REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS

OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE

OF THE UNITED STATES

September 28, 2021

The Judicial Conference of the United States convened by 

teleconference on September 28, 2021, pursuant to the call of the Chief Justice 

of the United States issued under 28 U.S.C. § 331. The Chief Justice presided, 

and the following members of the Conference participated: 

First Circuit:

Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard

Chief Judge Gustavo A. Gelpí, Jr.,

District of Puerto Rico

Second Circuit:

Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston

Chief Judge Stefan R. Underhill,

District of Connecticut

Third Circuit:

Chief Judge D. Brooks Smith

Chief Judge Freda L. Wolfson,

District of New Jersey

Fourth Circuit:

Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory

Judge John Bailey, 

Northern District of West Virginia

Fifth Circuit:

Chief Judge Priscilla Richman Owen

Chief Judge S. Maurice Hicks, Jr.,

Western District of Louisiana
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

2

Sixth Circuit:

Chief Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton

Judge Sara Lioi,

Northern District of Ohio

Seventh Circuit:

Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes

Chief Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer,

Northern District of Illinois

Eighth Circuit:

Chief Judge Lavenski R. Smith

Chief Judge John R. Tunheim,

District of Minnesota

Ninth Circuit:

Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas

Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson,

Eastern District of Washington

Tenth Circuit:

Chief Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich

Judge Claire V. Eagan,

Northern District of Oklahoma

Eleventh Circuit:

Chief Judge William H. Pryor, Jr.

Chief Judge Scott Coogler,

Northern District of Alabama

District of Columbia Circuit:

Chief Judge Srikanth Srinivasan

Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell,

District of Columbia
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

3

Federal Circuit:

Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore

Court of International Trade:

Chief Judge Mark A. Barnett

Also participating in this session of the Conference were Judge John W. Lungstrum, 

outgoing chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Budget, Judge Amy J. St. 

Eve, incoming chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Budget, Chief Judge 

Rodney W. Sippel, chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Judicial Branch,

and Chief Bankruptcy Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins and Magistrate Judge Nannette A. 

Baker, as the bankruptcy judge and magistrate judge observers, respectively. Betsy 

Paret of the District of Columbia Circuit represented the circuit executives.

Participating from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts were Judge 

Roslynn R. Mauskopf, Director; Lee Ann Bennett, Deputy Director; Sheryl L. Walter, 

General Counsel; Katherine H. Simon, Secretariat Officer, and WonKee Moon, 

Supervisory Attorney Advisor, Judicial Conference Secretariat; David T. Best, 

Legislative Affairs Officer; and David A. Sellers, Public Affairs Officer. John S. 

Cooke, Director, and Clara J. Altman, Deputy Director, Federal Judicial Center, as 

well as Judge Charles R. Breyer, Acting Chair, and Kenneth P. Cohen, Staff Director, 

United States Sentencing Commission, also participated, as did Jeffrey P. Minear, 

Counselor to the Chief Justice, and Ethan V. Torrey, Supreme Court Legal Counsel.

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland addressed the Conference on matters of mutual 

interest to the judiciary and the Department of Justice. Senators Patrick Leahy and

Sheldon Whitehouse and Representatives Jim Jordan, Hank Johnson, Darrell Issa, 

Mike Quigley, and Steve Womack spoke on matters pending in Congress of interest to 

the Conference.

REPORTS

Judge Mauskopf reported to the Judicial Conference on the judicial business of the 

courts and on matters relating to the Administrative Office. Mr. Cooke spoke to the 

Conference about Federal Judicial Center programs, and Judge Breyer reported on 

United States Sentencing Commission activities.
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

4

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

 

RESOLUTION

The Judicial Conference approved a recommendation of the Executive 

Committee to adopt the following resolution recognizing the substantial contributions 

made by Judicial Conference committee chairs whose terms of service end in 2021:

The Judicial Conference of the United States recognizes 

with appreciation, respect, and admiration the following 

judicial officers: 

HONORABLE JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM

Committee on the Budget

HONORABLE RALPH R. ERICKSON

Committee on Codes of Conduct

HONORABLE THOMAS M. HARDIMAN

Committee on Information Technology

HONORABLE DAVID W. MCKEAGUE

Committee on Judicial Security

HONORABLE NANCY FREUDENTHAL

Committee on the Administration of the Magistrate 

Judges System

Appointed as committee chairs by the Chief Justice of the 

United States, these outstanding jurists have played a vital 

role in the administration of the federal court system. 

These judges served with distinction as leaders of their 

Judicial Conference committees while, at the same time, 

continuing to perform their duties as judges in their own 

courts. They have set a standard of skilled leadership and 

earned our deep respect and sincere gratitude for their 

innumerable contributions. We acknowledge with 

appreciation their commitment and dedicated service to 

the Judicial Conference and to the entire federal judiciary.
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

5

 

TEMPORARY EXCEPTIONS TO HUMAN RESOURCES POLICIES

In 2020, the Executive Committee acted on behalf of the Judicial Conference 

on an expedited basis to approve three temporary exceptions to Judicial Conference 

human resources policies to address the impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 

(COVID-19) pandemic on the federal judiciary, and to extend those temporary 

exceptions until September 30, 2021 (JCUS-SEP 2020, pp. 10-12; JCUS-MAR 2021, 

pp. 4-5). Due to continued issues related to COVID-19, the Committee on Judicial 

Resources recommended that the Executive Committee act on behalf of the Judicial 

Conference on an expedited basis to further extend each temporary exception. 

Approving the Judicial Resources Committee’s recommendations, the Executive 

Committee:

Time Limits for Term and Temporary Appointments. Authorized a waiver of 

the four-year limitation on term and temporary appointments under September 2007 

and March 2011 Judicial Conference policy for employees whose appointments have 

expired or will expire within six months after the national emergency has ended, to 

allow up to one-year extensions of their term or temporary appointments, upon a 

finding by the appointing officer that hiring a replacement prior to this date is not 

feasible due to COVID-19.

Mandatory Background Checks. Authorized the use of Federal Bureau of 

Investigation National Crime Information Center checks in lieu of fingerprint checks 

when conducting a background check for new and transferring employees for sensitive 

positions under September 2002 Judicial Conference policy, through September 30, 

2022, due to health and safety concerns resulting from COVID-19.

Limitation on Law Enforcement Officer Reemployed Annuitants. Authorized 

an additional one-year reemployment period for law enforcement officers serving as 

reemployed annuitants under March 2009 Judicial Conference policy whose 

appointment expires on or before six months after the national emergency has ended, 

upon a finding by the chief district judge that a robust recruitment process cannot be 

conducted due to COVID-19.
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

6

 

COURT SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS

The Executive Committee, acting on behalf of the Judicial Conference on an 

expedited basis at the recommendation of the Committee on Judicial Security, 

approved seeking a modification to the Court Security appropriation language to 

consolidate funding related to the activities of the Administrative Office (AO)’s 

Judiciary Security Division into the Court Security appropriation account. The 

Committee on Judicial Security, with the concurrence of the Committee on the 

Budget, recommended the modification to capture the full range of activities in which 

the AO must engage to sustain an appropriate level of security services to the judiciary 

and to realign all relevant security costs into a single appropriations account. The 

proposed amended appropriations language would also incorporate statutory 

authorization for the judiciary to conduct activities envisioned by the judiciary 

vulnerability management program (see infra, p. 25) related to the removal of judges’ 

personally identifiable information, in furtherance of the Judicial Conference’s 2020 

position seeking legislation to “enhance the protection of judges’ PII, particularly on 

the internet” (JCUS-SEP 2020, pp. 12-13).

 

JUDICIARY ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2021

The “Judiciary Accountability Act of 2021,” introduced in the U.S. House of 

Representatives as H.R. 4827 and the U.S. Senate as S. 2553 in July 2021, would 

significantly change how the judicial branch handles workplace misconduct issues. 

Because of the fundamental impact the bill would have on the Third Branch if passed, 

and the uncertainty of how quickly Congress may act on it, the Executive Committee 

considered the bill before review by appropriate Judicial Conference committees, and 

determined to:

(1) Act on behalf of the Judicial Conference on an expedited basis to 

oppose the Judiciary Accountability Act of 2021 because it interferes 

with the internal governance of the Third Branch; creates structures that 

compete with existing governing bodies and authorities within the 

judiciary; and imposes intrusive requirements on Judicial Conference 

procedures; and

(2) Refer the bill to the Committees on Judicial Resources, Audits and 

Administrative Office Accountability, Codes of Conduct, Defender 

Services, the Judicial Branch, and Judicial Conduct and Disability for 
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

7

further study, and request that the Committees provide their views on 

the bill to the Executive Committee.

 

MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS

The Executive Committee—

• Acting on an expedited basis on behalf of the Judicial Conference on 

recommendation of the Committee on Space and Facilities, approved an 

exception to the No Net New space policy for any space needed within the 

Tenth Circuit to accommodate increased workload requirements resulting from 

the Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. __, 140 S. Ct. 

2452 (2020), and an exception to the AMP Business Rules and U.S. Courts 

Design Guide to allow the construction of dedicated courtrooms and more than 

one chambers for visiting judges in the Eastern District of Oklahoma assisting 

with increased caseloads resulting from McGirt

• Approved interim fiscal year 2022 financial plans for the Salaries and 

Expenses, Defender Services, Court Security, and Fees of Jurors and 

Commissioners accounts and endorsed a strategy for distributing court 

allotments among court programs.

 

 

COMMITTEE ON AUDITS AND 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ACCOUNTABILITY

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Audits and Administrative Office (AO) Accountability 

reported that it was updated on the status and results of various audits and 

engagements, including cyclical financial audits of court units and federal public 

defender organizations, including the ongoing use of innovative methods to complete 

all aspects of cyclical financial audits and the biennial appropriations audits remotely 

in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee was briefed on the AO’s 

progress in addressing corrective actions relating to various audit findings. In addition, 

the Committee responded to the request of the judiciary’s planning coordinator to 

identify strategies that will be the Committee’s focus over the next two years:

strategic initiatives include an ongoing effort to enhance internal control tools and 

increase awareness about internal control requirements, tools, and assistance available; 
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

8

and a new initiative to improve AO contract management and acquisition programs to 

better ensure that contracted services are delivered with appropriate controls and in a 

cost-effective and timely manner.

COMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATION 

OF THE BANKRUPTCY SYSTEM

 

GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNATIONS OF BANKRUPTCY JUDGE DUTY STATIONS 

AND ADDITIONAL PLACES OF HOLDING COURT

The Guidelines for Designations of Bankruptcy Judge Duty Stations and 

Additional Places of Holding Court, which were adopted by the Judicial Conference in 

March 2018 (JCUS-MAR 2018, p. 11) and are codified in the Guide to Judiciary 

Policy (Guide), Vol. 3, Ch. 15, require circuit judicial councils to submit requests to 

change duty stations for bankruptcy judges or additional places of holding court to the 

Director of the Administrative Office (AO). The AO Director, in turn, will make a 

recommendation to the Committee on the Administration of the Bankruptcy System, 

which will then make a recommendation to the Judicial Conference. The Bankruptcy 

Committee noted that the chief of the AO’s Judicial Services Office, as staff to the 

Bankruptcy Committee, could in most instances adequately and efficiently develop 

recommendations regarding official duty stations and places of holding court for 

bankruptcy judges without the direct involvement of the Director. The Bankruptcy 

Committee recommended, and the Judicial Conference approved, revisions to the 

Guidelines for Designations of Bankruptcy Judge Duty Stations and Additional Places 

of Holding Court to authorize the chief of the AO’s Judicial Services Office to make 

recommendations on behalf of the AO Director to the Bankruptcy Committee 

regarding changes to bankruptcy judge official duty stations and places of holding 

court.

 

SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT REGULATIONS

On recommendation of the Bankruptcy Committee, the Conference approved 

revisions to the Regulations for the Selection and Appointment of Bankruptcy Judges, 

Guide, Vol. 3, Ch. 3. The revisions (1) establish the circuit judicial council as the 

entity with the authority to waive a background report, in keeping with the 

responsibility of the circuit judicial councils to assist the court of appeals in the

bankruptcy judge appointment process under 28 U.S.C. § 152(a)(1); (2) provide a 

longer time period and additional flexibility for circuits to waive background reports 
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

9

for sitting bankruptcy judges; and (3) clarify the process for the submission and 

resubmission of finalists for consideration by the court of appeals.

 

OFFICIAL DUTY STATIONS AND PLACES OF HOLDING COURT

On recommendation of the Bankruptcy Committee, and in accordance with 28 

U.S.C. § 152(b)(1), the Judicial Conference approved a request from the Fourth 

Circuit Judicial Council to redesignate an official bankruptcy judge duty station in the 

District of South Carolina from Spartanburg to Greenville.

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Bankruptcy Committee reported that it continues to consider whether to 

identify additional courts to participate in the bankruptcy judgeship vacancy pilot, 

which was approved by the Judicial Conference in September 2014, but decided again 

to defer the matter until bankruptcy filings increase. The Committee advised that the 

judiciary should continue to defer pursuit of a legislative proposal that would align the 

authority of bankruptcy administrators with their U.S. trustee counterparts. Finally, 

the Committee continues its initiatives to promote and improve diversity on the 

bankruptcy bench and in the bar through outreach to and education of law students and 

attorneys. It confirmed a partnership with the Committee on the Administration of the 

Magistrate Judges System on a proposal to hold judiciary-wide diversity events every 

three years and expand them to encompass both bankruptcy and magistrate judges.

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

 

FISCAL YEAR 2023 BUDGET REQUEST

After considering the budget requests of the program committees, the Budget 

Committee recommended to the Judicial Conference a fiscal year 2023 budget request 

of $8.0 billion in discretionary appropriations, which is 5.4 percent above assumed 

discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2022, but $180.6 million below the funding 

levels requested by the program committees. The Judicial Conference approved the 

Budget Committee’s fiscal year 2023 budget request, subject to amendments necessary 

as a result of (a) new legislation, (b) actions of the Judicial Conference, (c) changes in 

standard inflation factors or funding assumptions, or (d) any other reason the 

Executive Committee considers necessary and appropriate.
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

10

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on the Budget reported that it discussed the status of fiscal year 

2022 appropriations, the continued importance of congressional outreach, the impact 

of the COVID-19 pandemic on the judiciary’s budget, and reinvigorating costcontainment initiatives within the judiciary. In addition, the Budget Committee 

updated the capital goods allotment formula to remove information technology (IT)-

related requirements that are now included in the revised IT infrastructure formula

approved by the Committee on Information Technology.

COMMITTEE ON CODES OF CONDUCT

 

CERTIFICATES OF DIVESTITURE REGULATIONS

On recommendation of the Committee on Codes of Conduct, the Judicial 

Conference approved amendments to the Certificates of Divestiture Regulations, 

Guide, Vol. 2, Pt. C, Ch. 2., and delegated to the Committee the authority to make 

non-substantive or technical amendments. The amendments clarify: (a) that if 

property to be divested under 28 U.S.C. § 455(f) and/or Canon 3C(4) of the Code of 

Conduct for United States Judges could be substantially affected by the outcome of the 

matter giving rise to the conflict of interest, such effect serves as a disqualifier to 

obtaining a certificate of divestiture; and (b) that while the Committee has the 

delegated authority to apply the regulations in acting upon individual certificates of 

divestiture requests, it is the Judicial Conference that has authority to establish and 

approve amendments to the regulations themselves.

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Codes of Conduct reported that since its last report to the 

Judicial Conference in March 2021, the Committee received 13 new written inquiries 

and issued 12 written advisory responses. During this period, the average response 

time for requests was 13 days. In addition, the Committee chair responded to 15 

informal inquiries, individual Committee members responded to 160 informal 

inquiries, and Committee counsel responded to 661 informal inquiries, for a total of 

836 informal inquiries.
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

11

COMMITTEE ON COURT ADMINISTRATION 

AND CASE MANAGEMENT

 

JUROR QUALIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRE

In September 2016, the Judicial Conference approved a complete revision to 

the style and substance of the Juror Qualification Questionnaire to make it clearer and 

easier for jurors to understand (JCUS-SEP 2016, p. 13). As district courts began using 

the revised form, AO staff solicited and incorporated court and juror feedback for the

next iteration of the form. On recommendation of the Committee on Court 

Administration and Case Management, the Judicial Conference approved the final 

revised jury qualification questionnaire.

 

AUDIO STREAMING PILOT PROGRAM

Extension. In March 2020, the Judicial Conference authorized a two-year pilot 

program to evaluate district court streaming of live audio of oral arguments in civil 

cases of public interest (JCUS-MAR 2020, p. 9), and in March 2021 amended the 

scope of the pilot to permit the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and a limited number of 

bankruptcy courts to participate (JCUS-MAR 2021, pp. 13-14). The Committee on 

Court Administration and Case Management noted that the pilot is currently set to 

expire in March 2022 (less than six months after participating bankruptcy courts will 

have begun livestreaming); that some courts have expressed interest in joining the 

pilot at a later date to avoid overburdening court information technology staff 

responsible for coordinating virtual proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic; and 

that the number of proceedings included in the pilot may be artificially low due to the 

impact of the pandemic, such that an additional year would provide the Committee 

with additional data on which to base its assessment. It therefore recommended that 

the Judicial Conference extend by one year the audio streaming pilot project, to 

conclude in March 2023. The Judicial Conference approved the Committee’s 

recommendation.

Scope. Noting that the U.S. Court of International Trade has expressed interest 

in serving as a pilot court, and that the court—like district courts, bankruptcy courts, 

and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims—routinely holds proceedings that are of public 

interest and may attract large audiences from across the country, the Committee on 

Court Administration and Case Management recommended that the Judicial 

Conference amend the scope of the audio streaming pilot to permit the U.S. Court of 
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

12

International Trade to participate. The Judicial Conference approved the Committee’s 

recommendation.

 

 

COURT LAW CLERK PROGRAM

On recommendation of the Committee on Judicial Resources, the Judicial 

Conference between 2011 and 2019 approved, modified, and extended a court law 

clerk pilot program to facilitate case resolution in high-workload courts by providing 

additional law clerks to district courts with exceptionally heavy caseloads (JCUSMAR 2011, p. 23; JCUS-MAR 2014, p. 21; JCUS-MAR 2015, p. 20; JCUS-SEP 

2015, p. 21; JCUS-MAR 2016, pp. 19-20; JCUS-MAR 2018, p. 20; JCUS-MAR 2019, 

p. 28; JCUS-SEP 2019, pp. 17-18). At the request of the Judicial Resources 

Committee, the Court Administration and Case Management Committee considered 

potential governance standards for a court law clerk program should the Judicial 

Conference approve converting the pilot program into a permanent national program. 

The Committee noted that the proposed court law clerk program is structurally very 

similar to the pro se law clerk and death penalty law clerk programs, and that the 

governance structure applicable to the pro se law clerk and death penalty law clerk 

programs—approved by the Conference on recommendation of the Court 

Administration and Case Management Committee in March 2019 (JCUS-MAR 2019, 

pp. 15-16)—is therefore also suitable for the court law clerk program. It therefore 

recommended (with the endorsement of the Judicial Resources Committee), and the 

Judicial Conference approved, the following governance standards for a national court 

law clerk program:

The chief judge of each district will appoint and supervise court 

law clerks, under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 752, and will have 

the discretion to delegate appointment authority to another 

judicial officer or to the clerk of court, as appropriate for the 

court.

The chief judge may delegate supervisory responsibilities with 

respect to court law clerks to another judicial officer, the clerk of 

court, or to a law clerk, who will report to the chief judge or to 

another judicial officer or the clerk of court, who will be 

designated by the chief judge. 
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

13

 

RECORDS MANAGEMENT

The retention and disposition of judiciary records is controlled by records 

disposition schedules jointly established by the Judicial Conference and the National 

Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The records disposition schedules do 

not permit courts to dispose of permanently sealed records belonging to a case file 

classified as temporary (and thus eligible for disposal) if the seal is not vacated. The 

Court Administration and Case Management Committee accordingly proposed an 

amendment to the schedules to allow the disposal of permanently sealed paper case 

records if and when the case file becomes eligible for destruction. On the 

Committee’s recommendation, the Judicial Conference approved the addition to 

Records Disposition Schedule 2 (which applies to, inter alia, district and bankruptcy 

courts).

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Court Administration and Case Management reported that it 

discussed initiatives it could pursue, on its own and in partnership with other 

committees, to promote diversity on juries and within the judiciary. The Committee 

endorsed the concept of developing a Google-like search functionality for all dockets, 

documents, and filings as part of the judiciary’s modernization of its case filing 

system, subject to further investigation into potential impacts in areas such as 

technology, system performance, privacy, and fee collections, and recognized that this 

would provide the public with a valuable tool to access public case information. The 

Committee also discussed the July 2021 termination of the ten-year, statutorily 

established patent pilot (Pub. L. 111-349) and concluded that, because there was no 

compelling evidence to justify expansion or extension, the pilot program should be 

allowed to terminate. The Committee is working with the AO Director, pilot 

participant courts, and the Federal Judicial Center to close out the pilot and prepare a 

final report that must be submitted to Congress in October 2021. Finally, the 

Committee discussed the results of the first phase of the AO’s interagency agreement 

with 18F, a digital consultancy within the General Services Administration’s Federal 

Acquisition Service, to perform an independent assessment of the judiciary’s case

management and electronic case filing (CM/ECF) system. The Committee affirmed 

its strong support for the 18F engagement, and committed to work closely with the 

AO, 18F, other Judicial Conference committees, and the broader court community 

to ensure the success of the CM/ECF modernization initiative.
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

14

COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL LAW

 

PILOT PROGRAM ON INCORPORATION OF COMPARATIVE SENTENCING 

INFORMATION INTO THE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT

In connection with ongoing discussions between the Committee on Criminal 

Law and the U.S. Sentencing Commission about how to ensure the effectiveness and 

fairness of sentencing, the Sentencing Commission has developed a data tool that can 

provide, for any given case before a judge, the five-year national average sentence 

imposed for defendants sentenced under the same primary sentencing guideline, and 

with the same Total Offense Level and Criminal History Category. The Criminal Law 

Committee considered whether to incorporate this comparative sentencing information 

into the Presentence Investigation Report to allow the information to be considered by 

probation officers and judges as part of their sentencing recommendations and 

determinations. Noting suggestions and issues raised by various stakeholders such as 

the Department of Justice and the Defender Services Committee, including concerns 

from the Defender Services Committee about the need for further study, the Criminal 

Law Committee recommended that the Judicial Conference authorize a two-year pilot 

program to evaluate the incorporation of comparative sentencing information into the 

Presentence Investigation Report, and delegate to the Committee the authority to issue 

and amend guidelines consistent with the parameters of the pilot. The Judicial 

Conference approved the Committee’s recommendation.

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Criminal Law reported that it has continued to provide 

regular updates and guidance to the courts on issues related to criminal justice 

administration during the COVID-19 pandemic, including suggested best practices 

when granting motions for compassionate release and statistics and procedures related 

to the vaccination of Bureau of Prisons (BOP) inmates and staff. Additionally, the 

Judiciary-BOP Working Group, which includes members from the Criminal Law 

Committee and other Judicial Conference committees, has held monthly meetings to 

discuss the impact of the pandemic on operations within the BOP, Department of 

Justice, and probation and pretrial services system, and on criminal proceedings in the 

courts, as well as other issues of shared interest. The Committee also endorsed the 

release of statistical dashboards developed by the AO, which allow judges to view 

their own pretrial release rates by risk level, as well as other metrics, and compare 

them to the nation, their circuit, and their district. The Committee agreed to endorse 

the release of the dashboards with judge-identifying information to chief and deputy 
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

15

chief probation and pretrial services officers so they can carry out their duties in 18 

U.S.C. §3154(9) to develop and implement a system to monitor bail activities, provide 

information to judicial officers on the results of bail decisions, and prepare periodic 

reports to assist in the improvement of the bail process.

COMMITTEE ON DEFENDER SERVICES

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee reported that it discussed the widespread use of 

videoconferencing for attorney-client meetings and court proceedings during the 

COVID-19 pandemic, and the difficulties inherent in establishing attorney-client 

relationships and maintaining confidential communications using this 

technology. Although these communications may be a useful supplement, the 

Committee concluded that this technology does not serve as an adequate substitute for 

in-person communications and revised the Defender Services strategic plan to 

reinforce the importance of in-person attorney-client meetings as the standard of 

practice. The updated strategies clarify that Criminal Justice Act practitioners are 

expected to visit their detained clients in person—even when clients are remotely 

detained and videoconferencing technology is available—and should be compensated 

for doing so. The Committee also voted to approve the establishment of a new federal 

defender organization (FDO) in Oklahoma-Eastern, consistent with Judicial 

Conference policy that an FDO should be established in every district that has 200 or 

more appointments each year (JCUS-SEP 2018, p. 39), due to the substantial caseload 

increase as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 

U.S. __ (2020). In addition, the Committee approved operational guidelines for the 

non-capital component of the Defender Services Diversity Fellowship Program, with 

the first cohort of fellows scheduled for onboarding in September 2022. Finally, the 

Committee met with Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, who expressed support 

for continued collaboration on issues that have a significant impact on the Defender 

Services program, including, for example, the remote detention of pretrial detainees.

COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL-STATE JURISDICTION

 

DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP JURISDICTION

In 1990, the Judicial Conference agreed to seek legislation to raise the 

jurisdictional minimum for diversity jurisdiction from $50,000 to $75,000 and index 
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

16

the new floor amount (JCUS-SEP 1990, p. 60). The Committee on Federal-State 

Jurisdiction noted that since the jurisdictional minimum was raised to $75,000 in 1996, 

there has been no further adjustment for inflation, and that to return to the 1996 status 

quo on an inflation-adjusted basis, the amount would need to be raised to at least 

$125,000. The Committee determined that an increase to $150,000 would provide 

some cushion for expected future inflation, and furthermore that indexing on a 

decennial basis in $25,000 increments going forward may avoid the extreme erosion of 

the amount threshold that occurs when it is not updated for long periods of time 

(without the negative consequences that could be caused by more frequent, relatively 

small increases). It accordingly recommended that the Judicial Conference amend its 

September 1990 position seeking legislation to raise the amount in controversy 

requirement for general diversity jurisdiction matters from $50,000 to $75,000 and 

index the new floor amount, to instead seek legislation to increase the amount in 

controversy requirement from $75,000 to $150,000, and index this amount to inflation, 

preferably on a decennial basis in increments of $25,000. The Conference approved 

the Committee’s recommendation.

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction reported that it continued its 

discussion of the Federal Judicial Center’s survey regarding attorneys’ preference of 

forum between state and federal court. It also received a report on behalf of the state 

chief justice members of the Committee on state courts’ continuing efforts to adjust to 

conditions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the Committee was 

briefed on legislative matters of interest, including immigration reform, the “For the 

People Act of 2021,” and the “Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement 

Act” (signed into law as part of the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021,” Pub. L. 

No. 116-260), and on the continuing impact of McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. _____ 

(2020), on federal, state, and tribal court jurisdiction.

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Financial Disclosure reported that it was updated on efforts 

to develop and implement a new electronic financial disclosure system, including a 

change in software development companies. The Committee approved revisions to the 

financial disclosure report form to conform with the financial disclosure regulations in 
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

17

the Guide to Judiciary Policy, Volume 2, Part D. The Committee also expanded the 

authorization to release to the public financial disclosure reports in Portable Document 

Format (PDF) to reports filed before 2020, as those reports could be prepared for 

release by year of report, starting with the 2018 reports. In addition, the Committee 

discussed the need to review and potentially amend the Judicial Conference 

regulations on redaction of financial disclosure reports given current efforts to enhance 

judicial security. As of May 20, 2021, the Committee had received 4,658 financial 

disclosure reports and certifications for calendar year 2019 (out of a total of 4,672 

required to file), including 1,292 annual reports from Supreme Court justices and 

Article III judges; 325 annual reports from bankruptcy judges; 586 annual reports from 

magistrate judges; 1,599 annual reports from judicial employees; and 856 reports from 

nominee, initial, and final filers.

COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

 

LONG RANGE PLAN FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE FEDERAL 

JUDICIARY

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 612 and on recommendation of the Committee on 

Information Technology, the Judicial Conference approved the fiscal year 2022 update 

to the Long Range Plan for Information Technology in the Federal Judiciary. Funds 

for the judiciary’s information technology program will be spent in accordance with 

this plan. 

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Information Technology reported that it received 

information and updates on several initiatives, including the Insight Program 

(standardization and security tools), a network access study, and the impending need 

to move out of the San Diego internet data center. In addition, the Committee was 

updated on the Administrative Office Director’s recent establishment of a Judiciary IT 

Security Task Force to examine the judiciary’s current IT security posture and make 

recommendations to ensure the judiciary is protected to the best of its abilities. The 

Committee approved a new IT infrastructure formula (last updated in 2007) for 

implementation in the fiscal year (FY) 2022 financial plan and FY 2023 budget 

request. The Committee also approved a budget request for FY 2023. Finally, the 

Committee continued its discussion on whether to grant local IT administrators data 

access rights so they could manage local mailbox permissions in the same manner they 
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

18

could with the old Lotus Notes email system. The Committee agreed that finding a 

way to streamline the process to reduce the burden on courts would be preferable to 

amending the Guide to Judiciary Policy.

COMMITTEE ON INTERCIRCUIT ASSIGNMENTS 

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Intercircuit Assignments reported that 57 Article III judges 

undertook 65 intercircuit assignments from January 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021. During 

this time, the Committee continued to disseminate information about intercircuit 

assignments and aided courts requesting assistance by identifying and obtaining judges 

willing to take assignments. The Committee also reviewed and concurred with eight 

proposed intercircuit assignments of bankruptcy judges and 14 of magistrate judges.

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL RELATIONS 

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on International Judicial Relations reported on virtual 

international rule of law work that was supported by federal judges from October 12, 

2020 through April 3, 2021. In advance of the Committee’s May 2021 meeting, 

written reports concerning federal judicial Rule of Law activities were provided by the 

Administrative Office (AO), Federal Judicial Center (FJC), Congressional Office for 

International Leadership (COIL), U.S. Department of State/International Narcotics and 

Law Enforcement Bureau (INL), U.S. Department of Justice Office of Overseas 

Prosecutorial Development Assistance and Training (OPDAT), U.S. Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO), U.S. Commerce Department – Commercial Law 

Development Program (CLDP), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), 

Federal Defenders, and Federal Court Clerks Association (FCCA). The Committee 

received updates from the Counselor to the Chief Justice and the AO’s Acting 

Associate Director for the Department of Program Services, presentations from 

Supreme Court Fellows regarding their research work, and reports from the AO and 

the FJC. Committee members and participating agency representatives also took part 

in a discussion session titled “Identifying the Needs of Judiciaries in Other Countries 

as Courts Throughout the World Emerge from the Pandemic” on the focus by 

Committee agency partners on international Rule of Law programs as international 

judiciaries emerge from the pandemic.
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

19

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIAL BRANCH

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on the Judicial Branch reported that it discussed recent 

legislative items of interest to the judiciary, including those related to judicial security 

and reform of the judiciary’s case management system. The Committee received 

briefings from the chair of the Financial Disclosure Committee regarding issues 

related to congressional and public interest in financial disclosure reports and from the 

chair of the Judicial Resources Committee regarding legislation creating additional 

judgeships. The Committee also received briefings from the Judicial Integrity Officer 

on the status of the workplace employment initiatives and from its liaison to the 

Committee on Judicial Resources Subcommittee on Diversity, Equity, and 

Inclusion. In addition, the Committee continued its discussion regarding concerns 

about disinformation and the politicization of the branch. Finally, the Committee was 

briefed on civics education activities across the judiciary.

COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY 

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability reported that it discussed 

and considered complaint-related matters under the Judicial Conduct and Disability 

Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364 (Act), and the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and JudicialDisability Proceedings (Rules). The Committee also discussed the ongoing work of 

the Federal Judiciary Workplace Conduct Working Group, and approved revisions to 

its strategic initiatives in support of the strategies and goals contained in the Strategic 

Plan for the Federal Judiciary related to workplace conduct. The Committee and its 

staff have also continued to address inquiries regarding the Act and the Rules, and to 

give other assistance as needed to circuit judicial councils and chief judges.
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

20

COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL RESOURCES 

 

ARTICLE III JUDGESHIPS

In March 2021, on the recommendation of the Committee on Judicial 

Resources after considering the 2021 biennial survey of judgeship needs, the Judicial 

Conference agreed to request from Congress the addition of 2 permanent Article III 

judgeships for the courts of appeals and the addition of 77 permanent Article III 

judgeships and the conversion to permanent status of 9 existing temporary Article III 

judgeships in the district courts (JCUS-MAR 2021, pp. 23-24). The Committee on 

Judicial Resources considered out-of-cycle requests for additional judgeships in the 

Eastern and Northern Districts of Oklahoma based on projections that felony filings 

would significantly increase in those districts as a result of the Supreme Court’s 

decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. __ (2020). On recommendation of the 

Judicial Resources Committee, the Judicial Conference agreed to recommend to 

Congress the addition of three permanent Article III judgeships for the Eastern District 

of Oklahoma and two permanent Article III judgeships for the Northern District of 

Oklahoma.

 

COURT LAW CLERK PROGRAM

On recommendation of the Committee on Judicial Resources, the Judicial 

Conference between 2011 and 2019 approved, modified, and extended until 

September 30, 2021 a court law clerk pilot program to facilitate case resolution in 

district courts with exceptionally heavy caseloads by providing them with additional 

law clerks (JCUS-MAR 2011, p. 23; JCUS-MAR 2014, p. 21; JCUS-MAR 2015, p. 

20; JCUS-SEP 2015, p. 21; JCUS-MAR 2016, pp. 19-20; JCUS-MAR 2018, p. 20; 

JCUS-MAR 2019, p. 28; JCUS-SEP 2019, pp. 17-18). 

On recommendation of the Judicial Resources Committee, the Judicial 

Conference, with regard to court law clerks, agreed to:

a. Convert the court law clerk pilot program into a permanent national 

program beginning in fiscal year 2023 using proposed eligibility criteria 

and staffing formulas;

b. Extend the court law clerk pilot program until September 30, 2022 and 

establish a transition period from October 1, 2021 through September 
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

21

30, 2025 for district courts and incumbent court law clerks in the 

existing pilot program; 

c. Delegate to the Committee on Judicial Resources the authority to 

administratively manage the national court law clerk program for 

district courts, including authorizing court law clerk positions, 

consistent with proposed parameters; and 

d. Approve amendments to the Guide to Judiciary Policy, Volume 12, 

Chapters 5 and 6, to establish a permanent term court law clerk position 

in the Judiciary Salary Plan (JSP), including qualification standards. 

To qualify for the program, a district court would be required to meet the 

eligibility criteria of one of three tracks: Track I (high caseload), Track II (low judge 

occupancy rate), or Track III (significant long-term caseload or workload hardship that 

current law clerks are unable to address in full). Court law clerk positions would be 

authorized for renewable, two-year periods and would be term appointments limited to 

a maximum of four years of service in a term law clerk capacity, with a target grade 

level of JSP-13, and not eligible for retirement benefits. District courts allocated court 

law clerk positions would be required to track semiannually the number of opinions 

and orders on motions that court law clerks draft, by the type of motion and level of 

complexity, and provide this data to the Administrative Office. 

 

TEMPORARY EMERGENCY FUND

The Temporary Emergency Fund (TEF) provides funds to circuit judicial 

councils and the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) for temporary staffing emergencies in 

chambers. While these funds may be reprogrammed between courts’ TEF and tenant 

alteration funds (JCUS-SEP 1995, p. 73), the Judicial Conference has stressed the 

importance of using them for staff rather than alterations (JCUS-SEP 2006, pp. 26-27). 

Five percent of the TEF was held in reserve and managed by the Administrative Office 

(AO) each year until 2006, when the reserve fund was dissolved, thereby allotting the 

entirety of the TEF directly to circuit judicial councils and the CFC. Currently, some 

recipients of TEF funds use all or a vast majority of their funding for emergency 

personnel and may request supplemental funding for emergency personnel which can 

sometimes be fulfilled by reprogramming funds from the AO’s unfunded requirements 

funds. Other recipients regularly reprogram significant amounts or allow funding to 

lapse. The Judicial Resources Committee noted that, given the diminishing 

availability of funding for emergency personnel, reinstituting a reserve to be used only 

for such purposes would allow courts to more reliably access TEF funding if initial 
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

22

TEF allotments are exhausted (as there would otherwise be no guarantee that other 

available funds could be identified in any given fiscal year to be reprogrammed for 

supplemental TEF purposes) and would also promote efficiency in supplemental 

funding transactions. The Committee also proposed prohibiting more than 50 percent 

of the remaining directly allocated funds from being reprogrammed from the TEF to 

tenant alterations, in keeping with the Conference’s view that the TEF should 

generally be used for staff rather than alterations.

On recommendation of the Judicial Resources Committee, the Judicial 

Conference, with regard to the TEF, agreed to:

a. Create a 20 percent centrally held TEF reserve to be administered by 

the AO, consistent with proposed Guidelines for the Temporary 

Emergency Fund; and 

b. Institute a 50 percent limit on reprogramming directly allocated TEF 

funds to tenant alterations.

The Guidelines, among other things, allow the AO to elect not to grant TEF 

reserve requests from circuits with an average reprogramming rate of 20 percent or 

higher over the previous five fiscal years; specify a baseline amount of funding that 

the Judicial Resources Committee will request for the TEF each fiscal year, in an 

effort to provide greater stability and predictability in available annual funding; and 

stipulate that TEF resources should be used only to address unanticipated caseload 

challenges expected to affect the court for less than two years (as distinguished from 

the assistance with longer-term caseload challenges that the national court law clerk 

program is intended to provide).

 

TRANSCRIPT RATES

Under the Judicial Conference’s current transcript fee schedule, realtime 

transcripts are billed at one of three rates based on the number of feeds or unedited 

transcripts requested. The Judicial Resources Committee noted that this creates 

complications when requests are submitted after proceedings have ended, as the court 

reporter must determine whether other requesters have already purchased realtime 

transcripts, and if so, refund part of the fee to earlier requesters since the increase in 

the number of feeds requested will have driven the fee lower. The Committee 

therefore recommended that the Judicial Conference amend its transcript fee schedule 

to simplify how batch billing is conducted for realtime court reporting by stipulating 

that orders placed on or before the day of the proceeding will be batched together for 
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

23

purposes of determining the number of feeds and that subsequent orders will be 

charged at the page rate assessed on the previous orders. The Conference approved 

the Committee’s recommendation.

 

HUMAN RESOURCES POLICY EXCEPTIONS TO ADDRESS ALLEGATIONS 

OF HARASSMENT OR ABUSIVE CONDUCT

Exceptions to Judicial Conference human resources policy may sometimes be 

needed to provide employees impacted by allegations of harassment or abusive 

conduct relief that allows them to maintain comparable grade, pay, and position. In 

October 2020, the Federal Judiciary Workplace Conduct Working Group discussed the 

need for a streamlined process for resolving workplace conduct matters when existing 

Judicial Conference approved human resources policies may otherwise prevent 

resolution of the matter, and suggested that the Committee on Judicial Resources 

consider recommending to the Judicial Conference that the authority to grant 

exceptions to human resources policy be delegated. The Committee on Judicial 

Resources agreed there was a need for a streamlined process for corrective or remedial 

action that could be expedited and implemented quickly to minimize any negative 

impact on the employee or court operations. It therefore recommended that the 

Judicial Conference delegate to the Committee on Judicial Resources the authority to 

grant exceptions to Judicial Conference human resources policy to resolve allegations 

of harassment or abusive conduct. The Conference approved the Committee’s 

recommendation.

 

MODEL FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER ORGANIZATION EMPLOYMENT 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION PLAN

In September 2019, the Judicial Conference adopted a revised Model 

Employment Dispute Resolution Plan (Model EDR Plan) for the federal judiciary 

(JCUS-SEP 2019, pp. 21-22), which applied to all judges and court employees as well 

as federal public defenders (FPDs) and their employees. To address issues unique to 

federal public defender organizations (FPDOs), including the distinct employment 

relationship between FPDs and their employees, their role as legal representatives with 

ethical obligations to clients on whose behalf they appear in court, and the need to 

mitigate concerns regarding access to sensitive information (including protecting 

attorney-client privileged information as well as sensitive information about internal 

FPDO operations), the Committee on Defender Services recommended that the 
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

24

Judicial Resources Committee consider a separate plan for federal public defender 

organizations.

After taking into consideration the proposal recommended by the Defender 

Services Committee, feedback received from judiciary-wide stakeholders, and a 

recommendation from the Judicial Resources Committee’s Diversity Subcommittee, 

the Judicial Resources Committee endorsed a Model FPDO EDR Plan that mirrors to 

the greatest extent possible the general processes, timelines, and standards for 

reporting and remediating wrongful conduct set forth in the Model EDR Plan, while 

recognizing the distinct employment relationship and mission of FPDOs. On 

recommendation of the Committee on Judicial Resources, the Judicial Conference 

adopted the Model FPDO EDR Plan, and delegated to the Committee on Judicial 

Resources the authority to make non-substantive changes or technical amendments as 

necessary.

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Judicial Resources reported that it received an update on 

work measurement and a report on the Online System for Clerkship Application and 

Review (OSCAR) program. The Committee also considered a request from the chief 

district judge in the Eastern District of Oklahoma for an additional court reporter 

position to help the court address the impact of the July 2020 decision of the United 

States Supreme Court in McGirt v. Oklahoma and rulings from the Oklahoma Court of 

Criminal Appeals, which require prosecutions under the Major Crimes Act that were 

formerly considered state court matters to now be prosecuted in federal court. The 

Committee agreed to defer consideration of the request until its December 2021 

meeting. 

COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL SECURITY

 

CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECKS ON GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

CONTRACT WORKERS

On recommendation of the Committee on Judicial Security, the Judicial 

Conference rescinded its September 2017 position adopting a standard for use by the 

U.S. Marshals Service when conducting criminal history checks to determine whether 

the General Services Administration (GSA)’s prospective contract workers are eligible 

to access restricted court space (JCUS-SEP 2017, p. 19). Recognizing that the 
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

25

Conference-approved standard has never been and likely cannot be implemented due 

to operational realities, the Committee noted that an alternative strategy for ensuring 

the suitability of contractors to access restricted areas—involving the utilization of 

existing GSA contracting provisions to determine terms of contractor access—is likely 

to be more achievable.

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Judicial Security reported that it endorsed a proposed 

Judiciary Vulnerability Management Program to be managed by the Administrative 

Office (AO) that will address emerging security threats and existing vulnerabilities by 

increasing the capacity and resources available to the AO’s Judiciary Security Division 

to provide dedicated security support to circuit, district, and bankruptcy court units 

across the country. The Committee discussed efforts being taken to secure 

supplemental funding from Congress for the installation of security systems to harden 

federal courthouses as well as the repair and/or replacement of failing perimeter 

security cameras managed by the Federal Protective Service. The Committee was also 

updated on the actions taken by the COVID-19 Task Force, a partnership across all 

three branches of the federal government that was established by the AO to provide 

operational and security support to federal courts nationwide.

COMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MAGISTRATE 

JUDGES SYSTEM

 

CHANGES IN MAGISTRATE JUDGE POSITIONS

After considering the recommendations of the Committee on the 

Administration of the Magistrate Judges System and the views of the Administrative 

Office, the district courts, and the judicial councils of the circuits, the Judicial 

Conference agreed to (a) authorize the conversion of the Level 1 part-time magistrate 

judge position at Washington, D.C. in the District of Columbia to a full-time position; 

(b) authorize an additional full-time magistrate judge position at Concord in the 

District of New Hampshire, and discontinue the combination clerk of court/magistrate 

judge position upon the filling of the new full-time magistrate judge position; (c) 

authorize an additional magistrate judge position at New York City in the Southern 

District of New York; (d) authorize the conversion of the part-time magistrate judge 

position at Greenville in the Eastern District of North Carolina to a full-time position; 

(e) increase the salary level of the part-time magistrate judge position at Fairbanks in 
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

26

the District of Alaska, from Level 2 (currently $80,445 per annum) to Level 1 

(currently $100,556 per annum), effective October 1, 2021; (f) authorize an additional 

magistrate judge position at Muskogee in the Eastern District of Oklahoma; and (g) 

authorize an additional magistrate judge position at Tampa in the Middle District of 

Florida.

 

ACCELERATED FUNDING

On recommendation of the Committee on the Administration of the Magistrate 

Judges System, the Conference agreed to designate for accelerated funding, effective 

April 1, 2022 (subject to available funding), the new full-time magistrate judge 

positions in the District of Columbia, the Eastern District of Oklahoma at Muskogee, 

and the Middle District of Florida at Tampa.

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee reported that it considered six district-wide surveys and, where 

appropriate, endorsed suggestions regarding magistrate judge utilization in those 

districts. Between its December 2020 and June 2021 meetings, the Committee, 

through its chair, approved filling 21 magistrate judge position vacancies in 18 district 

courts (JCUS-SEP 2004, p. 26), and the Committee approved two recall requests and 

one request to modify the recall of a magistrate judge serving with staff in one district, 

to allow that judge to assist another district in a different circuit. At its June 2021 

meeting, the Committee also approved requests from five courts for the extension of

recall, or extension of staff or clerk’s office support, for six retired magistrate judges. 

In addition, the Committee endorsed a proposed Federal Judicial Center survey on the 

magistrate judge selection and appointment process and a joint proposal with the 

Bankruptcy Committee to expand future judiciary-wide diversity events to include 

magistrate judges as well as bankruptcy judges. Finally, the Committee continued its 

discussions on evaluating magistrate judge utilization and making resource decisions 

based on those evaluations, including efforts to revise the Suggestions for Utilization 

of Magistrate Judges.
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

27

COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE

The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure submitted to the Judicial 

Conference proposed amendments to Appellate Rules 25 (Filing and Service) and 42 

(Voluntary Dismissal), together with committee notes explaining their purpose and 

intent. The Judicial Conference approved the proposed amendments and authorized 

their transmittal to the Supreme Court for consideration with a recommendation that 

they be adopted by the Court and transmitted to Congress in accordance with the law.

 

FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE

The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure submitted to the Judicial 

Conference proposed amendments to Bankruptcy Rules 1007 (Lists, Schedules, 

Statements, and Other Documents; Time Limits), 1020 (Chapter 11 Reorganization 

Case for Small Business Debtors), 2009 (Trustees for Estates When Joint 

Administration Ordered), 2012 (Substitution of Trustee or Successor Trustee; 

Accounting), 2015 (Duty to Keep Records, Make Reports, and Give Notice of Case or 

Change of Status), 3002 (Filing Proof of Claim or Interest), 3010 (Small Dividends 

and Payments in Cases Under Chapter 7, Subchapter V of Chapter 11, Chapter 12, and 

Chapter 13), 3011 (Unclaimed Funds in Cases Under Chapter 7, Subchapter V of 

Chapter 11, Chapter 12, and Chapter 13), 3014 (Election Under § 1111(b) by Secured 

Creditor in Chapter 9 Municipality or Chapter 11 Reorganization Case), 3016 (Filing 

of Plan and Disclosure Statement in a Chapter 9 Municipality or Chapter 11 

Reorganization Case), 3017.1 (Court Consideration of Disclosure Statement in a Small 

Business Case or in a Case Under Subchapter V of Chapter 11), 3018 (Acceptance or 

Rejection of Plan in a Chapter 9 Municipality or a Chapter 11 Reorganization Case), 

3019 (Modification of Accepted Plan in a Chapter 9 Municipality or a Chapter 11

Reorganization Case), 5005 (Filing and Transmittal of Papers), 7004 (Process; Service 

of Summons, Complaint), and 8023 (Voluntary Dismissal), and proposed new Rule 

3017.2 (Fixing of Dates by the Court in Subchapter V Cases in Which There Is No 

Disclosure Statement), together with committee notes explaining their purpose and 

intent. The Judicial Conference approved the proposed amendments and authorized 

their transmittal to the Supreme Court for consideration with a recommendation that 

they be adopted by the Court and transmitted to Congress in accordance with the law.

The Conference also approved, on recommendation of the Committee, revised 

Official Bankruptcy Form 122B (Chapter 11 Statement of Your Current Monthly 
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

28

Income), effective December 1, 2021, for use in all bankruptcy proceedings 

commenced after the effective date and, insofar as just and practicable, all proceedings 

pending on the effective date.

 

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure submitted to the Judicial 

Conference proposed new Supplemental Rules for Social Security Review Actions 

Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), together with committee notes explaining their purpose and 

intent. The Judicial Conference approved the proposed rules and authorized their 

transmittal to the Supreme Court for consideration with a recommendation that they be 

adopted by the Court and transmitted to Congress in accordance with the law.

 

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure submitted to the Judicial 

Conference a proposed amendment to Criminal Rule 16 (Discovery and Inspection), 

together with committee notes explaining their purpose and intent. The Judicial 

Conference approved the proposed amendment and authorized its transmittal to the 

Supreme Court for consideration with a recommendation that it be adopted by the 

Court and transmitted to Congress in accordance with the law.

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure reported on its progress 

with rules amendments that would provide for procedures during future emergencies

as directed by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, 

Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281. The Standing Committee unanimously approved 

proposed emergency rules in the Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil and Criminal Rules for 

publication for public comment in August 2021. This schedule would put the 

emergency rules on track to take effect in December 2023 if approved at each stage of 

the Rules Enabling Act process and if Congress takes no contrary action. In addition, 

the Committee reported that its Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules is 

reviewing procedures for turning over estate property to the debtor or estate trustee in 

response to the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Chicago v. Fulton, 141 S. Ct. 585 

(2021). Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s concurring opinion 

encouraged the Advisory Committee to consider amendments that would ensure 
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

29

prompt turnover resolution and several suggestions from the public recommended that 

turnover proceedings be initiated by motion rather than adversary proceeding. A 

subcommittee of the Advisory Committee has begun to consider the suggestions and is 

gathering information about local rules and procedures that already allow for turnover 

of certain estate property by motion.

COMMITTEE ON SPACE AND FACILITIES

 

COURTHOUSE PROJECT PRIORITIES

The Federal Judiciary Courthouse Project Priorities (CPP) identifies the 

judiciary’s priorities for new courthouse construction. Part I lists the projects for 

which the judiciary will request funding in its annual budget submission, while Part II 

consists of the judiciary’s out-year courthouse construction priorities. The priority 

order of all projects on Part I is maintained until a project is fully funded, at which 

time the project is removed from the list. The priority order of projects on Part II is 

updated each year based on the project’s urgency evaluation score, which is developed 

as part of the judiciary’s Asset Management Planning process (see JCUS-MAR 2008, 

p. 26). On recommendation of the Committee on Space and Facilities, the Judicial 

Conference adopted a fiscal year (FY) 2023 CPP, which carried forward all the 

projects on Part I and Part II of the FY 2022 CPP, as they had not yet received full 

funding. The projects on the FY 2023 CPP were approved in the following priority 

order:

a. Part I: (1) Hartford, Connecticut; and (2) Chattanooga, Tennessee; and 

b. Part II: (1) Bowling Green, Kentucky; (2) Anchorage, Alaska; (3) 

McAllen, Texas; (4) Greensboro/Winston Salem, North Carolina; and 

(5) Norfolk, Virginia. 

 

FEASIBILITY STUDIES

Courthouse construction projects must have a completed General Services 

Administration (GSA) feasibility study prior to being placed on the CPP (JCUS-MAR 

2008, p. 26). After considering the space, security, and building needs at the 

courthouses in Portland, Maine; West Palm Beach, Florida; Raleigh, North Carolina; 

and Tampa, Florida, the Committee on Space and Facilities recommended that the 

Judicial Conference request that the GSA perform feasibility studies for the 
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

30

courthouses in Portland, Maine and West Palm Beach, Florida, and defer the requests 

for the courthouses in Raleigh, North Carolina and Tampa, Florida. The Conference 

adopted the Committee’s recommendation.

 

EXCEPTIONS TO THE U.S. COURTS DESIGN GUIDE

Sherman/Plano, Texas. A multi-party courtroom is considered an exception to 

the U.S. Courts Design Guide (Design Guide) if (1) there are fewer than four planned 

district courtrooms; or (2) more than one such courtroom is provided in a facility 

(JCUS-MAR 2021, p. 30). The Fifth Circuit Judicial Council, on behalf of the Eastern 

District of Texas, requested an exception to the Design Guide to include a multi-party 

courtroom in the program of requirements for a new courthouse construction project in 

Sherman or Plano, Texas, which is projected to have only three district courtrooms. 

The Committee on Space and Facilities noted that the district lacks any multi-party 

courtroom in any of its facilities, and that the population in the region is also growing, 

which is likely to correspond to an increase in complex multi-party cases. On 

recommendation of the Committee, the Conference approved an exception to the 

Design Guide to include a multi-party courtroom in the program of requirements for 

the new courthouse construction project in Sherman/Plano, Texas.

Toledo, Ohio. Ceilings in jury assembly spaces exceeding ten feet in height 

are considered an exception to the 2007 version of the Design Guide. The Sixth 

Circuit Judicial Council, on behalf of the Northern District of Ohio, requested an 

exception to the 2007 Design Guide to exceed this height in the jury assembly room 

being constructed as part of a courthouse construction project in Toledo, Ohio that is 

governed by the 2007 Design Guide, since it was the version in place at the time the 

project’s space requirements were provided to GSA. Noting that the ceiling height 

exception was an integral component to the design for the project, would not result in 

additional costs, and would be similar to other ceiling height exceptions approved by 

the Judicial Conference upon the recommendation of this Committee (JCUS-MAR 

2020, p. 24; JCUS-SEP 2020, p. 38), the Space and Facilities Committee 

recommended that the Judicial Conference approve an exception to the 2007 Design 

Guide to include a twelve-foot ceiling height in the program of requirements for the 

jury assembly room in the new courthouse annex being constructed in Toledo, Ohio. 

The Conference approved the Committee’s recommendation.
Judicial Conference of the United States September 28, 2021

31

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Space and Facilities reported that it agreed to request that 

the General Services Administration (GSA) conduct a Phase II feasibility study for 

Anchorage, Alaska. In addition, the Committee approved 15 Component B requests 

for construction of courtrooms or chambers, and three requests for funding for No Net 

New projects in support of the Judicial Conference’s No Net New policy adopted in 

September 2013 (JCUS-SEP 2013, p. 32), all subject to funding availability. Further, 

the Committee discussed the status of the implementation strategy for the updated U.S 

Courts Design Guide, including the completion of a companion Best Practices 

Guide. The Committee continues its work with AO staff and its partners at the GSA to 

identify judiciary locations most at risk from severe weather and climate events, assess 

possible mitigation measures that would prevent damage from such future events, and 

secure a funding stream for these mitigation measures.

FUNDING

All of the foregoing recommendations that require the expenditure of funds for 

implementation were approved by the Judicial Conference subject to the availability of 

funds and to whatever priorities the Conference might establish for the use of available 

resources.

Chief Justice of the United States

Presiding