EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE 

 January 1, 2008, 12:01 a.m. E.S.T. 

 For further information, contact the 

 Public Information Office 

 202-479-3211 

2007 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary 

On a warm and sunny Wednesday in September of the past year, a 

Russian judge, accompanied by a fellow Russian and two American judges, 

walked among the white headstones of Arlington National Cemetery. Like 

other visitors, the Russian judge came to pay his respects and lay a wreath at 

one of the markers. And like others navigating the solemn rows of white 

stones, he and his companions asked for directions from fellow visitors. A 

teacher leading a group of school children offered to help, and she led the 

judge to the grave of a former Army private who had served his country in 

World War II and again in later life. 

The teacher asked the Russian judge, through an interpreter, why he 

wished to honor the memory of William H. Rehnquist. The judge, 

Justice Yuriy Ivanovich Sidorenko of the Supreme Court of the Russian 

Federation, explained that, in Chief Justice Rehnquist’s later years, they had 

become friends. The teacher remarked that she did not know much about 

our former Chief Justice, and she invited Justice Sidorenko to speak to her 

students about their friendship. Standing near the Chief Justice’s headstone, 
Justice Sidorenko provided an impromptu and personal insight into their 

shared interest in the rule of law. He expressed his admiration for our late 

Chief and described how the American jurist had provided advice and 

encouragement to Russian judges as they took up the challenge of reforming 

their judiciary in the post-Soviet era. 

During his September visit, Justice Sidorenko expressed similar 

sentiments in a private meeting with my colleagues and me. He recalled 

how, when they first met in 2002, Chief Justice Rehnquist had noted his 

Swedish heritage. They discussed the 1709 Battle of Poltava, where 

Peter the Great of Russia won a decisive victory over invading Swedish 

forces. Justice Sidorenko recounted how, when he later encountered 

difficulties with the Russian legislature in achieving judicial reforms 

inspired by the example of American courts, the Chief Justice sent him a 

handwritten note of encouragement: “Remember Poltava.” 

Few could have imagined these episodes a mere 25 years ago. 

Justice Sidorenko’s words are poignant, but his actions in seeking to reform 

the Russian judiciary reflect a more fundamental truth that should resonate 

with all Americans: When foreign nations discard despotism and undertake 

to reform their judicial systems, they look to the United States Judiciary as 

the model for securing the rule of law. 

2
In recent years, even mature democracies with established traditions 

have modified their judicial systems to incorporate American principles and 

practices. For example, Great Britain, which exported its common law 

system to the American colonies some 400 years ago, has recently imported 

the distinctly American concept of separation of powers. It has transferred 

the House of Lords’ judicial review functions to an independent Supreme 

Court. Japan has adopted trial procedures inspired by American jury 

practice, while South Korea is increasingly employing American-style oral 

advocacy in its judicial review proceedings. But perhaps most important, 

our federal courts provide the benchmark for emerging democracies that 

seek to structure their judicial systems to protect basic rights that Americans 

have long enjoyed as the norm. 

Most Americans are far too busy to spend much time pondering the 

role of the United States Judiciary—they simply and understandably expect 

the court system to work. But as we begin the New Year, I ask a moment’s 

reflection on how our country might look in the absence of a skilled and 

independent Judiciary. We do not need to look far beyond our borders, or 

beyond the front page of any newspaper, to see what is at stake. More than 

two hundred years after the American Revolution, much of the world 

remains subject to judicial systems that provide doubtful opportunities for 

3
challenging government action as contrary to law, or receiving a fair 

adjudication of criminal charges, or securing a fair remedy for wrongful 

injury, or protecting rights in property, or obtaining an impartial resolution 

of a commercial dispute. Many foreign judges cannot exercise independent 

judgment on matters of law without fear of reprisal or removal. 

Americans should take enormous pride in our judicial system. But 

there is no cause for complacency. Our judicial system inspires the world 

because of the commitment of each new generation of judges who build 

upon the vision and accomplishments of those who came before. I am 

committed to continuing three of my predecessor’s important but unfinished 

initiatives to maintain the quality of our courts. 

First, I will carry on the efforts to improve communications with the 

Executive and Legislative Branches of government. The Constitution’s 

provision for three separate but coordinate Branches envisions that the 

Branches will communicate through appropriate means on administrative 

matters of common concern. Each has a valuable perspective on the other. 

The Branches already engage in constructive dialogue through a number of 

familiar forums, including the Judicial Conference, congressional hearings, 

and advisory committee meetings. But the familiar avenues are not 

necessarily the only ones. 

4
The Judiciary has a special interest, rooted in history, in improving 

relations with the Legislative Branch. Until 1935, the Congress and the 

Supreme Court were both housed in the Capitol, and it has been observed 

that the sharing of common space encouraged mutual understanding, respect, 

and collegiality even as the legislators and judges performed their distinctly 

different responsibilities. I am assured that my colleagues are happy in our 

separate building and not inclined to move back to the Capitol (even were 

we invited), so I have asked the Administrative Office of the United States 

Courts to consider other opportunities for improving inter-Branch 

communication and cooperation. The separate Branches may not always 

agree on matters of mutual interest, but each should strive, through 

respectful exchange of insights and ideas, to know and appreciate where the 

others stand. 

Second, I share my predecessor’s view that the Judiciary must 

relentlessly ensure that federal judges maintain the highest standards of 

integrity. Federal judges hold a position of public trust, and the public has a 

right to demand that they adhere to a demanding code of conduct. The 

overwhelming majority do. But for those who do not, the Judiciary must 

take appropriate action. Last year, a study committee commissioned by the 

former Chief Justice and chaired by Associate Justice Stephen Breyer issued 

5
a Report on the Implementation of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act 

of 1980. While the study committee found that, overall, the Judiciary does 

an excellent job of handling complaints about judges, it also found that there 

remains room for improvement. The Judicial Conference has implemented 

eight of the twelve recommendations in the Report, and the remaining four 

will be considered at the Conference’s next meeting. 

James Madison observed in Federalist No. 51 that, if men were 

angels, there would be no need for government. Likewise, if judges were 

beyond imperfection, there would be no need for judicial discipline 

procedures. History and human nature teach that the Judiciary must be 

continually vigilant in maintaining the high standards of judicial office. 

When entertaining a complaint about a judge, the Judiciary must apply the 

same qualities of reason, impartiality, and wisdom that epitomize the judicial 

process. The Judiciary cannot tolerate misconduct. The public rightly 

expects the Judiciary to be fair but firm in policing its own. 

Finally, I am resolved to continue Chief Justice Rehnquist’s twentyyear pursuit of equitable salaries for federal judges. Over the past year, 

congressional leaders and a wide range of groups that value a capable and 

independent Judiciary have made progress on this matter. The House 

Judiciary Committee passed a bill by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 28 

6
to five that would help reverse the steady erosion of judicial salaries since 

1969, the benchmark year that Congress has utilized in recent years for 

assessing federal pay levels. The bill would restore judicial pay to the same 

level that judges would have received if Congress had granted them the 

same cost-of-living pay adjustments that other federal employees have 

received since 1989—not a full restoration but a significant one. The Senate 

Judiciary Committee was considering a similar bill when the 2007 Session 

ended. We are grateful for the continuing support of the bipartisan 

leadership in both the House and the Senate, as well as the support of the 

President, on this vital legislation. The legislation reflects a commitment on 

the part of the Legislative and Executive Branches to carry out their 

constitutional responsibilities with respect to the Judicial Branch, and I urge 

prompt passage as a first order of business in the new session. 

The pending legislation strikes a reasonable compromise for the 

dedicated federal judges who, year after year, have discharged their 

important duties for steadily eroding real pay. This salary restoration 

legislation is vital now that the denial of annual increases over the years has 

left federal trial judges—the backbone of our system of justice—earning 

about the same as (and in some cases less than) first-year lawyers at firms in 

major cities, where many of the judges are located. 

7
I do not need to rehearse the compelling arguments in favor of this 

legislation. They have already been made by distinguished jurists, lawyers, 

and economists in congressional hearings, letters, and editorials—and 

seconded by a broad spectrum of commercial, governmental, and public 

interest organizations that appear as litigants before the courts. I simply ask 

once again for a moment’s reflection on how America would look in the 

absence of a skilled and independent Judiciary. Consider the critical role of 

our courts in preserving individual liberty, promoting commerce, protecting 

property, and ensuring that every person who appears in an American court 

can expect fair and impartial justice. The cost of this long overdue 

legislation—less than .004% of the annual federal budget—is miniscule in 

comparison to what is at stake. 

In closing, I thank the judges and court staff throughout the Nation for 

their continued hard work and dedication. I am grateful for the personal 

sacrifices they and their families make every day. As we face the challenges 

of the coming year, I offer this note of encouragement: Remember 

Philadelphia. On a daily basis, you are continuing our Founders’ profound 

commitment to posterity made in that city with the promulgation of our 

Constitution 220 years ago. 

8
Appendix

Workload of the Courts 

The Supreme Court of the United States 

The total number of cases filed in the Supreme Court increased from 

8,521 filings in the 2005 Term to 8,857 filings in the 2006 Term—an 

increase of 4%. The number of cases filed in the Court’s in forma pauperis

docket increased from 6,846 filings in the 2005 Term to 7,132 filings in the 

2006 Term—also a 4% increase. The number of cases filed in the Court’s 

paid docket increased from 1,671 filings in the 2005 Term to 1,723 filings in 

the 2006 Term—a 3% increase. During the 2006 Term, 78 cases were 

argued and 74 were disposed of in 67 signed opinions, compared to 87 cases 

argued and 82 disposed of in 69 signed opinions in the 2005 Term. No cases 

from the 2006 Term were scheduled for reargument in the 2007 Term.

The Federal Courts of Appeals

The number of appeals filed in the regional courts of appeals in fiscal 

year 2007 decreased by 12% to 58,410. All categories of appeals, except 

bankruptcy appeals, fell. The decline of the past two years was the result of 

a reduction in appeals from administrative agency decisions involving the 

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), as well as decreases in criminal 

appeals and federal prisoner petitions brought about by the Supreme Court’s 

9
decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The decline is the 

second successive drop after the record level set in fiscal year 2005. 

Across the nation, the number of criminal appeals dropped by 14% to 

13,167 filings, approaching levels that existed before criminal appeals 

soared in response to the decision in Booker. The number of administrative 

agency appeals fell by 21% to 10,382, because of a reduction in the number 

of cases that the BIA completed in 2006. However, this drop has occurred 

in the context of a BIA caseload that reached a record level in 2005, and had 

expanded more than fourfold between 2001 and 2007. The number of civil 

appeals declined by 5% to 30,241. The overall number of prisoner petitions 

decreased by 8% to 15,472 filings, as filings by state prisoners declined. 

The number of original proceedings fell by 31% to 3,775 filings. This 

decline primarily stemmed from a reduction in filings of second or 

successive motions for permission to seek habeas corpus relief, which fell to 

levels similar to those reached before Booker. 

The Federal District Courts

Civil filings in the U.S. district courts remained relatively stable, 

falling less than 1%, or 2,034 cases, to 257,507. Diversity of citizenship 

filings were chiefly responsible for this small decline as the number of cases 

in this category dropped by 7,751 or 10%. Diversity of citizenship filings 

10
were, in turn, disproportionately affected by a decrease of more than 11,000 

personal injury cases related to asbestos and diet drugs in the Eastern 

District of Pennsylvania. 

Federal question filings grew 3% to 139,424 due to cases arising from 

personal injury, labor law, and contract disputes. The Southern District of 

New York reported an influx of more than 6,500 personal injury filings 

related to the terrorist attacks in New York City on September 11, 2001, and 

the Middle District of Florida had over 6,200 personal injury/product 

liability filings under multidistrict litigation number 1769, which involves 

claims that the antipsychotic drug Seroquel caused diabetes-related injuries. 

Labor law cases grew 13%, largely because of more than 2,400 Fair Labor 

Standards Act cases filed in the Northern District of Alabama. The plaintiffs 

in these cases allege unfair labor practices by a department store in that 

region. 

Filings with the United States as plaintiff or defendant increased 3% 

(up 1,170 cases) to 45,464. Cases with the United States as defendant rose 

2% (up 863 cases), as filings of statutory actions related to consumer credit 

increased 55%. Cases with the United States as plaintiff increased mostly as 

a result of a 12% (up 273 filings) rise in defaulted student loan cases. The 

national median time from filing to disposition for civil cases was 

11
9.6 months, up more than 1 month from 8.3 months in 2006. This increase 

resulted from the disposition of more than 6,300 oil refinery explosion cases 

in the Middle District of Louisiana that have been pending more than three 

years. 

The number of criminal cases filed in 2007 rose by 2% to 68,413 

cases, and defendants in these cases increased 1% to 89,306. The median 

case disposition time for defendants declined slightly from 7.1 months in 

2006 to 7.0 months in 2007, yet this disposition time remains 21 days longer 

than in 2004, an indication of the time that courts have needed to process 

post-Booker cases. 

Property offense cases grew 7% to 12,621, and defendants in such 

cases rose 6% to 16,277. Fraud cases rose 13% to 8,101, and fraud 

defendants climbed 10% to 10,804. Immigration filings increased 2% to 

16,722 cases and 17,948 defendants. The charge of improper reentry by an 

alien accounted for 74% of all immigration cases. Sex offense filings 

jumped 31% to 2,460 cases, and defendants in such cases climbed 30% to 

2,572. The growth in sex offense filings stemmed primarily from filings 

related to sexually explicit materials, and to a lesser degree, from all other 

sex offenses. Traffic offense filings for both cases and defendants jumped 

22% to 4,427 and 4,429, respectively. Drug cases dropped 2% to 17,046, 

12
and defendants charged with drug crimes fell 2% to 29,885. Filings of drug 

cases and defendants declined as filings associated with non-marijuana drugs 

fell. 

The Bankruptcy Courts

Filings in the U.S. bankruptcy courts fell 28% from 1,112,542 in 2006 

to 801,269 in 2007. This is the lowest number of bankruptcy cases filed 

since 1990, and is 55% below the record number of filings in 2005, when 

filings soared as debtors rushed to file before the October 17 implementation 

date of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 

2005. Nonbusiness filings dropped 29%, and business petitions fell 5%. 

Chapter 13 filings rose 14%, while filings under Chapter 7, Chapter 11, and 

Chapter 12 fell 42%, 2%, and 4%, respectively. 

Pretrial Services 

The number of defendants activated in pretrial services, including 

pretrial diversion cases, rose by nearly 2% from 96,479 in 2006 to 97,905 in 

2007. As a result, the number of pretrial services reports prepared by 

Pretrial Services officers increased by 2%. The number of cases opened in 

2007, inclusive of pretrial diversion cases, was less than 1% greater than the 

97,317 opened in 2003. During that same period, the number of persons 

interviewed decreased nearly 4% from 66,824 individuals to 64,099. 

13
Post-Conviction Supervision 

 The number of persons under post-conviction supervision in 2007 

increased by 2% to 116,221 individuals. As of September 30, 2007, the 

number of individuals serving terms of supervised release after their release 

from a correctional institution totaled 89,497 and constituted 77% of all 

persons under post-conviction supervision. During the previous year, 

persons serving terms of supervised release were 75% of all those under 

post-conviction supervision. Persons on parole fell more than 10%, from 

2,876 individuals in 2006 to 2,575 individuals in 2007. Parole cases now 

account for less than 2% of post-conviction cases. Because of a continuing 

decline in the imposition of sentences of probation by both district court 

judges and magistrate judges, the number of persons on probation decreased 

by 5% to 23,974 individuals. That figure represented 21% of all persons 

under post-conviction supervision. Proportionately, the number of 

individuals under post-conviction supervision for a drug related offense 

remained unchanged from a year ago at 44%. 

 From 2003 to 2007, the number of persons under post-conviction 

supervision grew by 5%, an increase of 5,600 individuals. The number of 

persons released from correctional institutions who served terms of 

supervised release increased by 18% over the same time period. 

14