EMBARGOED until 6 p.m. E.S.T. 

 December 31, 2008 (No wires, no 

 broadcasts, no internet until

 6 p.m. E.S.T.) 

For further information, contact the 

 Public Information Office

 202-479-3211 

2008 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary 

This past November, the Smithsonian Institution completed an 

acclaimed renovation of its National Museum of American History, which 

houses many of our Nation’s most treasured historical artifacts. The 

highlight for many visitors is the Star-Spangled Banner Gallery, which 

provides a permanent home for the garrison flag that flew over Fort 

McHenry on the morning of September 14, 1814. The appearance of the 

flag at dawn marked the success of American soldiers in repulsing a British 

attack during the War of 1812 and inspired Francis Scott Key to compose 

the song that has become our national anthem. 

The Smithsonian Institution has painstakingly preserved this fragile 

flag. It lies solemnly unfurled behind a glass wall in a darkened 

conservation chamber. The flag bears scars from the pitched battle, but it 

also shows blemishes, regrettably, from later neglect. The stripes are frayed, 

the canton is worn, and one of its fifteen stars has gone missing. Souvenir 

collectors during the nineteenth century snipped away fabric from its edges. 
This tattered flag nevertheless inspires deep reverence. Why? Because it 

speaks eloquently to the sacrifices of every American who has contributed to 

the preservation of the United States. 

Our country wisely preserves and maintains its national symbols. As 

citizens, we should strive with no less determination and vigor to preserve 

and maintain what our flag signifies and our anthem celebrates. The 

Constitution that secures the freedoms we hold dear endures not only 

because it enables self-government, but also because individuals come 

forward to participate in the function of governing, through voting and jury 

duty, through military and civilian service, and through elected and 

appointed office. A great government depends on all its citizens to 

contribute their talents and ideals in response to their Nation’s call. 

The Judiciary depends on such people, who have made American 

courts the envy of the world and the model for new democracies. As I have 

previously pointed out, however, widespread esteem is no reason for 

complacency. In last year’s report, I identified my goals of strengthening 

the Judiciary by promoting greater inter-Branch cooperation, maintaining 

high standards of judicial conduct, and restoring fair compensation for 

federal judges. This year, as the Nation faces severe economic strains, I 

2
would like to note briefly what the dedicated men and women in the 

Judiciary are doing to control the costs of administering justice. 

The Judiciary, including the Supreme Court, other federal courts, the 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and the Federal Judicial 

Center, received a total appropriation in fiscal year 2008 of $6.2 billion. 

That represents a mere two-tenths of 1% of the United States’ total 

$3 trillion budget. Two-tenths of 1%! That is all we ask for one of the three 

branches of government—the one charged “to guard the Constitution and the 

rights of individuals.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78. 

Despite the miniscule amount the Judiciary adds to the cost of 

government, the courts have undertaken rigorous cost containment efforts, a 

process begun four years ago, long before the current economic crisis. In 

September 2004, the Judicial Conference—the judges who set policy for the 

Judiciary—endorsed a cost-containment strategy that called for examining 

more than fifty discrete operations for potential cost savings. My 

predecessor, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, was well known for 

insisting that the courts operate efficiently. The Judiciary nevertheless has 

found new ways to achieve significant savings in three general areas: rent, 

personnel, and information technology. 

3
The Judiciary has initiated a program to contain rent costs, which 

accounted for about 19% of our 2004 budget. We first identified and 

eliminated rental overcharges through an extensive audit of rent 

expenditures. We then adopted growth caps, which will result in space 

limitations for judicial personnel—including judges—and deferring new 

construction. Those efforts have produced significant savings. In 2004, the 

Judiciary estimated that it would devote $1.2 billion of its 2009 budget to 

rent. The Judiciary now estimates its rent requirement will be $1.0 billion, a 

17% reduction. 

We have also examined ways to control the growth of personnel costs, 

which accounted for 57% of the Judiciary’s 2004 budget. The majority of 

the Judiciary’s personnel budget—nearly 90%—is for support staff, 

including clerks, secretaries, and administrative personnel. The Judiciary 

has revised the way it sets salaries for court employees to ensure that 

compensation is not out of line with employee responsibilities, job skills, 

and performance. The courts are continuously looking for other ways to do 

more with less. For example, judges now employ not more than one career 

law clerk to assist them with legal research and associated duties, where in 

the past many judges employed two or even more. Judges instead are 

making greater use of less experienced “term” law clerks who can provide 

4
useful service for one or two years at a lower cost. As additional measures, 

the Administrative Office and the Federal Judicial Center instituted selfimposed hiring freezes, trimmed budget requests, and voluntarily declined to 

fill vacant positions to reduce expenses. In aggregate, those measures 

should save as much as $300 million from 2009 through 2017. 

The Judiciary is steeped in history, but not tied to the past: We have 

increased efficiency through the use of information technology, which 

accounted for 5% of the Judiciary’s 2004 budget. The courts now routinely 

use computers to maintain court dockets, manage finances, and administer 

employee compensation and benefits programs. The Judiciary has achieved 

significant savings through more cost-effective approaches in deploying 

those systems. For example, the courts have found that they can employ 

new technology in tandem with improvements in their national data 

communications network to consolidate local servers and other information 

technology infrastructure. The Judiciary’s consolidation of its jury 

management program resulted in a savings of $2.0 million in the first year 

and an expected annual savings of $4.8 million through 2012. A similar 

consolidation of the probation case management system is projected to save 

$2.6 million over the same period. The Judiciary is currently undertaking a 

consolidation of technology in its national accounting system, which is 

5
expected to achieve savings and cost avoidances totaling $55.4 million 

through 2012. Those at the Office of Management and Budget or the 

Congressional Budget Office may not be impressed by these numbers, but 

don’t forget: The entire Judicial Branch accounts for only 0.2% of the 

Nation’s budget. For us, these are real savings. 

The Supreme Court itself has worked hard to contain costs, holding 

back on requests for new funding until absolutely necessary. For 2009, the 

Court submitted a budget that called for no new spending and requested only 

the standard, government-wide inflationary adjustments to its budget. The 

Court’s personnel have kept an eagle eye on expenditures for an ongoing 

building renovation—the first since the building was completed in 1935—to 

update and repair antiquated systems and improve security. That renovation, 

now expected to be completed in 2010, has fallen behind schedule. That 

apparently is not unusual in Washington. But this project remains on budget 

despite those setbacks—a welcome departure from the Washington norm. 

As all these efforts illustrate, the Judiciary is committed to spending 

its tiny share of the federal budget responsibly and will continue to make 

sacrifices to contain the costs of administering justice. We have worked 

amicably with our appropriators in Congress to achieve these results. But 

the courts cannot preserve their vitality simply by following a non-fat 

6
regimen. The Judiciary must also continue to attract judges who are the best 

of the best. 

During these times, when the Nation faces pressing economic 

problems, resulting in business failures, home foreclosures, and bankruptcy, 

and when Congress is called upon to enact novel legislation to address those 

challenges, the courts are a source of strength. They guarantee that those 

who seek justice have access to a fair forum where all enter as equals and 

disputes are resolved impartially under the rule of law. 

The courts decide issues of momentous importance to the litigants and 

to a broader community of persons affected by the outcomes of precedentsetting decisions. The legal issues in today’s global, technology-driven 

economy are increasingly complex, and judges must respond with wisdom 

and skill acquired from study, reflection, and experience. If the Nation 

wants to preserve the quality of American justice, the government must 

attract and retain the finest legal minds, including accomplished lawyers 

who are already in high demand, to join the bench as a lifelong calling. 

I suspect many are tired of hearing it, and I know I am tired of saying 

it, but I must make this plea again—Congress must provide judicial 

compensation that keeps pace with inflation. Judges knew what the pay was 

when they answered the call of public service. But they did not know that 

7
Congress would steadily erode that pay in real terms by repeatedly failing 

over the years to provide even cost-of-living increases. Last year, Congress 

fell just short of enacting legislation, reported out of both House and Senate 

Committees on the Judiciary, that would have restored cost-of-living salary 

adjustments that judges have been denied in past years. One year later, 

Congress has still failed to complete action on that crucial remedial 

legislation, despite strong bipartisan support and an aggregate cost that is 

miniscule in relation to the national budget and the importance of the 

Judiciary’s role. To make a bad situation worse, Congress failed, once 

again, to provide federal judges an annual cost-of-living increase this year, 

even though it provided one to every other federal employee, including 

every Member of Congress. Congress’s inaction this year vividly illustrates 

why judges’ salaries have declined in real terms over the past twenty years. 

Our Judiciary remains strong, even in the face of Congress’s inaction, 

because of the willingness of those in public service to make sacrifices for 

the greater good. The Judiciary is resilient and can weather the occasional 

neglect that is often the fate of those who quietly do their work. But the 

Judiciary’s needs cannot be postponed indefinitely without damaging its 

fabric. Given the Judiciary’s small cost, and its absolutely critical role in 

protecting the Constitution and rights we enjoy, I must renew the Judiciary’s 

8
modest petition: Simply provide cost-of-living increases that have been 

unfairly denied! We have done our part—it is long past time for Congress to 

do its. 

I am privileged and honored to be in a position to thank the judges and 

court staff throughout the land for their continued hard work and dedication. 

When our Nation’s flag is proudly raised above courthouse plazas across the 

country each morning, these men and women once again take up the 

responsibility of preserving the rule of law. They can claim common cause 

with others in civilian and military service who, like the patriots at Fort 

McHenry, are guardians of liberty. 

Best wishes for the New Year. 

9
Appendix 

Workload of the Courts 

The Supreme Court of the United States 

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

8,857 filings in the 2006 Term to 8,241 filings in the 2007 Term—a decrease 

of 7%. The number of cases filed in the Court’s in forma pauperis docket 

decreased from 7,132 filings in the 2006 Term to 6,627 filings in the 2007 

Term—also a 7% decrease. The number of cases filed in the Court’s paid 

docket decreased from 1,723 filings in the 2006 Term to 1,614 filings in the 

2007 Term—a 6% decrease. During the 2007 Term, 75 cases were argued 

and 72 were disposed of in 67 signed opinions, compared to 78 cases argued 

and 74 disposed of in 67 signed opinions in the 2006 Term. No cases from 

the 2007 Term were scheduled for reargument in the 2008 Term. 

The Federal Courts of Appeals 

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

year 2008 rose by 5% to 61,104 filings. All categories of appeals increased 

except bankruptcy appeals. After declining for two consecutive years, 

administrative agency appeals grew by 12% to 11,583 filings, primarily 

because challenges to the Board of Immigration Appeals decisions climbed 

by 13% to 10,280 petitions for review. 

10
Criminal appeals rose by 4% to 13,667 filings. That increase stems 

from sentencing appeals in non-marijuana drug cases. On November 1, 

2007, the United States Sentencing Commission issued an amendment to its 

sentencing guidelines that reduced the penalties for most crack cocaine 

offenses and prompted numerous appeals. Civil appeals also increased by 

4% to 31,454 filings. Prisoner petitions rose by 9% to 16,853 filings. 

Overall, non-prisoner civil appeals dropped by 1% to 14,601 filings. Both 

state and federal appeals in that category declined. Bankruptcy appeals fell 

by 9% to 773 filings. The number of original proceedings in the appeals 

courts decreased by 4% to 3,627 filings. 

The Federal District Courts 

Civil filings in the U.S. district courts increased by 4%, rising from 

257,507 cases to 267,257 cases. Diversity of citizenship filings grew by 

22%. Excluding the diversity filings, the number of civil cases decreased by 

3% during fiscal year 2008. That decline reflects a reduction in federal 

question cases involving personal injury, as well as cases involving labor 

laws, protected property rights, and contracts. 

The rise in diversity of citizenship filings, reflecting an increase of 

15,838 cases, resulted primarily from the near doubling of personal injury 

11
cases related to asbestos and diet drugs in the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania. 

Federal question case filings dropped by 3% to 134,582 cases. 

Personal injury filings declined by 46% (down by more than 5,200 cases) 

primarily as a result of large decreases in filings in the Southern District of 

New York and the Northern District of Alabama. The Southern District of 

New York, which in 2007 had reported a surge of more than 6,500 personal 

injury filings related to the terrorist attacks in New York City on 

September 11, 2001, had 3,900 fewer personal injury filings this year. 

Labor law cases fell by 10%, down by more than 1,800 cases. The Northern 

District of Alabama, which had received more than 2,400 filings under the 

Fair Labor Standards Act in 2007, had 2,300 fewer of those cases in 2008. 

Copyright cases declined by 27%, down by 1,166 cases nationally. 

Filings that involved the United States as plaintiff or defendant fell by 

3% to 44,164 cases, a decline of 1,300 cases. The number of cases in which 

the United States was a defendant dropped by 4%, down by 1,385 cases, as 

filings of federal habeas corpus prisoner petitions decreased by 8%. The 

number of cases in which the United States was a plaintiff remained 

relatively stable. That number rose by less than 1%, as a result of a 10% 

increase in defaulted student loan cases. 

12
The number of criminal cases filed in 2008 rose by 4% to 70,896 

cases, and the number of defendants in those cases increased by 3% to 

92,355 defendants. The median case disposition time for defendants 

declined slightly from 7.0 months in 2007 to 6.8 months in 2008, as the 

proportion of defendants convicted of immigration law violations, which 

typically have shorter processing times than other crimes, rose in the overall 

criminal caseload. 

Immigration criminal case filings jumped by 27% to 21,313 cases, and 

the number of defendants in those cases rose by 26% to 22,685 defendants. 

That growth in immigration cases resulted mostly from filings addressing 

improper reentry by aliens and filings involving fraud and misuse of visa or 

entry permits in the five southwestern border districts. Sex offense case 

filings grew by 9% to 2,674 cases, and the number of defendants in those 

cases climbed by 7% to 2,760 defendants. The increase in sex offense 

filings stemmed from cases involving sexually explicit material and sex 

offender registration. The number of drug cases dropped by 7% to 15,784 

cases, and the number of defendants charged with drug crimes fell by 3% to 

28,932 cases. Those reductions occurred when investigative agencies 

shifted their focus from drugs to terrorism and sex offenses. 

13
The Bankruptcy Courts 

Filings in the United States bankruptcy courts rose by 30% from 

801,269 cases in 2007 to 1,042,993 cases in 2008. The increase in 

bankruptcy filings in 2008 is nearly equal to the decline in bankruptcy 

filings that occurred in 2007, the first fiscal year in which all 12 months of 

filings occurred after the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer 

Protection Act of 2005. The bankruptcy courts received 1,112,542 filings in 

2006, which encompassed the last weeks before the effective date of the 

Act—October 17, 2005. The number of bankruptcy filings in 2008 was 6% 

below that figure. Between 2007 and 2008, non-business filings, which 

accounted for 96% of all filings, rose by 30%, and business filings increased 

by 49%. Chapter 7 filings increased by 40%, Chapter 11 filings by 49%, 

and Chapter 13 filings by 14%, while Chapter 12 filings fell by 8% in 2008. 

Pretrial Services 

Both the number of defendants activated in pretrial services, including 

pretrial diversion cases, and the number of pretrial services reports prepared 

by Pretrial Services officers increased by 2% in 2008. The number for 

defendants activated increased from 96,259 persons to 98,244 persons. 

14
Post-Conviction Supervision 

In 2008, the number of persons under post-conviction supervision 

continued to increase, this year by 4% to 120,676 individuals. As of 

September 30, 2008, 95,159 individuals were serving terms of supervised 

release after serving terms of imprisonment at a correctional institution, 

representing 79% of all persons under post-conviction supervision. In 

comparison, during 2007, the number of persons serving terms of supervised 

release represented 77% of all those under post-conviction supervision. 

Persons on parole declined almost by 8%, from 2,575 individuals in 2007 to 

2,378 individuals in 2008. Parole now accounts for less than 2% of postconviction cases. Both district judges and magistrate judges are imposing 

fewer sentences of probation, and the number of persons on probation 

decreased by 994 to 22,980. That number represented 19% of all persons 

under post-conviction supervision. Approximately 46% of the persons 

under post-conviction supervision are being supervised on account of a 

drug-related offense. 

15