REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS

OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE

OF THE UNITED STATES

March 17, 2020

The Judicial Conference of the United States convened by 

teleconference on March 17, 2020, 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

Judge Nancy Torresen,

District of Maine

Second Circuit:

Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann

Chief Judge Stefan R. Underhill,

District of Connecticut

Third Circuit:

Chief Judge D. Brooks Smith

Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner,

Middle District of Pennsylvania

Fourth Circuit:

Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory

Judge Robert James Conrad, Jr., 

Western District of North Carolina

Fifth Circuit:

Chief Judge Priscilla Richman Owen

Chief Judge S. Maurice Hicks, Jr.,

Western District of Louisiana
Judicial Conference of the United States March 17, 2020

2

Sixth Circuit:

Chief Judge Ransey Guy Cole, Jr.

Judge Michael H. Watson,

Southern District of Ohio

Seventh Circuit:

Chief Judge Diane P. Wood

Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer,

Northern District of Illinois

Eighth Circuit:

Chief Judge Lavenski R. Smith

Judge Linda R. Reade,

Northern District of Iowa

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 Ed Carnes

Judge L. 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 17, 2020

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 John W. Lungstrum, 

chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Budget, and Bankruptcy Judge 

Jeffery P. Hopkins and Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker, as the bankruptcy judge 

and magistrate judge observers, respectively.

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

C. Duff, 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 Best, Legislative Affairs 

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

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

Attorney General William P. Barr addressed the Conference on matters of mutual 

interest to the judiciary and the Department of Justice. Representative Hank Johnson

spoke on matters pending in Congress of interest to the Conference.

REPORTS

Mr. Duff 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 March 17, 2020

4

ELECTION

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

of four years, Judge Thomas M. Hardiman, United States Court of Appeals for the 

Third Circuit, and Judge Carol Bagley Amon, United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of New York, to succeed Judge David S. Tatel, United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and Judge George Z. Singal, United 

States District Court for the District of Maine.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

 

NEW BANKRUPTCY LEGISLATION

The Executive Committee was asked to approve on behalf of the Judicial 

Conference two measures required to facilitate timely implementation of the 

Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019, Pub. L. No. 116-54, which took 

effect on February 19, 2020. On recommendation of the Committee on Rules 

of Practice and Procedure, the Executive Committee authorized the distribution 

of Interim Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 1007, 1020, 2009, 2012, 2015, 3010, 

3011, 3014, 3016, 3017.1, 3017.2, 3018, and 3019 to the courts so they could 

be adopted locally to facilitate uniformity of practice until the Federal Rules of 

Bankruptcy Procedure can be revised in accordance with the Rules Enabling 

Act. On recommendation of the Committee on the Administration of the 

Bankruptcy System, the Executive Committee also approved amendments to 

the Judicial Conference Bankruptcy Administrator Regulations, Guide to 

Judiciary Policy, Vol. 9, Ch. 2, to provide necessary guidance to bankruptcy 

administrators and promote national consistency and uniformity of practice 

between bankruptcy administrator and U.S. trustee districts in implementing

the legislation with respect to the selection, appointment, and supervision of 

trustees in the bankruptcy administrator program.
Judicial Conference of the United States March 17, 2020

5

 

MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS

The Executive Committee—

• Approved final fiscal year (FY) 2020 financial plans for the Salaries and 

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

Commissioners accounts.

• Approved an adjustment to the FY 2021 budget request to conform to the FY 

2020 interim financial plans and reflect technical adjustments.

• 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 should be 

allowed to go into effect (see Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 19, Ch. 2, 

§ 250.20.20(b)(1) and § 250.20.30).

• Approved, on behalf of the Judicial Conference on an expedited basis, a 

recommendation of the Committee on the Administration of the Bankruptcy 

System to grant a request from the judicial councils of the Fourth Circuit and 

District of Columbia Circuit for the multi-district designation of a bankruptcy 

judge in the District of Maryland to serve in the Bankruptcy Court for the 

District of Columbia through December 31, 2029, Guide to Judiciary Policy, 

Vol. 3, Ch. 14.

• Approved costs related to the Ninth Circuit’s 2021 judicial conference, 

pursuant to the Judicial Conference regulations on meeting planning and 

administration, Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 24, Ch. 2, § 230(a)(2).

• Determined, with respect to the Defender Services Committee’s consideration 

of the remaining recommendations of the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee to 

Review the Criminal Justice Act Program (Cardone Report), that it would not 

be appropriate at this time for the Defender Services Committee to engage an 

outside vendor to study alternative organizational models for the independent 

defender commission recommended by the Cardone Report’s final 

recommendation, or to commit to any other activities that would require the 

expenditure of additional resources.
Judicial Conference of the United States March 17, 2020

6

• Approved, on behalf of the Judicial Conference on an expedited basis, a 

recommendation from the Committee on Judicial Resources to grant an 

exception to Conference policy that allows a judge to employ only one

chambers law clerk at Judiciary Salary Plan (JSP)-14 or above (JCUS-SEP 94, 

pp. 57-59; Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 12, Ch. 6, § 615.50(h)(1))), in order 

to permit a judge to employ a second law clerk at JSP-14 to address a 

workplace misconduct matter.

• Requested that the Chief Justice consider conducting the business of the March 

2020 Judicial Conference session by conference call or mail ballot, in light of 

public health concerns regarding the spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 

throughout the country and the fact that no recommendations had been moved 

to the discussion calendar.

• Recommended that the Chief Justice approve a request from the Committee on 

International Judicial Relations to include the Director of the Federal Judicial 

Center as a permanent, non-voting, ex-officio member of the Committee on 

International Judicial Relations.

 

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 results of various audits and engagements, 

including audits of bankruptcy debtors, the Judiciary Integrated Financial Management 

System, the Judiciary Electronic Travel System, the AO’s contracts management and 

purchase card programs, the Central Violations Bureau (CVB) and Public Access to 

Court Electronic Records (PACER) Service Center, and judiciary retirement funds. 

The Committee was also briefed on the ongoing effort to develop consolidated 

judiciary financial reporting and a more integrated approach to internal controls to 

support consolidated financial statements. In addition, the Committee was briefed on 

the AO’s responses to allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse, including the use of 

standard responses to inform complainants when the AO completes an investigation 

concerning the AO, a court unit, or federal public defender organization.
Judicial Conference of the United States March 17, 2020

7

COMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATION 

OF THE BANKRUPTCY SYSTEM

 

OFFICIAL DUTY STATIONS

On recommendation of the Committee on the Administration of the 

Bankruptcy System, and in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 152(b)(1), the Judicial 

Conference approved a request from the Third Circuit Judicial Council to reduce the 

number of approved official bankruptcy judge duty stations in Philadelphia in the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania from five to four to reflect the lapse of a temporary 

judgeship in that district.

 

SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT REGULATIONS

On recommendation of the Bankruptcy Committee, the Conference approved 

revisions to the Judicial Regulations for the Selection, Appointment, and 

Reappointment of United States Bankruptcy Judges. In response to concerns that the 

current preliminary disclosure statement for bankruptcy judge applicants did not elicit 

relevant information early enough in the selection and appointment process to permit 

proper consideration prior to selection of a candidate for appointment, the revised 

regulations allow for earlier submission of preliminary disclosure statements, while 

also requiring confidentiality and submission of such statements only to the circuit 

judicial council or court of appeals. The revised regulations also add sexual 

orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy to the regulation’s anti-discrimination 

provision.

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on the Administration of the Bankruptcy System presented to 

the Conference an interim report on the horizontal consolidation pilot of bankruptcy 

clerks’ offices, prepared by the Federal Judicial Center in consultation with the 

Committee. The Committee reported that it continues to work to improve bankruptcy 

courts’ management of unclaimed funds through the implementation of various 

recommendations of its Unclaimed Funds Task Force. Also, the Committee again 

deferred consideration of whether to identify additional courts to participate in the 

bankruptcy judgeship vacancy pilot approved by the Conference in September 2014 

until its June 2020 meeting, when it will reevaluate needs for bankruptcy judge 

resources. Finally, on October 24, 2019, the Committee hosted a national diversity 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 17, 2020

8

event titled Roadways to the Federal Bench: Who Me? A Bankruptcy Judge? The 

event began with a live broadcast panel discussion followed by local roundtable 

discussions in 19 cities across the United States.

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

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

budget outlook and the status of the judiciary’s cost-containment efforts. In addition, 

the Committee considered feedback from five Judicial Conference committees and 

consolidated courts on the effectiveness and impact of potential financial incentives 

developed by the Budget and Finance Advisory Council to encourage court unit 

consolidation and flexible sharing arrangements. The Committee requested that the 

Administrative Office develop a proposed structure and guidelines for a separate fund 

from which courts could request support for consolidation-related costs, and develop

proposals for establishing formal support at the AO to provide guidance to courts 

considering consolidation.

COMMITTEE ON CODES OF CONDUCT

 

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER EMPLOYEES

In March 2019, the Judicial Conference adopted an amended Code of Conduct 

for Judges and an amended Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, recommended by 

the Committee on Codes of Conduct in response to a recommendation of the Federal 

Judiciary Workplace Conduct Working Group that the judiciary “revise its codes and 

other published guidance in key respects to state clear and consistent standards, 

delineate responsibilities, and promote appropriate workplace behavior” (JCUS-MAR 

19, pp. 12-13). At this session, the Committee proposed amendments to the Code of 

Conduct for Federal Public Defender Employees consistent with the amendments 

approved for the Code for Judicial Employees. On the Committee’s recommendation, 

the Conference adopted the amended Code of Conduct for Federal Public Defender 

Employees and delegated to the Committee the authority to make non-substantive or 

technical amendments.
Judicial Conference of the United States March 17, 2020

9

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

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

Judicial Conference in September 2019, the Committee received 15 new written 

inquiries and issued 14 written advisory responses. During this period, the average 

response time for requests was 21 days. In addition, the Committee chair responded to 

10 informal inquiries, individual Committee members responded to 216 informal 

inquiries, and Committee counsel responded to 698 informal inquiries, for a total of 

924 responses to informal inquiries.

COMMITTEE ON COURT ADMINISTRATION 

AND CASE MANAGEMENT

 

AUDIO STREAMING PILOT PROGRAM

On 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. 

Under the pilot, to run in a limited number of district courts of varying size, audio 

streaming of motion hearings would be subject to the discretion of the presiding judge, 

would require the consent of the parties, and would be prohibited in cases involving 

jurors, witnesses, or sealed, confidential, or classified materials. 

 

MISCELLANEOUS FEE SCHEDULES

Inflationary Fee Increases. The Judicial Conference prescribes miscellaneous 

fees for the courts of appeals, district courts, bankruptcy courts, United States Court of 

Federal Claims, and Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1913, 1914, 1926, 1930, and 1932, respectively. On recommendation of the Court 

Administration and Case Management Committee, the Conference amended the 

miscellaneous fee schedules for these courts to increase certain fees for inflation, as set 

forth below, effective December 1, 2020. The last time miscellaneous fees were 

adjusted for inflation was in September 2016 (JCUS-SEP 16, p. 10).
Judicial Conference of the United States March 17, 2020

10

Court of Appeals Miscellaneous Fee Schedule

Item Current Fee New Fee

2. Record Search $31 $32

5. Audio Recording $31 $32

6. Record Reproduction $86 $89

13. Attorney Admission Fee $181 $188

 Duplicate Certification of Admission $19 $20

 or Certificate of Good Standing

District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule

Item Current Fee New Fee

1. Filing Document $47 $49

 Unrelated to a Case or Proceeding

2. Record Search $31 $32

3. Exemplification $22 $23

5. Audio Recording $31 $32

9. Misdemeanor Appeal $38 $39

10. Attorney Admission Fee $181 $188

 Duplicate Certification of Admission $19 $20

 or Certificate of Good Standing

13. Cuban LIBERTAD Act Filing $6,548 $6,800

14. Administrative Civil Filing Fee $50 $52

Bankruptcy Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule

Item Current Fee New Fee

2. Exemplification $22 $23

3. Audio Recording $31 $32
Judicial Conference of the United States March 17, 2020

11

4. Amended Schedules $31 $32

5. Record Search $31 $32

7. Filing Document $47 $49

 Unrelated to a Case or Proceeding

8. Chapter 7, 12, or 13 Petition $75 $78

 Chapter 9, 11, or 15 Petition $550 $571

 Motion to Divide $75 $78

Joint Chapter 7, 12, or 13 Case

 Motion to Divide $550 $571

Joint Chapter 11 Case

19. Filing Specific Motions $181 $188

20. Claims Transfer $25 $26

21. Motion to Redact $25 $26

Court of Federal Claims Miscellaneous Fee Schedule

Item Current Fee New Fee

3. Exemplification $22 $23

4. Attorney Admission Fee $181 $188

 Duplicate Certificate of Admission $19 $20

 or Certificate of Good Standing

5. Receipt of Monthly Listing of $23 $24

 Court Orders and Opinions

8. Record Search $31 $32

9. Audio Recording $31 $32

10. Filing/Indexing Document Not in Case $47 $49

 For Which a Filing Fee Has Been Paid

12. Administrative Civil Filing Fee $50 $52
Judicial Conference of the United States March 17, 2020

12

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Miscellaneous Fee Schedule

Item Current Fee New Fee

1. Record Search $31 $32

Central Violations Bureau Fees. In 2005, Congress authorized the Judicial 

Conference to prescribe a fee for each violation notice processed through the Central 

Violations Bureau (Pub. L. No. 108-447). This fee is set forth at Item 15 of the 

District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule as the fee for processing a “petty offense 

charged on a federal violation notice.” Although officers frequently cite individuals 

with Class A misdemeanors using these violation notices, Class A misdemeanors are 

not included in the definition of a petty offense under the federal criminal code. To 

resolve this discrepancy between the fee schedule and the criminal code in a manner 

consistent with the intent of the 2005 statute, the Committee recommended, and the 

Conference approved, amending Item 15 of the District Court Miscellaneous Fee 

Schedule as follows (new language underlined, deleted language struck through):

Processing fee for an petty offense charged on a federal violation notice, $30.

 

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) (28 U.S.C. § 457). The Committee 

recommended amendments to Records Disposition Schedule 2 to update records 

retention guidance for the Court of International Trade, noting that this guidance was 

last revised in 1986 and that the amendments would mirror the court’s current records 

retention needs and operational practices. The Conference approved the Committee’s 

recommendation and authorized the revised schedule to be transmitted to NARA for 

its concurrence.

 

IMPLEMENTATION OF FIX NICS ACT

The Fix NICS Act of 2018, Division S, Title VI of the Consolidations 

Appropriations Act, 2018 (Pub. L. No. 115-141), requires the judiciary to share with 

the Department of Justice (DOJ) any criminal case records that would assist the DOJ 

in performing firearm purchaser background checks. Noting that the District Court for 

the Eastern District of New York had developed a prototype electronic data feed to 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 17, 2020

13

allow criminal judgment forms and certain associated case data to be automatically 

transmitted to the DOJ, the Committee supported a pilot program to test the data feed 

tool in eight to ten courts for up to two years to determine its potential for 

implementation at the national level. On recommendation of the Committee, the 

Conference approved the proposed pilot for providing criminal case judgment forms to 

the DOJ to satisfy federal courts’ obligations under the Fix NICS Act of 2018, as 

incorporated into Pub. L. No. 115-141.

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Court Administration and Case Management Committee reported that it 

received updates on several of its ongoing initiatives, including preliminary results 

from its two-year juror utilization pilot, which began in September 2019, as well as its 

ongoing efforts to place appropriate limits on access to cooperation information in 

CM/ECF. The Committee was also updated on the ongoing efforts of its Bankruptcy 

Noticing Center (BNC) cost-containment subcommittee to reduce costs associated 

with distributing notices in bankruptcy cases, and of its subcommittee on foreign state 

interference to address foreign actors’ attacks on the judiciary and the judicial process. 

Finally, the Committee affirmed its commitment to increasing involvement in the 

development of the Next Generation of CM/ECF (NextGen), emphasizing the 

importance of the pending independent external assessment of NextGen, and agreed to 

provide a liaison to the procurement phase of the assessment.

COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL LAW

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Criminal Law reported that it continued its discussion of the 

implementation of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, including the need 

for adequate resources for the probation and pretrial services system, and that it 

continued to collaborate with the Bureau of Prisons and other stakeholders to 

implement the Act. The Committee also endorsed a proposal to alleviate workload 

pressures on probation and pretrial services offices by temporarily amending the PostConviction Supervision Procedures Manual to allow probation and pretrial officers to 

supervise more persons under the Manual’s “Low Risk Supervision 

Standards.” Finally, the Committee endorsed a series of judicial reference guides 

prepared by the AO on residential reentry centers, location monitoring, and substance 

use disorder treatment options. These guides are intended to raise awareness in the 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 17, 2020

14

courts about the purposes, methods of implementation, and related policy 

considerations for these community corrections options, particularly during a time of 

limited resources.

COMMITTEE ON DEFENDER SERVICES

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Defender Services reported that, at the request of the 

Executive Committee, the Committee asked the Federal Judicial Center to undertake 

an assessment of how the judiciary has implemented the interim recommendations of 

the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee to Review the Criminal Justice Act Program 

(Cardone Report) that were adopted by the Judicial Conference, and the degree to 

which those actions have addressed the concerns identified in the Cardone Report. In 

the meantime, the Committee will continue its examination of the extent to which a 

study of potential alternative organizational models for the independent defender 

commission recommended by the Cardone Report’s final recommendation would be 

useful, as well as the possible scope and contours of such a study. Additionally, the 

Committee recommended that the Judicial Resources Committee approve the 

establishment of a Federal Defender Diversity Fellowship Program beginning in fiscal 

year 2022. Finally, the Committee discussed the potential development of a Model 

Federal Public Defender Office Employment Dispute Resolution Plan.

COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL-STATE JURISDICTION

 

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 28

At this session, the Judicial Conference approved two recommendations made 

by the Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction, as part of its jurisdictional 

improvements project, to seek amendments to title 28 of the United States Code as set 

forth below.

Snap Removal. Under the forum defendant rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), a case 

cannot be removed based on diversity jurisdiction if any of the defendants “properly 

joined and served” is a citizen of the state in which the case was filed. The rationale 

behind the rule is that the presence of an in-state defendant will protect all the 

defendants from any risk of local bias, eliminating the need for access to a federal 

forum. Out-of-state defendants have attempted to evade this rule by filing their 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 17, 2020

15

removal papers before any in-state defendants have been served, a tactic known as 

“snap removal.” Assuming that the rationale behind § 1441(b) is valid, the Committee 

noted that there is no logical reason to permit removal in the period before any in-state 

defendants can be found and served. The Committee also noted that limiting snap 

removal in situations where the policy justifications for diversity jurisdiction would 

not be advanced would further longstanding Judicial Conference policy seeking to 

reduce the number of cases based on diversity jurisdiction (see Long Range Plan for 

the Federal Courts, Recommendation 7 (JCUS-SEP 95, p. 42). It therefore 

recommended that the Judicial Conference urge Congress to enact legislation to 

remedy the problematic practice of “snap removal.” The Conference adopted the 

Committee’s recommendation.

Removal of Admiralty Claims. In order to make clear the statutory basis for 

the bar on removing a case to federal court based on admiralty claims alone, which

the Committee believed may be susceptible to court misinterpretation, the Committee 

recommended, and the Judicial Conference agreed, to urge Congress to clarify the 

basis for the rule that cases cannot be removed from state court to federal court solely 

on the basis of admiralty jurisdiction, preferably by amending 28 U.S.C. § 1333(a) as 

follows (new language underlined, deleted language struck through):

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of 

the States, of:

(1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to 

suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise 

entitled.; and

(2) Any prize brought into the United States and all proceedings for the 

condemnation of property taken as a prize.

(b) A civil action may not be removed solely on the basis of the jurisdiction 

conferred by this Section.

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction reported that it was briefed on 

various legislative matters of interest, including proposed legislation on immigration 

reform and extreme risk protection orders. The Committee also discussed the 

“Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2019,” which would 

create an Article I tribunal within the legislative branch to resolve copyright claims 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 17, 2020

16

valued at under $30,000 in damages, with streamlined proceedings and limited judicial 

review akin to the Federal Arbitration Act, and determined to continue its discussion at 

its May 2020 meeting. The Committee also received a report from the Federal Judicial 

Center (FJC) regarding the use of certified questions of state law, and reviewed a 

presentation drafted by the FJC designed to facilitate communication and cooperation 

between bankruptcy judges and state trial court judges on bankruptcy issues.

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

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

to procure and implement a new electronic financial disclosure reporting system, 

including efforts to develop an accurate timeline of deliverables following the 

postponement of a national rollout of the system. The Committee also authorized its 

chair to work with staff on creating procedures and a timeline for preparing financial 

disclosure reports for release to the public in Portable Document Format (PDF). As of 

December 2, 2019, the Committee had received 4,272 financial disclosure reports and 

certifications for calendar year 2018 (out of a total of 4,321 required to file), including 

1,256 annual reports from Supreme Court justices and Article III judges; 334 annual 

reports from bankruptcy judges; 579 annual reports from magistrate judges; 1,595 

annual reports from judicial employees; and 508 reports from nominee, initial, and 

final filers.

COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Information Technology reported that it endorsed revisions 

to the Guide to Judiciary Policy requiring courts to implement nationally supported IT 

security tools by March 31, 2022, and permitting government purchase of wearable 

mobile devices for probation and pretrial services officers with significant location 

monitoring responsibilities. The Committee also received an update and discussed an 

analysis being conducted, at the request of the Executive Committee, of current policy 

and practice regarding remote access to the Data Communications Network using 

personal rather than government-owned devices. In addition, the Committee discussed 

the uncertain budget outlook and the impact of impending funding reductions on IT 

initiatives and operations.
Judicial Conference of the United States March 17, 2020

17

COMMITTEE ON INTERCIRCUIT ASSIGNMENTS 

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Intercircuit Assignments reported that 133 intercircuit

assignments were undertaken by 106 Article III judges from July 1, 2019, to 

December 31, 2019. 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 three proposed intercircuit assignments of bankruptcy 

judges and six of magistrate judges.

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL RELATIONS 

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on International Judicial Relations reported on its international 

rule of law work in Europe and Eurasia, the Near East, East Asia and the Pacific, 

South and Central Asia, the Western Hemisphere, and Africa. The Committee 

received oral and written reports on international rule of law efforts and justice sector 

development programs from the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of Justice, 

U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. 

Patent and Trademark Office, Open World Leadership Center, Federal Clerks of Court 

Association, Federal Judicial Center, and Administrative Office. The Committee also 

discussed the past, present, and future of the United States judiciary’s involvement in 

international rule of law programming, through panel discussions and individual 

presentations moderated by the Deputy Director of The Kennan Institute of the 

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and by Committee members.

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIAL BRANCH

 

CIVICS EDUCATION

Noting the success of the federal judiciary’s first national civics conference, and 

in furtherance of the sentiments expressed by the Chief Justice in his 2019 Year End 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 17, 2020

18

Report on the Federal Judiciary about the importance of the judiciary’s efforts to 

promote public confidence in the judiciary through civic outreach, the Committee on 

the Judicial Branch recommended that the Judicial Conference affirm that civics 

education is a core component of judicial service, endorse regularly-held conferences 

to share and promote best practices of civics education, and encourage circuits to 

coordinate and promote education programs. The Conference adopted the 

Committee’s recommendation.

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on the Judicial Branch reported that it discussed recent 

legislative items of interest to the judiciary, including a hearing held before the U.S. 

House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary in September 2019, entitled 

“The Federal Judiciary in the 21st Century: Ensuring the Public’s Right of Access to 

the Courts.” The Committee was briefed on civics education activities across the 

judiciary. It discussed lessons learned, trends, and common questions resulting from 

the Justice and Journalism programs that the Committee has participated in for the 

previous twenty years. In addition, the Committee discussed recent activity related to 

the creation of judicial health and wellness committees in the circuits.

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 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 

 

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 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 17, 2020

19

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

positions (JCUS-SEP 79, 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 that 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 17, p. 18). The term of the 

current chief judge in the District of Delaware expires in June 2021. Noting that the 

District of Delaware continues to demonstrate a need for the additional staff position, 

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.

 

CHIEF DEPUTY POSITIONS

The chief deputy (Type II) classification in the Judiciary Salary Plan (JSP) 

covers second-in-command positions for circuit executives, clerks of court, chief 

probation officers, and chief pretrial services officers, where the incumbent serves as a 

full assistant to the executive; exercises full supervisory and management control over 

all personnel of the office; and serves an office that has a large staff and subordinate 

supervisory personnel (JCUS-SEP 92, p. 73; Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 12, Ch. 6, 

§ 615.40.10(c)(1)). Pursuant to current Judicial Conference policy, the target grade for 

a chief deputy is one grade below the target grade of the executive to whom the chief 

deputy reports, with no chief deputy grade to exceed JSP grade 16 (JCUS-SEP 92, p. 

73). At this session, the Judicial Conference considered three recommendations of the 

Committee on Judicial Resources related to chief deputy positions, as set forth below.

Target Grades. Pursuant to the current policy, a two-grade gap exists between 

executives graded at JSP-18 and their chief deputies who are limited to JSP16. Noting that closing this gap would make organizational sense from a classification 

perspective, may result in larger applicant pools for chief deputy positions, and would 

provide additional classification and salary flexibility for other occupations graded 

below chief deputy positions, the Committee recommended increasing to JSP-17 the 

target grade for chief deputy second-in-command positions reporting to circuit 

executives and court unit executives graded at JSP-18. The Conference approved the 

Committee’s recommendation.
Judicial Conference of the United States March 17, 2020

20

Senior Staff Attorneys’ Offices. Chief deputy positions are not currently 

authorized for senior staff attorneys. Noting that senior staff attorneys have been 

asked to meet increasingly complicated managerial demands without the assistance of 

a deputy, the Committee recommended establishing chief deputy second-in-command 

positions for senior staff attorneys’ offices. The Conference approved the 

Committee’s recommendation.

Direct Reporting. Because current policy requires that chief deputies exercise 

“full supervisory and management control over all personnel of the office,” all 

employees must report to the chief deputy. Noting that this limits the managerial 

flexibility for each court unit, and that executives have articulated a need for certain 

positions to report directly to them, the Committee recommended eliminating the 

requirement that all positions must report directly to the chief deputy second-incommand position. The Conference approved the Committee’s recommendation.

 

DEFENDER SERVICES NATIONAL POSITIONS

NITOAD Branch. The National Information Technology Operations and 

Applications Development (NITOAD) Branch provides information technology 

applications and systems support for federal defender organizations. On 

recommendation of the Committee on Judicial Resources, in consultation with the 

Committee on Defender Services, the Judicial Conference approved a new staffing 

formula for the NITOAD Branch, which provides 27.49 full-time equivalent positions 

based on statistical year 2020 workload data, to be considered for inclusion in the 

judiciary’s fiscal year 2022 budget request. The Committee on Judicial Resources will 

consider an update to the NITOAD Branch staffing formula when it considers 

replacement staffing formulas for federal defender organizations in 2022.

Capital Resource Counsel Project. The Capital Resource Counsel (CRC) 

Project furnishes direct representation and consultation in federal capital prosecution

cases and provides training to assist federal defender organizations and Criminal 

Justice Act panel attorneys appointed to federal capital cases. To address CRC Project

staffing needs in light of recent increases in the number of defendants with deatheligible indictments, the number of cases being authorized by the Department of 

Justice to proceed as death penalty cases, the level of prosecutorial resources being 

devoted to federal capital prosecution, and the level of complexity in capital case

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

Defender Services for six additional full-time positions, recommended that the Judicial 

Conference approve three additional full-time equivalent positions for the CRC 

Project, including two resource counsel and one paralegal, to be considered for 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 17, 2020

21

inclusion in the judiciary’s fiscal year 2022 budget request. The Conference approved 

the Committee’s recommendation.

 

STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM

Section 5379 of title 5, United States Code, permits covered federal agencies to 

establish student loan repayment programs in order to recruit and retain highly 

qualified personnel, but does not include the judicial branch or judiciary agencies

among these covered agencies. To assist the judiciary in attracting and retaining wellqualified, high-performing employees, the Committee on Judicial Resources 

recommended, and the Judicial Conference agreed, to seek amendment of 

5 U.S.C. § 5379 to authorize the judiciary to establish a student loan repayment 

program, subject to an assessment of the political climate.

 

EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION PROGRAM

Judiciary employees are currently authorized to receive a certificate and lapel 

pin or tie-tack recognizing government service at five-year intervals, and a framed 

certificate and/or plaque upon retirement (Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 12, Ch. 8, 

§ 830). On recommendation of the Committee on Judicial Resources, the Judicial 

Conference approved expanding the judiciary’s employee recognition awards policy to 

allow the use of a greater range of non-monetary awards for length of service and 

retirement recognition.

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

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

its subcommittee on diversity, including with respect to the status of the cooperative 

program with the Just the Beginning - A Pipeline Organization, the possibility of 

exploring additional partnerships with other organizations, strategic plans to 

coordinate diversity initiatives with other Judicial Conference committees, and the 

subcommittee’s adoption of a new diversity mission statement.
Judicial Conference of the United States March 17, 2020

22

COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL SECURITY

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

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

Committee on Information Technology, the Committee provided its views on the 

physical security concerns related to the use of wearable mobile devices by judiciary 

personnel, and agreed to ask the IT Committee to explore whether and how the

judiciary’s wireless device policy should be amended to reflect the Committee’s 

conclusions. The Committee was also updated on challenges to the General Services 

Administration’s (GSA) ability to implement an enhanced criminal history screening 

protocol for GSA contract workers in restricted judiciary space. Finally, the 

Committee had conversations with the Directors of the U.S. Marshals Service and the 

Federal Protective Service about their respective agencies’ strategic priorities as well 

as current and out-year budgetary needs.

COMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MAGISTRATE 

JUDGES SYSTEM

 

OFF-THE-RECORD REFERRALS

Since 1990, the Committee on the Administration of the Magistrate Judges 

System has advised district courts against making off-the-record referrals to magistrate 

judges. This advice was subsequently incorporated into the Committee’s Suggestions 

for the Utilization of Magistrate Judges, which recommended against (1) assignment 

of a dispositive matter in a civil or criminal case to a magistrate judge to draft a written 

order or other document for signature or adoption by a district judge that is not 

recorded on a case docket; and (2) assignment of parties’ objections to a report and 

recommendation on a dispositive motion to a magistrate judge for initial review and 

recommendation before the district judge makes a de novo determination on the 

objections. The Committee has observed that off-the-record referral of dispositive 

motions bypasses the statutory procedures allowing objections to recommended 

rulings by magistrate judges on dispositive motions and is demeaning to the office of 

magistrate judge, and that referral of objections adds an off-the-record layer of review 

to the statutory procedure that provides for de novo review by the district judge.

Expressing concerns that the practice has continued in several courts, and that neither

28 U.S.C. § 636 nor the Federal Rules of Procedure authorize these practices, the 

Committee recommended that the Judicial Conference express its disapproval of the 

practice of off-the-record referrals to magistrate judges of (1) dispositive motions and 
Judicial Conference of the United States March 17, 2020

23

(2) objections to reports and recommendations for initial review and 

recommendations. The Conference adopted the Committee’s recommendation.

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on the Administration of the Magistrate Judges System

reported that it considered nine cyclical district-wide magistrate judge utilization 

reviews 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 2019 and December 2019 meetings, the Committee, through its chair, 

approved filling 16 magistrate judge position vacancies in 15 district courts. At its 

December 2019 meeting, the Committee approved requests from seven courts for the 

recall, extension of recall, approval of staff, or extension of staff, for ten retired 

magistrate judges. By mail ballot between its June 2019 and December 2019 

meetings, the Committee approved requests from four courts for the recall of four 

retired magistrate judges. In addition, the Committee unanimously agreed that 

pursuing a case/workload-weighting study would not significantly enhance the 

Committee’s ability to evaluate magistrate judge resource needs. The Committee also 

formed a subcommittee to explore ideas for promoting diversity in the magistrate 

judges system.

COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure reported that it 

retroactively approved changes made by the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy 

Rules to Official Forms 122A-1 (Chapter 7 Statement of Your Current Monthly 

Income), 122B (Chapter 11 Statement of Your Current Monthly Income), and 122C-1 

(Chapter 13 Statement of Your Current Monthly Income and Calculation of 

Commitment Period) to conform to a statutory change in the definition of “current 

monthly income” under 11 U.S.C. § 101(10A), effected by the Honoring American 

Veterans in Extreme Need Act of 2019 (HAVEN Act), Pub. L. No. 116-52. The 

revised forms were posted on the judiciary’s website on October 1, 2019.
Judicial Conference of the United States March 17, 2020

24

COMMITTEE ON SPACE AND FACILITIES

 

EXCEPTION TO THE U.S. COURTS DESIGN GUIDE

Ceilings in jury assembly spaces exceeding ten feet in height are considered an 

exception to the U.S. Courts Design Guide (Design Guide), requiring Judicial 

Conference approval. The Eighth Circuit Judicial Council, on behalf of the Southern 

District of Iowa, requested an exception to the Design Guide to permit a 16 foot, 6 

inch ceiling height for the jury assembly room in a new courthouse being built in Des 

Moines, Iowa. The court noted that increasing the ceiling height would enhance the 

architectural integrity of the jury assembly room and ensure cohesion with the 16 foot 

ceiling of the adjacent lobby. On recommendation of the Committee on Space and 

Facilities, the Conference approved an exception to the Design Guide to permit a 

ceiling height of 16 feet, 6 inches, in the jury assembly room in the new courthouse 

construction project in Des Moines, Iowa.

 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The Committee on Space and Facilities reported that it discussed the status of 

the comprehensive review and revision of the Design Guide and endorsed several 

proposed amendments for incorporation into the revised Design Guide that will later 

be presented to the Judicial Conference for approval. The Committee also approved a 

request from the Eighth Circuit Judicial Council on behalf of the Southern District of 

Iowa for replacement non-resident courthouse space in Council Bluffs, Iowa. In 

addition, the Committee reviewed six funding requests for No Net New projects and 

approved $4.1 million of funding for three of the six projects. The Committee agreed 

to defer consideration of the remaining three requests until its June 2020 meeting, at 

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

received and in light of available funding. 

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.
Judicial Conference of the United States March 17, 2020

25

Chief Justice of the United States

Presiding