Source: http://openjurist.org/print/29245
Timestamp: 2013-12-13 03:29:04
Document Index: 251320782

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 137', '§ 332', '§ 332', '§ 137', '§ 137', '§ 137', '§ 137', '§ 137', '§ 13', '§ 332', '§ 137', '§ 137', '§ 137', '§ 332', '§ 137', '§ 137', '§ 1361', '§ 1361', '§ 1361', '§ 1361', '§ 1761', '§ 332']

398 US 74 Chandler v. Judicial Council of Tenth Circuit of United States
90 S.Ct. 1648
26 L.Ed.2d 100
Stephen S. CHANDLER, United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma, Petitioner,v.JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF the TENTH CIRCUIT OF the UNITED STATES.
Rehearing Denied June 29, 1970.
See 399 U.S. 937, 90 S.Ct. 2248.
Thomas J. Kenan, Oklahoma City, Okl., for petitioner.
Carl L. Shipley, Washington, D.C., amicus curiae.
Charles Alan Wright, Austin, Tex., for respondent.
Solicitor Gen., Erwin N. Griswold, for the United States, amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.
Petitioner, a United States District Judge, filed a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus or alternatively a writ of prohibition addressed to the Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit. His petition seeks resolution of questions of first impression concerning, inter alia, the scope and constitutionality of the powers of the Judicial Councils under 28 U.S.C. §§ 137 and 332.1 The Judicial Council of each federal circuit is, under the present statute, composed of the active circuit judges of the circuit. Petitioner has asked this Court to issue an order under the All Writs Act2 telling the Council to 'cease acting (in) violation of its powers and in violation of Judge Chandler's rights as a federal judge and an American citizen.' The background facts are of some importance.
* On December 13, 1965, the Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit convened in special session,3 and adopted an order which reflected a long history of controversy between petitioner and the Council concerning the conduct of the work of the District Court assigned to petitioner. The Order of December 13 purported to issue under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 332, supra, n. 1, and recited that during
'the past four years the Judicial Council at many meetings has discussed and considered the business of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and has done so with particular regard to the effect thereon of the attitude and conduct of Judge Chandler who, as the Chief Judge of that District, is primarily responsible for the administration of such business. * * *'
The Order noted that during that period petitioner had been a party defendant in both civil and criminal litigation, as well as the subject of two applications to disqualify him in litigation in which on challenge petitioner had refused to disqualify himself.4 The Order continued with a finding that
'Judge Chandler is presently unable, or unwilling, to discharge efficiently the duties of his office; that a change must be made in the division of business and the assignment of cases in the Western District of Oklahoma; and that the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma requires the orders herein made.'
Expressly invoking the powers of the Judicial Council under 28 U.S.C. § 332, supra, n. 1, the Order directed that
'until the further order of the Judicial Council, the Honorable Stephen S. Chandler shall take no action whatsoever in any case or proceeding now or hereafter pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma; that all cases and proceedings now assigned to or pending before him shall be reassigned to and among the other judges of said court; and that until the further order of the Judicial Council no cases or proceedings filed or instituted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma shall be asigned to him for any action whatsoever.
'It is further ORDERED that in the event the active judges of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, including Judge Chandler, cannot agree among themselves upon the division of business and assignment of cases made necessary by this order, the Judicial Council, upon such disagreement being brought to its attention, will act under 28 U.S.C. § 137 and make such division and assignment as it deems proper.' Copies of the above Order were filed in the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on December 27 and 28, respectively. Another copy was served on Judge Chandler by a U. S. Marshal.
On January 6, 1966, as previously noted, Judge Chandler filed with this Court his motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of prohibition and/or mandamus directed to the Judicial Council. He also sought a stay of its Order. The Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the Judicial Council, asked this Court to deny the stay application on the Council's representation that the Order of December 13 was only temporary pending prompt further inquiry into Judge Chandler's administration of the business of his court. The stay was denied on January 21, 1966, on the ground that the Order was 'entirely interlocutory in character pending prompt further proceedings * * * and that at such proceedings Judge Chandler will be permitted to appear before the Council, with counsel * * *.' 382 U.S. 1003, 86 S.Ct. 610, 15 L.Ed.2d 494.
On January 24, 1966, Judge Chandler addressed a letter to his fellow district judges indicating that he objected to the removal and reassignment of cases previously assigned and pending before him on December 28, 1965, but that he was not in disagreement with them as to the assignment of all new cases to judges other than himself. Judge Chandler asserted continuing judicial authority, however, over the cases pending before him as of December 28. The following day the judges of the Western District of Oklahoma advised the Judicial Council that all judges of that Disrict had agreed on the division of new business filed in that court, but that they could not agree on the assignment to other judges of cases then pending before Judge Chandler.
On January 27, 1966, the Judicial Council again convened in special session and ordered a hearing on February 10, 1966, in Oklahoma City at which Judge Chandler was invited to appear, with counsel if he desired. However, by February 4, when the Council met again, it had been advised that no judge of the Western District, including Judge Chandler, desired to be heard pursuant to the order for hearing. Accordingly, no hearing took place.
At this same meeting on February 4, 1966, the Council concluded that there was a disagreement among the District Judges of the Western District as to the division of business; it reached this conclusion on the basis of the disagreement between Judge Chandler and the other District Judges as to the reassignment of cases previously assigned to Judge Chandler as of December 28, 1965. The Council accordingly, acting under 28 U.S.C. §§ 137 and 332, entered an order authorizing Judge Chandler to continue to sit on cases filed and asssigned to him prior to December 28, 1965; the Order assigned to the other judges of the Western District cases filed after that date. This Order of February 4 recited further that
'4. The division of business and assignment of cases made herein may be amended or modified by written order signed by all active judges of the Western District of Oklahoma, provided that nothing contained herein shall be construed as preventing Judge Chandler from surrendering any pending cases for re-assignment to another active judge or to prevent transfer between judges to whom new business is assigned pursuant to this order.
'5. This order supersedes the orders of the Council entered on December 13, 1965, and on January 27, 1966, entitled 'In the Matter of the Honorable Stephen S. Chandler, United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma' and shall remain in effect until the further order of the Council.' On February 9, 1966, the Solicitor General filed a memorandum on behalf of the Council suggesting that in light of the above developments, namely the confirmation of Judge Chandler's authority to dispose of the case load then before him and the assignment of new business in accordance with an order previously agreed to by Judge Chandler, the case had become moot since there was nothing more to argue about. To this memorandum Judge Chandler filed a reply on February 25, 1966, contesting the suggestion that he had acquiesced in the Council's actions. Judge Chandler argued that his acquiescence in the division of new business settled upon by his fellow district judges was given deliberately for reasons of 'strategy' in order to prevent any possibility that the Council could find that 'the district judges * * * are unable to agree upon the adoption of rules or orders' for the distribution of business and assignment of cases under 28 U.S.C. § 137.
On July 12, 1967, the Judicial Council convened and, in light of a report from the District Judges of the Western District showing that Judge Chandler had only 12 cases then pending, concluded that a modification of the Order of February 4, 1966, might be in order. The Council transmitted a copy of the minutes of the meeting to the District Judges and asked them to consider anew and agree upon a division of business within the Western District. On August 28, 1967, Judge Chandler wrote his district judge colleagues claiming that the Council's action of July 12 was but another 'illegal effort' to create a situation in which the Council could assert its powers under 28 U.S.C. § 137 to assign and apportion cases.
On September 1, 1967, the Western District Judges, including Judge Chandler, advised the Judicial Council that 'the current order for the division of business in this district is agreeable under the circumstances.' (Emphasis added.) When the Council convened two weeks later, it noted the latter expressing agreement and concluded that there need be no new order in the case; accordingly the Order of February 4 was left in effect. All of these developments were reported to the Clerk of this Court and are part of the record.
In essence petitioner challenges all orders of the Judicial Council relating to assignment of cases in the Western District of Oklahoma as fixing conditions on the exercise of his constitutional powers as a judge. Specifically, petitioner urges that the Council has usurped the impeachment power, committed by the Constitution to the Congress exclusively. While conceding that the statute here invoked confers some powers on the Judicial Council, petitioner contends that the legitimate administrative purposes to which it may be turned do not include stripping a judge of his judicial functions as he claims was done here.
The judicial Council also contends that the order of December 13, 1965, has been altogether superseded by the Order of February 4, 1966. The latter, in accordance with petitioner's desire, gave back those cases that had been temporarily withdrawn from Judge Chandler. It also continued in force the assignment and division of judicial business agreed upon by the District Judges including Judge Chandler. Alternatively, the Council contends that even absent petitioner's agreement on the division of cases, nonetheless the Council's action is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 137 and 332.
The Solicitor General, who has filed a brief as amicus curiae, contends that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition when a Judicial Council order is directed to a district judge because it acted as a judicial, not an administrative, tribunal for purposes of meeting the requirement that the case fall within this Court's appellate jurisdiction. The Solicitor General suggests that the Council is nothing more nor less than the Court of Appeals sitting en banc, and that the proceedings in the present case may be analogized to a disbarment.5 From this the Solicitor General concludes that the case falls within the extraordinary relief available through the All Writs Act. That conclusion in turn rests on the further assumption that this Court's supervisory authority over lower courts under § 13 and 14 of the First Judiciary Act, 1 Stat. 80, 81, was not withdrawn when the letter two sections were repealed in favor of the All Writs Act by the revision of the Judicial Code in 1948. The Solicitor General concludes, however, that even though there is appellate jurisdiction in this Court, nonetheless it ought not to be exercised since the Order of December 13 has been superseded for four years by the Order of February 4, the terms of which have been expressly approved by petitioner. The respondent Council also urges this point.
Whether the action taken by the Council with respect to the division of business in Judge Chandler's district falls to one side or the other of the line defining the maximum permissible intervention consistent with the constitutional requirement of judicial independence is the ultimate question on which review is sought in the petition now before us. The dissenting view of this case seems to be that the action of the Judicial Council relating to assignment of cases is an impingement on judicial independence. There can, of course, be no disagreement among us as to the imperative need for total and absolute independence of judges in deciding cases or in any phase of the decisional function. But it is quite another matter to say that each judge in a complex system shall be the absolute ruler of his manner of conducting judicial business. The question is whether Congress can vest in the Judicial Council power to enforce reasonable standards as to when and where court shall be held, how long a case may be delayed in decision, whether a given case is to be tried, and many other routine matters. As to these things—and indeed an almost infinite variety of others of an administrative nature—can each judge be an absolute monarch and yet have a complex judicial system function efficiently?
The legislative history of 28 U.S.C. § 332 and related statutes is clear that some management power was both needed and granted.6 That is precisely what a group of distinguished chief judges and others seem to have had in mind when, in 1939, Congress was urged by Chief Justice Hughes, Chief Judge Groner, Judges Parker, Stephens and Biggs, and others to give judges a statutory framework and power whereby they might 'put their own house in order.'
Many courts—including federal courts—have informal, unpublished rules which, for example, provide that when a judge has a given number of case under submission, he will not be assigned more cases until opinions and orders issue on his 'backlog.' These are reasonable, proper, and necessary rules, and the need for enforcement cannot reasonably be doubted. These internal rules do not come to public notice simply because reasonable judges acknowledge their necessity and abide by their intent. But if one judge in any system refuses to abide by such reasonable procedures, it can hardly be that the extraordinary machinery of impeachment is the only recourse.
The authority of this Court to issue a writ of prohibition or mandamus 'can be constitutionally exercised only insofar as such writs are in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 173—180, 2 L.Ed. 60.' Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578, 582, 63 S.Ct. 793, 796, 87 L.Ed. 1014 (1943). If the challenged action of the Judicial Council was a judicial act or decision by a judicial tribunal,7 then perhaps it could be reviewed by this Court without doing violence to the constitutional requirement that such review be appellate. As the concurring and dissenting opinions amply demonstrate, finding the prerequisites to support a conclusion that we do have appellate jurisdiction in this case would be no mean feat. It is an exercise we decline to perform since we conclude that in the present posture of the case other avenues of relief on the merits may yet be open to Judge Chandler. See Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U.S. 549, 568—575, 67 S.Ct. 1409, 1410, 1419—1423, 91 L.Ed. 1666 (1947).
Judge Chandler contends that his acquiescence in the division of business agreed upon by his fellow judges was given under some kind of duress flowing from the Council's Order of December 13, and that it was also given as a matter of 'strategy,' specifically in order to avoid the appearance of an absence of agreement among the District Judges as to a division of work. By so doing he sought to avoid creating a situation in which the Council would undoubtedly have had jurisdiction under § 137. The Council, however, noting that the judges had been unable to reach agreement as to those cases previously assigned to Judge Chandler, found nonetheless that a disagreement existed. Despite his apparent acquiescence, Judge Chandler contends that his actions since then belie his words; specifically that his subsequent attack in this Court established his disagreement.
Whatever the merits of this apparent attempt to have it both ways, one thing is clear: except for the effort to seek the aid of this Court, Judge Chandler has never once since giving his written acquiescence in the division of business sought any relief from either the Council or some other tribunal.8 Were he to disagree with the present division of business, the Judicial Council would thereupon be obliged to 'make the necessary orders.' 28 U.S.C. § 137. He chose to avoid that course. As Mr. Justice HARLAN'S concurring opinion points out, Judge Chandler apparently desires to have the status quo ante restored without the bother of either disagreeing with the present order of the Council or persuading his fellow district judges to enter another. To say the least this is a remarkable litigation posture for a lawyer to assert in his own behalf.
Instead, Judge Chandler brought an immediate challenge in this Court to the Order of December 13. As noted above, supra, at 79, we denied any relief on the ground that that Order was 'entirely interlocutory in character pending prompt further proceedings * * * and that at such proceedings Judge Chandler will be permitted to appear before the Council, with counsel. * * *' He expressly refused to attend the hearing called by the Council for February 10, 1966, in response to this Court's order; in his brief he gives as a reason that he was unwilling to 'attend a hearing conducted by a body whose jurisdiction he challenged * * *.'9 As a result of that refusal we have no record, no petition for relief addressed to any agency, court or tribunal of any kind other than this Court, and a very knotty jurisdictional problem as well.10 Parenthetically it might be noted that Chandler could have appeared, in person or by counsel, and challenged the jurisdiction of the Council without impairing his claim that it had no power in the matter.
As noted above, and as conceded by the dissents, the Order of December 13, 1965, was terminated by the Order of February 4, 1966. Judge Chandler has twice expressed agreement with the disposition of judicial business effected by that latter Order. Nothing in this record suggests that, were he to express disagreement, relief would not be forthcoming. On the contrary, on July 12, 1967, the Council expressly invited the judges of Chandler's district to agree among themselves upon a new rule or order for the division of business, and all the judges wrote back advising the Council that 'the current order for the division of business in this district is agreeable under the circumstances.'
Mr. Justice MARSHALL took no part in the consideration of decision of this case.
* I am perplexed by the Court's explanation for its failure to reach the issues presented by Judge Chandler's petition. As the Court states, the issues are whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the orders of the Judicial Council, and, if so, whether those orders are invalid because beyond the statutory and constitutional bounds of the Council's authority. The Court says, correctly I believe, that 'the threshold question in this case is whether we have jurisdiction to entertain the petition for extraordinary relief.' Ante, at 86. However, that question is never decided, and the Court's opinion closes with the statement that whether or not we have jurisdiction, 'plainly petitioner has not made a case for the extraordinary relief of mandamus or prohibition.' The predicate for this conclusion appears to be that Judge Chandler has an adequate remedy available before the Council, which he must invoke before seeking relief here. As authority for this unusual disposition, the Court cites only Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U.S. 549, 67 S.Ct. 1409, 91 L.Ed. 1666 (1947), a decision that I do not consider lends itself to the gloss the Court today places upon it.
It is clear that, although the Council's Order of December 13, 1965, has been revoked, the subsequent Order of February 4, 1966, is still outstanding and is attacked by Judge Chandler as beyond the authority constitutional exercisable by the Council under either § 137 or § 332 of the Judicial Code. Judge Chandler has twice certified to the Council his acquiescence in the allocation of business mandated by the February 4 Order; indeed, his first certification was relied upon by the then Solicitor General, appearing for the Council in February 1966, as a basis for suggesting that the case was moot. Judge Chandler immediately responded that he did not in any way concede the Council's power to enter the February 4 Order, and that his indication of acquiescence made to the Council did not constitute such a concession. In light of this continued challenge to the order, the Solicitor General in March 1966 agreed 'that the case can no longer be deemed moot.'
The case thus reached the posture in which it now stands: Judge Chandler unequivocally asserts that the February 4 Order is beyond the Council's authority. If his contention were sound, the only validly outstanding directives for the allocation of business in the District Court would be those 'rules and orders' of that court, issued under § 137, that were in effect prior to December 13, 1965. Though the terms of those rules and orders are not before us, it is evident that they provided for assignment to Judge Chandler of a portion of the cases continually filed in his court. In challenging the validity of the Council's attempts to modify the previous allocation of business, and in requesting restoration of the status quo ante, Judge Chandler seeks to achieve a marked departure from the manner in which business is currently allocated.
Judge Chandler claims a right to accomplish this result without the necessity of mobilizing all the judges of his district to change the assignment of business by unanimous action, as the February 4 Order allows them to do. Further, since he denies the Council's authority to deprive him of all new business, he of course denies that he should be required to request the Council to renege as a condition of obtaining review of its outstanding order. He claims that it is illegal for the Council to deprive him of new cases, and equally so for the Council to condition his access to new cases upon his making a request to it that is tantamount to a form of a certification of disagreement under § 137.
Although the Court states that it does not decide the merits of this claim, see ante, at 87, I can read its opinion only as a determination that the claim is insubstantial. The Court states that it is a 'remarkable litigation posture' for Judge Chandler to argue that the Council has no authority to force him to choose between remaining without new business, seeking further action by the Council, or seeking unanimous action by the District Judges. The Court denies relief because '(n)othing in this record suggests that, were he to express disagreement, relief would not be forthcoming,' a decision that can only be premised on a holding that he is denied no rights by being relegated to that course of action. Ante, at 87, 88—89. But this is the contrary of what Judge Chandler contends, and a conclusion with which two members of this Court sharply differ. As explained in Part III, infra, I too believe that Judge Chandler now lacks meritorious ground for complaint. However, I do not believe that the Court can properly make that holding without first determining its jurisdiction to consider the question.
Rescue Army, supra, provides no authority for such a procedure. That decision represents one branch of the longsettled doctrine that this Court will not determine constitutional questions unnecessarily or in a case that does not present them with sufficient clarity to make possible the circumspect consideration they require. See generally id., at 568—585, 67 S.Ct. at 1419—1428; Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 346, 56 S.Ct. 466, 483, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). Because the constitutional issues in Rescue Army were presented in a highly abstract and speculative form, and were clouded by factors not present in this case,1 the Court dismissed the appeal, declining to adjudicate them. It concluded that an appellant there, faced with state criminal charges, would have to undergo a trial on the charges before obtaining review in this Court of his constitutional claims. As in this case, the Court's action had the effect of rejecting the appellant's claim of a right to obtain relief without further proceedings in a lower tribunal, see 331 U.S., at 584, 67 S.Ct., at 1427. However, the Court made that disposition only after carefully determining that it had jurisdiction in the case. See id., at 565—568, 67 S.Ct., at 1417 1419.
The Court does suggest, by footnote, an alternative basis for its refusal to consider Judge Chandler's petition. Ante, at 87 n. 8. If an adequate means of review of Council orders were available in the Federal District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, that might justify this Court's staying its hand until such review had been sought. However, as pointed out by the United States as amicus curiae, it seems wholly unrealistic to suggest that an appropriate remedy could be obtained from a District Court. The District Court mandamus statute, § 1361, extends to 'officers,' 'employees,' and 'agencies' of the United States; there is no indication that it empowers the District Courts to issue mandamus to other judicial tribunals. Thus, as the Judicial Council seems to concede, the availability of a remedy under that statute hinges on a determination, which the Court avoids making, whether the Council's actions under review were judicial or not. Brief for Respondent 19. Beyond that, direct review by a district judge of the actions of circuit judges would present serious incongruities and practical problems certainly not contemplated when § 1361 was enacted. It is unrealistic for the Court to imply that § 1361 presents an appropriate avenue of relief justifying this Court's refusal to exercise its jurisdiction.
'It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. * * * With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usrup that which is not given.' Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 404, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821).
That principle has not been abrogated by the Rescue Army decision, which merely undertook to define the limits of our ability to adjudicate constitutional issues in cases that adequately present them. I find no license in that decision for the action taken by the Court today.
Before Judge Chandler's attack on the orders of the Judicial Council can be considered, it must be determined whether the Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain his petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition. While I agree with my Brothers Black and Douglas that the Court does have jurisdiction, I think the question warrants fuller treatment than they have given it.
Any discussion of the scope of this Court's authority under the Constitution must take as its point of departure Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803), where the Court held that except in those instances specifically enumerated in Article III of the Constitution,2 this Court may exercise only appellate not original—jurisdiction. Because this suit is not cognizable as an original cause, the question initially to be faced is whether it is within our appellate jurisdiction.
The Court was asked in Marbury to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary of State to deliver to an appointed justice of the peace his previously signed commission. After nothing that the suit did not fall within any of the enumerated heads of original jurisdiction, the Court, through Chief Justice Marshall, concluded: 'To enable this court, then, to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable (the Court) to exercise appellate jurisdiction.' Id., at 175. The Court held that issuance of mandamus to a nonjudicial federal officer would not be an exercise of appellate, but of original, jurisdiction. Thus the statute that purported to authorize such action by the Supreme Court was ineffective. See 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1761 (5th ed. 1891).
The Chief Justice stated, as the 'essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction, that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that cause.' I Cranch, at 175. Beyond cavil, the issuance of a writ of mandamus to an inferior court is an exercise of appellate jurisdiction. In re Winn, 213 U.S. 458, 465—466, 29 S.Ct. 515, 516 517, 53 L.Ed. 873 (1909). If the challenged orders of the Judicial Council in this instance were 'an exercise of judicial power.' this Court is constitutionally vested with jurisdiction to review them, absent any statute curtailing such review. Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553, 566, 53 S.Ct. 751, 755, 77 L.Ed. 1372 (1933); Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 279 U.S. 716, 723, 49 S.Ct. 499, 501, 73 L.Ed. 918 (1929); In re Sanborn, 148 U.S. 222, 224, 13 S.Ct. 577, 578, 37 L.Ed. 429 (1893). On the other hand, if they were not, Marbury alone is sufficient authority to support a conclusion that this suit is beyond this Court's power under Article III. An analysis of the nature of the Council's orders must begin with consideration of the statute by which the Council was created.
The Judicial Councils of the circuits were brought into being by the Act of August 7, 1939, which was termed 'An act to provide for the administration of the United States courts, and for other purposes.' 53 Stat. 1223. The major purposes of the Act were to free the federal courts from their previous reliance on the Justice Department in budgetary matters, and 'to furnish to the Federal courts the administrative machinery for self-improvement, through which those courts will be able to scrutinize their own work and develop efficiency and promptness in their administration of justice.' H.R.Rep. No. 702, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1939). To this end the Act established the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, headed by a Director, to compile statistical data on the operation of the courts and to provide support services of a logistical nature.3 The Act further established two new entities in each of the judicial circuits: the Judicial Council, composed of all the active circuit judges, and the Judicial Conference, composed of circuit and district judges along with participating members of the bar. The Council, in regular meetings, was to consider the reports of the Director and take 'such action * * * thereon' as might be necessary;4 the Conference was to meet annually 'for the purpose of considering the state of the business of the courts and advising ways and means of improving the administration of justice within the circuit.'5
As these statutory provisions indicate, Congress envisioned quite different functions for the three new bodies. The role of the Administrative Office, and its Director, was to be 'administrative' in the narrowest sense of that term. The Director was entrusted with no authority over the performance of judicial business—his role with respect to such business was, and is, merely to collect information for use by the courts themselves. Chief Justice Groner of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, who was chairman of the committee of circuit judges that participated in drafting the bill, stressed to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary that the bill would give the Director no 'supervision or control over the exercise of purely judicial duties,' because to grant such power to an administrative officer 'would be to destroy the very fundamentals of our theory of government. The administrative officer (the Director) proposed in this bill is purely an administrative officer.' Hearings on S. 188 before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 12 (1939) (response to question by Senator Hatch). See also id., at 36 (statement of A. Holtzoff).
The Judicial Conference for each circuit was given a complementary role, again divorced from direct involvement in the disposition by the courts of their judicial business. Patterned in large part after the voluntary conferences that had been held for years in the Fourth Circuit, the Conference was intended to provide an opportunity for friendly interchange among judges and between bench and bar, out of which might grow increased understanding of problems of judicial administration and enhanced cooperation toward their solution. Its function, as indicated by the statutory language quoted above, was to be 'purely advisory.' See Hearings on H.R. 5999 before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 11—12, 17, 23—24 (1939).
The Judicial Council, on the other hand, was designed as an actual participant in the management of the judicial work of the circuit. The Act provided that, '(t)o the end that the work of the district courts shall be effectively and expeditiously transacted,' the circuit judges of each circuit were to meet as a council at least twice a year. After consideration of the statistical reports submitted by the Administrative Office, 'such action shall be taken thereon by the council as may be necessary. It shall be the duty of the district judges promptly to carry out the directions of the council as to the administration of the business of their respective courts.'6 This provision exists today as § 332 without relevant change, except that the 1948 revision of the Judicial Code added a declaration that '(e)ach judicial council shall make all necessary orders for the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts within its circuit,' and correspondingly directed the district judges to carry out all such 'orders.' The reviser's note explained this amendment as merely a change in 'phraseology,' embodying in new words the original understanding of the powers of the councils. H.R.Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A46 (1947).
The most helpful guide in determining the role envisaged for the Judicial Councils is the testimony of Chief Justice Groner, who shouldered most of the task of explaining the purposes of the bill to the committees of both Houses of Congress. He explained that under existing law the circuit judges had 'no authority to require a district judge to speed up his work or to admonish him that he is not bearing the full and fair burden that he is expected to bear, or to take action as to any other matter which is the subject of criticism, * * * for which he may be responsible.' Hearings on S. 188, supra, at 11. In contrast, under the proposed bill the Administrative Office would 'observe and see that whatever is wrong in the administration of justice, from whatever sources it may arise, is brought to the attention of the judicial council that it may be correcte