THE

THIRD

Newsletter of the Federal 

BRANCH

Courts • Vol. 29 • Number 9 • September 1997

Judicial Conterence ol the United States 

Celebrates 75th Anniversary 

Chief Justice 

William H. Rehnquist 

Presiding 1986-Present 

"The Judicial Conference of the 

United States celebrates its 75th anniversary this year. I have been honored to preside over the Conference 

for 11 of those years, and during 

that time I have had occasions to appreciate the dedication and the ability of its members and the members 

of its committees. They have worked 

tirelessly to improve the quality of 

the Judiciary. 

Over the last 75 years, the Conference has struggled with recurring 

issues: rising court caseloads and 

limited resources to deal with them; 

judicial vacancies and the impact 

they have on the courts; problems 

involving court management and 

administration; and sentencing disparities and the guidelines created 

to eliminate them. The Conference 

has responded competently to the issues it has confronted, providing an 

administrative structure as the Judiciary has grown-and that growth 

has been enormous. A caseload that 

numbered in the hundreds in 1922 

now numbers in the hundreds of 

thousands. 

In responding to all of these issues, the Conference and is comnuttees have served the Third Branch 

well, safeguarding the interests of 

the federal courts and formulating 

the policies and plans that have assisted the Judiciary in fulfilling its 

important mission. I am confident 

that the Judicial Conference will 

continue to perform these vital functions for the Judiciary." 

INSIDE 1\11 l,istorirn/ m•cn•ic,l' of

//,e /11dicilll Cm1fcrc11cc, itsrn111111ittccs, 

ti,c issues, and //,c l'""l'lc ,l'lw l1111•c

S!'l111'd. 
The Judicial Conference of the United States 1922-1997 

The 75-year history of the Judicial Conference is a reflection of the commitment of its members to the administration of the courts. Their success was probably best described in 1950, by Attorney General J. Howard McGrath, who 

told the Conference, "The annual meeting of the Judicial Conference is one of the reassurances that in our country the 

state is still the servant of its people and not a tyrant over them. With its plenary concern for the efficient administration of justice under law, the Conference is a sober reminder, above the clamor of temporary exigency, that our ship of 

state continues to maintain that course." The following are highlights of a 75-year voyage that has taken the Conference to where it is today. 

Members of the Second Conference of Senior Judges of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, with Chief Justice William Howard Taft, third from 

the left in the front row, calling on President Calvin Coolidge at the White House, September 23, 1923. 

Collection of the Library of Congress 

2---------------------------- The Third Branch ■ September 1997 
The Judicial Conference: 

An Historical Perspective

In 1922, three days after 

Christmas, the Conference of 

Senior Circuit Judges met in 

the Capitol in the rooms 

reserved for the Supreme 

Court-the present Supreme Court 

building having not yet been built. 

Chief Justice William Howard Taft 

presided. Although it was sometimes called the federal judicial 

council, it is more familiar today as 

the Judicial Conference of the 

United States. 

The Conference was the response 

to years of criticism of the federal 

judicial system over such "causes of 

popular dissatisfaction" as delay 

and cost of litigation. Taft, himself a 

former federal judge, lectured 

widely on the need for court reform 

almost from the moment he left the 

White House in 1913, using as his 

pulpit his position as president of 

the American Bar Association and 

later as Chief Justice, to push for 

change. What Attorney General 

Harry M. Daugherty described in 

1921 as "a generally congested 

condition in the Federal dockets" 

was the result of Congress increasing the jurisdiction of the 

federal courts through legisla

tion such as the National 

Prohibition Act. 

Senator Albert B. Cummins 

of Iowa, the principal legislative sponsor of legislation to 

create the Judicial Conference, 

described the circumstances in 

the courts: "When we contemplate a situation in which 

thousands and thousands of 

persons accused of crime must 

lie in jail for a year or two 

years, if they are unable to 

discharge themselves by giving 

bond, awaiting trial, and when 

we reflect upon the fact that in 

many parts of the United States 

it is utterly impossible to 

secure the trial of a civil 

suit within a year or two 

years, where both attorneys 

and parties are ready to 

proceed with the trial, it is 

to me a source of great 

humiliation." 

On September 14, 1922, 

Congress passed legislation creating 

25 new judgeships to deal with the 

immediate crisis and also creating 

an advisory body of the senior (now 

chief) federal judges on the courts of 

appeals, to meet once a year in 

Washington, where reports would 

be heard on the state of district court 

dockets and where recommendations could be made for additional 

judicial assistance. President Warren 

G.Harding signed the legislation

into law soon after.

The first Conference session was 

attended by the Chief Justice, the 

attorney general, and the chief 

judges from each of the nine judicial 

circuits. Later, the number of 

Conference members increased with 

the number of circuits, with the 

creation of the Tenth Circuit in 1929, 

the District of Columbia Circuit in 

1937, and the addition of the former 

Court of Claims and the U.S. Court 

of Customs and Patent Appeals in 

1957 and 1961, respectively. The 

split of the Fifth Circuit in 1980 

added additional members. 

It was not until 1958 that district 

judges officially were included as 

members of the Conference, doubling the size of the Conference 

when Congress provided that the 

judges of each circuit should elect a 

district judge representative. The 

Director of the Administrative 

Office has served as Secretary to the 

Conference since the creation of the 

AO. 

After the initial December 1992 

session, the Conference met next in 

the fall of 1923, as required by 

statute. Originally the Conference 

met once a year, but over the years 

increasingly scheduled a special 

session in the spring. By the 1950s, 

the Conference was meeting on a 

regular basis each spring and fall. 

By 1929 the Conference could 

report, "The Conference greatly 

rejoices at the urgent demand by the 

public generally for more efficiency, 

more speed, and more certainty in 

the prosecution of the general 

criminal law .... ," but that court 

efficiency was "substantially impeded by the lack of sufficient and 

competent help." The Conference 

asked Congress for more money to 

obtain and retain competent assistance. 

Until the completion of the Supreme Court Building, the Conference of Senior Circuit 

Judges met in the Capitol, in rooms reserved for the Supreme Court, formerly the Senate 

chambers. 

----------------------------3 

The Third Branch ■ September 1997
Chief Justice William Howard Taft, presided 1921-1930. 

Chief Justice 

William Howard Taft 

The following "conversation" with Chief 

Justice Willinm Howard Taft, the first 

presiding officer of the Judicial Conference, 

itt based upon Taft's letters, opinions, and 

speeches. Some liberties have been taken to 

create a conversational tone. 

Q•

• 

Would you consider yourself an advocate of administrative reforms in the Judiciary? 

A•

•

As I told Congress in 1922, I

have always been and am

now very interested in rendering the 

federal courts more efficient in the 

dispatch of business. 

Beginning about 1918 there had 

been a marked increase in the 

number of cases coming to the U.S. 

district courts. To assist the courts 

with their congested caseloads, I 

had pressed, while President of the 

United States, for what I called my 

flying squadron of judges-judges 

able to travel to courts in need of 

temporary support, but this idea 

was not accepted. Gentlemen have 

suggested that I would send dry 

judges to wet territory and wet 

judges to dry territory. I said even 

then that judges should be independent in their judgments, but they 

should be subject to some executive 

directions as to the use of their 

services, and somebody should be 

made responsible for the whole 

business of the United States. 

But I wasn't the first to propose 

reforms to the courts. Roscoe Pound 

addressed the American Bar Association in 1906 taking as his title, 

"The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of 

Justice." The ABA created a special 

committee in 1907 on means to 

prevent delay and unnecessary cost 

in litigation. It was after these 

actions that the Judicial 

Code of 1911 was 

adopted, making the 

district courts the only 

courts with general 

jurisdiction, and abolishing the old circuit courts. 

Q• 

• It has been said

that your advocacy, more than any other 

factor, led to the formulation of the Judicial 

Conference. 

A•

It is true that

matters might

have remained as they 

were in 1911. However, I 

took it upon myself to 

speak and write about 

making the American 

courts more effective as soon as I 

left the White House. I also vigorous! y opposed proposals for the 

recall of judges and of judicial 

decisions, a point of much contention between President Theodore 

Roosevelt and myself while I served 

in his cabinet. 

I greatly admired the English 

Judicature Act of 1871, which I 

believe worked a complete reform. 

Two great features of the English 

system are the simplicity of its 

procedure and the elasticity with 

which that procedure and use of the 

judicial force provided by Parliament can be adapted to the disposition of business. The success of the 

system rests on the executive 

control invested in a council of 

judges to direct business and 

economize judicial force, to mould 

their own rules of procedure, and 

the learning, ability, and experience 

of the individual judges. I made' a 

number of proposals in line with 

this example. I also helped form the 

American Judicature Society to 

study and promote modernization 

of the judicial system. When I was 

elected president of the ABA in 

1913, I presented a comprehensive 

program for the betterment of the 

federal courts. 

Q•

• 

How did you originally

envision this council of 

judges? r 

"During my Presidency I was not reluctant to use 

the power of my office to support members of the 

Judiciary." 

The 

4 

Third Branch ■ September 1997
A•

•

It seemed to me that either 

the Supreme Court or the

Chief Justice should be given an 

adequate executive force of competent subordinates to keep close and 

current watch upon the business 

awaiting dispatch in all the districts 

and circuits of the United States, to 

make periodical estimates of the 

number of judges needed in the 

various districts to dispose of such 

business, and to assign the adequate 

number of judges to the districts 

where needed. Then the Supreme 

Court by making the rules of procedure and by distributing the judicial 

force could greatly facilitate the 

proper disposition of all the legal 

business in the country and in a 

sense become responsible for its 

dispatch. 

Q: How did the Judicial Conference evolve from this? 

A: By 1921, Attorney General

Daugherty had appointed a 

committee of judges and U.S. 

attorneys to identify problems and 

recommend remedies. The Congress 

convened hearings in 1921 and 1922. 

In 1921, my first full year as Chief 

Justice, I testified before the Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary and 

presented my views. At that time I 

recommended a provision for a 

council or committee of nine senior 

circuit judges, one from each circuit, 

and the Chief Justice to meet each 

year and agree informally as to 

where the judges are needed and 

whence they can be had. I recommended, however, that the function 

of annually surveying the judicial 

business and relative need for 

judges was to be placed not in the 

Supreme Court but in this council of 

senior circuit judges. And it was 

originally called a Conference of 

Senior Circuit Court Judges. Subsequently, a bill was introduced in the 

Senate with both the Attorney 

General's committee report and my 

own recommendations, along with 

the provision for 25 new district 

judges. 

• Q• 

Was the idea of a Judicial

Conference of judges readily

accepted?

A• 

•

One senator, I remember,

objected to the idea of a

Judicial Conference saying, "It 

means absolutely nothing on earth 

except a junket and a dinner." Other 

senators were concerned that judges 

should remain as unfettered as 

possible, without regulation that 

might endanger the independence of 

the federal courts. Senator Spencer 

of Missouri, I believe, won the day 

for us when he said, "The judicial 

business of the United States is 

largely administrative. There is a 

business side to it as well as the law 

side. There are practices in the 

different circuits which are commendable. There are some that 

could be improved. Both are remedied by [the] conference. It seems 

to me there is very great advantage 

when the circuit judges get together 

once a year to discuss the method of 

transacting business, the state of 

their dockets, the things that have 

proved advantageous, the things 

that have proved disadvantageous. 

The result of it all is a distinct 

benefit to the administration of 

justice and that is precisely what the 

conference provides for." 

Q:

Can you tell us something

about the first meeting? 

A:

The 1922 statute was not

explicit in making the Chief 

Justice a voting member. I was its 

presiding officer. I, however, 

immediately established the precedent of voting. At the first meeting, 

December 28, 1922, we were a small 

enough group, just 10 members and 

myself at the outset, that intensive 

discussion on any number of topics 

was possible. Nonetheless, to focus 

thought, I appointed five committees, which I charged with reporting 

the following year. This habit of 

appointing committees on particular 

subjects rather than standing 

committees continued for a number 

of years. We met in the Old Senate 

Office Building, but later moved to 

our own new building. 

Q•

• 

You've been described as an

"activist," in terms of being 

an executive and judge who promoted judicial causes. How would 

you describe your philosophy? 

A•

•

During my Presidency I was

not reluctant to use the

power of my office to support 

members of the Judiciary. I was able 

to secure substantial pay increases 

for judges, and I appointed six 

members to the Supreme Court. 

Only my fellow presidents George 

Washington and Franklin D. 

Roosevelt appointed more. As Chief 

Justice I served, I believe, during a 

time of no greater court-congressional conflict. In that time I was a 

conservative jurist and an effective 

lobbyist for the Judiciary. As to my 

philosophy, let me read to you from 

a letter I wrote in 1922, "Every judge 

should have constantly before him 

that the reason for the existence of 

the courts is to promote the happiness of all the people by speedy and 

careful administration of justice, and 

every judge should exert himself to 

the uttermost to see that in his 

rulings and in his conduct of business he is, so far as his action can 

accomplish it, making his court 

useful to the litigants and to the 

community." ......... 

The Third Branch ■ September 1997 

5 
The Judicial Conference 

And Its Committees 

At the 1922 Conference session, 

the first committees were created, 

inaugurating a custom that continues today with Conference committees playing an active role. Taft felt 

some focus was needed to the 

discussions, so he authorized 

committees with the rather weighty 

titles of the Committee to Consider 

the Rules and Procedure of the 

Conference, Forms and Procedure 

for the Transfer of Judges; the 

Committee on Need and Possibility 

of Transfer of Judges; the Committee on Recommendations to District 

Judges of Changes in Local Procedure to Expedite Disposition of 

Pending Cases and to Rid Dockets of 

Dead Litigation; the Committee on 

Recommendations as to Bankruptcy 

Rules; the Committee on Recommendations as to Equity Rules; and 

the Committee on Amendments to 

Appellate Procedure. The titles 

alone indicate the broad functional 

areas that Taft and the Conference 

members saw as their province. 

A core of program and policy 

committees has evolved over time 

with responsibility for such areas as 

budget, court administration, codes 

of conduct, facilities, the bankruptcy 

system, intercircuit assignments, 

rules, and criminal law and probation. 

Some committees have been 

formed in response to specific 

statutory mandates or authorization, 

such as the rule-making committees, 

the advisory committee to review 

circuit council conduct and disability orders, and the committee on 

financial disclosure. 

In 1969, Chief Justice Burger 

suggested the formation of an 

Executive Committee to help in the 

administration of Conference affairs. 

The AO' s Office of the Executive 

Secretariat coordinates administrative support to the Conference and 

its Executive Committee, and also 

coordinates the activities of the 

Executive Secretariat, which consists 

of senior members of the AO' s 

professional staff who dedicate all 

or a substantial portion of their time 

to the work of the Conference and 

its committees. 

The Chief Justice, through the 

Conference, also has, from time to 

time, established special committees, 

ad hoc committees, or advisory 

committees. 

These committees have been 

assigned, for example, to examine 

jury selection (1941), implement the 

criminal justice act (1964) and the 

federal magistrates system (1968), 

study the sentencing guidelines 

(1986) and electronic sound recording (1983), coordinate bicentennial 

projects (1975), examine habeas 

corpus in capital cases (1988), 

address the substantial number of 

asbestos personal injury cases 

Chi£j_Justice Charles Evans Hughes, fourth from left in the front raw, and members of the 

Judicial Conference in front of the Capitol Building in October 1930. 

Collection of the Library of Congress 

Three past chairs of the Judicial Conference 

Executive Committee, Chief Judges Charles 

Clark (5th Cir.), John Gerry (D. N.J.), and 

Wilfred Feinberg (2nd Cir.) in 1994. 

8----------------------­

The Third Branch ■ September 1997 
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, center, with members of the Bicentennial Committee (left 

to right), Judge Damon Keith (6th Cir.), Judge Helen Nies (Fed. Cir.), Burger, Chief Judge 

Robert Murphy (Md. Ct. App.) and Judge Dolores Slaviter (3rd Cir.). 

(1990), explore the right to competent counsel in federal court regardless of the means of the accused 

(1991), and propose long-range 

plans for the Judiciary (1991). 

The only Conference committee 

directly created by Congress was the 

Federal Courts Study Committee in 

1988, which was established to 

study the U.S. courts and several 

state courts, and to recommend 

revisions to the law that would 

develop a long-range plan for the 

judicial system. 

Federal Courts Study Committee chair, Judge Joseph F. Weis, Jr. (3rd Cir.) (right), confers 

with committee member Representative Robert W. Kastenmeier. 

In 1986, 

upon taking 

office and 

following the 

precedent set 

by Chief 

Justices Earl 

Warren and 

Warren E. 

Burger, Chief 

Justice William H. 

Rehnquist 

appointed a 

committee to 

study the 

operation of 

the Judicial 

Conference and its committees. The 

following year, the Conference 

adopted the committee's report and 

dramatically changed the structure 

of the Conference agenda by establishing consent and discussion 

calendars, consequently changing 

how the Conference conducts its 

business during its plenary sessions. 

Committee membership also was 

revamped, establishing term limits 

and therefore opening membership 

to more judges who wished to serve. 

The Conference relies heavily on 

its committees, which review issues 

and make policy recommendations 

to the Conference. To make informed recommendations, the 

committees have conducted studies, 

initiated pilot programs, sponsored 

research, solicited court input, and 

held public hearings to gather 

information on issues or proposed 

programs. This follows a pattern 

established early in the Conference's 

history of soliciting comment from 

throughout the Judiciary and 

frequently from other branches of 

government and the public. 

Although this process may strike 

some outside the Judiciary as timeconsuming, the process considers 

the needs of the courts and the 

administration of justice. The 

cameras in the courtroom question 

is a good example of this delibera-

�-------------------■----------1 

The Third Branch ■ September 1997
Chief Justice 

Charles Evans Hughes 

Presided 1930-1941 

"One of the great services of Chief 

Justice Charles Evans Hughes to the 

cause of justice was that which he 

rendered as Chairman of this Judicial 

Conference, which had been created 

during the Chief Justiceship of his 

predecessor, Chief Justice Taft. It was 

during his Chairmanship that the 

Administrative Office Act was passed. 

Under that act the federal judiciary was 

freed from dependence upon an 

executive department of the government 

with respect to fiscal and administrative 

matters in the federal courts and was 

given adequate power of self regulation 

and supervision. It was he who set up 

the AO and assured its success by 

bringing to its support his own splendid 

powers of administration, and it was he 

who, in the administration of the Rules 

of Procedure Act, secured for the 

country a modernized and efficient 

system of legal procedure in keeping 

with modern conditions which has 

revolutionized the practice of the federal 

courts." 

From a 1948 resolution 

by the Judicial Conference 

tion. Beginning in the early 1960s 

with television in its infancy, the 

Conference heard from its Court 

Administration Committee on "the 

increasing activity by the press, 

radio, and television broadcasting 

media." At that time, it agreed with 

the committee's assessment that 

cameras in the courtroom would 

not be "in the interest of efficient 

judicial administration" nor would 

it "aid in the preservation of the 

right to a fair and impartial trial." 

Over the years, as the courts and 

the media changed, the Conference 

would revisit the controversy 

surrounding cameras in the courtroom, commissioning studies and 

implementing pilot programs in the 

courts. 

Caseload 

In many ways the first Conference session was a microcosm of all 

the meetings that were to follow. 

The Conference received reports on 

the business of the courts and about 

In 1949, the Conference received a request to install a microfilming system in a court 

that stated, "It is estimated that one file cabinet approximating 3'x3'x6' in size, would 

provide adequate and sufficient storage space for the records involved for 35 years-the 

records under the present system would require 1,300 cubic feet of space." By 1951, twothirds of the clerks' offices were using prenumbered receipt systems, somewhat less than 

one-third had adopted a card index system, and six districts at the close of the fiscal year 

were microfilming current records. In 1967, a new computer system was installed in the 

AO, replacing the punchcard system. The new IBM System 360, Model 20, with four 

magnetic tape drives was used for budget, accounting, and payroll purposes as well as 

for the statistical work of the AO. 

The Third Branch ■ September 1997 

8 
pending legislation, intercircuit 

assignments of judges, court 

personnel, and the appropriation of 

funds. At that time the Department 

of Justice was responsible for 

collecting statistics on case filings 

in the federal courts, and at the 

second meeting in 1923, a report on 

the caseload of the courts also was 

delivered by the attorney general, 

as required by the 1922 act. This 

continued until 1940, when the 

Administrative Office was established and the director of the AO 

took over the duty. However, to 

this day, the Attorney General is 

invited to attend Conference 

sessions upon request of the Chief 

Justice. 

The caseload of the federal 

Judiciary has been a determining 

factor in the Conference actions. 

The Conference has reacted to 

legislation that would increase 

caseload, instituted court programs 

to manage caseload, requested 

additional judgeships to handle the 

caseload, and formulated rules to 

govern case procedure. 

Legislation 

From the beginning, pending legislation was discussed at 

Conference meetings. 

In 1922 one topic was 

a bill to form a 

commission "to 

formulate recommendations for statutory 

changes in the practice and procedure in 

the federal courts to 

enable a more expeditious dispatch of their 

business." Over the 

intervening 75 years, 

the Conference has 

reviewed, endorsed, 

opposed, or taken no 

position on nearly 

every piece of legislation introduced 

in Congress that might affect the 

courts, from the most comprehensive crime bill to the smallest 

proposals for technical changes in 

judicial procedure or court operations. 

While legislative priorities and 

concerns have varied widely over 

the years, the Conference consistently has resisted efforts to increase 

the jurisdiction of the federal courts. 

On more than one occasion the 

Conference also has opposed 

legislation requiring the imposition 

of mandatory minimum sentences, 

because they limit judicial discretion 

in sentencing ahd increase the 

number of criminal trials and the 

number of appeals in criminal cases. 

Congress frequently has proposed the creation of special courts, 

but the Conference historically has 

regarded specialized judicial tribunals, as "an undesirable and unnecessary step in the direction of 

further disintegration of the Federal 

judicial system." In 1971, the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals 

was created by the Economic 

Stabilization Act-and abolished at 

the Conference's request in 1993. A 

Special Court was formed under the 

Regional Rail 

Reorganization Act of 

1973-and 

abolished in 

1996. In 1978, 

Congress 

established 

the Foreign 

Intelligence 

Surveillance 

Court and its 

Court of 

Review, 

providing for 

a special court 

of seven 

district 

judges. In 

1996, legislation created 

an Alien 

Terrorist 

Removal 

Court. However, it was 

on the 

Conference's 

recommendation that 

Congress 

passed 

legislation in 

1968, establishing the Judicial Panel 

on Multidistrict Litigation in response to the court's struggle to 

coordinate almost 2,000 related 

cases pending in 36 districts around 

the country. 

On occasion, the Conference has 

had a hand in creating legislation.' 

The Conference Committee on the 

Jury System drafted the landmark 

law on the federal jury system, 

which was enacted by Congress as 

the Jury Selection and Service Act of 

1968. In recent history, the Conference has sent proposed federal 

courts improvement bills to Congress, with provisions to make 

improvements in the operation and 

administration of the federal courts. 

The Conference also has been 

obliged to send draft legislation to 

Judge Barefoot Sanders (N.D. Tex.), chair of the Committee 

on the Judicial Branch, testifies at a Senate hearing on the 

1995 Judicial Improvements bill.

"The Judicial Conference 

session that I recall so 

well occurred when 

district j�·•.

resenta·

lives wereaffctede as,. _ members of ferf 

ence. Pre� y thl! .• 

Judicial Conferen'1e met

.._ -•? 

in the small confereiite

room adjoining the Chief 

Justice's chambers. But 

that room was entirely

too small to hold the 

enlarged Judicial 

Conference. So for the 

first time in history a 

Judicial Conference 

session was held in the 

large West Conference 

Room in the Supreme 

Court Building. Later the 

sessions were moved to 

the East Cont erence 

Room." 

Jowph F Spaniul. Jr. AO de/>U/\' 

dilt'CIUI 1975 · 1985 11he11 fie l\dl 

ap1>0111ted cle, J; of tile .'>ll('ll'/1/t' Cow t 

5('(1t'[JIV lo l/lt' tllft..'S (0fflf11rtft't''), and 

attended (m1fe1 eru e met'tin_t.:':i ft om 

1957 to l.'185 

g 

The Third Branch ■ September 1997
adjust judicial 

compensation. 

And, of 

course, the 

Conference 

biennially 

proposes 

additional 

judgeships to 

Congress. 

Judge Lloyd George (D. Neu.), chair of 

the Committee on the Administration of 

the Bankruptcy System, and Representative Jack Brooks before a 1992 House 

hearing on new bankruptcy judgeships. 

Vacancies 

and 

Judgeships 

Prior to 

1964, there 

was no system 

in place within 

the Judicial 

Conference for 

soliciting 

requests for 

additional 

judgeships. 

Requests were 

received from 

courts, members of Congress, bar associations, 

and circuit councils. In 1964 the 

Conference adopted a policy of 

making a comprehensive report to 

Congress approximately every four 

years on the judgeship needs of the 

appellate and district courts. In 

1977, the Conference approved 

judgeship surveys every other year. 

This system has proven effective in 

transmitting requests to Congress. 

However, there has been congressional resistance at times to authorization of those judgeships. In 1958, 

in response to a letter from the AO 

urging action on an omnibus judgeship bill, Senator Lyndon B. 

Johnson, the Senate majority leader, 

replied that, in his view, "a caseload 

factor based solely on the number of 

filings and pending cases was a 

most unreliable basis upon which to 

make a determination of the need 

for judges and that if caseload is to 

be the determining factor there must 

be a more refined breakdown of 

each particular caseload." The 

Senator requested additional 

statistical data, which were furnished by the AO, and eventually 

Congress took action on the judgeships. This pattern has continued 

over the years. It has been rare for 

Congress to act quickly on the 

additional judgeships requested by 

the Conference. When it finally acts, 

however, Congress has generally 

established all the judgeships 

recommended by the Conference. 

Sometimes, too, Congress has 

created judgeships for which no 

Conference request has been made. 

Since 1972, Congress has created 31 

such judgeships. 

Filling judicial vacancies also has 

been a long-term problem. At the 

end of World War II, the Attorney 

General assured the Conference that 

both he and the President realized 

the necessity of promptly filling all 

the vacancies on the federal bench. 

But by 1948, AO Director Henry P. 

Chandler could draw the 

Conference's attention to "the high 

incidence throughout the country of 

disability of federal judges on 

account of illness," pointing out 

that, "during the last year, at least 20 

circuit and district court judges 

were partially or totally incapacitated for long periods of time 

because of illness. These illnesses 

were in large measure attributable to 

overstrain in work. ... It emphaJudge Robert F. Peckham (N.D. Cal.), chair of the Subcommittee on the Civil Justice Reform 

Act of 1990 (photo left), and Judge Walter T. McGovern (W.D. Wash.), chair of the 

Committee on Judicial Resources, testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1990 on 

civil justice reform and the need for new judgeships. 

10-------------------------

The Third Bmnch ■ September 1997 

-
Chief Justice 

Harlan Fiske Stone 

Presided 1941 to 1946 

"It is but just to say he was a 

jurist of great learning in the law, 

whose indefatigable industry led him 

to explore all the sources of the 

common law and the constitutional 

and international law to find 

precedent and justification in support 

of the reasoning of his great mind. In 

our association with him in the 

discharge of the duties imposed on 

this Conference he was always 

patient, sympathetic, cooperative, 

and his guiding hand was invariably 

useful and potent in leading the 

Conference to a right conclusion." 

From a 1946 resolution 

by the Judicial Conference 

sizes all too well the necessity for 

speedy appointments to judicial 

vacancies as well as the need for 

more judges to cope with the 

increasing burden of litigation in the 

federal courts." In 1988, the Conference noted the adverse effect Article 

III judicial vacancies of more than 18 

months have on the courts and 

litigants and said that all such 

vacancies create judicial emergencies. In 1997, judicial vacancies have 

numbered over 100, generating a 

political debate over whether or not 

this constitutes a pending crisis in 

the federal courts. 

Dealing with Allegations 

of Judicial Unfitness 

Conference authority over 

Article III judgeships did not extend 

to dealing with charges of judicial 

unfitness or misbehavior until 

recently. Discipline of federal 

judges, short of impeachment, still is 

handled as part of the general 

responsibilities of the circuit judicial 

councils, which had been created by 

statute in 1939. However, the 

Judicial Councils Reform and 

Judicial Conduct and Disability Act 

of 1980 altered this procedure, 

involving for the first time the 

Judicial Conference. The act of 1980 

placed the responsibility for administration of the judicial discipline 

system in the hands of the chief 

judges of the circuits, the circuit 

councils, and, ultimately, the Judicial Conference. This regularized the 

procedures in the councils and 

provided for Conference action in 

rare cases of serious disability or 

misbehavior. The Conference 

considers petitions for review of 

judicial council actions following a 

circuit investigation. If the Conference concurs in a circuit council 

determination that impeachment 

may be warranted, the Conference 

transmits this determination and a 

record of the proceedings to the 

House of Representatives. The 

Conference met to consider impeachment proceedings against a 

federal judge for the first time in 

June 1986, also the first time since 

the mid-30s that an impeachment 

proceeding of a federal judge had 

been initiated. In 1989 Conference 

action again was required in impeachment proceedings involving 

two federal judges. 

In 1990, 

Congress 

created the 

National 

Commission 

on Judicial 

Discipline and 

Removal to 

investigate 

problems 

related to the 

discipline and 

removal of 

Article III 

judges and 

evaluate 

alternatives to 

current arrangements for 

judicial discipline and 

removal. In 

1994, the 

Conference 

Committee to 

Review Circuit 

Council 

Conduct and 

Disability 

Orders reported it had 

studied 

recommendations addressed to the 

judicial branch 

by the commission. In response to the 

committee's 

recommendations, the 

Conference took a number of actions 

to implement the commission's 

proposals. Congress took no action 

on the recommendations. There now 

are renewed calls to consider the 

commission's report following 

recent threats by members of 

Congress to use impeachment as "a 

tool for keeping judicial power in 

check," and the introduction of the 

Judicial Reform Act of 1997 that 

would change the way judicial 

"[A] fine example of" 

the Confere� 

members' th�ective 

creativity i�,.

recently �eil .,

Long Ran Pl e , · �-

the Federa �1-

the first t .di..:.

that federal ju�""",...,:,,--

have been given the 

opportunity to look 

beyond that next 

docket or calendar to 

plan for the future of 

their court. For an 

institution that has 

been accused of 

living in the past, the 

development of a 

planning process and 

the draft of a 

functional plan for 

the future was a 

momentous achievement.

Judge Otto R. Skopil Jr. 

(9th Cir.), former chair of 

the Committee on the

Administration of the 

Federal Magistrates

System and former chair 

of the Committee on Long 

Range Planning. 

�--------------------- 11 

The 1'hird Branch ■ September 1997 
misconduct 

complaints 

are handled. 

Judicial 

Conference 

representatives have 

testified 

before the 

House and 

Senate on 

this reform 

act. 

Rules 

One area in 

which the 

Conference 

has been the 

most active 

is in the 

continuing 

development of 

federal rules 

of practice, 

procedure, 

and evidence. 

Under the 

Rules 

Enabling 

Act, the 

Supreme 

Court prescribes both "general rules 

of practice and procedure and rules 

of evidence" for cases in the district 

courts and courts of appeals and 

"general rules [governing] the forms 

of process, writs, pleadings, and 

motions and the practice and 

procedure" in bankruptcy cases. By 

this legislation, Congress has 

delegated to the Judiciary nearly all 

authority to establish rules for the 

courts, but it reserved to itself the 

power to reject, amend, or defer any 

such rules. 

For nearly 40 years, the Conference has played a pivotal role in this 

process. It has a statutory mandate 

to study continuously the operation 

and effect of the existing rules, and 

to consider and recommend to the 

Supreme Court any alterations or 

additions to the rules that promote 

"simplicity in procedure, fairness in 

administration, the just determination of litigation, and the elimination 

of unjustifiable expense and delay." 

The Conference's standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure and five advisory committees 

on civil, criminal, appellate, bankruptcy, and evidence rules carry out 

this function by conducting studies, 

drafting new and amended rules 

and explanatory committee notes, 

conducting hearings, and making 

recommendations for Conference 

action. Through the decades, 

members of the legal professionrepresented by private practitioners, 

law professors, Justice Department 

officials, and state court representatives-have been partners in the 

rulemaking process, both as participants in the various advisory 

committees and as the commenters 

on proposed rules and rule changes. •

While the "modern era" of 

federal rules began with the Rules 

Enabling Act of 1934, the Conference 

was not involved at first in the 

rulemaking process. In its initial 

efforts to establish uniform, national 

rules-resulting in the first Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure (1938) and 

Criminal Procedure (1946}--the 

Supreme Court was aided by ''blue 

ribbon" committees of legal experts 

appointed by the Court itself. In 

1958, however, Congress enacted 

legislation that shifted to the Conference primary responsibility for 

developing new and revised rules. 

Exercising that authority, the Conference has recommended, and the 

Supreme Court adopted, the Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure (1968), 

the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy 

Procedure (1973), and the rules 

governing post-conviction collateral 

(habeas corpus) remedies (1977). The 

same process has been used to 

amend the various sets of rules, 

including the Federal Rules of 

Evidence that were adopted by 

legislation in 1975.

_ 

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and newly appointed AO Director Leonidas Ralph 

Mecham in 1985. 

12 ..... _______________________ The Third Bmnch ■ September 1997 
The Judicial Conference of the United States in March 1984, meeting in the East 

Conference Room of the Supreme Court. 

The standing and advisory rules 

committees review their operating 

procedures periodically to ensure 

that rules are adopted only after 

appropriate deliberation and 

involvement by the bench and bar. 

In adopting the 1995 Long Range Plan 

for the Federal Courts, the Conference 

recognized the importance of 

maintaining the "time-tested and 

orderly" process under the Rules 

Enabling Act. The plan recommends that the process be the 

exclusive mechanism for developing 

rules for the federal courts, and that 

continued efforts be made to achieve 

greater uniformity of practice and 

procedures and obtain significant 

participation in rulemaking by the 

bar and interested members of the 

public. 

Court Administration 

The Conference's Executive 

Committee approves the annual 

spending plan for the federal 

Judiciary. The Conference's Budget 

Committee formulates the appropriations request to Congress for 

approval by the Conference, and, in 

recent years, the committee's chair 

and AO Director Leonidas Ralph 

Mecham have appeared before 

congressional appropriations 

committees to make the case for the 

Judiciary's budgetary needs. On the 

occasions when the spending bills 

failed to get congressional approval 

before the end of the fiscal year, the 

Conference's Executive and Budget 

Committees have worked closely 

with AO staff to keep the courts 

open and to secure the critical 

continuing appropriations. 

Current Conference initiatives to 

improve financial management 

include decentralizing major budget 

and management functions to the 

courts to improve efficiency and 

court flexibility in managing funds, 

and implementing a standardized, 

automated accounting system for 

the courts. 

Economizing on judicial resources has been a long-term 

Conference concern. In 1948, the 

Conference formed the Committee 

on Ways and Means of Economy in 

Chief Justice 

Fred M. Vinson 

Presided 1946-1953 

"We, as members of this Conference, have suffered the great personal 

loss of one whom we loved and 

respected as a man and whose service 

as presiding officer of the Conference 

had made it an instrumentality of 

great and ever-increasing importance 

in the administration of justice. Chief 

Justice Vinson came to the office of 

Chief Justice at a critical period in 

the history of our country, a period 

fraught with many dangers and 

difficulties. He brought to the 

performance of his duties a wide 

knowledge of men and affairs as well 

as of the law, wisdom ripened by 

experience and a profound and 

intimate knowledge of the nature and 

workings of our government having 

theretofore served with distinction in 

the legislative, executive, and judicial 

branches. This experience gave him 

an unusual grasp of governmental 

problems and a sureness in approaching and dealing with them rarely •

equaled in our history. His knowledge of the legislative branch and his 

personal acquaintance with the 

leaders of that branch enabled him to 

develop between this Conference and 

the Congress a relationship which 

has resulted in a better understanding of problems affecting the judiciary and the passage of legislation 

which has done much to improve the 

courts and the administration of 

justice therein." 

From a 1953 resolution 

by the Judicial Conference 

_______ ...J13 

The Third Branch ■ September 1997
__________________________ _ 

the Operation of the 

Federal 

Courts with 

economy 

committees 

in all the 

circuits. 

Their reports 

indicated 

that "an 

exhaustive 

and intensive study 

had been 

made and, as 

a result 

thereof, 

considerable 

improvement had 

already been

achieved." In 

1993 the 

Budget

Committee's 

Economy 

Subcommittee was 

established 

to pursue 

ways to 

economize in the federal Judiciary. 

Its report on the optimal utilization 

of judicial resources chronicles the 

extensive cost-saving measures that 

have been taken throughout the 

Judiciary in recent times. 

Through the budget process, the 

Conference has helped shape the 

AO and the courts. The Conference 

sets standards for the hiring of, or 

salaries for, nearly every level of 

court employee, including probation 

officers, court reporters, law clerks 

and, at one time, court criers. The 

Conference establishes per diem 

rates for judges and sets standards 

for court automation. The Conference has funded programs to help 

the courts manage their caseloads, 

such as a pilot project on the use of 

computers for the administration of 

the jury system (1966), civil arbitration (1977), a two-year experimental 

program of videotaping court 

proceedings (1988), a two-year pilot

study to examine the feasibility of 

interpreting by telephone (1989), an 

8th Circuit pilot project to provide 

enhanced access by the deaf community (1991), and a 3rd Circuit 

one-year videoconferencing pilot 

project for oral arguments between 

Pittsburgh and Philadelphia (1991). 

The Judiciary has not always 

controlled its own budget or administration. Before the Administrative 

Office was created in 1939, the 

Attorney General and the Department of Justice had responsibility for 

the Judiciary' s accounts. There were 

frequent conflicts. Appropriated 

funds were provided jointly to the 

courts and the Department of 

Justice. In 1932, despite the Great 

Depression, the Conference warned, 

"While the Conference fully realizes 

the difficulties growing out of 

economic conditions and the imperative necessity for retrenchment 

in governmental expenses, the 

Conference deems it to be its duty to

Prior to testifying before congressional appropriations committees in 1994, Chief Judge 

Richard Arnold (8th Cir.), Judge John M. Walker Jr. (2nd Cir.), and AO Director Leonidas 

Ralph Mecham are briefed '/Jy AO staff. 

Tl 

THIRD 

BRANCH 

Published monthly by the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Office of Public Affairs 

One Columbus Circle, N .E. 

Washington, D.C. 20544 

(202) 273-0107

Our homepage address is 

http:/ /www.uscourts.gov 

DIRECTOR 

Leonidas Ralph Mecham 

EXECUTIVE EDITOR 

Charles D. Connor 

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF 

David A. Sellers 

MANAGING EDITOR 

Karen E. Redmond 

ASSISTANT EDITOR 

Sharon F. Marsh 

PRODUCTION 

Linda L. Stanton 

Photos of the Chief Justices 

of the United States reproduced 

from the collection of the Supreme Court, 

Office of the Curator 

Please direct all inquiries and address 

changes to The Third Branch at the 

above address. 

The Third Branch ■ September 1997

14 
set forth the actual needs of the 

judicial department." 

In 1931, the Conference considered a proposal for a Chancellor of 

the United States to address the 

needs of the courts. In 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed 

a proctor for the federal courts, a 

judicial administrator. This idea had 

surfaced many times before, along 

with suggestions for an administration bureau. But it was not until 

1939 that Congress passed the Act 

creating the Administrative Office of 

the U.S. Courts. The Act gave the 

courts the power of managing their 

own business affairs, and "secure[d] 

an improved supervision of the 

work of the courts through an 

organization under judicial control." 

The AO director, as the administrative officer of the courts, would 

operate under the supervision and 

direction of the Conference. 

In 1966 a Conference resolution 

called for the establishment of a 

Federal Judicial Center. The center 

was created to enable the courts, 

according to President Lyndon 

Johnson, who signed the legislation 

in 1967, "to begin the kind of selfanalysis, research and planning 

necessary for a mcire effective 

judicial system." 

The Conference continually 

makes recommendations to improve 

caseload management and the court 

system. Over the Conference's long 

history this has run the gamut from 

encouraging clerks' offices in 1951 to 

improve practices by adopting 

effective receipt systems, loose-leaf 

dockets, and card indices to directing the AO in 1985 to develop an 

office automation plan that encourages rapid implementation of ADP, 

telecommunications, and office 

automation. 

The Conference has encouraged 

courts not only to look to each other 

for assistance but also to look 

outside the Judiciary. For example, 

in 1933, the Conference adopted a 

resolution confirming the usefulness 

of circuit conferences, which "serve 

to bring together all the federal 

judges of the circuit and thus to give 

opportunity for the consideration of 

problems ... " The circuit conferences were authorized statutorily in 

1939, by the same act establishing 

the AO. In 1993, the Executive 

Committee agreed with an idea, 

proposed earlier by Chief Justice 

Warren E. Burger, of holding a 

national conference with representatives from all three branches to 

study the problems facing the 

federal court 

system. Three 

Branch 

Conferences 

were held in 

1994 and 1996. 

The 

Conference 

was instrumental in a 

dramatic 

change in 

judicial 

administration-the 

appointment 

of a circuit 

executive for 

each judicial 

circuit, as 

authorized by 

statute in 

1971. Several 

years earlier, 

the Conference had 

approved a 

committee 

report recommending that 

each chief 

circuit judge 

be authorized 

to appoint an 

administrative 

assistant. 

Chief Justice 

Earl Warren 

Presided 1953-1969 

"His period of service as Chief 

Justice coincided with an era of farreaching constitutional interpretations. We witnessed new and 

different emphasis on fundamental 

rights of racial and religious 

minorities and of individual 

liberties under the Constitution . ...

We recall also the many years 

during which he presided over the 

Judicial Conference of the United 

States, giving it his leadership and 

guidance . ... Finally, for showing 

us the virtues of exercising wise and 

compassionate judgment toward 

our fellowmen, we shall be forever 

in his debt." 

From a 1974 resolution 

l,y the Judicial Conference 

Although the General Services 

Administration builds the 

Judiciary's courthouses, the Conference has become a partner in the. 

process. Shortly after World War II, 

the Conference Committee on 

Postwar Building Plans for the 

Quarters of the U.S. Courts submitted a manual setting forth general 

standards of design and construction for federal court quarters in 

federal buildings. In 1971, an Ad 

Hoc Committee on Courtroom 

Facilities, Design and Security was 

appointed. In 1984, the Conference 

adopted a U.S. Courts Design Guide, 

which was completely revised in 

1991 with the Conference's ap-

"One of the most 

significant ar;:u._ons 

taken by th' Judicial 

Confereno1'i._Tu.__e

United S�siqe 

, . : th�.e of�

circuit exe�tr."...:

Time hastj'jroven�e 

value of circu1 

executives. It would be 

very difficult for a 

chief circuit judge to 

carry out his administrative duties, which 

have vastly increased 

over the years, without 

assistance and at the 

same time address his 

judicial duties." 

Senior Judf?e John D. 

Butzner, Jr., (4th Cir.),

chaired the Subcommittee 

on Judicial Statistics, the Ad 

Hoc Committee on the AO, 

the Ad Hoc Committee on 

Sentencinf? Guidelines and

was a member of the 

Committee on the

Administration of the 

Criminal Law. He wrrently 

serves as a member of the 

Panel to Appoint Independent Counsel. 

.__ __ ,_________________________ 15 

The Third Branch ■ September 1997 
proval, and 

the revision 

process 

continues 

today. In 

1995,the 

Conference 

also approved the 

development 

of a five-year 

plan of 

courthouse 

construction 

projects. As 

the Judiciary 

undertakes 

the largest 

building 

program in 

its history, 

Conference 

representatives have 

testified 

frequently 

before 

Congressional 

committees 

on the 

Judiciary's 

need for 

courthouses. 

The 

Conference's 

timely 

recommendations have 

addressed 

both daily 

court management and 

the critical problems that arise. 

Faced with a crisis, due in part to 

inordinate delay caused by the 

constantly increasing caseload, the 

Conference in 1970 authorized the 

Chief Justice to form a preliminary 

study committee to propose an 

agenda for modernizing the procedure and improving the efficiency of 

the courts. This materialized in 1972 

as the Hruska Commission. In 1984, 

the Conference approved use of 

automated dockets for appellate, 

civil, and bankruptcy cases. In 1986, 

the Conference approved a report 

by the Ad Hoc Committee on 

Electronic Sound Recording that an 

"electronic sound recording program should be employed as a 

permanent part of the facilities and 

services available to the Judiciary." 

In 1988, the Conference authorized 

an experimental program of electronic access to court information 

for the public, and an experiment to 

videotape court proceedings. 

Reacting to concerns about uneven 

staffing levels in the courts when it 

met in 1994, the Conference implemented a staffing equalization plan 

to reduce or eliminate excess positions and reassign staff to needed 

areas. In 1995 the Conference 

expanded a videoconferencing pilot 

program for prisoner civil rights 

hearings, and approved a new Code 

of Conduct for Judicial Employees 

that updated, streamlined, and 

clarified existing code provisions. In 

1995, the Conference also adopted 

the first comprehensive long range 

plan for the federal court system, the 

culmination of a four-year process. 

Unfortunately, while the Conference has made recommendations 

over the years that have revamped 

the Judiciary's personnel system and 

assured personnel of pay on par 

with that of other branches of 

government and 1n the private 

sector, securing pay adjustments for 

judges has proven much more 

difficult. In 1981, the Conference 

endorsed the report of the Quadrennial Commission on Executive, 

Legislative and Judicial Salaries, 

created in 1980 to focus attention on 

the problem of inadequate compensation, survivors' annuities, per 

diem, and life and health insurance 

benefits. Despite the commission's 

report, by 1989, the Committee on 

the Judicial Branch reported, "The 

single greatest problem facing the 

Judiciary today is obtaining adequate pay for judicial officers. 

Judges have suffered an enormous 

18�--------------------- The Third Branch ■ September 1997 

On occasion, the duties of an Executive Committee chair include discussion of the 

Conference's recommendations with members of the press, as Chief Judge Gilbert Merritt 

(6th Cir.) demonstrated in 1995. 
The Judicial Conference meets twice a year at the Supreme Court, while many committee 

meetings are conducted at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building a few blocks 

away. 

erosion in their purchasing power as 

a result of the failure of their pay to 

keep pace with inflation. It is 

becoming more and more difficult to 

attract and retain highly qualified 

people on the federal bench." The 

Ethics Reform Act of 1989 provided 

a mechanism to adjust judicial pay, 

and federal judges finally received 

an approximately 30 percent pay 

adjustment in 1991. But when judges 

were denied a pay adjustment in 

1993 and in subsequent years, the 

problem of adequate pay again 

became critical. 

Conclusion 

Today the Judicial Conference 

regularly meets twice a year, as 

does its network of committees. 

Conference and committee members 

often communicate by fax and email, and its 

Executive 

Committee 

uses the latest 

technology 

for its regular 

conference 

call meetings. 

Conference 

actions are 

announced 

through 

preliminary 

reports, and 

through press 

releases 

posted on the 

Internet 

within hours 

of Conference 

sessions 

concluding. 

While 

today's 

Conference 

may be a 

more efficient 

and democratic body 

than in the 

past, its 

mission has 

remained the 

same. Running like threads through 

its proceedings are such concerns as 

case management, judgeships, 

finances, and court staffing. It also is 

evident that throughout its history 

the Conference has taken seriously 

its responsibility to review and react 

to legislation that could affect the 

courts. But perhaps the Conference's 

most remarkable quality is its 

consistent and overriding commitment to the taxpayers who use the 

federal courts. For 75 years the 

Conference has steadfastly focused 

on its mission to serve as the principal policy-making body concerned 

with the administration of the U.S. 

Courts and the administration of 

justice. Undoubtedly, this goal will 

remain unchanged for generations 

to come.� 

"During my tenure, we 

grappled wit/Uhe 

agonizing subject of 

habeas co '--r�view; 

we vote ding_ 

an impeachm _, 

rewmmen lllfn� the 

Co11gres , an�� 

worried inter�bly 

about how to spread 

too few resources 

(people and money) 

across a never-ending 

expanse of cases . ... It 

continues to be a 

source of gratification 

and sometimes wonder 

that in that day and a 

half twice a year they 

can do what has to be 

done to keep the 

federal courts working. 

But they must and they 

do." 

Judge Patricia M. Wald (D.C. 

Cir.) served on the Conference from 1986 to 1991. 

She was also a member of 

the Committee on Codes of 

Conduct, and currently 

se,ves on the Committee on 

Court Administration and 

Case Management. 

i.--------------------------������

17

The Third Branch ■ September 

-•11!11111111997

�
Chief Justice 

Warren E. Burger 

Presided 1969-1986 

"Chief Justice Burger served 

with distinction on the federal 

bench for 30 years, as a judge of 

the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit from 1956 to 

1969 and as Chief Justice of the 

United States from 1969 to 1986, 

during which time he served as 

Presiding Officer of this Conference. His devotion to the improvement of the administration of 

justice was legendary, and he left 

a legacy of administrative reforms 

from which we benefit. Upon his 

retirement in 1986, Burger 

tirelessly and diligently led the 

nation in observing the 200th 

anniversary of the Constitution, 

playing a pivotal role in educating 

and inspiring younger generations 

to revere the Constitution as a 

treasured inheritance to be 

protected and preserved. 

His reputation as a jurist, a 

scholar, and an esteemed colleague 

will be forever a part of the history 

of this Conference and a grateful 

nation." 

From a 1995 resolution 

by the Judicial Conference 

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES 

September 1997 

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Presiding 

Chief Judge Juan R. Torruella 

Chief Judge Joseph L. Tauro 

Chief Judge Ralph K. Winter, Jr. 

Chief Judge Peter C. Dorsey 

Chief Judge Dolores K. Sloviter 

Chief Judge Edward N. Cahn 

Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III 

Judge W. Earl Britt 

Chief Judge Henry A. Politz 

Judge William H. Barbour, Jr. 

Chief Judge Boyce F. Martin, Jr. 

Judge Thomas A. Wiseman, Jr. 

Chief Judge Richard A. Posner 

Chief Judge Michael M. Mihm 

Chief Judge Richard S. Arnold 

Judge Donald E. O'Brien 

Chief Judge Procter Hug, Jr. 

Chief Judge Lloyd D. George 

Chief Judge Stephanie K. Seymour 

Judge Clarence A. Brimmer 

Chief Judge Joseph W. Hatchett 

Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges 

Chief Judge Harry T. Edwards 

Chief Judge Norma H. Johnson 

Chief Judge Glenn L. Archer, Jr. 

Chief Judge Gregory W. Carman 

First Circuit 

District of Massachusetts 

Second Circuit 

District of Connecticut 

Third Circuit 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

Fourth Circuit 

Eastern District of North Carolina 

Fifth Circuit 

Southern District of Mississippi 

Sixth Circuit 

Middle District of Tennessee 

Seventh Circuit 

Central District of Illinois 

Eighth Circuit 

Northern District of Iowa 

Ninth Circuit 

District of Nevada 

Tenth Circuit 

District of Wyoming 

Eleventh Circuit 

Middle District of Florida 

District of Columbia Circuit 

District of Columbia 

Federal Circuit 

Court of International Trade 

Conference Secretary: 

Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director 

Administrative Office of U.S. Courts 

The Third Brrmch ■ September 1997 

18 
Judicial Conference 

of the United States 

28 U.S. C. § 331 

The Chief Justice of the United States shall summon annually the chief 

judge of each judicial circuit, the chief judge of the Court of International 

Trade, and a district judge from each judicial circuit to a conference at such 

time and place in the United States as he may designate. He shall preside at such 

conference, which shall be known as the Judicial Conference of the United States. Special 

sessions of the Conference may be called by the Chief Justice at such times and places as he may designate. 

The district judge to be summoned from each judicial circuit shall be chosen by the circuit and district judges 

of the circuit and shall serve as a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States for a term of not less than 

3 successive years nor more than 5 successive years, as established by majority vote of all circuit and district 

judges of the circuit. A district judge serving as a member of the Judicial Conference may be either a judge in 

regular active service or a judge retired from regular active service under section 371(b) of this title. 

If the chief judge of any circuit, the chief judge of the Court of International Trade, or the district judge 

chosen by judges of the circuit is unable to attend, the Chief Justice may summon any other circuit or district judge 

from such circuit or any other judge of the Court of International Trade, as the case may be. Every judge summoned shall attend and, unless excused by the Chief Justice, shall remain throughout the sessions of the Conference and advise as to the needs of his circuit or court and as to any matters in respect of which the administration 

of justice in the courts of the United States may be improved. 

The Conference shall make a comprehensive survey of the conditions of business in the courts of the United 

States and prepare plans for assignment of judges to or from circuits or districts where necessary. It shall also 

submit suggestions and recommendations to the various courts to promote uniformity of management procedures 

and the expeditious conduct of court business. The Conference is authorized to exercise the authority provided in 

section 372 of this title as the Conference, or through a standing committee. If the Conference elects to establish a 

standing committee, it shall be appointed by the Chief Justice and all petitions for review shall be reviewed by that 

committee. The Conference or standing committee may hold hearings, take sworn testimony, issue subpoenas and 

subpoenas duces tecum, and make necessary and appropriate orders in the exercise of its authority. Subpoenas 

and subpoenas duces tecum shall be issued by the clerk of the Supreme Court or by the clerk of any court of 

appeals, at the direction of the Chief Justice or his designee and under the seal of the court, and shall be served in 

the manner provided in rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum 

issued on behalf of the United States or an officer or any agency thereof. The Conference may also prescribe and 

modify rules for the exercise of the authority provided in section 372 of this title. All judicial officers and employees of the United States shall promptly carry into effect all orders of the Judicial Conference or the standing 

committee established pursuant to this section. 

The Conference shall also carry on a continuous study of the operation and effect of the general rules of 

practice and procedure now or hereafter in use as prescribed by the Supreme Court for the other courts of the 

United States pursuant to law. Such changes in and additions to those rules as the Conference may deem desirable 

to promote simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration, the just determination of litigation, and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay shall be recommended by the Conference from time to time to the Supreme 

Court for its consideration and adoption, modification or rejection, in accordance with law. 

The Judicial Conference shall review rules prescribed under section 2071 of this title by the courts, other than 

the Supreme Court and the district courts, for consistency with Federal law. The Judicial Conference may modify 

or abrogate any such rule so reviewed found inconsistent in the course of such a review. 

The Attorney General shall, upon request of the Chief Justice, report to such Conference on matters relating 

to the business of the several courts of the United States, with particular reference to cases to which the United 

States is a party. 

The Chief Justice shall submit to Congress an annual report of the proceedings of the Judicial Conference and 

its recommendations for legislation. 

The Third Branch ■ September 1997 

19 
Leonidas Ralph Mecham 

on the Judicial Cont erence 

"During my 12 years as Director of the Administrative Office, one of 

the truly great privileges I have enjoyed is my role as Secretary to the 

Judicial Conference of the United States. In the 24 Conference sessions and 

countless committee meetings I have attended, I have witnessed profound 

changes in the Judiciary. Fortunately the steady hand and keen insight of 

the Conference has helped the court system cope with explosive 

caseloads, unprecedented resource needs, as well as the occasional bump 

in the road. 

Of course the men and women who serve on the Conference are the 

real foundation, as are those who have volunteered to participate through 

Conference committees while continuing to carry out their regular judicial 

duties. During my tenure, numerous judges have had a hand in the 

development and implementation of policies that impact the administration of courts nationwide. They have exhibited tremendous commitment 

to the betterment of the courts. 

I also am pleased to have overseen great changes in the role the AO has played in support of the Conference. As 

counsel and advisors to Conference committees, AO staff perform valuable substantive work that assists committees to 

formulate recommendations for the Conference. 

The Judicial Conference is a unique entity in our system of government. Its success and endurance are a tribute to 

the many fine men and women who have served on the Conference and its committees." 

AO Director Leonidas Ralph Mecham.

THE THIRD BRANCH 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Office of Public Affairs 

One Columbus Circle, N.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20544 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

PENAL TY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 

FIRST CLASS MAIL 

POSTAGE & FEES 

PAID 

U.S. COURTS 

PERMIT NO. G-18 

FIRST CLASS 

U.S. Government Printing Office 1997-418-610