For a body allegedly concerned with principles of federalism, especially in the wake of a string of Supreme Court decisions holding that various acts of Congress have infringed on state sovereignty, it is almost bizarre not to mention bad public policy for Congress to step in now and federalize virtually all class actions. And this is not a matter of the federal government providing a backstop to state action, as with Senator Kennedy s hate crimes bill we passed the other day. With the new diversity and removal provisions in place, virtually all class actions will be brought in or removed to federal court. I also find it ironic that we, in the Congress, have developed this new-found reluctance to entrust state judges with the administration of class actions proceeding under state law when we are only too willing to tout the competency of state judges to make life and death decisions on federal issues before a prisoner may bring a habeas corpus petition in federal court. What s more, this bill, if enacted, will overwhelm the federal court dockets.
Class actions are extremely complex and time-consuming.
To remove them from the state to the federal courts will without doubt substantially increase the federal court workload at a time when the Chief Justice has repeatedly urged that Congress do more to contract, not expand, federal jurisdiction. Civil cases, most likely these new federal class actions, will encounter extraordinary docket delays, likely years long, particularly since the Speedy Trial Act rightly requires that federal courts dispose of their criminal dockets first. This remarkable expansion of federal jurisdiction comes at a time when we have 63 vacancies on the federal bench, and when the Judicial Conference of the United States has requested that we add 63 new judgeships to accommodate the federal bench s already expanded caseload. We have not created any new judgeships since 1990, when I was chair of this committee. For all these reasons, it is hardly surprising that the Administration, federal judges, state judges, and consumer groups all strongly oppose this bill.