are created through legislation by Congress, the 

only constitutionally authorized body to address the resource needs 

of the Third Branch. 

It has been 18 years since Congress enacted a comprehensive 

judgeship bill to add new Federal judgeships. In 1990, legislation 

established 11 additional circuit court judgeships and 61 permanent and 13 temporary district court judgeships.1 In recent years 

Congress has periodically responded to the continuing rise in workloads by creating 27 additional permanent district court judgeships,2 but no additional circuit court judgeships have been created. 

Upon introducing the Federal Judgeship Act of 2008 on March 

13, 2008, Senator Leahy observed: 

Without a comprehensive bill, Congress has proceeded to 

authorize only a few additional district court judgeships 

and extend temporary judgeships when it could. For instance, in 2002 we were able to provide for 15 new judgeships in the Department of Justice authorization bill. However no additional circuit court judgeships have been created since 1990 despite their increased workload. . . . Our 

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.3

Despite the piecemeal authorization of additional judgeships in 

recent years, growing caseloads continue to outpace the resources 

of the Federal courts. In 2006, the national weighted caseload per 

authorized district court judgeship was an average of 464, eight 

percent above the standard set for creating additional judgeships 

by the Judicial Conference of the United States (‘‘Judicial Conference’’).4 Furthermore, the weighted caseload per three-judge 

panel at the circuit court level in 2006 was 1,197, only 2.7 percent 

lower than the record high in 2005.5 The situation is even more 

dramatic in most courts where this bill authorizes additional judgeships. 

Historically, when vacancies on the Federal bench are low, Congress has authorized additional judgeships.6 On May 15, 2008, the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
3 

7Federal Judicial Vacancies Vacancy Summary—110th Congress (visited Jun. 17, 2008) 

<http://www.uscourts.gov/cfapps/webnovada/CFlFBl301/archived/summary05l01l08.html>. 

On July 15, 2008, there were only nine circuit court vacancies. 8 Vacancies in the Federal Judiciary (Article III Judges Only) December 1, 1990 (visited Jul. 

9, 2008) <http://www.uscourts.gov/vacancies/archives/1981l1985/Dec 1l90.pdf) 9 Judicial Improvement Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101–650, §§ 202–203, 104 Stat. 5089, 5098–5104 

(1990). 10 154 Cong. Rec. S2138–01, S2154 (March 13, 2008) (statement of Sen. Hatch). 

day the Committee considered S. 2774, Federal district court vacancies stood at 35, and circuit court vacancies were at 12.7 In 

1990, when the district courts had 28 vacancies and the circuit 

courts had 7 vacancies,8 Congress saw fit to authorize 72 new permanent judgeships.9

The Federal Judgeship Act of 2008 authorizes 12 new permanent 

court of appeals judgeships, two temporary judgeships for the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 38 permanent district court judgeships, and 14 temporary district court judgeships. It converts five 

temporary district court judgeships into permanent judgeships in 

Hawaii, Kansas, Arizona, New Mexico, and the eastern district of 

Missouri, and extends one existing temporary district court judgeship in the northern district of Ohio. 

The bill also attempts to insulate the creation of new judgeships 

from partisan politics by providing that the judgeships do not become effective until the day after the inauguration of the next 

President. Upon introduction of the bill, Senator Hatch, a lead 

sponsor, stated: 

Americans are blessed to have the best and most independent judicial system in the world. In our constitutional 

framework, Congress has responsibility to both make the 

laws and ensure that the judiciary tasked with interpreting and applying those laws has the appropriate resources. This includes addressing the staffing and compensation needs of the judicial branch, and we should 

strive to do so without political gambles or speculation 

about the outcome of a Presidential election.10

Judicial Conference process 

The bill is based on the 2007 recommendations of the Judicial 

Conference and its analysis of caseloads and needs for new judgeships. The Judicial Conference, the official policymaking arm of the 

judicial branch, meets biennially to review and make recommendations to Congress regarding the need for additional judgeships in 

the Federal court system. 

When evaluating judgeship needs in both the district and circuit 

courts, caseloads provide the starting point, but data are further 

evaluated in the context of many other variables. Recommendations for circuit court judgeships are based on a standard of 500 filings per panel, with pro se appeals weighted as one-third of a case. 

The Judicial Conference also takes into account the effect of local 

circumstances on circuit court judgeship needs. 

Recommendations for district courts begin with, but are not limited to, the number of weighted filings per authorized judgeship. 

Weighted filings are defined as ‘‘a mathematical adjustment of filings, based on the nature of cases and the expected amount of 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
4 

11 ‘‘Judgeship Recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States 2007,’’ 1 app. 

at 3 n.1. 12See id. 13 Id. at 1 app. at 3. 14 Responding to the Growing Need for Federal Judgeships: The Federal Judgeship Act of 2008: 

Hearing on S. 2774 Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. 4 (2008) (statement 

of Judge George Z. Singal, Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources). 15 Id. at 3. 16 ‘‘Judgeship Recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States 2007,’’ 1 app. 

at 1. 

judge time required for disposition.’’ 11 For example, under the Judicial Conference’s case weighting system, a civil antitrust case is 

counted as 3.45 cases, and a homicide case is counted as 1.99 

weighted cases.12 The Judicial Conference’s Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics uses a caseload level of 430 weighted filings per authorized judgeship, after adding an additional judgeship, as the 

starting point for considering requests for additional judicial resources.13

Case weights are not the sole factor used to determine judgeship 

recommendations; they simply indicate which districts merit further examination in the recommendation process. Judge George Z. 

Singal, Chairman of the Judicial Resources Committee of the Judicial Conference, testified before the Committee that ‘‘caseload statistics furnish the threshold for consideration, but the process entails a critical scrutiny of the caseloads in light of many other considerations and variables, all of which are considered together.’’ 14

The Judicial Conference takes into account several factors in addition to weighted caseloads when measuring each court’s judgeship needs. The conference considers: 

[T]he number of senior judges, their ages, and levels of 

activity; magistrate judge assistance; geographical factors, 

such as the number of places of holding court; unusual 

complexity; temporary or prolonged caseload increases or 

decreases; the use of visiting judges; and any other factors 

noted by individual courts (or identified by the [Judicial 

Conference’s] Statistics Subcommittee) as having an impact on resource needs.15

Before the Judicial Conference makes a final judgeship recommendation to Congress in its biennial report, the recommendation is subject to a formal six-step process: 

First, the courts submit a detailed justification to the 

Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics. The Subcommittee reviews and evaluates the request and prepares a preliminary recommendation which is given to the courts and the 

appropriate circuit judicial councils for their recommendation. More recent caseload data are used to evaluate responses from the judicial council and the court, if a response is submitted, as well as to prepare recommendations for approval by the Committee on Judicial Resources. 

The Committee’s recommendations are then provided to 

the Judicial Conference for final approval.16

The Judicial Conference’s detailed statistical analysis, formal sixstep process of review, and evaluation of additional workload factors are all tools used to formulate a recommendation that is both 

conservative and adequate. Several steps are in place to ensure 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
5 

17 Id. at 1 app. at 4–5. 18 Responding to the Growing Need for Federal Judgeships: The Federal Judgeship Act of 2008: 

Hearing on S. 2774 Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. 4 (2008) (statement 

of Judge George Z. Singal, Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources). 

that the judiciary uses resources as efficiently as possible. These 

steps include recommending temporary rather than permanent 

judgeships; recommending not filling vacancies; using senior 

judges; sharing judges within and between circuits; increasing the 

use of magistrate judges; using alternative dispute resolution; and 

taking advantage of new technology.17

Judge Singal testified that the Judicial Conference: 

[R]ecognizes that growth in the judiciary must be carefully limited to the number of new judgeships that are necessary to exercise federal court jurisdiction. The [Judicial] 

Conference attempts to balance the need to control growth 

and the need to seek resources that are appropriate to the 

judiciary’s caseload. In an effort to implement that policy, 

we have requested far fewer judgeships than the caseload 

increases combined with other factors would suggest are 

now required.18

The Judicial Conference’s 2007 recommendations include establishing 67 new circuit court and district court judgeships, converting five district court judgeships from temporary to permanent, 

and extending one temporary district court judgeship for an additional five years. Excluding one judgeship that was enacted into 

law between the time the recommendation was made and when the 

legislation was drafted, the Judicial Conference’s recommendations 

are duplicated in S. 2774. 

Despite the increased workload of the Federal judiciary, it has 

been 18 years since Congress enacted a comprehensive Article III 

judgeships bill to address the longstanding and continuous need for 

additional resources in our Federal judiciary. This bipartisan bill, 

based on recommendations from the Judicial Conference, helps alleviate the workload of judges in our Nation’s Federal courts to ensure the quality of justice. 

District Court case weights 

The Judicial Conference uses case weight measures to evaluate 

the relative caseloads of the district courts. The case weight formula currently used by the Judicial Conference is an ‘‘event-based’’ method developed in 2003–2004 by the Federal Judicial Center 

(FJC), the education and research agency of the Federal courts. 

The ‘‘event-based’’ method of case weighting analyzes information 

about the type and frequency of events that occur in a case in order 

to determine the judicial resources expended on each case. The new 

system was approved by the Judicial Conference’s Subcommittee on 

Judicial Statistics in 2003, and was adopted by the Judicial Conference in 2004. The 2003–2004 method replaced a time study 

method last updated in 1993 that required judges and staff to keep 

detailed records of the amount of time spent on each case. The new 

method produces case weights in a shorter period of time while imposing less of a record keeping burden. In addition, because the 

‘‘event-based’’ method that was used incorporates empirical electronic data from case management databases and statistical reVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 23, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR427.XXX SR427

jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
6 

19 Responding to the Growing Need for Federal Judgeships: The Federal Judgeship Act of 2008: 

Hearing on S. 2774 Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. 3–4 (2008) (statement of William O. Jenkins, Jr., GAO). 20 Id. at 1. 21 Id. at 6. 

ports, the case weights can be easily updated based on electronic 

data input. 

In 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined 

the research design of the Federal Judicial Center’s 2003–2004 

case weighting method. In a hearing before the Judiciary Committee, William O. Jenkins, Jr., Director of Homeland Security and 

Justice at the GAO and contributor to the 2003 report, testified 

that the GAO found two problems with the 2003–2004 case weight 

method: 

First was the challenge of collecting reliable, comparable 

data for the analysis on in-court events from two different 

automated data systems, one of which had not been implemented in all district courts. The FJC established a technical advisory group to work through this issue. Second, 

unlike the methodology used to develop the 1993 case 

weights, the design for updating these case weights included limited data on the time judges actually spent on 

specific types of cases. Specifically, the proposed design included data from judicial databases on the in-court time 

judges spent on different types of cases, but did not include collecting actual data on the noncourtroom time that 

judges spend on different types of cases. Instead, estimates 

of noncourtroom time would be based on estimates derived 

from the structured, guided discussions of about 100 experienced judges meeting in 12 separate groups (one for each 

geographic circuit). Noncourtroom time was likely to represent the majority of judge time used to develop the revised case weights. The accuracy of case weights developed 

on such consensus data cannot be assessed using standard 

statistical methods, such as the calculation of standard errors. As the Federal Judicial Center acknowledged in commenting on our 2003 report, it is not possible to objectively, statistically assess how accurate the new case 

weights are.19

Despite the GAO’s conclusion regarding the 2003–2004 case 

weighting method adopted by the Judicial Conference, Mr. Jenkins 

testified that the GAO ‘‘has no views on the Judicial Conference’s 

pending request for additional judgeships.’’ 20 Additionally, Mr. Jenkins agreed that the method used by the FJC offered the benefits 

of reduced judicial burden, cost savings and faster development of 

the case weights.21

In a letter to Senators Schumer and Sessions, Chairman and 

Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight 

and the Courts, John S. Cooke, Deputy Director of the Federal Judicial Center, addressed both of the GAO’s concerns. With regard 

to data collection using two automated systems, Mr. Cooke wrote: 

At the time the study was conducted—2003 to mid2004—the district courts were in the process of converting 

from the case-management systems that they had been 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
7 

22Letter from John S. Cooke, Deputy Director, the Federal Judicial Center, to Senator Charles 

Schumer and Senator Jeff Sessions, Chair and Ranking Member, Subcomm. on Admin. Oversight and the Courts of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary (Feb. 19, 2008). 23See id. 24 Id. (citation omitted). 

using for several years, ICMS, to a new system, CM/ECF, 

but relatively few courts had changed over completely. In 

order to use national docketed event information in our 

calculations, we had to extract the information from both 

types of systems. To do this, after convening a technical 

advisory group of experienced technicians and data managers from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

(AO) and the district courts, we built separate but equivalent data extraction programs for each system. We then 

converted all court-specific codes into a standard set of 

codes, and used those standard codes in the analyses. This 

successful approach to dealing with the dual database 

issue allowed us to construct event frequency counts that 

were solidly based on a large cohort of cases that represented national case-processing practice in the district 

courts.22

Regarding time estimates derived from consensus data, Mr. 

Cooke wrote: 

As mentioned above, we used routinely collected empirical data wherever possible in developing the case weights, 

but consensus-based estimates of judge processing time 

were required for some of the event-weight calculations. 

We decided to take advantage of the knowledge of experienced district judges about how they process cases, and 

ask them to estimate the amount of time required to conduct specific case activities in various types of cases. The 

challenge was to obtain these expert estimates in a structured manner. 

To do this we used a variation of the Delphi Method, a 

technique originally developed by the Rand Corporation in 

1964 and used since then in many research situations—including the development of case weights in some state 

courts—to obtain a consensus estimate from subject-matter 

experts. The method uses an iterative approach of individual estimates, statistical feedback, and re-estimates to 

arrive at a consensus.23

Mr. Cooke added that: 

The estimation process was structured, rigorous, and 

based on an accepted method for obtaining expert estimates that has been used for years in various settings. 

The meeting materials and process were designed to focus 

the task with empirically-derived default values, and to 

address some of the common difficulties with estimating. 

The time values produced by this process can be relied on 

as good estimates of the national average time required to 

complete the defined case events.24

In response to the GAO’s assertion that the accuracy of case 

weights cannot be assessed because statistical measures such as 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
8 

25 Responding to the Growing Need for Federal Judgeships: The Federal Judgeship Act of 2008: 

Hearing on S. 2774 Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. (2008) (answers to 

written questions submitted by Senators to Judge George Z. Singal, Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources). 26 Responding to the Growing Need for Federal Judgeships: The Federal Judgeship Act of 2008: 

Hearing on S. 2774 Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. 7 (2008) (statement 

of William O. Jenkins, Jr., GAO). 27 Id. at 8. 

standard error cannot be calculated from consensus data, Judge 

Singal stated that standard errors ‘‘provide information about the 

data collected, but cannot by themselves indicate how accurate 

those data are.’’ 25

Circuit Court adjusted filings 

The Judicial Conference uses adjusted case filings to assess the 

need for additional circuit court judgeships. The adjusted filings 

measure is relatively simple compared to the district court case 

weight formula, with filings weighted as one case, with the exception of pro se appeals, which are weighted as one-third of a case. 

The Judicial Conference uses adjusted filings rather than weighted 

cases when comparing caseloads in the circuit courts. Varying practices, precedents and degrees of case complexity among circuits 

have thus far impeded the creation of a set of nationally applicable 

case weights for the circuit courts. The Judicial Conference threshold standard for considering additional circuit court judgeship requests is 500 adjusted filings per panel. 

The GAO’s 2003 report concluded that the Judicial Conference’s 

method for calculating adjusted circuit court filings was flawed. Mr. 

Jenkins testified before the Committee that ‘‘[t]he adjusted filings 

workload measure is not based on any empirical data regarding the 

time that different types of cases required of appellate judges,’’ 26

and that the standard of 500 filings per panel ‘‘principally reflects 

a policy decision using historical data on filings and terminations.’’ 27

Authorities both within and outside the Federal judiciary have 

addressed the GAO’s concerns. In response to written questions 

from members of the Committee, Judge Singal wrote: 

Data from the FJC support the [adjusted filings] figure. 

Professor Arthur Hellman of the University of Pittsburgh 

School of Law, a noted expert on federal court issues, testified before a House Judiciary Subcommittee in 2003 that 

because only a very small percentage of pro se cases receive oral argument or a published opinion, it is reasonable to conclude that pro se cases contribute significantly 

less to the judicial workload. Professor Hellman further explained that in a world of limited resources, it is not necessary to carry out direct empirical research to support 

this reasonable figure, especially with the FJC’s data. Professor Hellman calls the one-third adjustment of pro se 

cases ‘‘justified.’’

The standard of 500 adjusted filings per panel as the 

threshold for considering recommendations for additional 

appellate judgeships, is a useful and appropriate standard 

that is based on the experience of appellate judges. It is 

recognized as appropriate outside the Judiciary as well. 

Professor Hellman testified that the 500 adjusted filings 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
9 

28 Responding to the Growing Need for Federal Judgeships: The Federal Judgeship Act of 2008: 

Hearing on S. 2774 Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. (2008) (answers to 

written questions submitted by Senators to Judge George Z. Singal, Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources). 29The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the 

Courts previously held a hearing on November 16, 2005, entitled ‘‘Creating New Federal Judgeships: The Systematic or Piecemeal Approach.’’ Testimony was received from Honorable W. 

Royal Furgeson, Jr., U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Texas, and Chairman of the 

Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources; Honorable William H. Steele, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Alabama and a former magistrate judge in Mobile; 

Robyn J. Spalter, Esq., President of the Federal Bar Association, and an attorney with the firm 

of Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan and Berlin, in Miami, Florida; and Marc Galanter, Professor of Law 

and South Asian Studies at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and LSC Centennial Professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science. 

standard, based on historical data on filings and terminations, is ‘‘quite defensible,’’ and that the ‘‘Judicial Conference has indeed taken a conservative approach in assessing courts of appeals requests for new judgeships.’’ In 

addition to the historical basis, Professor Hellman’s examination of typical workloads led him to ‘‘conclude’’ that the 

Judicial Conference baseline of 500 adjusted filings per 

panel is ‘‘reasonable.’’ 28

II. HISTORY OF THE BILL AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

A. INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL

Senator Patrick Leahy introduced S. 2774, the Federal Judgeship 

Act of 2008, joined by Senators Hatch, Feinstein, and Schumer on 

March 13, 2008. Since the bill’s introduction, Senators Bingaman, 

Harkin, Inouye, Brown, Murray, Nelson of Nebraska, Kennedy, 

Hagel, Salazar, Menendez, Akaka, Martinez, Graham, Coleman, 

Lugar, Bayh, and Klobuchar have joined as cosponsors. The bill 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

B. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

At the request of Senator Coburn during the May 15, 2008 markup of the bill, Chairman Leahy agreed to hold a Committee hearing 

on S. 2774. The Committee scheduled a hearing, to be chaired by 

Senator Feinstein, entitled ‘‘Responding to the Growing Need for 

Federal Judgeships: The Federal Judgeship Act of 2008.’’ 29 On 

June 17, 2008, the day the hearing was scheduled to occur, Minority Leader McConnell objected to a unanimous consent request to 

authorize the hearing to take place during that day’s session of the 

Senate. The hearing the Republican Senators requested could not 

proceed to be held in person because Republican Senators objected. 

The hearing was accordingly suspended but written testimony was 

circulated. 

Written testimony was received from the Honorable George Z. 

Singal, Chief Judge of the District of Maine and Chair of the Judicial Conference’s Judicial Resources Committee; and William O. 

Jenkins, Jr., Director of Homeland Security and Justice at the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office (GAO). 

Mr. Jenkins’s written testimony described a 2003 GAO report examining the research design of the case weighting method adopted 

by the Judicial Conference in 2004. Mr. Jenkins stated that the 

GAO does not have a view on the judgeship request contained in 

S. 2774. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
10 

30 Responding to the Growing Need for Federal Judgeships: The Federal Judgeship Act of 2008: 

Hearing on S. 2774 Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. 5 (2008) (statement 

of Judge George Z. Singal, Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources). 31 Id at 4. 32See Id. 33Letter from James S. Richardson Sr., Federal Bar Association, to Senator Patrick Leahy 

and Senator Arlen Specter, Chair and Ranking Member, Senate Comm. on the Judiciary (June 

16, 2008). 

Judge Singal’s written testimony stated that since the last comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted in 1990, case filings have 

continued to grow, outpacing the resources of the Federal judiciary. 

He described the situation in courts where judgeships were recommended as ‘‘dramatic.’’ 30 He wrote that in the district courts, 

where the Judicial Conference’s standard is a workload of 430 

weighted filings per judgeship, ‘‘the workload exceeds 430 per 

judgeship in all but one district court in which the Conference is 

recommending an additional judgeship. Weighted filings were 500 

per judgeship or higher in 18 of those district courts, and five 

courts exceeded 600 weighted filings per judgeship.’’ 31 He added 

that in the circuit courts, where the Judicial Conference’s standard 

for examining judgeship needs is at 500, ‘‘four circuits exceeded 900 

adjusted filings per panel’’ and ‘‘[i]n each circuit court in which the 

Conference is recommending additional judgeships, the caseload 

levels substantially exceed the standard.’’ 32

The Committee received a letter from the president of the Federal Bar Association stating that ‘‘passage of comprehensive judgeship legislation is critical and long overdue’’ to ensure that our judicial system is ‘‘properly equipped to meet its mission.’’ 33

The Federal Judgeship Act of 2008 was first placed on the Committee’s markup schedule for May 8, 2008. The Committee considered S. 2774 a week later on May 15, 2008. Senator Cornyn circulated for consideration an amendment that would have added 

four district judges to the western district of Texas. Senator Cornyn 

did not offer the amendment during the markup. 

The Committee voted to report the Federal Judgeship Act of 

2008, without amendment, favorably to the Senate. The Committee 

proceeded by rollcall vote as follows: 

Tally: 15 Yeas, 4 Nays. 

Yeas (15): Leahy (D–VT), Kennedy (D–MA), Kohl (D–WI), Feinstein (D–CA), Schumer (D–NY), Whitehouse (D–RI), Durbin (D–IL), 

Feingold (D–WI), Biden (D–DE), Specter (R–PA), Hatch (R–UT), 

Graham (R–SC), Brownback (R–KS), Grassley (R–IA), Kyl (R–AZ). 

Nays (4): Cardin (D–MD), Sessions (R–AL), Cornyn (R–TX), 

Coburn (R–OK). 

III. SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF THE BILL

Section 1. Short title 

This section provides that the legislation may be cited as the 

‘‘Federal Judgeship Act of 2008.’’

Section 2. Circuit Judges for the Circuit Courts of Appeals 

Section 2(a) provides for the creation of 10 new circuit court of 

appeal judgeships and is allocated as follows: one additional circuit 

court judge for the first circuit; one additional circuit court judge 

for the sixth circuit; two additional circuit court judges for the secVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 23, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR427.XXX SR427

jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
11 

ond circuit; two additional circuit court judges for the eight circuit; 

and four additional circuit court judges for the ninth circuit. 

Section 2(b) provides for the creation of 2 temporary circuit 

judges for the ninth circuit court of appeals. These judgeships are 

temporary in that the first two vacancies in the ninth circuit court, 

occurring 10 years or more after the confirmation of both of these 

temporary circuit judges, will not be filled. 

Section 2(c) amends the table in section 44 of title 28, United 

States Code. This section provides a table that reflects the total 

number of permanent circuit judgeships authorized with respect to 

each of the thirteen circuit courts of appeals. 

Section 3. District Judges for the District Courts 

Section 3(a) provides for the creation of an additional 38 district 

court judges in 21 district courts and is allocated as follows: 

Section 3(b) provides for the creation of 14 new temporary district judges in 12 different States. Additionally this section provides 

that the first vacancy in each of the 14 district courts occurring 

after 10 or more years from the date the temporary judge in that 

particular district court is confirmed, shall not be filled. 

Section 3(c)(1) provides for the conversion, upon the effective date 

of this Act, of five temporary district court judgeships into permanent judgeships. The converted judgeships are the existing judgeships for the districts of Hawaii, Kansas, Arizona, New Mexico, and 

the eastern district of Missouri. The incumbents in these offices 

will hold the converted judgeships. 

Section 3(c)(2) provides that the existing temporary judgeship for 

the northern district of Ohio is extended on the date this Act is effective. This judgeship is temporary in that the first vacancy in the 

office of district judge in the northern district of Ohio, occurring 20 

years or more after the confirmation date of this temporary judge, 

will not be filled. 

Section 3(d) amends section 133 of title 28, United States Code. 

This section provides a table that reflects the total number of permanent district judgeships authorized with respect to each of the 

district courts. 

Section 4. Authorization of appropriations 

This section authorizes that the necessary funds be appropriated 

to carry out this Act, including sums necessary to provide appropriate space and facilities. 

Section 5. Effective date 

Section 5(a) provides that in general this Act and its amendments take effect on January 21, 2009. 

Section 5(b) provides that the amendments made by this Act take 

effect after the amendment made by section 509(a)(2) of the Court 

Security Improvement Act of 2007. 

IV. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee sets forth, with respect to the bill, S. 2774, the 

following estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974: 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
12 

JUNE 18, 2008. 

Hon. PATRICK J. LEAHY, 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2774, the Federal Judgeship 

Act of 2008. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Leigh Angres. 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG. 

Enclosure. 

S. 2774—Federal Judgeship Act of 2008 

Summary: S. 2774 would increase the number of federal circuit 

court judges by 14 and the number of federal district court judges 

by 52. Based on information from the Administrative Office of the 

United States Courts (AOUSC), CBO estimates that enacting S. 

2774 would increase direct spending by $107 million over the 

2009–2018 period for the salaries and benefits of additional federal 

circuit and district court judges. 

CBO estimates that discretionary expenditures for support staff 

and office space associated with each judgeship would cost $188 

million over the 2009–2013 period, subject to appropriation of the 

necessary funds. 

S. 2774 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 2774 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 750 (administration 

of justice). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2009– 

2013 

2009– 

2018 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Circuit Courts of Appeals 

Judgeships: 

Estimated Budget Authority ....................... 0 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 10 25 

Estimated Outlays ........ 0 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 10 25 

District Court Judgeships: 

Estimated Budget Authority ....................... 0 2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 32 82 

Estimated Outlays ........ 0 2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 32 82 

Total Changes: 

Estimated Budget 

Authority .......... 0 3 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 42 107 

Estimated Outlays 0 3 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 42 107 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level 11 36 52 44 45 46 48 49 50 52 190 436 

Estimated Outlays ................. 10 32 51 44 45 46 48 49 50 52 188 433 

Basis of estimate: CBO estimates that enacting S. 2774 would increase direct spending and spending subject to appropriation as 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
13 

discussed in the following sections. For this estimate, CBO assumes 

that provisions of S. 2774 will take effect on January 21, 2009, as 

specified in the bill, and that additional judges authorized by the 

bill will be confirmed during 2010. 

Direct spending 

CBO estimates that enacting S. 2774 would increase direct spending by $107 million over the 2009–2018 period for additional 

circuit and district court judges appointed under Article III of the 

Constitution. Salaries and benefits of Article III judges are provided annually without the need for discretionary appropriations. 

Thus, increases in such compensation would increase direct spending. 

Circuit Courts of Appeals Judgeships. S. 2774 would authorize 12 

additional federal circuit court judgeships in several circuit courts 

of appeals. The bill also would authorize two temporary circuit 

court judges in the ninth circuit court of appeals. Under the bill, 

the first two vacancies that occur in that circuit more than 10 

years after the initial confirmation 3 of those positions would not 

be filled. Based on the current-law salaries of circuit court judges 

(about $180,000) and information from the AOUSC on the benefits 

of federal judges, CBO estimates that the mandatory pay and benefits for 14 additional circuit court judges would total about $3 million a year once all judges have been confirmed. As a result, those 

circuit court provisions would increase direct spending by $25 million over the 2009–2018 period. 

District Court Judgeships. S. 2774 would authorize an additional 

38 permanent and 14 temporary district court judgeships in several 

judicial districts. For the temporary judgeships authorized under 

the bill, the first vacancy that occurs more than 10 years after the 

initial confirmation of those positions would not be filled. Based on 

the current-law salaries of district court judges (about $169,000), as 

well as information from the AOUSC on the benefits of federal 

judges, CBO estimates that the mandatory pay and benefits for 52 

additional district court judges would total about $10 million a year 

once all judges have been confirmed. As such, those district court 

provisions would increase direct spending by $82 million over the 

2009–2018 period. 

S. 2774 also would make permanent temporary judgeships in Hawaii, Kansas, Arizona, New Mexico, and the eastern district of Missouri. In addition, under the bill, any vacancy that occurs for an 

existing federal judgeship in the northern district of Ohio would 

continue to be filled for an additional 10 years. CBO cannot predict 

whether a judicial vacancy would occur in those districts under current law during the 2009–2018 period. Therefore, this estimate 

does not include any possible increases in direct spending resulting 

from those provisions. Those judges are each currently paid about 

$169,000 a year. 

Spending subject to appropriation 

Based on information from AOUSC, CBO estimates that implementing S. 2774 would cost $188 million over the 2009–2013 period 

for administrative support and office space for new judges. Of that 

amount, about $50 million would be incurred in the first few years 

for startup costs, including office construction, furniture, and law 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
14 

books. The remaining amount—$138 million—would be for annual 

expenditures (about $600,000 per judge) for administrative needs, 

such as support staff and court operations. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 2774 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA 

and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Leigh Angres; Impact on 

state, local, and tribal governments: Melissa Merrell; Impact on the 

Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

V. REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee finds that no significant regulatory impact will 

result from the enactment of S. 2774. 

VI. CONCLUSION

The Federal Judgeship Act of 2008, S. 2774, is the first comprehensive bill in 18 years to address the judgeship needs in our 

Federal court system. The relentless growth in the workload of 

judges in our Federal court system is demonstrated by a 58–percent increase in circuit court filings and a 40–percent increase in 

district court filings since 1990. This bipartisan bill, designed to alleviate the caseload for Federal judges, is based upon the biennial 

recommendations of the Judicial Conference, which were derived 

from an analysis of weighted case filings and workload factors. The 

bill adds 55 permanent and 17 temporary Federal judgeships in 

support of an efficient and prompt system of justice in our Federal 

courts. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
15 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 16 SR427.001
16 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 17 SR427.002
(17) 

IX. SUPPLEMENTAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF SENATORS CHUCK GRASSLEY 

AND SAM BROWNBACK, AND MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATORS JEFF SESSIONS AND TOM COBURN ON S. 2774, 

‘‘THE FEDERAL JUDGESHIP ACT OF 2008’’

S. 2774, ‘‘The Federal Judgeship Act of 2008,’’ creates a total of 

66 new federal judgeships at both the district and appellate court 

level. This number is based on a request submitted by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) to the Congress in March 

2007. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to oversee the 

administration of the federal judiciary and to determine the proper 

size of the federal courts. Congress must be reasonably confident 

that, before it creates new federal court judgeships and expands 

the federal judiciary on a permanent basis, it does so based upon 

accurate and complete information. Congress should carefully analyze the statistics and methodology employed by the AO to determine whether there is a sound basis for this request. S. 2774 creates new permanent and temporary judge positions—14 new circuit 

court judgeships and 52 new district court judgeships. That is why 

it is important to determine whether the numbers utilized to calculate these new judgeships justify the increases. 

The reality is that it is easier to create judgeship positions than 

to eliminate them. Instead of rushing to create a large number of 

new judgeships, it would be more prudent to fill the current federal 

court vacancies. Certainly confirming these judicial nominees is the 

quickest way to help ease the burdens on certain courts. 

In addition, S. 2774 will result in significant federal spending to 

create and sustain the new judgeships. According to the AO, the 

cost for creating each circuit court judgeship is approximately 

$1,062,000 for the first year, with recurring annual costs averaging 

a little more than $931,000. A district court judgeship costs roughly 

$1,169,000 for the first year, with recurring costs of approximately 

$960,000. These recurring figures do not even take into account the 

annual cost of living adjustments federal judges receive almost 

every year. These adjustments generally amount to a pay increase 

of 3% per year. Further, these numbers may go higher as this estimate does not take into consideration the possibility of legislation 

that would increase federal judge salaries. The cost associated with 

the creation of 66 new federal judgeships is staggering. Using the 

AO’s numbers, the one year cost to maintain 66 new judgeships is 

more than $62 million. The ten-year cost is more than $620 million. This is a substantial cost to the American taxpayer at a time 

when everyone is seeking ways to cut costs and become more efficient. 

We believe that the Committee has not done all it can to ensure 

that the request for new federal judgeships is necessary. The JudiVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 23, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR427.XXX SR427

jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
18 

ciary Committee has traditionally undertaken an in-depth review 

on the need to create new temporary and permanent federal judgeships. For example, in 1996, Senator Grassley, then-Chairman of 

the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, 

sent out a questionnaire asking all federal appellate and district 

court judges about their views on a number of issues dealing with 

the administration of justice in the federal courts. In addition, the 

Subcommittee held a series of oversight hearings to evaluate the 

appropriate allocation of judgeships for each circuit, and to find 

ways to improve overall productivity of the federal judiciary. As a 

result of the hearings and analysis of the questionnaire responses, 

the Subcommittee produced a report based on the hearing testimony, court statistics and questionnaire data. 

The Subcommittee Report concluded that unjustifiable, openended growth of the federal judiciary is not desirable. For example, 

the Report found that many judges were of the opinion that smaller courts foster collegiality, coherence in case law and better administration of justice, particularly at the appellate court level. The 

Report found that Congress should consider the significant costs of 

creating new permanent judgeships—over a million dollars for each 

judge—as well as the moneys that have to go into new judge chambers, courthouses and court staff to support those new judgeships. 

The Report also found that the federal courts were not employing 

many technologies or administrative practices that could help reduce the judges’ workload, and recommended that before creating 

new judgeships, Congress consider whether a court has implemented as many efficiencies as possible—such as better case management techniques and technology, better use of senior, visiting 

and magistrate judges, and a reduction of non-case-related judicial 

activities and travel by the judges. 

Perhaps most importantly, the Report concluded that there was 

no consensus on the proper measure of need for judges, nor was 

there a consensus on whether the statistical formulae utilized by 

the Judicial Conference are an effective and reliable means for calculating the appropriate number of judges. In fact, the Report 

found that a number of judges themselves believed that there were 

significant problems with the methods of calculation utilized by the 

AO. The Report concluded that Congress should carefully examine 

whether a court’s caseload truly justifies a new judgeship position—in particular that the increase in caseload is a permanent 

one and not just a temporary spike in case filings. In this regard, 

Congress should scrutinize the methodology utilized by the Judicial 

Conference when calculating judgeship needs. 

These concerns with the Judicial Conference’s methodology were 

confirmed by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). In 

early 2000, the GAO was asked to determine whether the weighted 

and adjusted case filing systems used by the AO accurately calculated the workload of judges. At a House Judiciary Committee 

hearing in June 2003, William Jenkins, the top expert on these 

issues at the GAO, produced a report and testified about a number 

of flaws with the case-related workload measures that the Judicial 

Conference uses when it assesses judgeship needs. The GAO concluded that there were problems with the reliability of both district 

and appellate court methodologies. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
19 

34The Minority Leader objected to the Committee’s hearing because the Senate had failed to 

confirm an adequate number of President George W. Bush’s circuit and district court nominees 

at that point in the 110th Congress. When the Minority Leader objected to the Committee meeting, he noted the irony of enacting legislation that would increase the number of federal judgeships while simultaneously failing to hold hearings and confirmation votes for qualified judicial 

nominees who had been languishing in Committee for months and even years. Further, some 

of the blocked nominees were nominated to districts to which the bill would add judgeships 

based on those districts’ apparent need. 35For example, in the opinions of Senators Brownback and Grassley, the heavy caseload statistics, steady trend in increased caseload, and testimonials from judges and practitioners, demonstrate a justifiable need to shift the District of Kansas’s temporary judgeship to a permanent 

judgeship and to create a new temporary judgeship for the Northern District of Iowa (both included in S. 2774). 

In June 2008, Mr. Jenkins was asked to testify before the Senate 

Judiciary Committee on the Judicial Conference’s methodology, 

whether the methodology had been improved since his 2005 testimony, and whether there were any ongoing concerns with the reliability of the present methodology. Mr. Jenkins reiterated his concerns with the reliability of the AO’s methodology, and specifically 

questioned the accuracy of the case weights used by the AO to assess judgeship needs. Mr. Jenkins noted that notwithstanding the 

findings of the 2003 GAO report, the AO had not implemented 

their recommendations to improve the accuracy of their methodology.34

We are of the position that if there is a clear, demonstrated need 

for new judgeships, the Congress should act to create those positions. There may well be a need for some of the judgeships contained in S. 2774.35 However, the GAO continues to find that the 

Judicial Conference’s methodology is flawed and unreliable. As examined in a 2005 Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and 

the Courts hearing chaired by Senator Sessions, the federal judiciary has not proven that it has taken every step it can to improve 

efficiencies, be it through use of technology, case management techniques, or senior/magistrate/visiting judges. Further, there are significant costs that come with creating new permanent and temporary judgeships. For these reasons, we believe that the Judiciary 

Committee should not be quick to rubber-stamp the AO’s request 

in S. 2774. Moreover, because of the continued findings by the GAO 

that the methodologies utilized by the Judicial Conference are not 

accurate and could be improved, we believe that the AO should implement the GAO’s recommendations before it submits—and Congress approves—any further judgeship requests. 

CHUCK GRASSLEY. 

JEFF SESSIONS. 

SAM BROWNBACK. 

TOM COBURN. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
(20) 

MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR JOHN CORNYN ON S. 2774, 

‘‘THE FEDERAL JUDGESHIP ACT OF 2008’’

I concur with the Committee Report that rising caseloads threaten to diminish the quality of the justice system, and that S. 2774, 

‘‘The Federal Judgeship Act of 2008,’’ is an important step to respond to the resource needs of the Federal judiciary. I submit these 

minority views to express my belief that further Congressional 

scrutiny and analysis is needed regarding the allocation and number of new judgeships before S. 2774 becomes law. 

Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to 

constitute the lower federal courts. This responsibility cannot be 

delegated, and should be undertaken by Congress through deliberation and debate based on the most current data available. 

The version of S. 2774 that was passed by the Judiciary Committee on May 15, 2008, adopts the Judicial Conference’s 2007 recommendations without revision. Since those recommendations were 

released, additional data has become available, and additional 

needs have been expressed by Judges on the ground regarding the 

urgent needs of the federal courts. 

Specifically, the judges of the Western District of Texas have persuaded me that their district urgently needs four new district 

judgeships, which is three more than are provided by S. 2774. Data 

published since the Judicial Conference released its 2007 recommendations supports this claim. 

On July 7, 2008, the Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics of the 

Committee on Judicial Resources of the Judicial Conference issued 

a preliminary recommendation that the 2009 Biennial Judgeship 

Survey should call for four additional judgeships in the Western 

District of Texas. 

According to the latest numbers available, the Western District 

of Texas has the largest number of criminal cases per judge in the 

nation. At 393 criminal cases per judgeship, the Western District 

has more than four times the national average. As a border district, a large percentage of the caseload in the Western District of 

Texas involves narcotics trafficking, human trafficking, and other 

crimes that require vigorous enforcement. Successful enforcement 

requires additional judgeships. 

The Administrative Office’s 2007 judicial survey, on which S. 

2774 is based, establishes a minimum standard of 430 weighted 

case filings per district judge. Four of the Western District’s seven 

divisions currently have weighted case filings per judge over 700. 

Applying the 430 weighted cases per judge standard and the latest 

data available, the Western District could receive up to six new 

judges. 

The Western District’s request for four new judges is a current 

needs request, not an anticipatory needs request. My conversations 

with the judges of the Western District of Texas indicate that the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
21 

need for new judgeships is urgent, and that the current case overload faced by the judges of the Western District of Texas is not sustainable. Precisely because the last comprehensive judgeship bill 

was passed 18 years ago, Congress must address the escalating 

caseload crisis in the Western District now. 

I am of the opinion that S. 2774 should be amended to add three 

additional new judgeships for the Western District of Texas, for a 

total of four new judgeships in that district. Before the May 15, 

2008 markup of S. 2774, I circulated an amendment to add the 

needed three additional judges. I did not offer the amendment during the markup because Chairman Leahy promised to work with 

me to address the needs of the Western District of Texas. I look 

forward to working with Chairman Leahy and my other Senate colleagues to ensure that the Western District of Texas, and other districts that are underserved by the current version of S. 2774, receive the additional judgeships that they need. 

JOHN CORNYN. 

X. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by S. 2774, as 

reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, and 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 3—COURTS OF APPEALS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 44. Appointment, tenure, residence and salary of circuit 

judges. 

(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, circuit judges for the several circuits as follows: 

Circuit Number of Judges 

District of Columbia ....................................................................... 11 

First ................................................................................................. 7 

Second .............................................................................................. 15 

Third ................................................................................................ 16 

Fourth .............................................................................................. 15 

Fifth ................................................................................................. 17 

Sixth ................................................................................................ 17 

Seventh ............................................................................................ 11 

Eighth .............................................................................................. 13 

Ninth ............................................................................................... 33 

Tenth ............................................................................................... 12 

Eleventh .......................................................................................... 12 

Federal ............................................................................................. 12 

TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
22 

CHAPTER 5—DISTRICT COURTS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 133. Appointment and Number of District Judges 

(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, district judges for the several judicial districts, 

as follows: 

Districts Judges 

Alabama: 

Northern .......................................................................................... 7 

Middle .............................................................................................. 3 

Southern .......................................................................................... 3 

Alaska ..................................................................................................... 3 

Arizona ................................................................................................... 17 

Arkansas: 

Eastern ............................................................................................ 5 

Western ........................................................................................... 3 

California: 

Northern .......................................................................................... 16 

Eastern ............................................................................................ 10 

Central ............................................................................................. 31 

Southern .......................................................................................... 13 

Colorado .................................................................................................. 8 

Connecticut ............................................................................................. 8 

Delaware ................................................................................................. 4 

District of Columbia .............................................................................. 15 

Florida: 

Northern .......................................................................................... 4 

Middle .............................................................................................. 19 

Southern .......................................................................................... 19 

Georgia: 

Northern .......................................................................................... 11 

Middle .............................................................................................. 4 

Southern .......................................................................................... 3 

Hawaii .................................................................................................... 4 

Idaho ....................................................................................................... 2 

Illinois: 

Northern .......................................................................................... 22 

Central ............................................................................................. 4 

Southern .......................................................................................... 4 

Indiana: 

Northern .......................................................................................... 5 

Southern .......................................................................................... 6 

Iowa: 

Northern .......................................................................................... 2 

Southern .......................................................................................... 3 

Kansas .................................................................................................... 6 

Kentucky: 

Eastern ............................................................................................ 5 

Western ........................................................................................... 4 

Eastern and Western ..................................................................... 1 

Louisiana: 

Eastern ............................................................................................ 12 

Middle .............................................................................................. 3 

Western ........................................................................................... 7 

Maine ...................................................................................................... 3 

Maryland ................................................................................................ 10 

Massachusetts ........................................................................................ 13 

Michigan: 

Eastern ............................................................................................ 15 

Western ........................................................................................... 4 

Minnesota ............................................................................................... 8 

Mississippi: 

Northern .......................................................................................... 3 

Southern .......................................................................................... 6 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
23 

Districts Judges 

Missouri: 

Eastern ............................................................................................ 7 

Western ........................................................................................... 6 

Eastern and Western ..................................................................... 2 

Montana .................................................................................................. 3 

Nebraska ................................................................................................ 4 

Nevada .................................................................................................... 7 

New Hampshire ..................................................................................... 3 

New Jersey ............................................................................................. 17 

New Mexico ............................................................................................ 8 

New York: 

Northern .......................................................................................... 5 

Southern .......................................................................................... 28 

Eastern ............................................................................................ 18 

Western ........................................................................................... 5 

North Carolina: 

Eastern ............................................................................................ 4 

Middle .............................................................................................. 4 

Western ........................................................................................... 4 

North Dakota ......................................................................................... 2 

Ohio: 

Northern .......................................................................................... 11 

Southern .......................................................................................... 8 

Oklahoma: 

Northern .......................................................................................... 3 

Eastern ............................................................................................ 1 

Western ........................................................................................... 6 

Northern, Eastern, and Western ................................................... 1 

Oregon .................................................................................................... 7 

Pennsylvania: 

Eastern ............................................................................................ 22 

Middle .............................................................................................. 6 

Western ........................................................................................... 10 

Puerto Rico ............................................................................................. 7 

Rhode Island .......................................................................................... 3 

South Carolina ....................................................................................... 11 

South Dakota ......................................................................................... 3 

Tennessee: 

Eastern ............................................................................................ 5 

Middle .............................................................................................. 4 

Western ........................................................................................... 5 

Texas: 

Northern .......................................................................................... 12 

Southern .......................................................................................... 21 

Eastern ............................................................................................ 8 

Western ........................................................................................... 14 

Utah: ....................................................................................................... 5 

Vermont .................................................................................................. 2 

Virginia: 

Eastern ............................................................................................ 12 

Western ........................................................................................... 4 

Washington 

Eastern ............................................................................................ 4 

Western ........................................................................................... 8 

West Virginia 

Northern .......................................................................................... 3 

Southern .......................................................................................... 5 

Wisconsin: 

Eastern ............................................................................................ 5 

Western ........................................................................................... 2 

Wyoming ................................................................................................. 3 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS