REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS

OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE

OF THE UNITED STATES

March 16, 2021 

The Judicial Conference of the United States convened by 

teleconference on March 16, 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 March 16, 2021

2

Sixth Circuit:

Chief Judge Ransey Guy Cole, Jr.

Judge Michael H. Watson,

Southern 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 March 16, 2021

3

Federal Circuit:

Chief Judge Sharon Prost

Court of International Trade:

Chief Judge Timothy Stanceu

Also participating in this session of the Conference were Judge Thomas M. Hardiman, 

chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Information Technology, Judge David 

W. McKeague, chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Security, Judge 

John W. Lungstrum, 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, Commissioner, 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.

Acting Deputy Attorney General John P. Carlin addressed the Conference on matters 

of mutual interest to the judiciary and the Department of Justice. Senators Dick 

Durbin, Sheldon Whitehouse, Patrick Leahy, and Cindy Hyde-Smith and 

Representatives Jerrold Nadler, Hank Johnson, Darrell Issa, 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 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

4

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

United States Sentencing Commission activities. Judge Thomas M. Hardiman, chair 

of the Committee on Information Technology, also presented a special report on 

information technology security, and Judge David W. McKeague, chair of the 

Committee on Judicial Security, presented a special report on judicial security.

ELECTION

The Judicial Conference elected to the Board of the Federal Judicial Center, for a term 

of four years, Chief Judge Mildred Cabán, United States Bankruptcy Court for the 

District of Puerto Rico, and Magistrate Judge Anthony Porcelli, United States District 

Court for the Middle District of Florida, to succeed Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker, 

United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, and Judge Barbara J. 

Houser, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

 

TEMPORARY EXCEPTIONS TO HUMAN RESOURCES POLICIES

In April 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, with each set to expire 

December 31, 2020 (JCUS-SEP 2020, pp. 10-12). 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 extend

each temporary exception to allow greater flexibility during the response to the 

pandemic. 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 during the pandemic, to allow extensions of their term or 

temporary appointments not to exceed September 30, 2021, upon a finding by the 

appointing officer that hiring a replacement prior to this date is not feasible due to 

COVID-19.
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

5

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, 

2021, 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 September 30, 2021, upon a finding by the chief 

district judge that a robust recruitment process cannot be conducted due to COVID-19.

 

RESOLUTIONS

Outgoing Committee Chair. The Judicial Conference approved a 

recommendation of the Executive Committee to adopt the following resolution 

recognizing the substantial contributions made by the outgoing chair of the Judicial 

Conference Committee on Judicial Resources, whose term of service ended in January 

2021: 

The Judicial Conference of the United States recognizes with appreciation, 

respect, and admiration the following judicial officer: 

HONORABLE ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF

Committee on Judicial Resources

Appointed as committee chair by the Chief Justice of the United States, 

this outstanding jurist has played a vital role in the administration of the 

federal court system. This judge served with distinction as a leader of her 

Judicial Conference committee while, at the same time, continuing to 

perform her duties as a judge in her own court. She has set a standard of 

skilled leadership and earned our deep respect and sincere gratitude for her

innumerable contributions. We acknowledge with appreciation her

commitment and dedicated service to the Judicial Conference and to the 

entire federal judiciary.
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

6

Director of the Administrative Office. On recommendation of the Executive 

Committee, the Judicial Conference approved a resolution in recognition of James C. 

Duff’s service as the Director of the Administrative Office from 2015-2021.

 

JUDICIARY STRATEGIC PLANNING

Strategic Plan Priorities. The Strategic Plan for the Federal Judiciary (Plan), 

updated by the Judicial Conference in September 2020, identifies strategies and goals 

to enable the federal judiciary to continue as a model in providing fair and impartial 

justice (JCUS-SEP 2020, pp. 13-14). The approach to strategic planning, approved by 

the Conference when the Plan was first adopted in 2010, provides for the 

identification, every two years, of strategies and goals from the Plan that should 

receive priority attention. These priorities are identified by the Executive Committee, 

with suggestions from Conference committees (JCUS-SEP 2010, pp. 5-6). 

At its February 2021 meeting, the Executive Committee considered 

suggestions from Conference committees regarding which strategies and goals should 

receive priority attention in the next two years. The Committee noted that 

committees’ suggested priorities underlined the judiciary’s commitment to the delivery 

of fair and impartial justice and emphasized other key areas of concern, including 

transparency and accountability, resource management, workplace diversity, 

workplace conduct, security (including cybersecurity), criminal defense, and 

communications, outreach, and civics education. After reviewing the input from 

Judicial Conference committees, the Executive Committee added seven new strategies 

(1.3, 2.1, 2.4, 4.1, 4.3, 6.3 and 7.1, asterisked below), and affirmed four strategies and 

one goal previously identified, to establish the following twelve priorities for the next 

two years:

Strategy 1.1 Pursue improvements in the delivery of fair and 

impartial justice on a nationwide basis.

Strategy 1.2 Secure resources that are sufficient to enable the 

judiciary to accomplish its mission in a manner 

consistent with judiciary core values.

Strategy 1.3* Strengthen the protection of judges, court employees, 

and the public at court facilities, and of judges and their 

families at other locations.
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

7

Strategy 2.1* Assure high standards of conduct and integrity for 

judges and employees.

Strategy 2.4* Encourage involvement in civics education activities by 

judges and judiciary employees.

Strategy 3.1 Allocate and manage resources more efficiently and 

effectively.

Strategy 4.1* Recruit, develop, and retain a talented, dedicated, and 

diverse workforce, while defining the judiciary’s future 

workforce requirements.

Strategy 4.3* Ensure an exemplary workplace free from 

discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and abusive 

conduct.

Strategy 5.1 Harness the potential of technology to identify and meet 

the needs of judiciary users for information, service, and 

access to the courts.

Goal 5.1d Refine and update security practices to ensure the 

confidentiality, integrity, and availability of judiciaryrelated records and information. In addition, raise 

awareness of the threat of cyberattacks and improve 

defenses to secure the integrity of judiciary IT systems.

Strategy 6.3* Promote effective administration of the criminal defense 

function in the federal courts.

Strategy 7.1* Develop and implement a comprehensive approach to 

enhancing relations between the judiciary and Congress.

Crisis Preparedness. The Executive Committee also agreed that the strategic 

planning process would be an effective mechanism for coordinating Conference 

committee planning to prepare the judiciary for future pandemics, natural disasters, 

and other crises that threaten to significantly impact the work of the courts.
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

8

 

TRIBAL ISSUES

The Executive Committee approved changes to the jurisdictional statement of 

the Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction to explicitly incorporate responsibility for 

analyzing tribal, Native, or Indigenous issues as they relate to federal jurisdiction and 

to designate the committee as the conduit for communication on matters of mutual 

concern between the federal judiciary and tribal courts. The changes, which were 

made after consultation with the Committees on Court Administration and Case 

Management, Criminal Law, Defender Services, Federal-State Jurisdiction, Judicial 

Resources, the Administration of the Magistrate Judges System, and Space and 

Facilities regarding their current involvement in tribal issues and views on the 

appropriateness of amending each of their jurisdictional statements, are intended to 

enhance how the federal judiciary addresses tribal issues and maintains relationships 

with tribal communities.

 

MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS

The Executive Committee—

• Endorsed the Chief Justice’s selection of Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf as the 

new Director of the Administrative Office.

• Reviewed the determinations of Conference committees as to whether any

outstanding Conference-approved legislative proposals within their respective 

jurisdictions may warrant modification or rescission.

• After being briefed on significant cybersecurity breaches in the computer 

systems of federal agencies, endorsed, with the support of the Committees on 

Information Technology and Court Administration and Case Management, 

conducting a security audit of the CM/ECF system, and urged all courts to take 

specified steps to protect the security of certain highly sensitive documents 

maintained in CM/ECF.

• Endorsed the critical need for two programs related to judges’ physical security 

being pursued by the Judicial Security Committee: (1) additional staff to assist 

the courts’ security programs at the local level and to facilitate communications 

and program responsibilities between courts and judiciary security partners, as 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

9

well as the staffing and tools to assist judges in monitoring and removing their 

personally identifiable information from the internet; and (2) enhanced 

physical security features for courthouse entrances and windows.

• Approved final fiscal year (FY) 2021 financial plans for the Salaries and 

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

Commissioners accounts.

• Approved an adjustment to the FY 2022 budget request to reflect the Executive 

Committee-approved FY 2021 interim financial plans, technical adjustments, 

and revised Executive Branch budget guidance.

• Approved costs related to the Ninth Circuit’s 2022 and 2023 judicial 

conferences, pursuant to the Judicial Conference regulations on meeting 

planning and administration, Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 24, Ch. 2, 

§ 230(a)(2).

• Agreed with the determination of the Judicial Branch Committee that 

inflationary adjustments to judges’ maximum daily travel subsistence 

allowance and maximum reimbursement for the actual cost of meals were not 

warranted at this time (see Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 19, Ch. 2, 

§ 250.20.20(b)(1) and § 250.20.30).

 

 

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 audits of bankruptcy debtors, the Court Registry Investment 

Service (CRIS), and the judiciary’s appropriations and cyclical financial audits of 

court units and federal public defender organizations, including the remote audit 

procedures being implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 

Committee was briefed on the AO’s progress in addressing corrective actions relating 

to its contract management and in developing consolidated judiciary financial 

reporting and a more integrated approach to internal controls to support consolidated 

financial statements. In addition, the Committee responded to the request of the 

judiciary’s planning coordinator to provide recommendations regarding strategies and 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

10

goals in the Strategic Plan for the Federal Judiciary that should receive priority 

attention over the next two years, recommending the prioritization of those issues, 

strategies, and goals that emphasize accountability and oversight.

COMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATION 

OF THE BANKRUPTCY SYSTEM

 

STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING BANKRUPTCY JUDICIAL RESOURCES 

REQUESTS

On recommendation of the Committee on the Administration of the 

Bankruptcy System, the Judicial Conference adopted a policy statement in 1991 

regarding the standards to be used for considering requests for additional bankruptcy 

judgeships (JCUS-MAR 1991, pp. 12-13), and revised it in 2010 and 2011 to make 

non-substantive changes to those standards, add standards for evaluating requests for 

conversion of temporary judgeships to permanent status, and incorporate the standards 

it had approved for use in the biennial continuing needs surveys (JCUS-SEP 2010, pp. 

8-9; JCUS MAR 2011, p. 7). To incorporate the standard that the Bankruptcy 

Committee has historically followed in evaluating requests for extension of a 

temporary bankruptcy judgeship, as well as several other edits to clarify the policy and 

process for evaluating different types of bankruptcy judicial resource requests, the 

Bankruptcy Committee at this session recommended that the Judicial Conference 

amend its standards for evaluating bankruptcy judicial resource requests. The 

Conference approved the Committee’s recommendation.

 

BANKRUPTCY JUDGESHIPS

The Judicial Conference conducts a biennial survey to evaluate requests for 

additional bankruptcy judgeships and conversion to permanent status or extension of 

existing temporary judgeships, and transmits its recommendations to Congress, which 

establishes the number of bankruptcy judgeships in each judicial district (28 U.S.C. § 

152(b)(2)). Based on the results of the 2020 biennial survey of additional judgeship 

needs, the Committee on the Administration of the Bankruptcy System recommended 

that the Judicial Conference ask Congress to authorize two additional bankruptcy 

judgeships, convert 12 temporary bankruptcy judgeships to permanent status, and 

extend 10 temporary bankruptcy judgeships for an additional five years, as set forth 

below (“P” denotes permanent; “T/P” denotes conversion of temporary to permanent

status; “E” denotes extension):
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

11

Puerto Rico 1 T/P, 1 E

New York (Southern) 1 P

Delaware 7 T/P

New Jersey 1 E

Maryland 1 T/P, 1 E

North Carolina (Eastern) 1 E

South Carolina 1 E

Virginia (Eastern) 1 E

Mississippi (Northern) 1 P

Michigan (Eastern) 1 T/P, 1 E

Tennessee (Eastern) 1 E

Nevada 1 E

Florida (Southern) 2 T/P

Georgia (Southern) 1 E

The Conference adopted the Committee’s recommendation.

 

OFFICIAL DUTY STATIONS

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 Eleventh 

Circuit Judicial Council to designate Orlando as the official bankruptcy judge duty 

station for the new temporary judgeship in the Middle District of Florida.

 

EXTENSION OF BANKRUPTCY STATUTORY DEADLINES

On the recommendation of the Bankruptcy Committee, the Judicial Conference 

rescinded its 2020 position seeking legislation that would provide bankruptcy courts 

with authority to extend statutory deadlines under title 11 and chapter 6 of title 28 of 

the United States Code during the COVID-19 national emergency, upon a finding that 

the emergency conditions materially affect the functioning of a particular bankruptcy 

court of the United States (JCUS-SEP 2020, p. 10). Recognizing that nearly all 

bankruptcy courts had entered general orders or taken other steps to extend statutory 

deadlines, the Committee noted that if Congress enacted the proposed legislation, it 

might be burdensome for bankruptcy courts to rescind general orders already in place 

and replace them with new orders pursuant to newly enacted legislation, especially if 

the COVID-19 national emergency declaration might be terminated in the near future 

(thus also terminating the authority granted by the proposed legislation). 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

12

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on the Administration of the Bankruptcy System reported that 

it continues to consider whether to identify additional courts to participate in the 

bankruptcy judgeship vacancy pilot, approved by the Judicial Conference in 

September 2014, but decided again to defer the matter until its June 2021 

meeting. Given anticipated increases in bankruptcy filings and to provide more 

structure and transparency for the temporary bankruptcy law clerk program, the 

Committee approved guidelines to oversee and govern the Administrative Office’s 

evaluation of requests for temporary bankruptcy law clerks. In addition, the 

Committee continues initiatives to promote and improve diversity on the bankruptcy 

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

including through the consideration of a proposal to continue judiciary-wide diversity 

events every three years and potentially expand them to encompass both bankruptcy 

and magistrate judges.

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on the Budget reported that it discussed the judiciary's overall 

budget outlook, the continued impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the judiciary’s 

budget, and the status of the judiciary’s cost-containment efforts. The Committee 

discussed the need for the judiciary to re-energize its cost-containment program and 

continue to find ways to operate more efficiently, reduce costs, and slow growth. The 

Committee’s Economy Subcommittee members decided to meet with chief district and 

chief bankruptcy judges in each circuit to obtain their views on potential areas for cost 

containment and efficiencies. Finally, the Committee discussed feedback it received 

through the AO’s advisory process on courtroom technology funding and potential 

initiatives to increase understanding of funding requirements. The Committee asked 

its staff to work with other AO offices to consider how these initiatives may be 

implemented.

COMMITTEE ON CODES OF CONDUCT

 

GIFT REGULATIONS
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

13

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

Conference adopted amended Regulations on Gifts, Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2, 

Pt. C, Ch. 6, and delegated to the Committee the authority to make non-substantive or 

technical amendments. The principal substantive changes include, among other 

things: (1) exclusion of any gift accepted pursuant to specific statutory authority from 

the scope of the regulations; (2) clarification that acceptance of books or other 

resource materials is permitted when the materials relate to official duties and 

acceptance does not create an appearance of impropriety; (3) expanding the range of 

individuals for whom a judicial officer or employee may accept a gift of travel 

expenses to attend law-related events; and (4) explicit permission for the occasional 

sharing or exchanging of hospitality, food, refreshments, and other gifts among 

members of the judiciary under certain specified circumstances.

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

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

Judicial Conference in September 2020, the Committee received 12 new written 

inquiries and issued 11 written advisory responses. During this period, the average 

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

10 informal inquiries, individual Committee members responded to 161 informal 

inquiries, and Committee counsel responded to 644 informal inquiries, for a total of 

815 informal inquiries.

COMMITTEE ON COURT ADMINISTRATION 

AND CASE MANAGEMENT

 

AUDIO STREAMING PILOT PROGRAM

In March 2020, on the recommendation of the Committee on Court 

Administration and Case Management, 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, and delegated to the Committee on Court Administration 

and Case Management the authority to issue and amend guidelines consistent with the 

parameters of the pilot (JCUS-MAR 2020, p. 9). Noting that the U.S. Court of Federal 

Claims had expressed interest in serving as a pilot court, and that both the U.S. Court 

of Federal Claims and bankruptcy courts—like district courts—routinely hold 

proceedings that are of public interest and may attract a large audience from 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

14

throughout the country, the Committee recommended that the Judicial Conference 

amend the scope of the pilot program it approved in March 2020 to evaluate district 

court streaming of live audio in civil cases of public interest to permit the U.S. Court 

of Federal Claims and a limited number of bankruptcy courts to participate. The 

Conference approved the Committee’s recommendation. 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS FEE SCHEDULES

The insufficient funds fee, set forth at Item 8 of the District Court and 

Appellate Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedules, Item 13 of the Bankruptcy Court 

Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, Item 7 of the Court of Federal Claims Fee Schedule, and 

Item 5 of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Fee Schedule, permits a court to 

charge $53 for “any payment returned or denied for insufficient funds.” However, 

reversals of credit card transactions due to chargebacks can generate the same 

administrative inconvenience to the judiciary of having to re-initiate collection efforts. 

To update this fee to account for more modern financial transaction technologies, the

Court Administration and Case Management Committee recommended, and the 

Judicial Conference approved, amending the District, Appellate, Bankruptcy, Court of 

Federal Claims, and Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Miscellaneous Fee 

Schedules to clarify when courts may charge a fee for insufficient funds, as follows 

(new language underlined):

For any payment returned or denied for insufficient funds, or 

reversed due to a chargeback, $53.

 

BANKRUPTCY NOTICING

In September 2020, the Judicial Conference, on the recommendation of the 

Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, approved an amendment to Federal 

Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9036 that would, in most circumstances, subject highvolume paper notice recipients to mandatory electronic noticing (JCUS-SEP 2020, p. 

35). For consistency with the rules amendment’s objectives of maximizing electronic 

noticing and reducing the judiciary’s printing and mailing costs, the Court 

Administration and Case Management Committee recommended, with the 

concurrence of the Committee on the Administration of the Bankruptcy System, that 

the Judicial Conference seek an amendment to 11 U.S.C. § 342(f) to clarify that 

bankruptcy notice recipients may only designate an electronic address for noticing 

under that statute in all Chapter 7 and 13 cases. The Conference adopted the 

Committee’s recommendation.
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

15

 

ELECTRONIC PUBLIC ACCESS FEE EXEMPTION

Section 9 of the Electronic Public Access (EPA) Fee Schedule permits courts 

to exempt from PACER user fees “individual researchers associated with educational 

institutions” if the court finds, inter alia, that a researcher’s defined research project is 

“limited in scope.” Recently, the Committee observed the inconsistent application of 

the “limited in scope” requirement of the exemption policy following the increased 

submission of exemption requests encompassing hundreds of thousands of cases or

documents resulting from advancements in data aggregation algorithm generation. To 

clarify this requirement, the Committee accordingly recommended that the Judicial 

Conference define “limited in scope” for the purposes of the academic research 

exemption to mean “narrowly tailored to meet the needs of the defined research 

project,” noting that this would help preclude researchers from requesting access to 

voluminous PACER documents to review for the purposes of then defining a research 

project; rather, researchers would be required to limit their requests to the amount of 

data needed for pre-defined research projects. The Conference approved the 

Committee’s recommendation, amending Section 9 of the EPA Fee Schedule as 

follows (new language underlined):

(9) Discretionary Fee Exemptions:

[...]

• In considering granting an exemption, courts must find:

• that those seeking an exemption have demonstrated that 

an exemption is necessary in order to avoid 

unreasonable burdens and to promote public access to

information;

• that individual researchers requesting an exemption 

have shown that the defined research project is intended 

for scholarly research, that it is limited in scope, and 

that it is not intended for redistribution on the internet 

or for commercial purposes. A request is limited in 

scope if the amount of exempt access requested is 

narrowly tailored to meet the needs of the defined 

research project.
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

16

 

JUROR UTILIZATION

On the recommendation of the Court Administration and Case Management 

Committee, the Judicial Conference extended by two years, to March 2023, the pilot 

project it approved in March 2019 to test the effectiveness of measuring juror 

utilization through panel-size benchmarks (JCUS-MAR 2019, pp. 14-15), because of 

the significant reduction in jury trials and the modification of summonsing procedures 

resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee noted that data received 

from pilot courts in recent months as well as in the foreseeable future would not reflect 

typical juror utilization rates, and expressed hope that the extension would allow the 

pilot project time to collect additional data better reflective of typical juror utilization 

rates.

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Court Administration and Case Management Committee reported that it 

established a diversity and inclusion subcommittee and discussed possible initiatives 

the Committee, on its own and in partnership with other committees, could pursue to 

promote diversity within the judiciary. The Committee also endorsed further study of 

an approach to simplify the records disposition schedules, which would apply a 

uniform retention period to the judiciary’s temporary records, and plans to work with 

the Administrative Office, the clerks advisory groups, and National Archives and 

Records Administration to develop an appropriate proposal. Finally, the Committee 

was briefed on the AO’s new interagency agreement with 18F, a digital consultancy 

within the General Services Administration’s Federal Acquisition Service, to perform 

an independent assessment of NextGen CM/ECF and provide a prioritized roadmap 

with recommendations for the future.

COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL LAW

 

REVOCATION AND REIMPOSITION OF SPECIAL TERMS OF 

SUPERVISED RELEASE

When modifying an imposed term of imprisonment based on a motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a court “may impose a term 

of probation or supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the 

unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment” (often referred to as a “special 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

17

term”). However, the statute does not include any explicit provision for revoking a 

special term or any penalty provision for individuals whose special terms are revoked, 

nor does it incorporate by reference the authority granted to courts by § 3583 of the 

same Title to revoke and reimpose a term of supervised release imposed at original 

sentencing. The Committee on Criminal Law expressed concern that without a clear 

and workable remedy for violations of supervision conditions, courts and probation 

offices may be unable to impose and execute terms of supervised release in a manner 

that effectively protects the community. It therefore recommended, and the Judicial 

Conference approved, seeking an amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) to 

explicitly authorize a court to revoke and reimpose a special term of supervised release 

imposed under this provision, by incorporating § 3583(e)(3) by reference.

 

PROFITING FROM A CRIME

On the recommendation of the Committee on Criminal Law, the Judicial 

Conference rescinded its September 2006 position supporting legislation that would 

establish “not profiting from a crime” as a mandatory condition of probation and of 

supervised release and supporting similar legislation (to the extent it relates to the 

federal courts and the administration of justice) to prevent criminals from profiting 

from their crimes (JCUS-SEP 2006, p. 17). The Committee noted that judges can 

already impose this type of condition on an individualized basis under current law, and 

that the Judicial Conference has approved changes to policies and procedures in recent 

years to reduce the number of conditions of supervision applicable in all cases.

 

LENGTH OF TERM OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

On the recommendation of the Committee on Criminal Law, the Judicial 

Conference rescinded its September 2006 position seeking an amendment to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(b) to give the court authority to impose a longer term of supervised release, 

based on specific findings, if the unusual circumstances of a case indicate that a longer 

term is needed to rehabilitate the offender, protect society, and otherwise serve the 

interest of justice (JCUS-SEP 2006, p. 17). The Committee noted that extended 

periods of supervised release are already available for many offenses under current 

law, that courts have other tools to adjust the length of supervised release terms as 

needed to promote public safety, and that social science research indicates that the 

recidivism risk of persons under supervision decreases over time.
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

18

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

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

regular updates and guidance to the courts regarding the operational status of the 

probation and pretrial services system, Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and U.S. Marshals 

Service during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the Judiciary-BOP Working 

Group, which includes members from the Criminal Law Committee and other Judicial 

Conference committees, has continued to hold biweekly 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. 

Topics discussed have included changes to safety protocols in prisons and the 

probation and pretrial services system, the ability of BOP facilities to execute 

sentences (e.g., the ability to accept newly sentenced defendants in prisons and the 

impact on programming), the expanded use of home confinement and compassionate 

release, efforts to expand the capacity of private residential reentry center providers 

that contract with the BOP to supervise more inmates on prerelease home 

confinement, data sharing to help the probation and pretrial services system anticipate 

workload, access to BOP medical records in compassionate release cases, and the 

status of remote and in-person criminal proceedings in the courts during the pandemic.

COMMITTEE ON DEFENDER SERVICES

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee reported that it continued to discuss the impact of the COVID19 pandemic on representation under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA). The Committee 

discussed the importance of including federal defenders and CJA panel attorneys in 

vaccination priority groups in order to facilitate the resumption of their critical work 

and reiterated its view that courts must consult with representatives from the CJA 

community when making decisions about resuming in-person proceedings. In 

addition, the Committee received an update on recent activities to promote diversity in 

the Defender Services program, including steps taken to develop operational 

guidelines for the Defender Services Diversity Fellowship Program, which is 

scheduled to begin in FY 2022. The Committee also received an update on the impact 

of the Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. __ (2020), which 

will necessitate increased resources for the Defender Services program, particularly in 

the Northern and Eastern Districts of Oklahoma. The Committee adopted revisions to 

the CJA 23 Financial Affidavit Form, as well as a set of instructions regarding the use 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

19

of the form, to assist courts in determining a defendant’s eligibility for appointed 

counsel under the CJA. Finally, the Committee reviewed proposed changes to its 

recommended Model Employment Dispute Resolution Plan for Federal Public 

Defender Organizations and provided input to the Judicial Resources Committee.

COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL-STATE JURISDICTION

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction reported that it received reports 

from the Federal Judicial Center on a survey regarding attorneys’ choice of forum 

between state and federal court, as well as from Ohio Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor 

on state courts’ efforts to adjust to conditions caused by the pandemic and to prepare 

for the resulting backlog of cases. The Committee was briefed on legislative matters 

of interest, including immigration reform, administrative law reform, and the 

“Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act.” In addition, the 

Committee discussed the impact of McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. __ (2020), on 

federal, state, and tribal court jurisdiction in Oklahoma and the potential for similar 

circumstances elsewhere.

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 

continued efforts to explore and apply fresh performance management approaches in 

its oversight of the project. The Committee approved updating the financial disclosure 

regulations in the Guide to Judiciary Policy, Volume 2, Part D, to take into account a 

2017 change to the salary levels for part-time magistrate judges after making the 

determination that part-time magistrate judges in salary level 5 are not reasonably 

expected to perform the duties of the office for more than 60 days in a calendar year, 

and are therefore not required to file annual financial disclosure reports. The 

regulations were also updated to reflect a January 1, 2020 increase in the minimal 

value for reporting gifts and reimbursements to $415, with the need to aggregate gifts 

valued at more than $166 to meet the $415 threshold. In addition, the Committee 

approved changes to the filing instructions and the standard paragraphs used in 

correspondence to filers to conform with prior updates to the filing instructions 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

20

regarding the threshold for reporting assets and the timeline for filing final reports. As 

of December 1, 2020, the Committee had received 4,359 financial disclosure reports 

and certifications for calendar year 2019 (out of a total of 4,577 required to file), 

including 1,298 annual reports and certifications from Supreme Court justices and 

Article III judges; 324 annual reports from bankruptcy judges; 585 annual reports from 

magistrate judges; 1,598 annual reports from judicial employees; and 554 reports from 

nominee, initial, and final filers.

COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Information Technology reported that it continued its 

discussion on the challenges with ensuring that critical IT operations are sustained 

given that most centrally managed IT requirements are treated as discretionary in the 

financial plan. The Committee also discussed the newly proposed IT infrastructure 

formula, concurred with plans to post an exposure draft to seek feedback from the 

court community, and expects to consider this feedback and any recommendations 

from the IT Advisory Council at its next meeting. Finally, the Committee discussed 

whether to grant local IT administrators data access rights so that they could have the 

ability to manage local mailbox permissions in the same manner they could with the 

old Lotus Notes email system. Noting concerns about privacy and security, as well as 

only a modest demand for local IT administrator data access rights, the Committee 

tabled the discussion.

COMMITTEE ON INTERCIRCUIT ASSIGNMENTS 

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Intercircuit Assignments reported that 94 Article III judges 

undertook 116 intercircuit assignments from July 1, 2020, to December 31, 

2020. 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 nine proposed intercircuit assignments of bankruptcy judges and 15 of 

magistrate judges.
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

21

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 April through 

November 2020. At the Committee’s November 2020 meeting—at the request of 

various federal agencies responsible for international rule of law programs abroad—a 

panel discussion allowed judges to share experiences from their courts about how the 

federal judiciary has been responding to the pandemic. The Committee also facilitated

a dialogue with agency liaisons about their work during the pandemic, prospective 

programmatic plans, and communications from foreign judiciaries. In addition, the 

Committee engaged in a dialogue with senior representatives of the Department of 

Justice regarding a series of long-term partnership initiatives on judicial capacity 

building.

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIAL BRANCH

 

THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN

On the recommendation of the Committee on the Judicial Branch, the Judicial 

Conference rescinded its March 2000 position seeking an amendment to 5 U.S.C. § 

8433 to permit all Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) participants to withdraw their funds 

without restriction when they reach retirement age (JCUS-MAR 2000, p. 19). The 

Committee noted that the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (which 

administers the TSP) implemented additional withdrawal options to accommodate preretirement needs effective September 2019, thus achieving the underlying objective of 

the legislative proposal by non-legislative means and rendering the proposal 

unnecessary.

 

RETIREMENT OF TERRITORIAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGES

On the recommendation of the Committee on the Judicial Branch, the Judicial 

Conference rescinded its March 1993 position seeking legislation to equalize the 

disability retirement benefits of territorial district judges with those of bankruptcy, 

magistrate, and Court of Federal Claims judges, and to provide annual cost-of-living 

adjustments in the annuities paid to all retired territorial district judges (JCUS-MAR 

1993, p. 16). The Committee noted that these issues are subsumed within a broader 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

22

legislative position adopted by the Judicial Conference in September 2019, seeking 

amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 373 to make the retirement benefits of territorial district 

court judges similar to those of Court of Federal Claims judges (JCUS-SEP 2019, p. 

16).

 

JUDGES’ TRAVEL REGULATIONS

The Judicial Conference approved amendments and clarifications 

recommended by the Committee on the Judicial Branch to the Travel Regulations for 

Justices and Judges, Guide to Judiciary Policy (Guide), Vol. 19, Ch. 2. The 

substantive changes include: (1) clarifying that the home-to-work transportation 

provisions may include certain highly unusual circumstances in addition to disability; 

(2) clarifying that all reimbursement claims submitted, regardless of timeliness of 

submission, will be reimbursed without need to seek an exception and that claims 

submitted more than 90 days after the conclusion of official travel will be treated as 

taxable income; (3) raising the percentage of the General Services Administration per 

diem up to which judges can itemize expenses from 150 percent to 200 percent; and 

(4) consolidating the Safe Haven provisions with those of the Judiciary Staff Travel 

Regulations, Guide, Vol. 19, Ch. 4, into a new chapter of Vol. 19. The amendments 

make additional minor clarifications and formatting changes.

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on the Judicial Branch reported that the chair and a member, 

along with a representative from the Budget Committee, provided a briefing about the 

federal judiciary as part of the U.S. House of Representatives New Member 

Orientation in November 2020. In addition, the Committee discussed changes in the 

House and Senate Judiciary Committees in the 117th Congress and how that might 

affect the legislative outlook for the next Congress. The Committee continued its 

discussions about ways to counter inaccurate portrayals of the judiciary as a political 

institution and strengthen trust in our institutions and was briefed by its new 

Subcommittee on the Federal Judiciary about its discussions regarding these 

concerns. Finally, the Committee was briefed on civics education activities across the 

judiciary, including ways such events have been modified to continue in a distance 

learning environment.
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

23

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, as well as strategies and 

goals contained in the Strategic Plan for the Federal Judiciary related to workplace 

conduct. The Committee and its staff have continued to address inquiries regarding 

the Act and the Rules, and to give other assistance as needed to circuit judicial 

councils and chief judges.

COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL RESOURCES 

 

ARTICLE III JUDGESHIPS

Additional Judgeships. The Committee on Judicial Resources considered 

requests and justifications for additional judgeships in the courts of appeals and the 

district courts as part of its 2021 biennial survey of judgeship needs. Based on its 

review, and after considering the views of the courts and circuit judicial councils, the 

Committee recommended that the Judicial Conference 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. The Conference 

adopted the Committee’s recommendations, agreeing to transmit the following request 

to Congress (“P” denotes permanent; “T/P” denotes conversion of temporary to 

permanent):

Courts of Appeals

Ninth Circuit 2P

District Courts

New York-Eastern 2P 

New York-Southern 1P 

New York-Western 1P 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

24

Delaware 2P 

New Jersey 5P 

North Carolina-Western 1T/P 

Texas-Eastern 2P, 1T/P 

Texas-Southern 4P 

Texas-Western 6P 

Indiana-Southern 2P 

Iowa-Northern 1P 

Missouri-Eastern 1T/P 

Arizona 4P, 1T/P 

California-Northern 5P 

California-Eastern 4P 

California-Central 15P, 1T/P 

California-Southern 6P 

Idaho 1P 

Colorado 2P 

Kansas 1T/P

New Mexico 1P, 1T/P 

Alabama-Northern 1 T/P 

Florida-Northern 1P 

Florida-Middle 7P 

Florida-Southern 3P, 1T/P 

Georgia-Northern 2P 

Judgeship Vacancies. As part of the 2021 biennial survey of judgeship needs, 

the Committee also reviewed workloads in appellate and district courts with 

consistently low per-judgeship caseloads for the purpose of determining whether to 

recommend to the President and Senate that an existing or future judgeship vacancy 

not be filled. On recommendation of the Committee, the Conference agreed to 

recommend to the President and the Senate not filling the next judgeship vacancy in 

the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the Western District of Oklahoma, and the 

District of Wyoming, based on consistently low per-judgeship caseload. 

LEAVE ACT COVERAGE FOR TERM LAW CLERKS

Term law clerks are exempt from the provisions of the Annual and Sick Leave 

Act of 1951 (“Leave Act”) unless specifically included by their appointing judge or by 

local rule. For law clerks covered by the Leave Act, courts are required to account for 

their daily hours of work and absences, and at the conclusion of their terms, pay them 

for any unused annual leave. In 2004, the Judicial Conference approved a policy 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

25 

discouraging judges from placing term law clerks under the Leave Act as one of a 

number of recommendations to address the rising cost of term law clerk salaries and 

benefits (JCUS-MAR 2004, pp. 19-20; JCUS-SEP 2007, pp. 25-26). In 2019, 

Congress enacted the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act, which provides federal 

civilian employees, including Judicial Branch employees covered under the Family 

Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), 12 administrative workweeks of paid parental 

leave in connection with the qualifying birth, adoption, or foster care placement of a 

child. Paid parental leave is only provided in connection with the FMLA and law 

clerks not covered by the Leave Act are not covered under the FMLA. Given the 

implications of the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act on the judiciary, the AO’s 

Human Resources Advisory Council expressed support for rescinding the policy of 

discouraging coverage under the Leave Act. The Committee on Judicial Resources 

considered the matter and recommended that the Judicial Conference rescind its policy 

discouraging Leave Act coverage for term law clerks (JCUS-MAR 2004, pp. 19-20; 

JCUS-SEP 2007, pp. 25-26). The Committee noted the neutrality of the proposed 

policy change, which would continue to give judges flexibility to make decisions 

about Leave Act coverage based on what is best for their chambers. The Judicial 

Conference approved the Committee’s recommendation.

QUALIFICATION STANDARDS FOR CHIEF DEPUTY STAFF ATTORNEY

POSITION

In March 2020, the Judicial Conference established chief deputy second-incommand positions for senior staff attorneys’ offices (JCUS-MAR 2020, pp. 19-20). 

On the recommendation of the Committee on Judicial Resources, the Judicial 

Conference at this session approved qualification standards for these newly authorized 

positions (Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 12, Ch. 5, Appx. 5F). 

TIME-IN-GRADE REQUIREMENTS FOR COURT PERSONNEL SYSTEM AND

COURT INTERPRETER POSITIONS

The Committee on Judicial Resources recommended that the Judicial 

Conference eliminate the time-in-grade or equivalent experience requirement for Court 

Personnel System (CPS) and court interpreter positions upon qualification and grade 

determination. To satisfy this requirement, employees in these positions must have 

one to two years of experience at or equivalent to the next lower CPS grade to be 

eligible for promotion. The Committee observed that this requirement may place 

internal candidates at a disadvantage for pay-setting purposes when compared to 

external candidates, and that removing it would recognize the value of court service by 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

26

providing the same flexibility in setting pay for external and internal applicants. This 

change would complement CPS promotion policy changes approved by the Judicial 

Conference in 2015 and 2016, which similarly allowed courts to apply the same 

flexibilities available for external applicants to internal applicants with respect to 

offering higher pay for applicants with unusually high or unique qualifications (JCUSSEP 2015, pp. 23-24), and eliminating time-in-grade or equivalent experience 

requirements for Judiciary Salary Plan unit executive and second-in-command 

positions (JCUS-SEP 2016, p. 24). The Judicial Conference approved the 

Committee’s recommendation.

 

CHAMBERS STAFF FOR CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGES

Judicial Conference guidelines authorize chief judges in districts with five or 

more authorized judgeships to have four chambers staff positions, and chief judges in 

districts with less than five authorized judgeships to have three chambers staff 

positions (JCUS-SEP 1979, pp. 75-76; Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 12, Ch. 6, § 

615.50). In March 2017, the Conference approved a waiver of its chambers staffing 

allocation policy to allow the chief district judges in the District of Delaware, the 

Northern District of Florida, and the Western District of New York, who were in 

courts with four authorized judgeships but had been recommended for a fifth 

judgeship by the Conference, to have an additional staff position, with terms to expire 

at the conclusion of their terms as chief judge (JCUS-MAR 2017, p. 18). The Judicial 

Conference approved a similar waiver of its chambers staffing policy in March 2018 

and March 2020 to allow the incoming chief judges of the Northern District of Florida 

and the District of Delaware, respectively, to have an additional chambers staff 

position upon assuming the position of chief district judge (JCUS-MAR 2018, p. 20; 

JCUS-MAR 2020, pp. 18-19). The term of the current chief judge in the Western 

District of New York is expected to expire in July 2021. Noting that the Western 

District of New York continues to be recommended for a fifth judgeship and the 

district’s workload continues to increase, the Committee on Judicial Resources 

recommended that the Conference approve a waiver to allow the incoming chief judge 

to have an additional staff position in chambers upon assuming the position of chief 

judge. The term of the additional staff position will expire at the conclusion of that 

judge’s term as chief judge. The Conference approved the Committee’s 

recommendation.
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

27

 

DEFENDER SERVICES NATIONAL POSITIONS

The Committee on Judicial Resources, at the request of the Committee on 

Defender Services, recommended that the Judicial Conference approve eight 

additional full-time equivalent positions for the Defender Services National Litigation 

Support Team, to be considered for inclusion in the judiciary’s fiscal year 2023 budget 

request. These additional resources will help the Defender Services National 

Litigation Support Team provide e-discovery training and support to CJA panel 

attorneys and federal defender organizations. The Judicial Conference approved the 

Committee’s recommendation.

 

STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM

On the recommendation of the Committee on Judicial Resources, the Judicial 

Conference rescinded its March 2020 position seeking amendment of 5 U.S.C. § 5379 

to authorize the judiciary to establish a student loan repayment program for 

Administrative Office, court, court unit, and federal public defender organization 

employees (JCUS-MAR 2020, p. 21), and instead agreed to seek amendment to 28 

U.S.C. § 604 and any other relevant sections of Title 28 for that same purpose. The 

Committee noted that establishing the program under Title 28 would avoid certain 

potential unintended consequences of establishing the program under Title 5.

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Judicial Resources reported that, at the request of the 

judiciary planning coordinator, it considered which strategies and goals in the 

Strategic Plan for the Federal Judiciary should receive priority attention over the next 

two years, and with input from its Diversity Subcommittee, recommended the 

prioritization of certain strategies that align with the new core value titled, “Diversity 

and Respect,” the Committee’s strategic initiative on diversity, and with the Diversity 

Subcommittee’s mission statement. The Committee also endorsed a cross-committee 

meeting in the spring of 2021 to discuss and coordinate diversity, inclusion, and equity 

initiatives across the judiciary, which would include representatives from the 

Committees on the Administration of the Bankruptcy System, Court Administration 

and Case Management, Criminal Law, Defender Services, the Judicial Branch, and the 

Administration of the Magistrate Judges System. 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

28

COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL SECURITY

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Judicial Security reported that it received an update from

U.S. District Judge Esther Salas on her efforts in support of the federal judicial 

security and privacy legislation introduced during the 116th Congress. Moving 

forward, the Committee will continue to support efforts for such federal legislation and 

assess what tools can be developed to support the passage of similar legislation at the 

state level. The Committee was updated on the funding received in fiscal year 2021 

for the replacement of all Home Intrusion Detection Systems currently in place as well 

as for the expansion of the capacity of the U.S. Marshals Service’s Office of Protective 

Intelligence, Open Source Intelligence Unit. Finally, upon observing the attack on the 

U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, the Committee directed staff to examine what 

resources could be sought to prevent similar attacks at federal courthouses.

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 court, and the circuit judicial council, the Judicial Conference 

agreed to redesignate the location of the full-time magistrate judge position at 

Pikeville or Ashland in the Eastern District of Kentucky as “Pikeville, Ashland, or 

Frankfort.”

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee reported that it considered eight cyclical district-wide 

magistrate judges surveys and, where appropriate, endorsed suggestions regarding the 

utilization of magistrate judges in these districts. Pursuant to Judicial Conference 

policy regarding the review of magistrate judge position vacancies (JCUS-SEP 04, p. 

26), for the period between its June 2020 and December 2020 meetings, the 

Committee, through its chair, approved filling nine magistrate judge position 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

29

vacancies in nine district courts. At its December 2020 meeting, the Committee 

considered and approved a request from one court to fill a magistrate judge position 

vacancy. By electronic mail ballot or at its December 2020 meeting, the Committee 

also considered and approved requests from twelve courts for the recall, extension of 

recall, approval of staff, or extension of staff, for 16 retired magistrate judges. In 

addition, the Committee discussed extensively the concept of establishing a formal 

system of evaluating magistrate judge utilization and how best to organize and 

improve magistrate judge utilization data to help it make decisions about magistrate 

judge resources, and agreed as a next step to revise and reorganize the Suggestions for 

Utilization of Magistrate Judges. Finally, the Committee considered 

recommendations from its Diversity Subcommittee and agreed, among other actions, 

to request that the Federal Judicial Center conduct a survey of chief district judges 

regarding their courts’ efforts to increase diversity in the magistrate judge selection 

process, with the goal of creating a report that will be shared with the courts.

COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

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

Conference a proposed amendment to Civil Rule 7.1 (Disclosure Statement), together 

with committee notes explaining its 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 the status of its 

advisory committees’ work in developing rules for emergencies as directed by the 

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, 

134 Stat. 281. The Committee anticipates that several of the advisory committees will 

recommend proposed emergency rules for public comment in August 2021. The 

Committee was also updated on the status of restyling the Bankruptcy Rules. One 

third of the restyled rules were published for comment in 2020 and will be considered 

by the Advisory Committee for final approval at its spring meeting. A second third is 

on track to be published for comment in August 2021, with the remainder of the 

restyled rules projected to be published in 2022. The projected publication schedule 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

30

puts the restyled rules on track to be considered for final approval by the Committee at 

its June 2023 meeting, and recommended for Judicial Conference consideration at its 

fall 2023 session.

COMMITTEE ON SPACE AND FACILITIES

 

U.S. COURTS DESIGN GUIDE

In March 2017, noting that portions of the U.S. Courts Design Guide were 

outdated in terms of content, format, and organization, the Committee on Space and 

Facilities recommended, and the Judicial Conference approved, a two-phase approach 

to reviewing and revising the Design Guide. Phase I consisted of immediate 

amendments approved by the Conference to the Design Guide at that same session to 

address current problems, and Phase II would consist of a comprehensive review and 

revision to increase clarity and ease of use, as well as to ensure the inclusion of current 

policies, industry standards, and best practices (JCUS-MAR 2017, pp. 22-23). At this 

session, upon the recommendation of the Committee, the Judicial Conference 

approved an updated U.S. Courts Design Guide to provide a modernized and more

user-friendly guide incorporating current policies, industry standards, and best 

practices in the design and construction of federal courthouses. The updated Design 

Guide incorporates various technical as well as substantive policy changes, including 

new design and construction-related policies adopted by the Judicial Conference since 

the Design Guide was last comprehensively updated in 2006.

 

EXCEPTION TO THE U.S. COURTS DESIGN GUIDE

A special proceedings courtroom is considered an exception to the U.S. Courts 

Design Guide if (a) it is provided at a location other than the district headquarters; (b) 

there are fewer than four district judge courtrooms (even at a headquarters location); or 

(c) more than one such courtroom is provided in a facility (JCUS-MAR 2008, p. 28). 

The Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council, on behalf of the Middle District of Georgia, 

requested an exception to the Design Guide to include a special proceedings 

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

Macon, which will have fewer than four district judge courtrooms. Noting that the 

entire district currently lacks a special proceedings courtroom but that one may be 

appropriate for the district given its geographic size, the Committee on Space and 

Facilities recommended, and the Conference approved, an exception to the U.S. Courts 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 16, 2021

31

Design Guide to include a special proceedings courtroom in the program of 

requirements for the new courthouse construction project in Macon, Georgia.

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Space and Facilities reported that it approved three funding 

requests for No Net New projects in support of the Judicial Conference’s No Net New 

policy adopted in September 2013 (JCUS-SEP 13, p. 32). The Committee agreed to 

defer consideration of the remaining two requests until its June 2021 meeting, at which 

time it will re-examine and prioritize them along with any new requests received 

pending available funding. In addition, the Committee considered and approved a 

project in Hattiesburg, Mississippi for participation in the Capital Security Program. 

The Committee reviewed three requests for GSA feasibility studies but ultimately 

deferred consideration of these requests until its June 2021 meeting.

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