ADMJNISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES COURTS 

NEWS RELEASE 

June 5, 1990 

Contact: David Sellers 

(202)633-6040 

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE ENDORSES CREATION OF 96 NEW JUDGESHIPS 

The Judicial Conference of the United States has approved 

the creation of 96 new federal judgeships--20 permanent court of 

appeals positions and 47 permanent and 29 temporary district 

court slots. 

Voting by special mail ballot, the Conference also voted to 

extend one temporary judgeship for an additional five years, to 

convert six existing temporary positions to permanent status and 

to convert four roving judgeships so that each would serve a 

single district. 

The Conference's vote is consistent with the recommendations 

of its Executive Committee and its Committee on Judicial 

Resources. Results of the vote will be transmitted to 
2 

Congress, which must enact legislation to create any new federal 

judgeships. 

While the Conference has evaluated the need for additional 

judgeships and reported its recommendations to Congress for 

nearly 100 years, it is only since 1980 that surveys of all 

courts have been conducted in two year intervals. The 

Conference's judgeship recommendations are based on actual 

workload statistics reflecting the needs of the courts at the 

time of the survey. 

Under existing practices, each chief judge completes a 

questionnaire addressing the judgeship needs of his or her court. 

The questionnaires and current workload statistics are reviewed 

by the Conference's Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics, which 

develops preliminary recommendations on the need for additional 

judgeships. These recommendations are then submitted to each 

circuit's judicial council for a vote. The council's 

recommendations are again reviewed by the subcommittee, which 

transmits its final data to the Judicial Resources Committee. 

The Conference votes at its September meeting in even numbered 

years. 

Legislation creating federal judgeships was last enacted in 

1984, when 24 appeals judgeships, and 53 permanent and eight 

temporary district court positions were established. 

The Conference's formal recommendations were last formulated 

in September 1988. At that time it approved the creation of 16 

permanent court of appeals judgeships and 39 permanent and 21 
3 

temporary district court positions. The Conference was next 

scheduled to vote on new judgeships in September 1990. 

A mail ballot was circulated instead of waiting until the 

regularly scheduled Fall meeting because the Senate currently is 

considering legislation that would create 77 new judgeships. 

Title II of S. 2648, the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, would 

create 11 new court of appeals judgeships and 52 permanent and 14 

temporary district court positions. 

A chart depicting the specific Conference judgeship 

recommendations is attached. 

# # # 
Table 1 

United States Courts of Appeals 

Additional Judgeships Recommended by 

the Judicial Conference 

June 1990 

Approved 

By 

Judicial Recommended 

Conference By Biden Difference 

In Judicial Bill S.2648 vs 

1988 Conference S.2648 Conference 

= 

Total .............. 16 20 11 -9 

District of 

Columbia .... " ............. 0 0 0 0 

First Circuit ............... " .. 0 1 0 -1 

Second Circuit . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 

Third Circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 2 -2 

Fourth Circuit ........... 4 4 4 0 

Fifth Circuit .... - ........... 1 1 1 0 

Sixth Circuit • . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 1 -4 

Seventh Circuit . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 

Eighth Circuit . . . . . . . . . .. 2 2 1 -1 

Ninth Circuit ...... ,. ............. 0 0 0 0 

Tenth Circuit ................... 2 3 2 -1 

Eleventh Circuit .. ~ .. . .. .. .. .. " 0 0 0 0 
TOTAL •••••••••••••• 

Distrlc1 of Columbia 

FIRST CIRCUIT 

Maine •••......•......... 

Massachusetts ... . . . . . . .•.. 

New Hampshire .. . . • . . . . . . . 

Puerto Rico ....•.......... 

Rhode Island . . . • . . • . . . . ... 

SECOND CIRCUIT 

Connecticut . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . 

New York, Northern •......•. 

New York, Eastern ..•..•.... 

New York, Southern •••...... 

New York, Western ....•..... 

Vermont ...............•. 

THIRD CIRCUIT 

Delaware ................ . 

New Jersey ..•......••...• 

Pennsylvania, Eastern • . . ..... 

Pennsylvania, Middle ...•.. •• 

Pennsylvania, Western ..•.•.. 

Virgin Islands .....•.....••. 

FOURTH CIRCUIT 

Maryland .••.•.•.•.•...... 

North Carolina, Eastern ...••.. 

North Carolina, Middle ...•... 

North Carolina, Western .•••.• 

South Carolina •.•...•.•••.. 

Virginia, Eastern ....•.•.•... 

Virginia. Western .•..•.••••• 

West Virginia. Northern •.••••• 

West Virginia. Southern •••.••. 

Table 2 

United States District Courts 

Additional Judgeships Recommended by 

the Judicial Conference 

Approved By 

Judicial 

Conference 

In 1988 

39,21T,5T/P,4R/P 

o 

o 

1TIP,1T 

o 

o 

o 

2 

1T 

1 

1 

1 TIP 

o 

o 

3 

3,1T 

o 

o 

1 

1T 

o 

o 

o 

o 

1T 

o 

o 

o 

June 1990 

Recommended 

By 

Judicial 

Conference 

47,29T,6T/P,4R/P 

o 

o 

1TIP.1T 

o 

o 

o 

2 

1T 

3 

1 

1 TIP 

o 

o 

4 

5 

o 

o 

1 

1T 

* 

o 

o 

11 

11 

o 

1T 

11 

• - Extend the temporary position for an additional five years. 

Biden 

Bill 

S.2648 

52,14T,8T/P,4A/P 

o 

1 

1TIP,1 

1 

o 

o 

2 

1T 

1 

1 

1T/P 

o 

o 

3 

3,1T 

1 

o 

1 

o 

1 TIP 

1 

o 

1 

1T 

o 

1 

Difference 

S.2648 vs 

Conference 

o 

+1 

o 

+1 

o 

o 

o 

o 

·2 

o 

o 

o 

o 

., 

·1 

+1 

o 

o 

-1T 

o 

+1 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 
FIFTH CIRCUIT 

Louisiana, Ees1ern ......... . 

Louisiana, Middle . . . . . . . . . . . 

Louisiana, Wes1ern .....•.... 

Mississippi, Northern . . . . . . . . . 

Mississippi, Southern ....... . 

Texas, Northern ........... . 

Texas, Eastern ............ . 

Texas, Southern . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Texas, Western ........... . 

SIXTH CIRCUIT 

Kentucky, Eastern . . . . . . . . . . . 

Kentucky, Western ......... . 

Michigan, Eastern ....•...... 

Michigan, Western ......... . 

Ohio, Northern .....•....... 

Ohio, Southern ............ . 

Tennessee, Ees1ern .•........ 

Tennessee, Middle .•........ 

Tennessee, Western ..•...... 

SEVENTH CIRCUIT 

Illinois, Northern • • . . . . . . • . . . 

Illinois, Central • • . • • . . . . • . • . 

Illinois, Southern .•.......... 

Indiana, Northern •....• . . . . . 

Indiana, Southern • . . • • . . ... . 

Wisconsin, Ees1ern .•. . ..... . 

Wisconsin, Western .•......•• 

Table 2 

United States District Courts 

Additional Judgeships Recommended by 

the Judicial Conference 

Approved By 

Judicial 

Conference 

In 1988 

0 

1T 

1 

0 

1 

1 

n 

3 

0 

0 

0 

1T 

n/P,1T 

1,1T 

1 

1T 

0 

1,1T/P 

1T 

1T 

1T/P 

0 

0 

0 

June 1990 

(continued) 

Recommended 

By 

Judicial 

Conference 

0 

n 

n 

0 

1 

2 

n 

7 

3 

0 

0 

0 

1T 

1,1T 

1,1T 

1 

1T 

0 

1 ,nIP 

1T 

1T 

niP 

0 

0 

0 

Biden 

Bill 

S.2648 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1T 

3 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1T 

1T/P,1T 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1,1T/P 

1T 

1T 

1T/P 

0 

0 

0 

Difference 

S.2648 vs 

Conference 

0 

·n 

0 

0 

0 

·1 

0 

-4 

·2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0** 

·1.1T 

0 

-1T 

+1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

** The Committee recommendation assumes that the temporary judgeship created in 1984 no longer exists. S.264S assumes 

that the temporary position still exists. The results of the Committee recommendation and 5.2648 would be the same. 
EIGHTH CIRCUIT 

Arkansas, Eastern •.....•.... 

Arkansas, Western ......... . 

Iowa, Northern •...•........ 

Iowa, Southern ....•.......• 

Minnesota ..••.•.......... 

Missouri, Eastern •........ .. 

Missouri, Western .• , ....... . 

Nebraska ...........•.... 

North Dakota .....•........ 

South Dakota . . . • . • . . . . . . . . 

NINTH CIRCUIT 

Alaska .•.••..•...•.....• 

Arizona ...........•...•.. 

California, Northern . . . • . ...•. 

California, Eastern ..... .... . 

California, Central . . • . . ..... . 

California, Southern •..•..... 

Hawaii .••............... 

Idaho ..•••.........••... 

Montana ............... .. 

Nevada •..•....•.•.....•. 

Oregon ••....••.......... 

Washington, Eastern ...•..... 

Washington, Western .•..••.. 

Guam ......••.•..••.••.. 

Northern Mariana Islands . . . •.. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Colorado ••...........•..• 

Kansas ................. . 

New Mexico .....•.•....••. 

Oklahoma, Northern ••.•••..• 

Oklahoma, Eastern .••••..••. 

Oklahoma, Western ••••••.•• 

Utah ................... . 

Wyoming .•.••.••.•••••.•. 

Table 2 

United States District Courts 

Additional Judgeships Recommended by 

the Judicial Conference 

Approved By 

Judicial 

Conference 

In 1989 

2R1P 

1 

1 RIP 

1 

o 

1,1T 

o 

11 

o 

o 

o 

o 

2 

11 

6 

o 

11 

o 

o 

11 

1 

o 

1 TIP 

o 

o 

o 

1T 

1 

1 

o 

2.1T.1R/P 

o 

o 

June 1990 

(continued) 

Recommended 

By 

Judicial 

Conference 

2R/P 

1T,1T/P 

1R/P 

1 

o 

1,1T 

o 

1T 

o 

o 

o 

o 

2 

1T 

6 

1T 

o 

o 

o 

1T 

1,1T 

o 

1T/P 

o 

o 

o 

1T 

1T 

1T 

o 

1,1R/P 

o 

o 

Biden 

Bill 

S.2648 

2R/P 

1.11/P 

1R/P 

1 

o 

1.1T 

o 

11 

o 

o 

o 

o 

2 

1T 

5 

1 

11 

o 

o 

o 

1 

1 

1TIP 

o 

o 

o 

1T 

1 

1 

o 

1.1R1P 

1 

1 

Difference 

S.2648 VIS 

Conference 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

·1 

o 

+1T 

o 

o 

.1T 

·1T 

+1 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

+1 

+1 
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

Alabama, Northern ......... . 

Alabama, Middle .........•. 

Alabama, Southern ......... . 

Florida, Northern .......... . 

Florida, Middle ............ . 

Florida, Southern ...•....... 

Georgia, Northern .......... . 

Georgia, Middle .....•...•.. 

Georgia, Southern ......... . 

T Temporary position. 

RIP Rover made permanent 

TIP Temporary made permanent 

Table 2 

United States District Courts 

Additional Judgeships Recommended by 

the judicial Conference 

Approved By 

JUdicial 

Conference 

In 1988 

1T 

o 

o 

o 

2 

o 

o 

o 

o 

June 1990 

(continued) 

Recommended 

By 

Judicial 

Conference 

1T 

0 

0 

0 

2,1T 

1T 

0 

0 

0 

Biden 

Bill 

S.2648 

1T 

0 

0 

1 

2 

1 

0 

1 

0 

Difference 

S.264S vs 

Conference 

0 

0 

0 

+1 

·1T 

0 

0 

+1 

0