U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

48–828 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 109–1063 

CREATING NEW FEDERAL JUDGESHIPS: THE 

SYSTEMATIC OR PIECEMEAL APPROACH 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT 

AND THE COURTS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 16, 2005 

Serial No. J–109–53 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

DAVID BROG, Staff Director 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT AND THE COURTS

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama, Chairman 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

WILLIAM SMITH, Majority Chief Counsel 

PREET BHARARA, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 154 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama .......................... 1 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 158 

WITNESSES 

Furgeson, W. Royal, Jr., District Judge for the Western District of Texas, 

and Chairman, Committee on Judicial Resources, Judicial Conference of 

the United States, San Antonio, Texas .............................................................. 5 

Galanter, Marc, Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin .................................................................................................................... 10 

Spalter, Robyn, President, Federal Bar Association, Miami, Florida ................. 9 

Steele, William H., District Judge for the Southern District of Alabam, Mobile, Alabama ........................................................................................................ 7 

QUESTIONS 

Questions to Judge Furgeson submitted by Senator Schumer ............................ 29 

Questions to Marc Galanter submitted by Senator Schumer .............................. 30 

Questions to Robyn Spalter submitted by Senator Schumer ............................... 29 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Furgeson, W. Royal, Jr., District Judge for the Western District of Texas, 

and Chairman, Committee on Judicial Resources, Judicial Conference of 

the United States, San Antonio, Texas, prepared statement ........................... 31 

Galanter, Marc, Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, prepared statement and attachment ..................................................... 40 

Hagel, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 156 

Spalter, Robyn, President, Federal Bar Association, Miami, Florida, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 159 

Steele, William H., District Judge for the Southern District of Alabama, 

Mobile, Alabama, prepared statement ............................................................... 166 

(1) 

CREATING NEW FEDERAL JUDGESHIPS: THE 

SYSTEMATIC OR PIECEMEAL APPROACH 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2005 

UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT AND THE

COURTS, OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Sessions, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Sessions and Schumer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Chairman SESSIONS. The Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts will come to order. I am pleased to convene 

this hearing to evaluate the process of creating new judgeships in 

the Federal judiciary, and specifically whether we should take a 

systematic or piecemeal approach to the process. 

Senator Schumer expected to be with us, but he is caught in the 

Capitol now and I am not sure whether he will be able to get back. 

A further complication is that commencing about now we will have 

three stacked votes, which unfortunately will mean probably about 

a 45-minute interruption. I thought what I would do is make my 

opening statement now and maybe introduce our guests and then 

probably at that time we would take our break and have to return. 

I am sorry, but we are reaching the end of the session. There are 

a lot of important votes going on and there is just no way to avoid 

that at this time. 

This Committee has not for some time addressed the expansion 

of the Federal judiciary and how we should proceed with it. So I 

am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses, all of whom 

have given generously of their time and dedicated a lot of personal 

hours to developing their well-researched opinions on the topics before us today. 

A question might be why are we having this hearing. Well, the 

Constitution mandates that Congress oversee the administration of 

the judicial branch and create such inferior courts, quote, ‘‘as the 

Congress from time to time may ordain or establish.’’ Using this 

constitutional provision as a premise, the first U.S. Congress 

passed the Judiciary Act of 1789 which established the Federal judiciary. It made no provision for the composition or procedure for 

the courts and left that for Congress. 

2 

The Act continues to be the mechanism from which Congress derives its authority to determine the proper size of the Federal judiciary and the optimum number of judges for the lower courts. 

When we strike the appropriate balance, we ensure the proper administration of justice and guarantee that all Americans have access to an efficient, fair judiciary, in accordance with our constitutional heritage. It is with this duty in mind that we convene today’s 

hearing. 

If a particular court’s caseload becomes too heavy, it may be necessary for Congress to approve additional judgeships. Should this 

be our initial response, or should we first examine how judges are 

using the resources provided them and whether such use is effective? Overall, we know that increases are normal and natural in 

the evolution of judicial organization. So this hearing is not one 

condemning the use of increased judgeships as a tool, but one that 

knows they are not always the answer. 

Congress recognized the need to create new judgeships when it 

authorized the creation of new Federal judgeships in the 2002 Department of Justice appropriation. Section 312 of that Act authorized eight new permanent district court judgeships and seven new 

temporary district court judgeships. We have not seen an increase 

in circuit judgeships for almost 15 years. The most recent addition 

occurred in 1990, and prior to that seats had not been added since 

1984. Both the Eleventh Circuit and the Federal Circuit have seen 

no increase in seats since their respective creations in 1980 and 

1982. 

I would note that we have had chief judges from a number of the 

circuits tell us they don’t want new judgeships; that they believe 

that the 10, 12, 13, 15 judges they have allows for the collegiality 

that they desire and they prefer to carry a heavy caseload rather 

than add appellate judges. 

As of October 4, 2005, there were 49 vacancies in the Federal judiciary, which includes the U.S. Court of Appeals, district courts 

and the Court of International Trade. Currently, there are 19 

nominees pending and 3 pending for future vacancies. These vacancies constitute 5.6 percent of the 875—871, according to DOJ—authorized judgeships in the Federal judiciary, and there are 15 future vacancies slated to open up. There is a distinct possibility that 

if we fill these vacancies expeditiously, the perceived need for new 

judges would be reduced. 

I would just note that I believe this Subcommittee and the full 

Judiciary Committee need to be more affirmative in our evaluation 

of the Federal judiciary. We tend to have someone from a certain 

State, a Senator, believe that they have a crisis and they want a 

judge and they add one to some bill that is moving through the legislature. We had one bill recently that had one new judgeship 

added. When it finally passed the Senate, ten new judgeships had 

been attached to it in nine different States, and I am not sure those 

were consistent with the recommendations of the AOC in terms of 

priority and need. 

So I think it is important for our Committee to do our homework, 

to be able to tell our fellow Senators that if you think you need a 

nominee, a new judgeship, we are working on that, we are evaluating it, and we have a fair and effective way to determine how 

3 

many judges are needed and we have got a priority list for that, 

and try to do it in a way that is most professional and effective. 

According to the Administrative Office of United States Courts, 

in 2004 there were 60,505 cases filed in the United States courts 

of appeals, a 9.4-percent increase since 2000. Additionally, in the 

U.S. district courts there were 255,851 cases, a 2.6-percent decrease from 2000. Those were civil cases, and there were 70,746 

cases filed, a 15-percent increase from 2000. So we have had an increase in criminal cases since 2000 and an actual decrease in civil 

filings since the year 2000. 

Though Congress is the only body constitutionally authorized to 

create judgeships, it is the Judicial Conference, headed by the 

Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, that makes recommendations as to how many are needed. The Judicial Conference reviews needs biennially via a formal survey process. The 

most recent review was completed in March 2005 and it recommended the creation of 12 courts of appeals judgeships and 56 

district court judgeships. 

In making the recommendations, the Conference uses a formal 

survey process which involves six levels of review within the judiciary before it is transmitted to Congress. Those levels include judges 

of the court making the request—if judges indicate on the survey 

that additional seats are needed, the Judicial Conference will initiate a review to analyze all relevant factors—initial review of the 

survey results by the Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics of the 

Committee on Judicial Resources, reviewed by the judicial council 

of the circuit in which the court is located, and a second and final 

review by the subcommittee. The Subcommittee on Judicial Resources conducts a final review and passes recommendations on to 

the full committee. The whole Judicial Conference will review the 

recommendations before they are made to Congress. That is a pretty thorough review. 

I suspect some of the requests for judges may be because there 

is a fear that we might get them this year, but if we don’t ask for 

them this year, there might be some bad years in the years to come 

and we may not get them when we really do need them. But, regardless, it is a fairly rigorous process, I think, the courts go 

through to make those recommendations. 

According to the Administrative Office, the cost for creating each 

circuit court judgeship is approximately $927,000 for the first year, 

with recurring costs averaging $818,000. They don’t get paid that 

much, but there is a lot of cost in creating a circuit judgeship, as 

there is with a district judgeship. A district judgeship equates 

roughly to $1 million for the first year, with recurring costs of 

$886,000. I would like to know why the district is more expensive, 

but we will maybe ask that. So it is a serious responsibility for us 

not to propose more judgeships than are needed because the taxpayers expect us to get the maximum result for the dollars. 

Between October 1995 and December 1998, my colleague, Senator Grassley, held a series of hearings addressing the needs of circuit judges for each circuit. During those hearings, we saw little 

consensus regarding the actual need for judges and whether the 

current statistical formulation utilized by the Conference is an acVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:43 May 05, 2009 Jkt 048828 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\48828.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
4 

curate means for calculating the appropriate number of judges for 

Federal courts. 

In order to determine the caseload, the Conference assigns a 

weight to each type of case. Weighted filing statistics account for 

the different amounts of time district judges require in order to resolve the various types of civil and criminal actions. Though the 

Federal Judicial Center updated the case weights in 2004 on a national basis, weighted filings did not change significantly after 

their implementation. 

A number of judges have raised concerns about the approach 

taken to determine the need for judgeships. For example, if we are 

willing to use this formula in order to increase the size of the 

courts, should we not also implement it to determine when a significant decline in case filings and consolidations would warrant a 

decrease in judgeships? 

Some have even expressed concern that the formula is suspect, 

since it is virtually impossible to predict the degree of difficulty or 

time required to dispose of a case on the basis of case type. Another 

concern is that of collegiality. Judges like a smaller court whenever 

possible. If we continue to increase the number of judges on the 

Federal bench, it could have a negative impact on effective administration of courts and the uniformity of law. 

In addition to the concerns associated with the process of creating new judgeships, I would like for this hearing to lead us into 

an informative discussion of the resources that are currently available and maybe underutilized. There are several methods currently 

in use that can be expanded to help alleviate some of the perceived 

concerns with caseload. 

Among those are the use of senior judges, shared judgeships, 

inter-circuit and intra-circuit assignment of judges, and development of a process to recommend not filling vacancies or eliminating 

superfluous positions. Additionally, Judge Steele is here and he 

will testify about the role that U.S. magistrate judges play and how 

they can be used as a valuable resource in the disposition of cases. 

These are important concerns, particularly since there are now 

pending several current pieces of legislation calling for the creation 

of a number of new judges at the appellate and district levels. I 

hope that this hearing will shed some light on the process and give 

this legislative body a broader perspective when taking steps to 

further the efficient administration of justice. 

We have 5 minutes left on that vote, and according to Senate 

time that means a little more than 5 minutes, but not a lot. Since 

we are stacking votes, they tend to be a little tighter about it. So 

I will introduce our panel. We will have one panel today, which 

consists of four distinguished witnesses who have devoted time and 

energy in analyzing the state of our judiciary. 

The witnesses on this panel, starting from my left, are Judge W. 

Royal Furgeson, U.S. District Judge for the Western District of 

Texas, and the Chairman of the Judicial Conference Committee on 

Judicial Resources; Judge William H. Steele, United States District 

Judge for the Southern District of Alabama and a former magistrate judge in Mobile; Ms. Robyn J. Spalter, President of the Federal Bar Association, and an attorney with the firm of Kluger, 

Peretz, Kaplan and Berlin, in Miami, Florida. Finally, we will hear 

5 

from Professor Marc Galanter, who is a 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. 

When I get back, we will hear your opening statements and 

begin with Judge Furgeson. Again, let me apologize for having to 

interrupt this hearing. I should be back, I would say, in 45 minutes. That will be my goal. If Senators are not able to attend, their 

staff will be monitoring this. Your comments will be made a part 

of the record and it will help us establish a basis for making rational decisions about the size of our Federal judiciary. 

So at this time we will take a recess for approximately 45 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman SESSIONS. The Subcommittee will come to order. I 

apologize again for having to do what they pay me to do, go vote. 

There are a lot of committees and a lot of activities, and they just 

have to call them when it is appropriate. 

We are anxious to hear your comments. We would ask you to try 

to keep those to 5 minutes. Judge Royal, we would be delighted to 

hear from you first. 

STATEMENT OF HON. W. ROYAL FURGESON, U.S. DISTRICT 

JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL RESOURCES, JUDICIAL 

CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES, SAN ANTONIO, 

TEXAS 

Judge FURGESON. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Good 

afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Royal Furgeson and I am a 

United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas sitting in San Antonio. I am also the Chair of the Judicial Conference 

Committee on Judicial Resources. I am honored to be here today, 

sir, to discuss the request of the Federal judiciary for new judgeships. 

Before I do so, however, may I state that it is the policy of the 

judiciary to limit its growth to that number of new judgeships necessary to exercise appropriate Federal court jurisdiction. We certainly do not wish to grow for growth sake. 

Also, while there have been new judgeships, as you mentioned, 

added to our system since 1990, that year, 1990, was the last year 

that a comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted. Since 1990, our 

caseloads have increased relentlessly. For example, district court 

filings have risen 40 percent and circuit court filings have risen 58 

percent. 

Finally, the Federal judiciary understands that our Federal Government has many funding demands, to include the need to finance 

our brave troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Under the circumstances, we want you to know that we are doing our part to 

contain costs. There are numerous initiatives underway in the judiciary to look at how we can deal with escalating expenses. While 

these initiatives are ongoing and while they cannot be put in place 

overnight, you should be aware that we are mindful of the cost of 

every new judgeship and of our responsibility to work with the 

other branches of Government to be good stewards of our resources. 

6 

Taking all these matters into consideration, we are asking for 68 

new judgeships, 12 at the circuit level and 56 at the district level. 

Let me briefly describe how we have arrived at these numbers. 

First, there is a threshold caseload to begin the process. In our 

committee, we have developed a formula—you mentioned it—for 

evaluating district court dockets so that we can put all trial judges 

on equal footing through establishment of case weights. Our circuit 

courts also have a modified formula. 

Second, while the formulas are important to the consideration of 

new judgeships, other factors must be weighed to arrive at a sound 

measurement of each court’s judgeship needs, and you have mentioned that as well in your statement. Those include looking at the 

number of senior judges, their ages and level of activity; looking at 

magistrate judge assistance, and I am delighted that one of my esteemed colleagues, Judge Steele, is here today to talk about some 

innovations in regard to magistrate judge assistance in the courts. 

We also look at geographical factors, unusual caseload complexity, temporary or prolonged caseload increases or decreases, 

and use of visiting judges. Our courts, when they begin this process, are asked to complete a comprehensive application that details 

all of these factors, and you mentioned that as well in your statement. 

Third, when all of this information is gathered and thoroughly 

scrubbed, then it undergoes consideration and review at six different levels within the judiciary, and again you mentioned that in 

your opening statement. At the beginning of this process this time, 

the courts requested 80 additional judgeships, permanent and temporary. Through our review procedure, we reduced that number to 

68, and of these 68, 15 are temporary—another indication of our 

conservative approach to new judgeships. 

Incidentally, in addition to the 68 judgeships we are asking for, 

we are also asking that three temporary judgeships created in 1990 

be made permanent and one created in 1990 be extended based 

upon trends in those particular courts. 

Finally, and to reiterate, the long-range plan for the Federal 

courts specifically states that our judiciary is committed to controlling growth. Therefore, our request must be understood as an effort 

to accomplish this goal within the context of rising dockets. To that 

end, we are requesting far fewer judgeships than we might otherwise do. 

Since 1964, we have taken a very rigorous approach to vetting 

our request for new judgeships. As you know, this approach has 

undergone change and has become more sophisticated and transparent. We hope that it provides you with the information and assurance that you and your Committee and the Congress need to 

give our request favorable consideration. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing and 

allowing me to testify, and by request of the Federal judiciary, we 

would ask that you introduce this judgeship proposal. I will be glad 

to answer your questions when the time comes. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Furgeson appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SESSIONS. Thank you very much, Judge Furgeson, for 

those succinct remarks, and right on time. 

7 

Judge Steele, it is good to have you with us. I guess in the interest of full disclosure, Judge Steele worked for me for a period of 

time. He was a chief assistant district attorney for the Democraticelected district attorney in Mobile for many years, and then I was 

able to hire him away. Then he went into private practice and then 

the judiciary, in a very competitive process, selected him to be a 

United States magistrate judge. 

Judge, you served how many years? 

Judge STEELE. Thirteen. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Thirteen, and won the respect of people. I 

would note also that Judge Steele has had a special ability, I think, 

for management. As an Assistant United States Attorney, he 

helped come up with a plan that greatly improved the entire processing of criminal cases which the judges were delighted with, and 

the prosecutors were delighted, also, and I think the defense bar, 

also. 

So, Judge Steele, it is a pleasure to have you with us today. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. STEELE, U.S. DISTRICT 

JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, MOBILE, ALABAMA 

Judge STEELE. Thank you for that generous introduction, and 

thank you for the opportunity to address this Committee on the 

subject of the utilization of magistrate judges and to share our experience regarding the utilization of magistrate judges in the 

Southern District of Alabama. 

By way of background, as you stated, I served as a magistrate 

judge in the Southern District of Alabama from 1990 until 2003, 

about 13 years. About two-and-a-half years ago, I was appointed 

and began serving as a United States district judge. Consequently, 

I have witnessed the benefits of the magistrate judges system both 

from a supporting role as a magistrate judge and in a supported 

role as a district judge. 

Those are those who consider the Southern District of Alabama 

to be a pioneer district in the full utilization of magistrate judges. 

This development resulted from a set of unique circumstances 

which occurred in our district over a period of several years during 

the mid- to late 1990’s. 

At this time, the Southern District was authorized and had serving three district judges. Historically, the Southern District is a 

busy district, and given its proximity to the drug corridors of south 

Texas, south Florida and the Gulf of Mexico, it is a district that 

sees a significant number of drug cases. 

Because criminal cases generally take priority over civil cases, 

and because of other considerations such as the Speedy Trial Act, 

it was necessary to move these cases through the criminal justice 

system as efficiently as possible. As a result of a number of factors 

affecting our district judges, including ill health, retirement, senior 

status and delay in replacing these judges, over the time the number of district judges in the Southern District of Alabama diminished from three active judges to one active judge. That judge 

found himself responsible for managing most, if not all, of the total 

criminal caseload, in addition to his own increasing civil caseload. 

8 

As a result of these conditions and factors, our court began 

searching for ways to efficiently manage the civil and criminal 

dockets in an effort to avoid any substantial backlog and delay in 

the fair and effective administration of justice. For our district, the 

logical place to turn was to our magistrate judges. 

As this crisis developed, the magistrate judges in the Southern 

District of Alabama were already serving in their traditional roles, 

and by traditional roles I mean that these judges were handling all 

of the Section 1983 prisoner litigation on report and recommendation; all of the Section 2254 habeas corpus on report and recommendation; all of the Social Security appeals on report and recommendation; all the preliminary criminal matters, such as arraignments, initial appearances, detention hearings, pre-trial conferences and discovery motions; all of the Central Violations Bureau cases, which include hunting and game violations, petty offenses and Assimilated Crime Act offenses; and all preliminary 

civil matters, such as discovery motions and the entry of scheduling 

orders. 

In an effort to relieve the district judges so that they could manage the criminal docket and as much of the civil docket as possible, 

the magistrate judges were asked to take on additional responsibilities within the limits of their jurisdiction. This included handling 

a significant number of civil pre-trial conference, a substantial 

number of civil case settlement conferences, jury selection in almost all of the criminal and civil jury cases, and an automatic assignment of a significant part of the civil docket which I will describe briefly in just a moment. 

In addition, a small number of civil dispositive motions—for example, summary judgment and motions to dismiss—were referred 

to the magistrate judges for entry of report and recommendations. 

And on a few occasions, the magistrate judges were called upon to 

take guilty pleas. 

With regard to our automatic assignment of civil cases mentioned previously, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c), magistrate 

judges are authorized, with the consent of the parties, to exercise 

jurisdiction over all proceedings in jury and non-jury civil matters, 

and are authorized to order the entry of judgment in what may be 

called a consent case. 

In an effort to relieve the district judges, and ultimately the one 

district judge, and with the goal of avoiding a backlog and delay 

in civil cases, our court implemented a system wherein 25 percent 

of the total civil docket was automatically assigned to the magistrate judges. 

With the consent of the parties, a number of these cases were retained and disposed of by the magistrate judges, thus reducing the 

total civil caseload of the district judge. 

As a result of this expanded utilization of magistrate judges, in 

the face of a shortage of district judges, our court was able to 

weather the storm and to achieve the goal of the fair and efficient 

administration of justice in the Southern District of Alabama. 

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to address this Committee and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you 

might have. 

9 

[The prepared statement of Judge Steele appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SESSIONS. Thank you, Judge Steele. 

An important part of the legal system are the attorneys who appear there and, Ms. Spalter, you represent the Federal Bar Association, which has a special interest in the Federal courts, and we 

are delighted to hear your perspective today. 

STATEMENT OF ROBYN SPALTER, PRESIDENT, FEDERAL BAR 

ASSOCIATION, MIAMI, FLORIDA 

Ms. SPALTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you said, I am President of the Federal Bar Association. I would like to thank you for 

inviting and welcoming the Federal Bar Association here today for 

this hearing. I would also like to compliment you, the Committee 

counsel and staff for working with the FBA to address this very 

vital issue. 

I will not reiterate my written statement, but will rather try to 

discuss and summarize the highlights. But I would like to ask you, 

Mr. Chairman, at this time if I could request that written statement be included in the record of this hearing in its entirety. 

Chairman SESSIONS. We would be pleased to and will be made 

a part of the record. 

Ms. SPALTER. Thank you. 

The Federal Bar Association has 16,000 members, made up of 

lawyers and judges. We are the premier nationwide bar association 

devoted exclusively to the practice and jurisprudence of Federal 

law and the vitality of the U.S. Federal court system. 

We are here today to represent our members—lawyers and 

judges and parties they serve. We are here today to tell you why, 

on behalf of these Federal advocates and jurists, individuals and 

businesses they represent and serve, we strongly support the Judicial Conference’s comprehensive request for new judgeships, both 

permanent and temporary. 

I believe everyone in this room could easily agree that prompt 

and efficient administration of justice is an integral component of 

this great country in which we live. It is not just a goal, it is not 

just an aspiration. Rather, it is the bedrock of our Federal system 

of jurisprudence. In order to adhere to this principle, in order to ensure prompt and efficient administration of justice, the creation 

and maintenance of a sufficient number of judgeships in our Federal courts are critical. 

The Federal Bar Association understands that there will be costs 

involved. We are cognizant of this. However, we believe that failure 

to create these judgeships now will bear its own cost, maybe not 

monetary, but critical nonetheless. Failure will cost us the integrity 

of and trust in our judicial system. 

Mr. Chairman, the problem is the caseloads are so large that 

comprehensive action has become necessary now by this Congress. 

I am not going to go into detail on numbers because my co-speaker 

here, Judge Furgeson, has done so, but I want to point out a few. 

Filings since 1990 have increased by approximately 40 percent or 

more in the district and circuit courts. Circuit court cases per 

three-judge panel have reached 1,127—more than ever in history. 

Criminal filings have increased by 77 percent, and since 1992 

10 

bankruptcy filings have increased by 18.3 percent. Now, that is the 

caseloads. The question is what has happened to the judgeships in 

that same period of time. 

From 1990 to present, there have been zero new circuit court 

judges. From 1990 to 2000, there have been zero new district 

judges, and from 2000 to 2005 there have been 34 new district 

judges, but they were put in districts where there were crises and 

they had reached their tipping points. 

But the Federal Bar is here and brings you another perspective, 

Mr. Chairman. We bring you a perspective from the ground, from 

the grass roots, from the lawyers practicing before this bench everyday, from the members of the bench trying to assure prompt 

and efficient administration of justice, and from our clients and 

citizens who believe in the system and just want to see it work 

promptly and efficiently. 

The major complaint is that it takes too long to get a case 

through the system. Even cases that could be disposed of easily by 

dispositive motion are taking longer and longer and longer to get 

a hearing. It is for all of these reasons that the Federal Bar Association, in order to deliver to our members and those they serve 

and to fulfill our mission, the practice before and vitality of our 

Federal court system, that we assert that this is a priority, a national priority. Additional judgeships established now comprehensively must be done in order to ensure the prompt and efficient administration of justice. 

Before I conclude, one related comment. The House is advancing 

proposals that tie together the addition of these judgeships and the 

reorganization of the Ninth Circuit. The Federal Bar Association 

believes strongly that these are two separate and distinct issues. 

Each has its own merits, arguments and justifications, and should 

be considered that way. We commend this Subcommittee for its approach toward bifurcating these two issues. 

In conclusion, I think it is apropos to say justice delayed is justice denied. To ensure justice isn’t denied, you must assure that it 

isn’t unduly delayed. This can be accomplished by authorizing the 

adequate number of new judgeships as set forth in the Judicial 

Conference’s well-thought-out recommendations. This will protect 

and assure the prompt and efficient administration of justice and 

it will ensure that justice is not denied. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Spalter appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SESSIONS. Thank you, Ms. Spalter. 

Professor Galanter, we would be delighted to hear from you at 

this time. 

STATEMENT OF MARC GALANTER, PROFESSOR OF LAW, 

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, MADISON, WISCONSIN 

Mr. GALANTER. I am very pleased to be here and have a chance 

to bring into this discussion some issues about the Federal judiciary that I think are very relevant. 

I want to particularly point out that when we are talking about 

the number of judges, it is very important to say what are these 

judges doing. I am particularly concerned about whether judges are 

holding trials. If you will look, you will see that over the past 20 

11 

years there has been a dramatic decline in the number of civil 

trials. The green here are the bench trials and the red are jury 

trials. Both have declined. Actually, bench trials have declined 

more rapidly. 

There is a similar movement in terms of criminal trials since 

1990, which was mentioned before, at the time of the last major additions to the judiciary. You can see that half the trials have gone 

away. Now, there is a long-term decline in trials. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Does that amount to about a reduction by 

half? 

Mr. GALANTER. A reduction by half on the criminal side and actually two-thirds on the civil side, compared to, say, 1995, civil; 

1990, criminal. 

Now, there is a long-term decline. The percentage of cases that 

are getting to trial has been going down for a hundred years, and 

we can understand the reasons for that. But what is very striking 

is that since the middle-1980’s the absolute number of trials has 

been falling and, as you can see, falling very, very rapidly. There 

is about one-third of the civil trials in the Federal courts that there 

were in the mid-1980’s with fewer judges, and there are about half 

the criminal trials. 

Now, this marks a fundamental change in judging, a shift away 

from trials to case management. And when we see these cases depart and we know that judges really work hard, the question is 

what are they doing. Well, they are not holding trials. Last year, 

in 2004—and I am sorry I don’t have the charts for 2004, but I 

would like to put those in the records, if I may, along with the full 

paper on which this is based, if I may. 

Chairman SESSIONS. We will accept that in the record. 

Mr. GALANTER. Thank you. 

Last year, the average judge in Federal court held about ten 

trials, or we could say there were about ten trials for every sitting 

judge. If we go back to, say, 1990, again a date that was mentioned 

here, the average judge was holding 40 trials. So we have gone 

from 40 trials per judge to 10 trials per judge in just 15 years. So 

something has really changed in the Federal judiciary that it seems 

to me this Committee might well want to concern itself with. 

I should add that ten trials per year now is a pretty generous 

estimate for a number of reasons. It ignores the senior judges and 

magistrates, who are an increasing band who actually do quite a 

large number of those trials. It also is a count of those matters that 

got to a stage that the Administrative Office calls during or after 

trial, and that means a trial began. Actually, about 20 percent of 

those cases that get there end up settling before a verdict. 

Finally, a trial is defined in the Federal system as a contested 

matter in which evidence is presented. So there is not only a theoretical possibility, but it actually happens that sometimes there is 

more than one trial in a case. You can have a Daubert hearing that 

is counted as a trial. 

So when I say there are only 4,000 civil trials today, that is with 

all these caveats. So the number of trials per judge is very low by 

our historic standards, and I think this marks a kind of fundamental change in the Federal judiciary, a shift of resources from 

preparing for trial and conducting trials to case management, leadVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:43 May 05, 2009 Jkt 048828 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\48828.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
12 

ing to non-trial dispositions, something that I hope this Committee 

will decide it would like to examine. 

Thank you very much. 

[The submission of Mr. Galanter appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Chairman SESSIONS. Professor Galanter, I believe you have a 

train to catch. Is that correct? 

Mr. GALANTER. I do in a little while, yes. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Well, I will ask you a few questions first. 

Mr. GALANTER. I would appreciate that, sir. 

Chairman SESSIONS. It says criminal defendants disposed of. 

Well, you have more multi-defendant cases today where four defendants may plead and the fifth goes to trial, but your chart says 

trials. Is it true that the aggregate number of trials are down? 

There is no confusion in that, is there? 

Mr. GALANTER. Yes, the aggregate number of trials are down. 

Yes, there is that problem on counting on the criminal side. But 

this is the number of defendants who were tried, so that if five defendants are tried in the same case, that looks like five trials here, 

but it is not. So this again is a generous count of the number of 

trials. 

Chairman SESSIONS. It might not be a generous count. 

Judge Steele, are you looking at that number? If one defendant 

goes to trial, that counts as one trial, and if two co-defendants go 

to trial, that counts as two trials? 

Mr. GALANTER. That is right. 

Chairman SESSIONS. That is a generous count. 

Mr. GALANTER. I didn’t do the original counting. I am just using 

the records provided by the Federal office. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Do you have the numbers for the number 

of days a judge is in trial? 

Mr. GALANTER. I understand that the judiciary does compile 

these numbers, but I do not have them. 

Chairman SESSIONS. I have heard a rumor that judges have actually made sure they swore in the jury before they took the guilty 

plea and counted it as a trial. Have you ever heard of that? 

Mr. GALANTER. I haven’t, but I am sure you hear much more 

about this than I do. 

Judge FURGESON. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Please, yes, Judge Furgeson. 

Judge FURGESON. I know I have tried multi-defendant cases. I 

don’t recall on my statistics—for example, sometimes I have tried 

as many as 10 or 12. I don’t recall those showing up as 12 trials. 

I recall those showing up as one trial for all 12. So I don’t know 

if it is exactly right that you get a trial per defendant even if they 

are all tried together. 

Mr. GALANTER. Well, let me say that the Administrative Office 

keeps multiple statistical tables, and in terms of measuring what 

a judge does it seems to me that table may very well count them 

differently. What I took was the public information released by the 

Administrative Office in which they say how many defendants were 

tried that year. So in some sense, it is a maximum number of trials 

that were held. 

13 

Now, they may not have given individual judges the benefit of 

those multiple defendants in counting what that individual judge 

did. But in the published statistics that they put out, they tell us 

that this is the number of defendants that were tried. So if we were 

to assume that every defendant had his or her own trial, we had 

about 3,500 in 2002. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Judge Furgeson? 

Judge FURGESON. Mr. Chairman, would you allow me to submit 

a letter—I would like to research this a little bit—submit a letter 

to you, with a carbon copy to the professor, just so— 

Chairman SESSIONS. I think we should work on those numbers. 

But we do know that there is no doubt, Professor—is this correct— 

that the percentage of cases disposed of short of trial is reaching 

in the high 90s? Do you have that number? 

Mr. GALANTER. Well, the percentage of cases that terminate in 

trial in the Federal courts is about 1.6 percent now. Forty years 

ago, it was 11 percent. Back when the Federal Rules were adopted 

in 1938, it was something over 18 percent. It is hard to go back 

beyond 1962, but somebody actually did it for 1938. So we are now 

at 1.5, 1.7 percent, something like that. 

Chairman SESSIONS. And what does that say about the appeals 

that occur? I suspect that a number of the appeals are of agreed 

upon disputed questions that arise short of a trial, which presumably should be somewhat easier for the court of appeals to deal 

with than having to read hundreds of pages of transcripts and ten 

different issues raised on appeal. 

Mr. GALANTER. Yes, I think it is true. The portion of appeals that 

are based on tried cases has been declining. 

Chairman SESSIONS. It would have to be down. According to your 

numbers, if it goes from 11 percent to about 2, that is about fourfifths down. But the appeals are not down that much, so the appeals are coming through some mechanism. 

Mr. GALANTER. That is right, through non-trial dispositions of 

various kinds. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Summary judgments? 

Mr. GALANTER. Summary judgments, motions to dismiss, et 

cetera. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Judge Steele, do you have any thoughts 

about that chart? 

Judge STEELE. I think it is essential to know whether we are 

counting trials or defendants because I have noticed a decline in 

the number of multi-defendant cases over the past 5 years. We are 

not getting the big drug importation cases in our district like we 

used to. So we are trying more single defendants. Back in 1990, we 

tried a lot of multi-defendant cases and that inflated the numbers. 

We may not be looking at the right information to make a decision. 

Mr. GALANTER. Could I just add that in the large study that I 

am submitting here, there is one point at which we take all the 

criminal cases and divide them into drug, violence and fraud cases. 

The non-drug categories follow the same path of fewer and fewer 

trials as the drug ones. So there doesn’t seem to be a big subject 

matter difference in this decline. 

Chairman SESSIONS. You have to be careful, but I distinctly remember as a United States Attorney when the sentencing guideVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:43 May 05, 2009 Jkt 048828 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\48828.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
14 

lines were passed that there were the most egregious, awful predictions of no settlements and every case would go to trial and the 

system would collapse. Well, it appears in one sense that the real 

decline in the cases began with the sentencing guidelines. 

Mr. GALANTER. Oh, yes. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Every situation is different, but if you go to 

trial and a judge could give you 25 years or probation and you 

weren’t sure what the judge was going to give and you knew what 

the prosecutor was recommending, you might as well go to trial 

sometimes. So knowing the range that you are likely to get has apparently caused people to feel easier about pleas. 

Judge Furgeson, your formulation takes into account the filings, 

regardless of whether it reaches trial, and a lot of cases sometimes 

are even voluntarily dismissed, consolidated, or simply disappear 

when the plaintiffs never follow through on their cases. 

Would it be more accurate to base your recommendations on the 

number of cases that are ultimately decided by a judge or disposed 

of by the court? 

Judge FURGESON. That is a good question, Mr. Chairman, and I 

would just somewhat talk to you about my experience, and I would 

welcome Judge Steele’s experience, too. I find most of the filings 

that come into court initially take some amount of judge time. 

Even if there is a settlement somewhere down the line where it 

just goes off your docket, it takes some amount of judge time. 

Also, it is very difficult sometimes—and that is why we re-did 

our weights—to take into consideration how much management 

time or effort needs to be spent in particular cases. When we redid our case weighting, we found that complex civil cases like patent cases, for example, were beginning to take more time for a 

judge than other cases. 

So we do try to take into consideration the fact that some cases 

will disappear from your docket and take very little time, and we 

do that through the effort to weight cases. Just to give you an example, student loan failure cases almost take no time at all. They 

will hit the docket and they will take almost no time at all. Those 

cases are weighted almost with a minuscule weight, very little 

weight at all. On the other hand, a patent case will hit your docket 

and take a lot of time and a lot of effort. 

So we try to take into consideration the problem of filings and 

how different cases resolve themselves through the case weight 

process. That is a process that went through just about 3 years ago. 

We took over 300,000 court filings involving more than 100 judges 

and we went through this process of looking at the cases and trying 

to determine how better to weight them through the process. So it 

is true that some cases take much less time than others, but we 

tried to handle that through the weighting process. 

Chairman SESSIONS. It strikes me that, as Professor Galanter 

proposed, it has become more of a challenge to a judge to manage. 

Some judges use magistrates more effectively than others, but 

managing those cases—and sometimes you have a crisis not where 

the caseload is particularly grievous, but it may be because the 

judge is not a good manager. So should the taxpayers be concerned 

that they are rewarding poor management or lack of hard work by 

filling judges where there is more of a backlog? 

15 

Judge FURGESON. Well, I appreciate that concern. The judiciary 

does a great deal to help judges with management. Of course, some 

judges come in from the practice. Some have been State court 

judges. Some, like Judge Steele, have been magistrate judges. 

I am very impressed with what Judge Steele says about his management of cases and how the magistrates and the district judges 

work in his court. But I have a sense, Mr. Chairman, that through 

our efforts at education and commitment that we do have a judiciary that by and large manages their dockets and their cases well. 

I certainly do have that sense. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Well, I think most do, but some are really 

good at it. 

Judge FURGESON. Oh, there is no question. 

Chairman SESSIONS. And a well-managed courtroom can do remarkable things, I think. We are just asking those questions because I think it is important to do so. 

While we have had an increase in case filings since 1990, since 

2000, I believe, we have had a 2.6-percent decrease in civil filings. 

You don’t dispute that? 

Judge FURGESON. No, sir. That is correct. The criminal side of 

the district bench is where the increases come from. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Several judges testified before our Subcommittee when Chairman Grassley chaired this Subcommittee 

and they argued that a mechanical formulation is not the right way 

to decide the number of appellate judges, particularly. 

Fifth Circuit Judge Higginbotham testified that a formulation indicating the need for 28 judges on the Fifth Circuit, quote, ‘‘simply 

defies common sense and lacks credibility,’’ close quote, Judge 

Furgeson, particularly since the majority of those sitting on the 

Fifth Circuit opposed any additional judges. 

The Eleventh Circuit has one of the highest caseloads in the 

country—I believe the highest— 

Judge FURGESON. It does. 

Chairman SESSIONS [continuing]. As does the Fifth, higher than 

the Ninth. They want seven new judges and we are prepared to 

consider giving them to them. But neither one are asking for more 

judges because they believe they could lose the uniformity and 

collegiality. 

So let me ask you, Judge Furgeson, is it wise to recommend additional judgeships when the court does not want them? 

Judge FURGESON. It is certainly not wise. 

Chairman SESSIONS. The 12 appellate judges that you recommend are not in those circuits? 

Judge FURGESON. They are not in Fifth and— 

Chairman SESSIONS. Well, then, how come we are rewarding 

those who work less— 

Judge FURGESON. Well, I am glad you ask that question. 

Chairman SESSIONS [continuing]. And not saluting those who do 

more? 

Judge FURGESON. First, let me say that one of my favorite judges 

is Judge Higginbotham. He is a bright and shining star on the 

Fifth Circuit and a remarkable judge and a remarkable person. 

I think what does happen, Mr. Chairman, is that different regions of the country develop different court cultures. In fact, there 

16 

are different cultures within the bars of different regions of the 

country. What we do by asking the judges first to initiate these requests is we ask them if this is what they want to do. 

It is true that neither the Eleventh nor the Fifth have asked for 

new judges, and it is true that they carry incredibly heavy workloads. I think some of it has to do with the fact that—and you have 

mentioned it and I am sure Judge Higginbotham mentioned that 

there is a great interest in collegiality; that you need to keep courts 

small, especially appellate courts, to develop that kind of 

collegiality. 

There is also a strong view—and it is held in different degrees 

in different regions, but a strong view that the Federal court 

should not grow very much. And I think that is a sense among all 

Federal judges that we don’t want to grow hurly burly or for 

growth sake, but there are sort of different views about where that 

cut-off is, especially in the courts of appeals. 

I will just give you an example. For instance, the Second Circuit, 

the circuit of Senator Schumer, has asked for new judges and we 

have certainly concurred with that request. The Second Circuit, 

along with the Ninth, is really under siege right now with immigration appeals, and those two circuits are dealing in a much more 

thorough way and comprehensive way with a heavier immigration 

docket than any of the other circuits in the United States. 

So we certainly see a real up-tick in cases for the Second and the 

Ninth, especially because of immigration issues. That is why, for 

example, we certainly concur with the request of the Second and 

Ninth Circuits for more appellate judges. 

Chairman SESSIONS. I will recognize Senator Schumer, and I am 

glad he was able to do with us. I would just note that Senator 

Grassley introduced today, and I cosponsored a bill to eliminate the 

12th seat on the D.C. Circuit. You all haven’t recommended eliminating any judgeships, I see, but its caseload was about one-fourth 

the average of the others, certainly one-fourth of the busy circuits, 

and it continues to decline. 

Do you agree that we should eliminate one seat there? 

And I will say, Chuck, that the President and his crew wants to 

appoint another judge there and the only reason, I guess, they 

haven’t is because Senator Grassley and I have objected. But I 

think we either ought to take off the books or fill it. So what is 

your thought about whether we need another judge for the Twelfth 

Circuit, at $1 million a year, approximately? 

Judge FURGESON. For the D.C. Circuit, sir? 

Chairman SESSIONS. Excuse me. The D.C. Circuit. 

Judge FURGESON. Instead of giving my opinion, Mr. Chairman, 

could I say that an argument can certainly be made that the additional 12th seat on the D.C. Circuit should not be filled at this 

time, given the workload of that circuit. I think a very good argument can be made to that effect. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Senator Schumer is a lawyer with great 

skill and expertise, and we appreciate his leadership on this Committee. I will recognize you at this time. 

Senator SCHUMER. Well, thank you, Senator, and I want to apologize to you and to our witnesses. It is the last week of session, so 

17 

it is a busy week. I am on the Finance Committee. We have the 

tax bill on the floor and it has been busy, so I apologize. 

I am going to give a few brief remarks and leave it at that, but 

I want to thank you— 

Chairman SESSIONS. Chuck, the professor had a train to catch. 

Don’t feel bad about leaving whenever you need to, Professor 

Galanter. 

Mr. GALANTER. Thank you. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Thank you very much for your— 

Senator SCHUMER. Are you taking Amtrak, Professor? We are 

trying to help you. 

Chairman SESSIONS. We appreciate the train that comes through 

Mobile at 2 a.m. going east and 3 a.m. going west 3 days a week. 

Senator SCHUMER. I hear Mobile is hopping at 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. 

I want to thank you for having this hearing. I thank all of our 

witnesses for being here. It is very important in enacting laws to 

protect the rights of our citizens that we equip the lower Federal 

courts with sufficient judges to ensure that those rights are not 

empty rights. 

I often used to argue—I am a tough on crime guy and what was 

creating such problems in terms of the courts and people not being 

sentenced—it wasn’t so much the ideology of the judges, but in 

New York State we had a lot of judges who hardly did any work. 

In those days, back in the 1970’s and early 1980’s there was much 

less of an administrative court structure and it was more or less 

up to the judge, and they just let defendants delay and delay and 

delay and delay, and they would being arrested for new crimes. I 

guess we didn’t adjudicate whether they actually committed them. 

So we need to have courts that are efficient. We need to have 

enough judges. This is all very important. At the same time, this 

Congress is particularly aware in recent months of the need to control spending. In 1993, the Federal Judicial Center estimated an 

average of $18 million spent per judgeship over the lifetime span 

of a judge’s tenure on the circuit court. That was 1993, so obviously 

the number is considerably higher now. 

When Senator Grassley was Chairman of the Subcommittee in 

1999, he concluded—and Senator Grassley would be very good at 

this; he is very thorough and he is frugal, and at the same time 

cares about justice—that Congress should expend funds to fill an 

existing vacancy or create a new judgeship, he said, only after a 

comprehensive determination has been made that filling a vacancy 

or creating a new judgeship is absolutely essential for the court to 

properly administer justice. 

I, too, believe we have a duty to work with the Federal judiciary 

to find ways to improve efficiency. There may be ways to get the 

work done without creating a large number of additional judgeships, and we ought to try that first. Maybe it will work, maybe 

it won’t. 

Here are some things we could do. We could help the courts expand and strengthen their mediation and settlement programs. We 

could explore more effective uses of staff attorneys and law clerks. 

We could improve case management systems and technology. All of 

this has gotten better over the last decade, but there may be a 

ways to go. 

18 

Another way we can increase efficiency is to fill the existing vacancies, especially in the circuits and districts where the Judicial 

Conference has recommended additional judgeships. Two weeks 

ago, I was proud to sit here and nominate two very talented nominees—Joseph Bianco and Eric Vitaliano, who I recommended the 

President appoint to the Eastern District of New York. That is one 

of the districts the Conference has identified in need of judgeships. 

I am sure that these two nominees will be easily confirmed, and 

that is going to help. 

But there are still more than 30 vacancies in which the President 

has yet to name a candidate, many of which are in circuits and districts identified by the Conference as under-staffed. The Conference, for instance, recommended seven in the Ninth Circuit; 

there are three vacancies there. 

In the Central District of California, four additional judgeships 

were recommended. We have five present vacancies without a 

nominee. It is not the Congress’s fault; it is really the President in 

not nominating. In the District of New Jersey, the Conference recommended an additional judgeship. We have two vacancies now. So 

we could move the process along and we ought to get the White 

House to fill the vacancies with a little more speed. 

Finally, before I wrap up, I would like to say a word about the 

politics in the process. Judge Wilkinson, the former Chief Judge of 

the Fourth Circuit, a man I don’t agree with on a lot of legal issues, 

in his law review article ‘‘The Drawbacks of Growth in the Federal 

Judiciary,’’ points out some of the incentives, legitimate and illegitimate, to create new judgeships. 

He writes that, quote, ‘‘There may be pressures on elected officials to shift the philosophical outlook of the Federal judiciary by 

adding more judges of the President’s party.’’ And I would just remind my colleague we had four vacancies on the D.C. Circuit that 

were not filled for years when President Clinton was nominating 

and the Senate was controlled by Republicans. And we didn’t do 

that; we filled vacancies once President Bush came in. So I probably agree that that 12th vacancy should not be filled, but these 

vacancies were existing a very long time and I would say you could 

make a plausible argument that politics had something to do with 

it. 

So, Mr. Chairman, of course, politics is an illegitimate reason to 

create new judgeships, and you and Senator Grassley and other Republican members of the Subcommittee, as well as, of course, our 

Chairman—we will apply the same principles in reviewing the Judicial Conference’s request for new judgeships as we did when 

President Clinton was in the White House. 

I thank the Chair. I am not going to ask questions. I will submit 

in some writing because I have got to get back to the other matters 

at hand, but I want to thank each of our witnesses—Judge 

Furgeson, Judge Steele and Ms. Spalter, as well as Professor 

Galanter. Thank you all for being here. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Senator Grassley chairs the Finance Committee and all of us feel this pressure on cost. We want to do the 

very best for justice that we possibly can, but everybody in the 

world that I know is not being asked to do more for less, but actually is doing more for less, and that is a good thing. 

19 

We have, of course, developed procedures through word processing that can be recalled from years before, rulings on certain 

matters. We have by and large two law clerks per district judge, 

three per circuit judge, I believe. So we have done a lot of things 

well. 

And then I believe the judges deserve credit for seeing the decline in trials. I don’t think that has occurred just totally without 

the judges’ participation. I think judges are working harder to encourage disposition of cases. Judge DuBose, a magistrate judge, 

was here yesterday, and I asked her about the magistrate’s role in 

case disposition. She volunteered that Judge Steele, when he was 

a magistrate judge, in every single meeting with the parties asked 

whether or not he could help them facilitate the settlement of the 

case. 

Do you still do that, Judge Steele? 

Judge STEELE. I do, yes. 

Chairman SESSIONS. And do you think that sort of breaks down 

some of the hostility and can increase the likelihood of settlements? 

Judge STEELE. Certainly, I think it does, and I think the offer 

of a magistrate judge to help settle a case in many cases will— 

Chairman SESSIONS. When you say offer, you say to act as sort 

of a mediator? 

Judge STEELE. Yes, act as a settlement conference judge or a mediator. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Ms. Spalter, do you think that Federal 

judges are doing a better job from the lawyer’s experience in facilitating mediation and settlement of cases? 

Ms. SPALTER. I don’t think there is any doubt about that, Mr. 

Chairman. I think you see more and more of that everyday. One, 

I think it is a good thing and the lawyers appreciate it, but I think 

there is part of it that is done because the caseload is so large that 

if we tried every case, you know, where would we be? We would 

never have the ability to get through the process. 

Chairman SESSIONS. You are right about that. 

Judge Steele, it does take some time from a judge’s point of view 

to help facilitate settlement. I mean, it is not as if you don’t spend 

any time on that subject, I guess it is fair to say. 

Judge STEELE. Well, it, of course, takes time in discussing the 

issues with the lawyers and to find out what it is that is really at 

stake and where the hot-button issues are that need to be resolved. 

And then if a magistrate judge is conducting a settlement conference, it takes a considerable amount of time from that judge to 

actually hold the conference. 

Chairman SESSIONS. With regard to magistrate judges, Judge 

Steele, in your experience, do you have any indication of how many 

other districts fully utilize the magistrate judges, and do you believe that that can lessen the caseload burden on the district judges 

if they are fully utilized? 

Judge STEELE. To answer the first question, I don’t have the 

numbers. I am sure the Administrative Office could produce those 

if requested. In answer to the second part of the question, yes, sir, 

the experience in the Southern District of Alabama was exactly 

that. By full utilization of magistrate judges, we were able to reduce the pressures and the workload of, at one time, our one disVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:43 May 05, 2009 Jkt 048828 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\48828.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
20 

trict judge so that that judge could do the things that he needed 

to do, which was to try criminal cases and some civil cases, and actually be more effective in his case management. 

Chairman SESSIONS. But there is a privilege all Americans are 

given in Federal court that the fundamental issues are decided by 

an Article III lifetime-appointed Federal judge. Can you tell us 

what those basic standards are, what a magistrate can do and 

what a magistrate judge is not allowed to do? 

Judge STEELE. Well, the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge is 

defined by 28 U.S.C. Section 636 and it allows a magistrate judge 

to do just about anything a district judge can do, except try criminal felony cases and sentence in a felony case. A magistrate judge 

is allowed to try civil cases, with the consent of the parties, under 

636(c). 

Chairman SESSIONS. But only with consent of the parties? 

Judge STEELE. With consent, right, but the limits of the jurisdiction are defined by that statute and it was our intent not to expand 

the jurisdiction of the magistrate judges in our district, but to fully 

utilize them within the limits of that Congressionally given jurisdiction. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Now that you will be assuming that Judge 

DuBose’s confirmation will go forward—and she also was a magistrate judge, leaving you a vacancy in the magistrate judges’ positions—I understand that you have made a decision about filling 

that vacancy. Would you share that with us—or the court has? 

Judge STEELE. Well, the decision was not to fill the vacancy, and 

the decision was based on a number of factors, most of which are 

statistics-driven. We have experienced a decline in filings in our 

district and the crisis that we faced back in the mid-1990s when 

we went to four district judges is no longer upon us. So without the 

crisis, without the justification in terms of numbers, we didn’t see 

fit to request that that position be filled. We want to leave it open, 

of course, in case our numbers come back up. And if they do and 

if we can justify it at that time, then we will ask that it be filled. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Well, I thank you for being frugal with the 

taxpayers’ money. Some may have found otherwise. 

Judge Furgeson, do you have any thoughts about how many of 

the districts are fully utilizing the magistrates and how many are 

not? What about yours? 

Judge FURGESON. I can only talk about my district, but in my 

district I think the district judges see the magistrate judges as 

their partners in moving the dockets, and the relationship between 

the magistrate judges and the district judges is a very close and 

cooperative one. I would be surprised if that weren’t the case 

through most of the United States. Magistrate judges are highly 

qualified. They are selected through a very careful process. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Would you point that out? I mean, it is a 

non-political review by the judges of the district court, is that not 

correct? 

Judge FURGESON. Yes. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Will you tell us how that works, generally? 

Judge FURGESON. Certainly. What happens is once a vacancy 

comes up, a Committee is appointed to screen applicants, and it is 

normally a blue-ribbon Committee selected by all the judges in the 

21 

district. That Committee then takes applications. The applications 

come in, and we have had vacancies recently where 30, 40, 50 people have applied for the job. 

Then the Committee does a very thorough job. This is all volunteer work by a bar committee, also with lay representatives. After 

they finish, they normally give a recommendation. And, Judge 

Steele, you can help me with this. I think they rate the top five 

people— 

Judge STEELE. Top five prospects. 

Judge FURGESON [continuing]. In order of preference. My experience has been that almost every time the district judges accept the 

number one nominee and that person, at least I have certainly 

found in my district, is normally a very accomplished either lawyer 

or State judge who is every bit the judicial officer of our district 

judges. And we embrace our magistrate judges and, as I say, make 

them full partners in our effort. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Well, that certainly was not the role of the 

magistrate judge in the 1970s when I first was an Assistant United 

States Attorney. They were pretty much part-time jobs, often away 

from the main courthouse. They handled pre-trial criminal cases 

and motions, and set bail and things of that nature. But it has 

been a real revolution and I do think that Congress has a responsibility to ask before we fill a vacancy if perhaps that district could 

perform better if they utilized the magistrates completely. 

A trial is a big thing. I think we have got to look hard at these 

numbers, what they really mean, and I do think that there is a 

fear on the part of the judiciary that if they don’t ask for enough 

judges, we are probably going to give half, so you want to be sure 

you ask for enough, on the theory you are not going to get all you 

ask for. And you probably should start early because the sooner 

you start, it might be years before it ever gets filled and then caseloads go up and down. 

But this decline in the number of cases actually going to trial, 

I do think makes a difference. Does that argue against—how 

many— 

Judge FURGESON. Sixty-eight. 

Chairman SESSIONS [continuing]. Sixty-eight judges, Judge 

Furgeson? 

Judge FURGESON. Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe it does because 

of the process we use. Remember, first, we weight the cases, and 

so we look at people who have elevated caseloads based upon the 

weighting factor, so we are comparing apples and apples. Then we 

ask the judges themselves to fill out a very comprehensive survey, 

and in that survey they have to talk about utilization of magistrate 

judges, utilization of visiting judges, utilization of senior judges. 

They have to go through and give us that information. 

After that is initiated, it goes to our statistics subcommittee. 

They scrub it. It then goes to our judicial councils. And as you 

know, our judicial councils are populated by half appellate and half 

district judges, and they take a very careful look at those. Appellate judges are very careful about especially analyzing what district 

judge requests are. Then it comes back to the subcommittee, then 

to the full committee, and then to the Conference. 

22 

As I say, our goal is not for the Federal judiciary to grow at a 

rapid rate. Judge Steele is here and he can give you his opinion, 

but my opinion is the Federal judiciary thinks that we have a 

unique position in the Constitution. We want to be careful about 

the number of judges that we have in the Nation. We certainly 

don’t want to have any more than we absolutely need. 

I think there is a feeling in the judiciary that to add lots of 

judges in the system over time could diminish the special nature 

of the courts, and so I think we want to be very careful. That is 

why I think, for example, that you find a circuit like the Eleventh 

Circuit or like the Fifth that says we are carrying a very heavy 

workload, but we don’t want to ask for judges. 

I sit on a border court. We probably just on weighted case filings 

could ask for, I don’t know, three, four or five more judges. We 

haven’t asked for any. Our goal, again, is that we believe that it 

should be a very careful process and we have just decided we are 

going to stay where we are. 

So I do believe our system of looking at formulas and then looking at conditions on the ground and scrubbing through a very careful vetting process brings us to a good number. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Judge, when you see those numbers like 

600 at the Eleventh Circuit or 500 for the Ninth—this is for the 

circuit now—those are weighted appeals, or not? 

Judge FURGESON. I am glad you made that differentiation. We 

have weighted numbers on the district bench. We have talked to 

our appellate judges about how they think is the best way to look 

at their cases and the only adjustment they make in raw case numbers is with pro se cases. A pro se case is the equivalent of onethird of a case. 

In other words, we will take all the pro se cases in a circuit on 

appeal. To make this easy, say there are 300 of them. They will 

count as 100 cases, and that is the only kind of adjustment we 

make at the appellate level and that is because in talking to our 

appellate judges, at least at this point, they think those are the 

only kind of adjustments that should be made in their caseload. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Well, obviously, that is not correct, as we 

both know. 

Judge FURGESON. I beg your pardon? 

Chairman SESSIONS. Obviously, that is not an accurate way of 

doing business because you take a big asbestos class action or some 

of these cases, it should take a lot more, I would think. But I did 

notice that the Ninth Circuit is counting 6,000 immigration cases, 

that they have had an increase of 6,000 over the last so many 

years, but surely those are not as complex as many of the other 

cases. Surely, they are raising the same issues repeatedly there. 

Wouldn’t you agree? 

And as a practical matter, surely, on average, each case would 

take less time. 

Judge FURGESON. Let me just put it this way, Mr. Chairman: I 

am a district judge. We are— 

Chairman SESSIONS. I am asking you to judge the circuit judges. 

You have got a real opportunity. 

Judge FURGESON. That is right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, on 

the record. We are guided to a great extent by what our appellate 

23 

judges have told us. Now, I would think that you are exactly right 

that there are appeals and then there are appeals. What our circuit 

judges tell us is it all balances out. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Well, that could be true. 

Judge FURGESON. That is what they tell us. 

Chairman SESSIONS. But in the Ninth Circuit, I think, as I recall 

from our previous hearing on whether it should be divided, the 

other cases are down. The increase is entirely immigration appeals. 

So I think that suggests less of a crisis. 

They have a high caseload. You mentioned the Ninth Circuit. 

They are over 500 cases, where I think the Eleventh is 640 and the 

Fifth had more cases than the Ninth. 

Judge FURGESON. I have got those numbers for you if you would 

like them for the record. 

Chairman SESSIONS. If you have those numbers— 

Judge FURGESON. I do, for the circuits. 

Chairman SESSIONS. So they have a heavy caseload and we are 

trying to move legislation that would give them some new judges. 

Judge FURGESON. Adjusted filings per panel—the Second Circuit, 

which is asking for two, right now has 1,164 cases. The Ninth Circuit has 1,225 cases. You have mentioned the Fifth, which has adjusted filings per panel of 1,227 cases, and the Eleventh which has 

adjusted filings per panel of 1,239 cases. 

Chairman SESSIONS. They are pretty close together, according to 

those numbers. 

Judge FURGESON. That is correct. 

Chairman SESSIONS. That is per panel? 

Judge FURGESON. Per panel, yes, sir. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Well, the numbers we were using were per 

judge, I think. 

Judge FURGESON. OK, and that would explain the difference. 

Chairman SESSIONS. The 600, 500 range for those three circuits. 

I don’t know what the level is at the Second. 

Well, on the weighting, Judge Steele said he was on a panel, he 

told me earlier, on which they discussed the weighting and everybody had different ideas, but nobody came up with anything any 

better. Is that a fair summary of it, Judge? 

Judge STEELE. I think so. I was a representative for my district 

for the Eleventh Circuit, and I think we had representatives from 

every district court in the Eleventh Circuit that met in Atlanta and 

participated in that weighting program. It was an open discussion 

about how cases should be weighted and I think the bottom line 

was that they produced a result which could be relied on. I think 

that was the bottom line. 

Chairman SESSIONS. There is no serious concern by a large number of judges that the weighting system is clearly inaccurate or 

fails to meet its goals? 

Judge STEELE. I don’t sense that there is. That is my take on 

things. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Judge Furgeson, do you have any thoughts 

about that? If the weighting system is wrong, then we have got a 

difficult problem. 

Judge FURGESON. I agree with Judge Steele and I am glad Judge 

Steele participated in that process. We had, as I said, over 100 

24 

judges and we were looking at over 300,000 different events in our 

court system. 

You know, to some extent the third branch is like the first 

branch, Mr. Chairman. We do get disagreements from time to time 

among each other, but I think there is a generally broad acceptance 

in the district courts of the weighting system and the legitimacy of 

the weighting system. That is at least my view. 

Chairman SESSIONS. There is just no doubt about it. I mean, personally, we had just two judges and one was newly on the bench 

and within a few weeks he had to try a 7-week trial that I tried, 

and 2 weeks of full-time motions before. A big trial has got to be 

weighted more than a guilty plea or a small 1-day trial. 

Do you think they fairly rate these big cases that are really extraordinary that can affect 6 months or maybe even a year of a 

judge’s time? 

Chairman SESSIONS. There is no question about it, and I am sure 

Judge Steele has the same experience. I have been in trial in one 

case for 11 weeks and it really wrecks your docket to be in a trial 

like that. Again, over time, more complex cases require that more 

complex trial attention, and I do think that is considered in the 

weighting formulas. I think it does balance out over time. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Well, you could see a few more bigger cases, 

like class action that we passed that will have more of those going 

into Federal court, which I think is perfectly appropriate in these 

cases, as we designated them, that are utterly interstate. I mean, 

they involve perhaps every State in America. Any ruling rendered 

would impact the entire credit card system of this country or whatever it might be. I think it is appropriate. 

I know the judges sometimes say, well, don’t give us these cases. 

But I think those are good cases to go to Federal court, and you 

may see us give you more of that as time goes by. I believe in 

States’ rights and their authority to handle the criminal cases, the 

murders, the rapes, the robberies that occur in their communities. 

But some of these matters involve companies that could be subjected to 50 different legal tests or whatever. So I think you could 

see more of that in the future. 

Ms. Spalter, you mentioned increases in numbers of filings. I 

thought I heard you say from 1990, but I am not sure. What was 

the basis for your statement that the number of filings had increased? 

Ms. SPALTER. Actually, it comes from the Judicial Conference’s 

report, and I think I heard Judge Furgeson earlier say about the 

same number, about 40 percent. 

Chairman SESSIONS. From 1990? 

Ms. SPALTER. From 1990. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Apparently, it peaks around 2000 and has 

decreased in some areas since then. 

Well, this has been a very interesting hearing. It is a matter that 

we need to take seriously. Perhaps this Committee can figure a 

way to be affirmative in recommending to the full Senate how we 

should proceed, what vacancies should be filled and in what order. 

But this is the political branch, I have to tell you, and Senators are 

very clever sometimes. If all you need to do is approve a Federal 

25 

judge for them to get their vote, they might get a Federal judge approved, which we would like to reduce as much as possible. 

And, frankly, as you can see from the number of judges that we 

have added, we haven’t had too many, and I have felt that Arizona, 

Southern California and Southern Florida have clearly demonstrated a surge in case filings in the last 15 years and they have 

gotten most of the judges. Most of the judges that have been added 

have been in those districts that I think have the most serious 

need. There may have been some aberrational decisions made, but 

fundamentally most of the resources that we have put out, I think, 

have gone to districts in need. 

Senators Grassley, Leahy and Hagel have statements that they 

have submitted for the record, and we will keep this record open 

for 1 week for additional submissions. And if you chose to submit 

anything during that time, you could. 

Senator Grassley wanted to be here. He takes an interest in this. 

If he had been here, he might have asked you about your trips and 

your vacations. His theory was if you had so much work to do, why 

do you take these trips? But he is a patriot who has courts as one 

of his highest interests. He is managing the tax bill on the floor 

right now. Otherwise, he would be with us. 

Do you have any other comments you would like to add at this 

time? 

Judge FURGESON. Could I ask you a question, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SESSIONS. Yes, Judge Furgeson. 

Judge FURGESON. There was some controversy—that may not be 

the right word—there was just some question about how we count 

trials. I take it, though, that that is not a major issue here and 

there would be no necessity here for me to submit any papers on 

that. If you needed some more information—I just wasn’t clear that 

the professor was absolutely correct about how we count trials, for 

example, if you have a multi-defendant case, if you count every defendant or not. So if there is no necessity of clearing up that little 

dispute, I won’t make any submission on that. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Well, we would be delighted if you have 

anything to offer on it. It does appear that you have more than a 

50-percent decline in actual trials in criminal, and maybe more 

than that in civil, which does impact, I believe, how we evaluate 

the number of judges that should be added to the judiciary. But 

feel free to offer anything and you are not obligated to. 

Judge FURGESON. And I do agree with the professor’s overall 

point that there is clearly a decline in trials, and so this would be 

probably just a minor issue. And with your permission, I won’t add 

anything to that. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Would you like to briefly speculate why? 

Judge FURGESON. I would be interested to hear my other panelists about that. I think there are several reasons. The Supreme 

Court had a trilogy of cases back in the early 1980’s—I think it was 

the early 1980’s—where they talked about a different view toward 

summary judgments. 

When I first started practicing, it was like nobody grants summary judgments; you just don’t grant them. The Supreme Court in 

the Celotex case and some of those other cases said, no, summary 

26 

judgments are not disfavored; if there is an appropriate failure of 

proof, you need to grant summary judgments. And I think after 

that Federal courts began to grant more summary judgments. And 

those, by the way, are the basis for, as you suggested, some of the 

appeals that go up in the circuit. 

I think, too, there has been a movement toward arbitration and 

mediation. Many large companies now when they sign contracts 

with each other put in binding arbitration requirements, and so 

that takes the cases out of the court. 

Often, I will get a case that will be filed in my court and the 

other side will say, wait a minute, there is a binding arbitration 

clause in that case. So I will have to then stay the case, require 

arbitration, and then enter an order approving the arbitration after 

it is finished. That means no trial under any circumstances. So I 

think those are two of the reasons why. 

There is a different mix of cases now. You know, cases are sometimes more complex and sometimes it is very difficult for those people to finally take the risk of going to trial in a really complex case. 

And sometimes it just depends on the jurisdiction. I used to handle 

the Pecos division way out in the middle of nowhere in Texas. I 

tried 25 or 30 jury trials a year out there. I mean, we were trying 

them right and left. I get to San Antonio and I am lucky to get, 

you know, ten jury trials a year. Sometimes, it has to do with the 

culture of a particular jurisdiction. So it is several different reasons 

and my panelists may have some other ideas about that. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Those are interesting thoughts. I think all 

are very relevant. 

Judge Steele, do you have anything to add? 

Judge STEELE. I would agree with Judge Furgeson, and I might 

add also that I think better case management by district judges 

and by the court in its entirety is also responsible for a reduction 

in trials. I think we see that. We have early intervention in cases, 

or earlier intervention in cases with regard to settlement conferences, and just the fact that the cases are more closely managed 

and the discovery issues are resolved early on so that there is not 

this continuing battle about what is at stake in a case. The parties 

are able to see what the issues are and focus on the issues much 

earlier and then resolve them themselves in most cases. 

With regard to criminal cases, I agree with you that I think the 

sentencing guidelines had a substantial effect on the number of 

criminal cases that would go to trial. But I also would be interested 

to see the long-term effect of the Booker v. Fanfan decision on that 

because I think in the Southern District of Alabama we are seeing 

more criminal cases go to trial right now, for a couple of reasons, 

but I think the defendants are more willing to roll the dice if they 

think they can later convince a judge that you don’t have to follow 

the guidelines now and you can give me a break on the sentence. 

So I would be interested to see the long-term effect of that decision. 

Chairman SESSIONS. I wouldn’t be surprised about that. I won’t 

ask you to comment, but one thing, I think, that occurred that almost never occurred in State court but I believe is occurring a lot 

in Federal court is partial summary judgment, where a judge will 

say, well, those causes of action—three of the six you have got are 

27 

no good, there is no basis for those; we will go to trial on only those 

three. 

Do you think that sometimes, Judge Steele, would facilitate settlement of the case? 

Judge STEELE. Absolutely, and I have seen it time and time 

again where that decision by a district judge to eliminate certain 

claims forces settlement. You know, the parties start talking a little more seriously about what is at stake. 

Chairman SESSIONS. As long as a plaintiff still has dreams that 

they might prevail. 

Ms. Spalter, do you have any comments or thoughts on that? 

Ms. SPALTER. I do, Mr. Chairman, if I might. I believe that one 

of the reasons we are seeing fewer trials is the rising costs of civil 

litigation. And it is interesting because I think part of the rising 

cost is attributable to the fact that it takes longer to get to trial 

and I think that is caused by the increase in the criminal cases, 

which, of course, statutorily require that they trump civil cases 

many times. 

In fact, I have heard anecdotally in traveling just in my short 

time so far as President of the Federal Bar Association stories like 

that. I heard one just recently where a division of a district is 

short-handed and so, in fact, some cases in that division end up 

being tried by a judge in the division here. For instance, it happened to be the inland empire of California, and then they may get 

a magistrate assigned from Los Angeles. Well, the client is going 

to pay for that. 

So there is a rising cost, in general, of this that is going to the 

clients, and I do think that rising cost then circles around and also 

is one of the reasons for the reduction in trials. 

Chairman SESSIONS. You know, there was a real concern about 

the time the sentencing guidelines—I know it was a concern in the 

Southern District of Alabama when they were short of judges, but 

my impression is the case data does not show delayed disposition 

of cases across the board. Are there any numbers on that? Does either one of you know that? 

Judge FURGESON. I do believe there are numbers and I think you 

are pretty much on. I don’t believe nationwide there has been a big 

change from time of filing to time of disposition. Now, in some districts that may be different, especially districts which may get really heavily burdened with criminal cases. The Southern District of 

California would be one of them. 

Chairman SESSIONS. Well, these are all very important issues. I 

would say this with certainty and with the greatest respect: I believe we have a marvelous Federal judiciary. I think they work 

hard and I think they work their staffs hard. I think they produce 

justice as well as we can produce it day after day, and I believe, 

from the Administrative Office on down, they have been encouraged to manage better. Better management has allowed the judiciary to handle more cases than they ever have before, and we would 

really be in a crisis today had that not happened if we were still 

disposing of cases as we did 25 years ago. 

28 

So we are interested in making sure that those districts that 

have the needs get them filled. We will be discussing that more 

and maybe we can get some done this year or next. 

Thank you so much. If there is nothing further to come before 

our Subcommittee, we will stand in adjournment. 

[Whereupon, at 4:49 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and submissions follows.] 

29 


48828.001
30 


48828.002
31 


48828.003
32 


48828.004
33 


48828.005
34 


48828.006
35 


48828.007
36 


48828.008
37 


48828.009
38 


48828.010
39 


48828.011
40 


48828.012
41 


48828.013
42 


48828.014
43 


48828.015
44 


48828.016
45 


48828.017
46 


48828.018
47 


48828.019
48 


48828.020
49 


48828.021
50 


48828.022
51 


48828.023
52 


48828.024
53 


48828.025
54 


48828.026
55 


48828.027
56 


48828.028
57 


48828.029
58 


48828.030
59 


48828.031
60 


48828.032
61 


48828.033
62 


48828.034
63 


48828.035
64 


48828.036
65 


48828.037
66 


48828.038
67 


48828.039
68 


48828.040
69 


48828.041
70 


48828.042
71 


48828.043
72 


48828.044
73 


48828.045
74 


48828.046
75 


48828.047
76 


48828.048
77 


48828.049
78 


48828.050
79 


48828.051
80 


48828.052
81 


48828.053
82 


48828.054
83 


48828.055
84 


48828.056
85 


48828.057
86 


48828.058
87 


48828.059
88 


48828.060
89 


48828.061
90 


48828.062
91 


48828.063
92 


48828.064
93 


48828.065
94 


48828.066
95 


48828.067
96 


48828.068
97 


48828.069
98 


48828.070
99 


48828.071
100 


48828.072
101 


48828.073
102 


48828.074
103 


48828.075
104 


48828.076
105 


48828.077
106 


48828.078
107 


48828.079
108 


48828.080
109 


48828.081
110 


48828.082
111 


48828.083
112 


48828.084
113 


48828.085
114 


48828.086
115 


48828.087
116 


48828.088
117 


48828.089
118 


48828.090
119 


48828.091
120 


48828.092
121 


48828.093
122 


48828.094
123 


48828.095
124 


48828.096
125 


48828.097
126 


48828.098
127 


48828.099
128 


48828.100
129 


48828.101
130 


48828.102
131 


48828.103
132 


48828.104
133 


48828.105
134 


48828.106
135 


48828.107
136 


48828.108
137 


48828.109
138 


48828.110
139 


48828.111
140 


48828.112
141 


48828.113
142 


48828.114
143 


48828.115
144 


48828.116
145 


48828.117
146 


48828.118
147 


48828.119
148 


48828.120
149 


48828.121
150 


48828.122
151 


48828.123
152 


48828.124
153 


48828.125
154 


48828.126
155 


48828.127
156 


48828.128
157 


48828.129
158 


48828.130
159 


48828.131
160 


48828.132
161 


48828.133
162 


48828.134
163 


48828.135
164 


48828.136
165 


48828.137
166 


48828.138
167 


48828.139
168 

Æ 


48828.140