EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE

 January 1, 2007, 12:01 a.m. E.S.T. 

For further information, contact the 

 Public Information Office

 202-479-3211 

2006 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary 

Between December 19 and January 8 there are 32 college bowl 

games–but only one Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary. I once 

asked my predecessor, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, why he released 

this annual report on the state of the federal courts on New Year‘s Day. He 

explained that it was difficult to get people to focus on the needs of the 

judiciary and January 1 was historically a slow news day–a day on which 

the concerns of the courts just might get noticed. 

This is my second annual report on the judiciary, and in it I am going 

to discuss only one issue–in an effort to increase even more the chances 

that people will take notice. That is important because the issue has been 

ignored far too long and has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis 

that threatens to undermine the strength and independence of the federal 

judiciary. 

I am talking about the failure to raise judicial pay. This is usually the 

point at which many will put down the annual report and return to the Rose 

Bowl, but bear with me long enough to consider just three very revealing 

1
charts prepared by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. 

The first shows that, in 1969, federal district judges made 21% more than the 

dean at a top law school and 43% more than its senior law professors. 

Today, federal district judges are paid substantially less than–about half– 

what the deans and senior law professors at top schools are paid. See, e.g., 

Report of the National Commission on the Public Service, URGENT 

BUSINESS FOR AMERICA: REVITALIZING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE 

21ST CENTURY 22-23 (January 2003) (the Volcker Commission Report). (We 

do not even talk about comparisons with the practicing bar anymore. 

Beginning lawyers fresh out of law school in some cities will earn more in 

their first year than the most experienced federal district judges before 

whom those lawyers hope to practice some day.) 

2
The next chart shows how federal judges have fared compared not to 

those in the legal profession, but to U.S. workers in general. Adjusted for 

inflation, the average U.S. worker‘s wages have risen 17.8% in real terms 

since 1969. Federal judicial pay has declined 23.9%–creating a 41.7% gap. 

Some of you may be thinking–—So what? We are still able to find 

lawyers who want to be judges.“ But look at the next and last chart. An 

important change is taking place in where judges come from–particularly 

trial judges. In the Eisenhower Administration, roughly 65% came from the 

practicing bar, with 35% from the public sector. Today the numbers are 

about reversed–roughly 60% from the public sector, less than 40% from 

private practice. It changes the nature of the federal judiciary when judges 

3
are no longer drawn primarily from among the best lawyers in the practicing 

bar. 

This is not the first time this issue has been raised in one of these 

annual reports. Twenty years ago Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist 

submitted his first year-end report. He specifically focused on the 

inadequacy of judicial compensation. He pointed out that Congress had 

failed, over a period of nearly two decades, to provide judges with salaries 

commensurate with increases in the cost of living and the importance of 

their responsibilities. Chief Justice Rehnquist emphasized that, because a 

capable and qualified federal judiciary is essential to the proper functioning 

of our system of government, judicial compensation is critically important to 

the country as a whole. Congress responded to these arguments through the 

4
Ethics Reform Act of 1989, Pub. L. No. 101-94, 103 Stat. 1716 (1989), 

which provided for a phased-in adjustment that helped to make up for the 

previous years of salary erosion. However, the mechanisms set up in that 

Act to prevent future salary erosion have failed, and judicial salaries have 

continued to fall further and further behind the cost of living. 

In the face of continuing congressional inaction to fix these problems, 

the late Chief returned to this subject again and again in his year-end reports. 

Sixteen years later, Congress has still not enacted a salary increase, 

providing instead only occasional and modest cost-of-living adjustments. A 

bad situation once again has reached the level of a crisis. 

As Chief Justice Rehnquist observed, federal judges willingly make a 

number of sacrifices as a part of judicial life. They accept difficult work, 

public criticism, even threats to personal safety. Federal judges, who have 

historically been leaders of the bar before joining the bench, do not expect to 

receive salaries commensurate with what they could easily earn in private 

practice. They can rightly expect, however, to be treated more fairly than 

they have been. Judges, who have the obligation to make decisions without 

regard to public favor and who must frequently make unpopular decisions, 

have no constituency in Congress to voice their concerns. They must rely on 

fact, equity, and reason to speak on their behalf. Those considerations make 

5
clear that the time is ripe for our Nation‘s judges to receive a substantial 

salary increase. 

Congressional inaction in the face of this situation is grievously 

unfair. Since Chief Justice Rehnquist first called for a pay raise twenty years 

ago, the decline in real compensation has continued. Judges who willingly 

make substantial sacrifices in support of public service are being asked to 

bear unreasonable burdens. In the face of decades of congressional inaction, 

many judges who must attend to their families and futures have no realistic 

choice except to retire from judicial service and return to private practice. 

The numbers are sobering. In the past six years, 38 judges have left the 

federal bench, including 17 in the last two years. If judicial appointment 

ceases to be the capstone of a distinguished career and instead becomes a 

stepping stone to a lucrative position in private practice, the Framers‘ goal of 

a truly independent judiciary will be placed in serious jeopardy. 

Inadequate compensation directly threatens the viability of life tenure, 

and if tenure in office is made uncertain, the strength and independence 

judges need to uphold the rule of law–even when it is unpopular to do so– 

will be seriously eroded. And as Alexander Hamilton explained, —[t]he 

independence of the judges once destroyed, the constitution is gone, it is a 

dead letter; it is a vapor which the breath of faction in a moment may 

6
dissipate.“ Commercial Advertiser (Feb. 26, 1802) (reprinted in The Papers 

of Alexander Hamilton, Volume XXV 525 (Columbia University Press 

1977). 

The American people and their government have a profound stake in 

the quality of the judiciary. The dramatic erosion of judicial compensation 

will inevitably result in a decline in the quality of persons willing to accept a 

lifetime appointment as a federal judge. Our judiciary will not properly 

serve its constitutional role if it is restricted to (1) persons so wealthy that 

they can afford to be indifferent to the level of judicial compensation, or 

(2) people for whom the judicial salary represents a pay increase. Do not get 

me wrong–there are very good judges in both of those categories. But a 

judiciary drawn more and more from only those categories would not be the 

sort of judiciary on which we have historically depended to protect the rule 

of law in this country. 

We are at the point where reason commands action. The National 

Commission on the Public Service described judicial pay as —the most 

egregious example of the failure of federal compensation policies“ and 

unambiguously recommended, four years ago, that Congress enact —an 

immediate and substantial increase in judicial salaries.“ Volcker 

Commission Report 22. The budgetary cost of that action is miniscule in 

7
proportion to its value in preserving the strong and independent judiciary 

that is vital to our constitutional structure. No doubt a judicial salary 

increase would be unpopular in some quarters, but Congress–like the 

courts–must sometimes make decisions that are unpopular in the short term 

to promote a greater long-term good. Congress has a constitutional 

responsibility to do so. 

I raised the issue of judicial compensation in my first year-end report. 

Much of what I say in this report is not new. Nevertheless, I have no choice 

but to highlight this issue because without fair judicial compensation we 

cannot preserve the quality and independence of our judiciary, which is the 

model for the world. 

As we enter the new year, the federal judiciary remains strong, but it 

needs the support of the coordinate branches if it is to maintain the strength 

and independence it must have to fulfill its constitutional role. That is the 

challenge for the coming year. 

I thank the judges and court staff throughout the country for their 

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

sacrifices they and their families make every day. As Robert Frost reminded 

us —from the heart,“ we work as one, whether —together or apart.“ I extend 

to all best wishes for a Happy New Year. 

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 

7,496 filings in the 2004 Term to 8,521 filings in the 2005 Term–an 

increase of 13.7%. The number of cases filed in the Court‘s in forma 

pauperis docket increased from 5,755 filings in the 2004 Term to 6,846 

filings in the 2005 Term–a 19% increase. The number of cases filed in the 

Court‘s paid docket decreased from 1,741 filings in the 2004 Term to 1,671 

filings in the 2005 Term–a 4% decline. During the 2005 Term, 87 cases 

were argued and 82 were disposed of in 69 signed opinions, compared to 87 

cases argued and 85 disposed of in 74 signed opinions in the 2004 Term. No 

cases from the 2005 Term were scheduled for reargument in the 2006 Term. 

The Federal Courts of Appeals 

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

year 2006 declined by 3% from the record level set in fiscal year 2005. The 

courts of appeals received 66,618 filings. All categories of appeals, except 

original proceedings, declined. Before 2006, the number of appellate filings 

had declined only twice since 1959. The past year‘s decline stemmed from 

decreases in criminal appeals and federal prisoner petitions following the 

9
filing deadline for cases affected by the Supreme Court‘s decision in United 

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), as well as a reduction in appeals from 

administrative agency decisions involving the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA). 

Nationwide, the number of criminal appeals dropped by 5% to 15,246 

filings, after rising by 28% in 2005 in response to the Booker decision. 

Despite that decline, the number of criminal appeals in 2006 surpassed by 

more than 25% the number of filings in the years before the Court‘s decision 

in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). The number of 

administrative agency appeals fell by 4% to 13,102 because of a reduction in 

the number of cases that the BIA completed in 2005. Since 2002, the 

number of BIA appeals has soared by 168%. The number of civil appeals 

declined by 3% to 31,991 as the statute of limitations expired for the filing 

of Booker-related habeas corpus petitions. The number of prisoner petitions 

filed by state prisoners rose by 3% to 11,129 filings. The number of original 

proceedings climbed by 9% to 5,458 filings, as prisoners continued to file 

second or successive motions seeking permission to file habeas corpus 

petitions. The courts of appeals continue to receive petitions from the 

backlog of state prisoners affected by the Blakely decision, who must 

exhaust their state court remedies before seeking relief in federal court. 

10
Despite the year‘s overall decline, the total number of appeals increased by 

16%, or 9,063 filings, from 2002 to 2006. 

The Federal District Courts 

Over the past five years, the number of civil cases filed in the United 

States district courts has fallen by 6%, or 15,300 cases. The decline has 

occurred primarily in cases involving civil rights, personal injury, and Social 

Security claims. 

Nevertheless, the number of civil cases filed in 2006 increased by 2% 

to a total of 259,541 cases. That growth occurred primarily because of a 

sharp jump in asbestos-related diversity cases in the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania. Excluding those filings, civil cases declined by 4% from 

2005 to 2006, as federal question cases involving prisoner petitions and civil 

rights dropped significantly. The national median time from filing of a civil 

case to its disposition was 8.3 months, which reflected a decline from the 

9.5-month median period in 2005. 

The increase in asbestos-related diversity cases in the Eastern District 

of Pennsylvania resulted in a 29% increase in the national figure for 

diversity of citizenship cases, totaling 18,179 cases. Cases in which the 

United States was a plaintiff or defendant declined by 15% to 44,294 cases, 

while those in which the United States was a defendant fell by 17%. The 

11
latter number declined because federal prisoner petitions decreased by 33% 

(down by 5,978 cases) as filings returned to levels consistent with the 

number of petitions filed before the Supreme Court‘s decision in Booker. 

The number of criminal cases filed in 2006 decreased by 4% to 

66,860 cases and 88,216 defendants. The decline stemmed from shifts in 

priorities of the United States Department of Justice, which directed more of 

its resources toward combating terrorism. The number of criminal cases 

filed in 2006 is similar to the number of cases filed in 2002, when criminal 

case filings jumped by 7% following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 

2001. Although the number of criminal case filings declined in 2006, the 

median time for case disposition for defendants climbed from 6.8 months in 

2005 to 7.1 months in 2006. The median time period, which was 27 days 

longer than in 2004, reflected an increase in the time that courts needed to 

process post-Booker cases. 

The number of drug-related criminal cases decreased by 4% to 17,429 

filings. The number of defendants charged with drug crimes fell by 6% to 

30,567 individuals. The number of immigration-related criminal cases, 

which rose to record levels in 2005, declined by 5% to 16,353 cases. The 

number of defendants charged in those cases decreased by 4% to 17,651 

individuals. Most of the decline in immigration-related criminal cases is 

12
attributable to a decline in cases charging offenses involving improper firsttime entry. Sex-related criminal cases climbed by 6% to 1,885 filings, and 

the number of defendants charged in those cases increased by 8% to 1,975 

individuals. Criminal cases involving firearms and explosives cases 

declined by 6% to 8,678 filings, and the number of defendants charged in 

those cases dropped 5% to 9,800 individuals. For the second consecutive 

year, the number of criminal cases declined. The number of cases had risen 

in nine of the previous ten years. 

The Bankruptcy Courts 

The number of filings in the United States bankruptcy courts fell from 

1,782,643 cases in 2005 to 1,112,542 cases in 2006. The past year‘s 

number, which reflects the lowest number of bankruptcy cases filed since 

1996, was 38% below the record number in 2005, when filings soared as 

debtors rushed to file before the October 17, 2005, implementation date of 

the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. 

The 2005 surge in filings accelerated until the implementation date, and 

more than half of the total 2006 filings occurred in the first month of the 

fiscal year. Non-business filings dropped by 38%, and business petitions fell 

by 20%. Chapter 7 and chapter 13 filings declined by 38% and 36%, 

13
respectively, and chapter 11 filings dropped by 10%. Chapter 12 filings rose 

by 3%, reflecting 12 more filings than the previous year. 

Pretrial Services 

The number of defendants activated in pretrial services, including 

pretrial diversion cases, dropped by nearly 3% from 99,365 cases in 2005 to 

96,479 cases in 2006. As a result, the number of pretrial services reports 

prepared by Pretrial Services officers declined by more than 2%. The 

number of cases opened in 2006, including pretrial diversion cases, was 

nearly 6% greater than the 91,314 cases opened in 2002. During that same 

period, the number of persons interviewed grew by 1% from 63,528 to 

64,018 individuals. 

Post-Conviction Supervision 

The number of persons under post-conviction supervision in 2006 

increased by less than 1% to 114,002 individuals. As of September 30, 

2006, the number of persons serving terms of supervised release after their 

release from a correctional institution totaled 85,729 individuals. That 

number constituted 75% of all persons under post-conviction supervision, 

compared to 73% in the previous year. Persons on parole declined by nearly 

10% from 3,183 individuals in 2005 to 2,876 individuals in 2006. The 

parole cases accounted for less than 3% of post-conviction cases. Because 

14
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 25,178 individuals. That figure represented 

22% 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 2002 to 2006, the number of persons under post-conviction 

supervision grew by 5%, an increase of 5,210 individuals. The number of 

persons released from correctional institutions who served terms of 

supervised release increased by 17% over the same time period. 

15