[Senate Hearing 109-1063] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 109-1063 CREATING NEW FEDERAL JUDGESHIPS: THE SYSTEMATIC OR PIECEMEAL APPROACH ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT AND THE COURTS of the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ NOVEMBER 16, 2005 __________ Serial No. J-109-53 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ---------- U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 48-828 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma David Brog, Staff Director Michael O'Neill, Chief Counsel Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director ------ Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama, Chairman ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JON KYL, Arizona RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin William Smith, Majority Chief Counsel Preet Bharara, Democratic Chief Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa, prepared statement............................................. 154 Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama.... 1 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared statement............................................. 158 WITNESSES Furgeson, W. Royal, Jr., District Judge for the Western District of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on Judicial Resources, Judicial Conference of the United States, San Antonio, Texas... 5 Galanter, Marc, Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin............................................. 10 Spalter, Robyn, President, Federal Bar Association, Miami, Florida........................................................ 9 Steele, William H., District Judge for the Southern District of Alabam, Mobile, Alabama........................................ 7 QUESTIONS Questions to Judge Furgeson submitted by Senator Schumer......... 29 Questions to Marc Galanter submitted by Senator Schumer.......... 30 Questions to Robyn Spalter submitted by Senator Schumer.......... 29 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Furgeson, W. Royal, Jr., District Judge for the Western District of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on Judicial Resources, Judicial Conference of the United States, San Antonio, Texas, prepared statement............................................. 31 Galanter, Marc, Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, prepared statement and attachment.......... 40 Hagel, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska, prepared statement............................................. 156 Spalter, Robyn, President, Federal Bar Association, Miami, Florida, prepared statement.................................... 159 Steele, William H., District Judge for the Southern District of Alabama, Mobile, Alabama, prepared statement................... 166 CREATING NEW FEDERAL JUDGESHIPS: THE SYSTEMATIC OR PIECEMEAL APPROACH ---------- WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2005 United States Senate, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Sessions, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senators Sessions and Schumer. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA Chairman Sessions. The Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts will come to order. I am pleased to convene this hearing to evaluate the process of creating new judgeships in the Federal judiciary, and specifically whether we should take a systematic or piecemeal approach to the process. Senator Schumer expected to be with us, but he is caught in the Capitol now and I am not sure whether he will be able to get back. A further complication is that commencing about now we will have three stacked votes, which unfortunately will mean probably about a 45-minute interruption. I thought what I would do is make my opening statement now and maybe introduce our guests and then probably at that time we would take our break and have to return. I am sorry, but we are reaching the end of the session. There are a lot of important votes going on and there is just no way to avoid that at this time. This Committee has not for some time addressed the expansion of the Federal judiciary and how we should proceed with it. So I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses, all of whom have given generously of their time and dedicated a lot of personal hours to developing their well-researched opinions on the topics before us today. A question might be why are we having this hearing. Well, the Constitution mandates that Congress oversee the administration of the judicial branch and create such inferior courts, quote, ``as the Congress from time to time may ordain or establish.'' Using this constitutional provision as a premise, the first U.S. Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789 which established the Federal judiciary. It made no provision for the composition or procedure for the courts and left that for Congress. The Act continues to be the mechanism from which Congress derives its authority to determine the proper size of the Federal judiciary and the optimum number of judges for the lower courts. When we strike the appropriate balance, we ensure the proper administration of justice and guarantee that all Americans have access to an efficient, fair judiciary, in accordance with our constitutional heritage. It is with this duty in mind that we convene today's hearing. If a particular court's caseload becomes too heavy, it may be necessary for Congress to approve additional judgeships. Should this be our initial response, or should we first examine how judges are using the resources provided them and whether such use is effective? Overall, we know that increases are normal and natural in the evolution of judicial organization. So this hearing is not one condemning the use of increased judgeships as a tool, but one that knows they are not always the answer. Congress recognized the need to create new judgeships when it authorized the creation of new Federal judgeships in the 2002 Department of Justice appropriation. Section 312 of that Act authorized eight new permanent district court judgeships and seven new temporary district court judgeships. We have not seen an increase in circuit judgeships for almost 15 years. The most recent addition occurred in 1990, and prior to that seats had not been added since 1984. Both the Eleventh Circuit and the Federal Circuit have seen no increase in seats since their respective creations in 1980 and 1982. I would note that we have had chief judges from a number of the circuits tell us they don't want new judgeships; that they believe that the 10, 12, 13, 15 judges they have allows for the collegiality that they desire and they prefer to carry a heavy caseload rather than add appellate judges. As of October 4, 2005, there were 49 vacancies in the Federal judiciary, which includes the U.S. Court of Appeals, district courts and the Court of International Trade. Currently, there are 19 nominees pending and 3 pending for future vacancies. These vacancies constitute 5.6 percent of the 875--871, according to DOJ--authorized judgeships in the Federal judiciary, and there are 15 future vacancies slated to open up. There is a distinct possibility that if we fill these vacancies expeditiously, the perceived need for new judges would be reduced. I would just note that I believe this Subcommittee and the full Judiciary Committee need to be more affirmative in our evaluation of the Federal judiciary. We tend to have someone from a certain State, a Senator, believe that they have a crisis and they want a judge and they add one to some bill that is moving through the legislature. We had one bill recently that had one new judgeship added. When it finally passed the Senate, ten new judgeships had been attached to it in nine different States, and I am not sure those were consistent with the recommendations of the AOC in terms of priority and need. So I think it is important for our Committee to do our homework, to be able to tell our fellow Senators that if you think you need a nominee, a new judgeship, we are working on that, we are evaluating it, and we have a fair and effective way to determine how many judges are needed and we have got a priority list for that, and try to do it in a way that is most professional and effective. According to the Administrative Office of United States Courts, in 2004 there were 60,505 cases filed in the United States courts of appeals, a 9.4-percent increase since 2000. Additionally, in the U.S. district courts there were 255,851 cases, a 2.6-percent decrease from 2000. Those were civil cases, and there were 70,746 cases filed, a 15-percent increase from 2000. So we have had an increase in criminal cases since 2000 and an actual decrease in civil filings since the year 2000. Though Congress is the only body constitutionally authorized to create judgeships, it is the Judicial Conference, headed by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, that makes recommendations as to how many are needed. The Judicial Conference reviews needs biennially via a formal survey process. The most recent review was completed in March 2005 and it recommended the creation of 12 courts of appeals judgeships and 56 district court judgeships. In making the recommendations, the Conference uses a formal survey process which involves six levels of review within the judiciary before it is transmitted to Congress. Those levels include judges of the court making the request--if judges indicate on the survey that additional seats are needed, the Judicial Conference will initiate a review to analyze all relevant factors--initial review of the survey results by the Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics of the Committee on Judicial Resources, reviewed by the judicial council of the circuit in which the court is located, and a second and final review by the subcommittee. The Subcommittee on Judicial Resources conducts a final review and passes recommendations on to the full committee. The whole Judicial Conference will review the recommendations before they are made to Congress. That is a pretty thorough review. I suspect some of the requests for judges may be because there is a fear that we might get them this year, but if we don't ask for them this year, there might be some bad years in the years to come and we may not get them when we really do need them. But, regardless, it is a fairly rigorous process, I think, the courts go through to make those recommendations. According to the Administrative Office, the cost for creating each circuit court judgeship is approximately $927,000 for the first year, with recurring costs averaging $818,000. They don't get paid that much, but there is a lot of cost in creating a circuit judgeship, as there is with a district judgeship. A district judgeship equates roughly to $1 million for the first year, with recurring costs of $886,000. I would like to know why the district is more expensive, but we will maybe ask that. So it is a serious responsibility for us not to propose more judgeships than are needed because the taxpayers expect us to get the maximum result for the dollars. Between October 1995 and December 1998, my colleague, Senator Grassley, held a series of hearings addressing the needs of circuit judges for each circuit. During those hearings, we saw little consensus regarding the actual need for judges and whether the current statistical formulation utilized by the Conference is an accurate means for calculating the appropriate number of judges for Federal courts. In order to determine the caseload, the Conference assigns a weight to each type of case. Weighted filing statistics account for the different amounts of time district judges require in order to resolve the various types of civil and criminal actions. Though the Federal Judicial Center updated the case weights in 2004 on a national basis, weighted filings did not change significantly after their implementation. A number of judges have raised concerns about the approach taken to determine the need for judgeships. For example, if we are willing to use this formula in order to increase the size of the courts, should we not also implement it to determine when a significant decline in case filings and consolidations would warrant a decrease in judgeships? Some have even expressed concern that the formula is suspect, since it is virtually impossible to predict the degree of difficulty or time required to dispose of a case on the basis of case type. Another concern is that of collegiality. Judges like a smaller court whenever possible. If we continue to increase the number of judges on the Federal bench, it could have a negative impact on effective administration of courts and the uniformity of law. In addition to the concerns associated with the process of creating new judgeships, I would like for this hearing to lead us into an informative discussion of the resources that are currently available and maybe underutilized. There are several methods currently in use that can be expanded to help alleviate some of the perceived concerns with caseload. Among those are the use of senior judges, shared judgeships, inter-circuit and intra-circuit assignment of judges, and development of a process to recommend not filling vacancies or eliminating superfluous positions. Additionally, Judge Steele is here and he will testify about the role that U.S. magistrate judges play and how they can be used as a valuable resource in the disposition of cases. These are important concerns, particularly since there are now pending several current pieces of legislation calling for the creation of a number of new judges at the appellate and district levels. I hope that this hearing will shed some light on the process and give this legislative body a broader perspective when taking steps to further the efficient administration of justice. We have 5 minutes left on that vote, and according to Senate time that means a little more than 5 minutes, but not a lot. Since we are stacking votes, they tend to be a little tighter about it. So I will introduce our panel. We will have one panel today, which consists of four distinguished witnesses who have devoted time and energy in analyzing the state of our judiciary. The witnesses on this panel, starting from my left, are Judge W. Royal Furgeson, U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Texas, and the Chairman of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources; Judge William H. Steele, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Alabama and a former magistrate judge in Mobile; Ms. Robyn J. Spalter, President of the Federal Bar Association, and an attorney with the firm of Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan and Berlin, in Miami, Florida. Finally, we will hear from Professor Marc Galanter, who is a Professor of Law and South Asian Studies at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and LSC Centennial Professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science. When I get back, we will hear your opening statements and begin with Judge Furgeson. Again, let me apologize for having to interrupt this hearing. I should be back, I would say, in 45 minutes. That will be my goal. If Senators are not able to attend, their staff will be monitoring this. Your comments will be made a part of the record and it will help us establish a basis for making rational decisions about the size of our Federal judiciary. So at this time we will take a recess for approximately 45 minutes. [Recess.] Chairman Sessions. The Subcommittee will come to order. I apologize again for having to do what they pay me to do, go vote. There are a lot of committees and a lot of activities, and they just have to call them when it is appropriate. We are anxious to hear your comments. We would ask you to try to keep those to 5 minutes. Judge Royal, we would be delighted to hear from you first. STATEMENT OF HON. W. ROYAL FURGESON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL RESOURCES, JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS Judge Furgeson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Royal Furgeson and I am a United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas sitting in San Antonio. I am also the Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources. I am honored to be here today, sir, to discuss the request of the Federal judiciary for new judgeships. Before I do so, however, may I state that it is the policy of the judiciary to limit its growth to that number of new judgeships necessary to exercise appropriate Federal court jurisdiction. We certainly do not wish to grow for growth sake. Also, while there have been new judgeships, as you mentioned, added to our system since 1990, that year, 1990, was the last year that a comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted. Since 1990, our caseloads have increased relentlessly. For example, district court filings have risen 40 percent and circuit court filings have risen 58 percent. Finally, the Federal judiciary understands that our Federal Government has many funding demands, to include the need to finance our brave troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Under the circumstances, we want you to know that we are doing our part to contain costs. There are numerous initiatives underway in the judiciary to look at how we can deal with escalating expenses. While these initiatives are ongoing and while they cannot be put in place overnight, you should be aware that we are mindful of the cost of every new judgeship and of our responsibility to work with the other branches of Government to be good stewards of our resources. Taking all these matters into consideration, we are asking for 68 new judgeships, 12 at the circuit level and 56 at the district level. Let me briefly describe how we have arrived at these numbers. First, there is a threshold caseload to begin the process. In our committee, we have developed a formula--you mentioned it--for evaluating district court dockets so that we can put all trial judges on equal footing through establishment of case weights. Our circuit courts also have a modified formula. Second, while the formulas are important to the consideration of new judgeships, other factors must be weighed to arrive at a sound measurement of each court's judgeship needs, and you have mentioned that as well in your statement. Those include looking at the number of senior judges, their ages and level of activity; looking at magistrate judge assistance, and I am delighted that one of my esteemed colleagues, Judge Steele, is here today to talk about some innovations in regard to magistrate judge assistance in the courts. We also look at geographical factors, unusual caseload complexity, temporary or prolonged caseload increases or decreases, and use of visiting judges. Our courts, when they begin this process, are asked to complete a comprehensive application that details all of these factors, and you mentioned that as well in your statement. Third, when all of this information is gathered and thoroughly scrubbed, then it undergoes consideration and review at six different levels within the judiciary, and again you mentioned that in your opening statement. At the beginning of this process this time, the courts requested 80 additional judgeships, permanent and temporary. Through our review procedure, we reduced that number to 68, and of these 68, 15 are temporary--another indication of our conservative approach to new judgeships. Incidentally, in addition to the 68 judgeships we are asking for, we are also asking that three temporary judgeships created in 1990 be made permanent and one created in 1990 be extended based upon trends in those particular courts. Finally, and to reiterate, the long-range plan for the Federal courts specifically states that our judiciary is committed to controlling growth. Therefore, our request must be understood as an effort to accomplish this goal within the context of rising dockets. To that end, we are requesting far fewer judgeships than we might otherwise do. Since 1964, we have taken a very rigorous approach to vetting our request for new judgeships. As you know, this approach has undergone change and has become more sophisticated and transparent. We hope that it provides you with the information and assurance that you and your Committee and the Congress need to give our request favorable consideration. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing and allowing me to testify, and by request of the Federal judiciary, we would ask that you introduce this judgeship proposal. I will be glad to answer your questions when the time comes. [The prepared statement of Judge Furgeson appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Sessions. Thank you very much, Judge Furgeson, for those succinct remarks, and right on time. Judge Steele, it is good to have you with us. I guess in the interest of full disclosure, Judge Steele worked for me for a period of time. He was a chief assistant district attorney for the Democratic-elected district attorney in Mobile for many years, and then I was able to hire him away. Then he went into private practice and then the judiciary, in a very competitive process, selected him to be a United States magistrate judge. Judge, you served how many years? Judge Steele. Thirteen. Chairman Sessions. Thirteen, and won the respect of people. I would note also that Judge Steele has had a special ability, I think, for management. As an Assistant United States Attorney, he helped come up with a plan that greatly improved the entire processing of criminal cases which the judges were delighted with, and the prosecutors were delighted, also, and I think the defense bar, also. So, Judge Steele, it is a pleasure to have you with us today. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. STEELE, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, MOBILE, ALABAMA Judge Steele. Thank you for that generous introduction, and thank you for the opportunity to address this Committee on the subject of the utilization of magistrate judges and to share our experience regarding the utilization of magistrate judges in the Southern District of Alabama. By way of background, as you stated, I served as a magistrate judge in the Southern District of Alabama from 1990 until 2003, about 13 years. About two-and-a-half years ago, I was appointed and began serving as a United States district judge. Consequently, I have witnessed the benefits of the magistrate judges system both from a supporting role as a magistrate judge and in a supported role as a district judge. Those are those who consider the Southern District of Alabama to be a pioneer district in the full utilization of magistrate judges. This development resulted from a set of unique circumstances which occurred in our district over a period of several years during the mid- to late 1990's. At this time, the Southern District was authorized and had serving three district judges. Historically, the Southern District is a busy district, and given its proximity to the drug corridors of south Texas, south Florida and the Gulf of Mexico, it is a district that sees a significant number of drug cases. Because criminal cases generally take priority over civil cases, and because of other considerations such as the Speedy Trial Act, it was necessary to move these cases through the criminal justice system as efficiently as possible. As a result of a number of factors affecting our district judges, including ill health, retirement, senior status and delay in replacing these judges, over the time the number of district judges in the Southern District of Alabama diminished from three active judges to one active judge. That judge found himself responsible for managing most, if not all, of the total criminal caseload, in addition to his own increasing civil caseload. As a result of these conditions and factors, our court began searching for ways to efficiently manage the civil and criminal dockets in an effort to avoid any substantial backlog and delay in the fair and effective administration of justice. For our district, the logical place to turn was to our magistrate judges. As this crisis developed, the magistrate judges in the Southern District of Alabama were already serving in their traditional roles, and by traditional roles I mean that these judges were handling all of the Section 1983 prisoner litigation on report and recommendation; all of the Section 2254 habeas corpus on report and recommendation; all of the Social Security appeals on report and recommendation; all the preliminary criminal matters, such as arraignments, initial appearances, detention hearings, pre-trial conferences and discovery motions; all of the Central Violations Bureau cases, which include hunting and game violations, petty offenses and Assimilated Crime Act offenses; and all preliminary civil matters, such as discovery motions and the entry of scheduling orders. In an effort to relieve the district judges so that they could manage the criminal docket and as much of the civil docket as possible, the magistrate judges were asked to take on additional responsibilities within the limits of their jurisdiction. This included handling a significant number of civil pre-trial conference, a substantial number of civil case settlement conferences, jury selection in almost all of the criminal and civil jury cases, and an automatic assignment of a significant part of the civil docket which I will describe briefly in just a moment. In addition, a small number of civil dispositive motions-- for example, summary judgment and motions to dismiss--were referred to the magistrate judges for entry of report and recommendations. And on a few occasions, the magistrate judges were called upon to take guilty pleas. With regard to our automatic assignment of civil cases mentioned previously, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c), magistrate judges are authorized, with the consent of the parties, to exercise jurisdiction over all proceedings in jury and non-jury civil matters, and are authorized to order the entry of judgment in what may be called a consent case. In an effort to relieve the district judges, and ultimately the one district judge, and with the goal of avoiding a backlog and delay in civil cases, our court implemented a system wherein 25 percent of the total civil docket was automatically assigned to the magistrate judges. With the consent of the parties, a number of these cases were retained and disposed of by the magistrate judges, thus reducing the total civil caseload of the district judge. As a result of this expanded utilization of magistrate judges, in the face of a shortage of district judges, our court was able to weather the storm and to achieve the goal of the fair and efficient administration of justice in the Southern District of Alabama. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to address this Committee and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you might have. [The prepared statement of Judge Steele appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Sessions. Thank you, Judge Steele. An important part of the legal system are the attorneys who appear there and, Ms. Spalter, you represent the Federal Bar Association, which has a special interest in the Federal courts, and we are delighted to hear your perspective today. STATEMENT OF ROBYN SPALTER, PRESIDENT, FEDERAL BAR ASSOCIATION, MIAMI, FLORIDA Ms. Spalter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you said, I am President of the Federal Bar Association. I would like to thank you for inviting and welcoming the Federal Bar Association here today for this hearing. I would also like to compliment you, the Committee counsel and staff for working with the FBA to address this very vital issue. I will not reiterate my written statement, but will rather try to discuss and summarize the highlights. But I would like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, at this time if I could request that written statement be included in the record of this hearing in its entirety. Chairman Sessions. We would be pleased to and will be made a part of the record. Ms. Spalter. Thank you. The Federal Bar Association has 16,000 members, made up of lawyers and judges. We are the premier nationwide bar association devoted exclusively to the practice and jurisprudence of Federal law and the vitality of the U.S. Federal court system. We are here today to represent our members--lawyers and judges and parties they serve. We are here today to tell you why, on behalf of these Federal advocates and jurists, individuals and businesses they represent and serve, we strongly support the Judicial Conference's comprehensive request for new judgeships, both permanent and temporary. I believe everyone in this room could easily agree that prompt and efficient administration of justice is an integral component of this great country in which we live. It is not just a goal, it is not just an aspiration. Rather, it is the bedrock of our Federal system of jurisprudence. In order to adhere to this principle, in order to ensure prompt and efficient administration of justice, the creation and maintenance of a sufficient number of judgeships in our Federal courts are critical. The Federal Bar Association understands that there will be costs involved. We are cognizant of this. However, we believe that failure to create these judgeships now will bear its own cost, maybe not monetary, but critical nonetheless. Failure will cost us the integrity of and trust in our judicial system. Mr. Chairman, the problem is the caseloads are so large that comprehensive action has become necessary now by this Congress. I am not going to go into detail on numbers because my co-speaker here, Judge Furgeson, has done so, but I want to point out a few. Filings since 1990 have increased by approximately 40 percent or more in the district and circuit courts. Circuit court cases per three-judge panel have reached 1,127--more than ever in history. Criminal filings have increased by 77 percent, and since 1992 bankruptcy filings have increased by 18.3 percent. Now, that is the caseloads. The question is what has happened to the judgeships in that same period of time. From 1990 to present, there have been zero new circuit court judges. From 1990 to 2000, there have been zero new district judges, and from 2000 to 2005 there have been 34 new district judges, but they were put in districts where there were crises and they had reached their tipping points. But the Federal Bar is here and brings you another perspective, Mr. Chairman. We bring you a perspective from the ground, from the grass roots, from the lawyers practicing before this bench everyday, from the members of the bench trying to assure prompt and efficient administration of justice, and from our clients and citizens who believe in the system and just want to see it work promptly and efficiently. The major complaint is that it takes too long to get a case through the system. Even cases that could be disposed of easily by dispositive motion are taking longer and longer and longer to get a hearing. It is for all of these reasons that the Federal Bar Association, in order to deliver to our members and those they serve and to fulfill our mission, the practice before and vitality of our Federal court system, that we assert that this is a priority, a national priority. Additional judgeships established now comprehensively must be done in order to ensure the prompt and efficient administration of justice. Before I conclude, one related comment. The House is advancing proposals that tie together the addition of these judgeships and the reorganization of the Ninth Circuit. The Federal Bar Association believes strongly that these are two separate and distinct issues. Each has its own merits, arguments and justifications, and should be considered that way. We commend this Subcommittee for its approach toward bifurcating these two issues. In conclusion, I think it is apropos to say justice delayed is justice denied. To ensure justice isn't denied, you must assure that it isn't unduly delayed. This can be accomplished by authorizing the adequate number of new judgeships as set forth in the Judicial Conference's well-thought-out recommendations. This will protect and assure the prompt and efficient administration of justice and it will ensure that justice is not denied. [The prepared statement of Ms. Spalter appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Sessions. Thank you, Ms. Spalter. Professor Galanter, we would be delighted to hear from you at this time. STATEMENT OF MARC GALANTER, PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, MADISON, WISCONSIN Mr. Galanter. I am very pleased to be here and have a chance to bring into this discussion some issues about the Federal judiciary that I think are very relevant. I want to particularly point out that when we are talking about the number of judges, it is very important to say what are these judges doing. I am particularly concerned about whether judges are holding trials. If you will look, you will see that over the past 20 years there has been a dramatic decline in the number of civil trials. The green here are the bench trials and the red are jury trials. Both have declined. Actually, bench trials have declined more rapidly. There is a similar movement in terms of criminal trials since 1990, which was mentioned before, at the time of the last major additions to the judiciary. You can see that half the trials have gone away. Now, there is a long-term decline in trials. Chairman Sessions. Does that amount to about a reduction by half? Mr. Galanter. A reduction by half on the criminal side and actually two-thirds on the civil side, compared to, say, 1995, civil; 1990, criminal. Now, there is a long-term decline. The percentage of cases that are getting to trial has been going down for a hundred years, and we can understand the reasons for that. But what is very striking is that since the middle-1980's the absolute number of trials has been falling and, as you can see, falling very, very rapidly. There is about one-third of the civil trials in the Federal courts that there were in the mid-1980's with fewer judges, and there are about half the criminal trials. Now, this marks a fundamental change in judging, a shift away from trials to case management. And when we see these cases depart and we know that judges really work hard, the question is what are they doing. Well, they are not holding trials. Last year, in 2004--and I am sorry I don't have the charts for 2004, but I would like to put those in the records, if I may, along with the full paper on which this is based, if I may. Chairman Sessions. We will accept that in the record. Mr. Galanter. Thank you. Last year, the average judge in Federal court held about ten trials, or we could say there were about ten trials for every sitting judge. If we go back to, say, 1990, again a date that was mentioned here, the average judge was holding 40 trials. So we have gone from 40 trials per judge to 10 trials per judge in just 15 years. So something has really changed in the Federal judiciary that it seems to me this Committee might well want to concern itself with. I should add that ten trials per year now is a pretty generous estimate for a number of reasons. It ignores the senior judges and magistrates, who are an increasing band who actually do quite a large number of those trials. It also is a count of those matters that got to a stage that the Administrative Office calls during or after trial, and that means a trial began. Actually, about 20 percent of those cases that get there end up settling before a verdict. Finally, a trial is defined in the Federal system as a contested matter in which evidence is presented. So there is not only a theoretical possibility, but it actually happens that sometimes there is more than one trial in a case. You can have a Daubert hearing that is counted as a trial. So when I say there are only 4,000 civil trials today, that is with all these caveats. So the number of trials per judge is very low by our historic standards, and I think this marks a kind of fundamental change in the Federal judiciary, a shift of resources from preparing for trial and conducting trials to case management, leading to non-trial dispositions, something that I hope this Committee will decide it would like to examine. Thank you very much. [The submission of Mr. Galanter appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Sessions. Professor Galanter, I believe you have a train to catch. Is that correct? Mr. Galanter. I do in a little while, yes. Chairman Sessions. Well, I will ask you a few questions first. Mr. Galanter. I would appreciate that, sir. Chairman Sessions. It says criminal defendants disposed of. Well, you have more multi-defendant cases today where four defendants may plead and the fifth goes to trial, but your chart says trials. Is it true that the aggregate number of trials are down? There is no confusion in that, is there? Mr. Galanter. Yes, the aggregate number of trials are down. Yes, there is that problem on counting on the criminal side. But this is the number of defendants who were tried, so that if five defendants are tried in the same case, that looks like five trials here, but it is not. So this again is a generous count of the number of trials. Chairman Sessions. It might not be a generous count. Judge Steele, are you looking at that number? If one defendant goes to trial, that counts as one trial, and if two co-defendants go to trial, that counts as two trials? Mr. Galanter. That is right. Chairman Sessions. That is a generous count. Mr. Galanter. I didn't do the original counting. I am just using the records provided by the Federal office. Chairman Sessions. Do you have the numbers for the number of days a judge is in trial? Mr. Galanter. I understand that the judiciary does compile these numbers, but I do not have them. Chairman Sessions. I have heard a rumor that judges have actually made sure they swore in the jury before they took the guilty plea and counted it as a trial. Have you ever heard of that? Mr. Galanter. I haven't, but I am sure you hear much more about this than I do. Judge Furgeson. Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sessions. Please, yes, Judge Furgeson. Judge Furgeson. I know I have tried multi-defendant cases. I don't recall on my statistics--for example, sometimes I have tried as many as 10 or 12. I don't recall those showing up as 12 trials. I recall those showing up as one trial for all 12. So I don't know if it is exactly right that you get a trial per defendant even if they are all tried together. Mr. Galanter. Well, let me say that the Administrative Office keeps multiple statistical tables, and in terms of measuring what a judge does it seems to me that table may very well count them differently. What I took was the public information released by the Administrative Office in which they say how many defendants were tried that year. So in some sense, it is a maximum number of trials that were held. Now, they may not have given individual judges the benefit of those multiple defendants in counting what that individual judge did. But in the published statistics that they put out, they tell us that this is the number of defendants that were tried. So if we were to assume that every defendant had his or her own trial, we had about 3,500 in 2002. Chairman Sessions. Judge Furgeson? Judge Furgeson. Mr. Chairman, would you allow me to submit a letter--I would like to research this a little bit--submit a letter to you, with a carbon copy to the professor, just so-- Chairman Sessions. I think we should work on those numbers. But we do know that there is no doubt, Professor--is this correct--that the percentage of cases disposed of short of trial is reaching in the high 90s? Do you have that number? Mr. Galanter. Well, the percentage of cases that terminate in trial in the Federal courts is about 1.6 percent now. Forty years ago, it was 11 percent. Back when the Federal Rules were adopted in 1938, it was something over 18 percent. It is hard to go back beyond 1962, but somebody actually did it for 1938. So we are now at 1.5, 1.7 percent, something like that. Chairman Sessions. And what does that say about the appeals that occur? I suspect that a number of the appeals are of agreed upon disputed questions that arise short of a trial, which presumably should be somewhat easier for the court of appeals to deal with than having to read hundreds of pages of transcripts and ten different issues raised on appeal. Mr. Galanter. Yes, I think it is true. The portion of appeals that are based on tried cases has been declining. Chairman Sessions. It would have to be down. According to your numbers, if it goes from 11 percent to about 2, that is about four-fifths down. But the appeals are not down that much, so the appeals are coming through some mechanism. Mr. Galanter. That is right, through non-trial dispositions of various kinds. Chairman Sessions. Summary judgments? Mr. Galanter. Summary judgments, motions to dismiss, et cetera. Chairman Sessions. Judge Steele, do you have any thoughts about that chart? Judge Steele. I think it is essential to know whether we are counting trials or defendants because I have noticed a decline in the number of multi-defendant cases over the past 5 years. We are not getting the big drug importation cases in our district like we used to. So we are trying more single defendants. Back in 1990, we tried a lot of multi-defendant cases and that inflated the numbers. We may not be looking at the right information to make a decision. Mr. Galanter. Could I just add that in the large study that I am submitting here, there is one point at which we take all the criminal cases and divide them into drug, violence and fraud cases. The non-drug categories follow the same path of fewer and fewer trials as the drug ones. So there doesn't seem to be a big subject matter difference in this decline. Chairman Sessions. You have to be careful, but I distinctly remember as a United States Attorney when the sentencing guidelines were passed that there were the most egregious, awful predictions of no settlements and every case would go to trial and the system would collapse. Well, it appears in one sense that the real decline in the cases began with the sentencing guidelines. Mr. Galanter. Oh, yes. Chairman Sessions. Every situation is different, but if you go to trial and a judge could give you 25 years or probation and you weren't sure what the judge was going to give and you knew what the prosecutor was recommending, you might as well go to trial sometimes. So knowing the range that you are likely to get has apparently caused people to feel easier about pleas. Judge Furgeson, your formulation takes into account the filings, regardless of whether it reaches trial, and a lot of cases sometimes are even voluntarily dismissed, consolidated, or simply disappear when the plaintiffs never follow through on their cases. Would it be more accurate to base your recommendations on the number of cases that are ultimately decided by a judge or disposed of by the court? Judge Furgeson. That is a good question, Mr. Chairman, and I would just somewhat talk to you about my experience, and I would welcome Judge Steele's experience, too. I find most of the filings that come into court initially take some amount of judge time. Even if there is a settlement somewhere down the line where it just goes off your docket, it takes some amount of judge time. Also, it is very difficult sometimes--and that is why we re-did our weights--to take into consideration how much management time or effort needs to be spent in particular cases. When we re-did our case weighting, we found that complex civil cases like patent cases, for example, were beginning to take more time for a judge than other cases. So we do try to take into consideration the fact that some cases will disappear from your docket and take very little time, and we do that through the effort to weight cases. Just to give you an example, student loan failure cases almost take no time at all. They will hit the docket and they will take almost no time at all. Those cases are weighted almost with a minuscule weight, very little weight at all. On the other hand, a patent case will hit your docket and take a lot of time and a lot of effort. So we try to take into consideration the problem of filings and how different cases resolve themselves through the case weight process. That is a process that went through just about 3 years ago. We took over 300,000 court filings involving more than 100 judges and we went through this process of looking at the cases and trying to determine how better to weight them through the process. So it is true that some cases take much less time than others, but we tried to handle that through the weighting process. Chairman Sessions. It strikes me that, as Professor Galanter proposed, it has become more of a challenge to a judge to manage. Some judges use magistrates more effectively than others, but managing those cases--and sometimes you have a crisis not where the caseload is particularly grievous, but it may be because the judge is not a good manager. So should the taxpayers be concerned that they are rewarding poor management or lack of hard work by filling judges where there is more of a backlog? Judge Furgeson. Well, I appreciate that concern. The judiciary does a great deal to help judges with management. Of course, some judges come in from the practice. Some have been State court judges. Some, like Judge Steele, have been magistrate judges. I am very impressed with what Judge Steele says about his management of cases and how the magistrates and the district judges work in his court. But I have a sense, Mr. Chairman, that through our efforts at education and commitment that we do have a judiciary that by and large manages their dockets and their cases well. I certainly do have that sense. Chairman Sessions. Well, I think most do, but some are really good at it. Judge Furgeson. Oh, there is no question. Chairman Sessions. And a well-managed courtroom can do remarkable things, I think. We are just asking those questions because I think it is important to do so. While we have had an increase in case filings since 1990, since 2000, I believe, we have had a 2.6-percent decrease in civil filings. You don't dispute that? Judge Furgeson. No, sir. That is correct. The criminal side of the district bench is where the increases come from. Chairman Sessions. Several judges testified before our Subcommittee when Chairman Grassley chaired this Subcommittee and they argued that a mechanical formulation is not the right way to decide the number of appellate judges, particularly. Fifth Circuit Judge Higginbotham testified that a formulation indicating the need for 28 judges on the Fifth Circuit, quote, ``simply defies common sense and lacks credibility,'' close quote, Judge Furgeson, particularly since the majority of those sitting on the Fifth Circuit opposed any additional judges. The Eleventh Circuit has one of the highest caseloads in the country--I believe the highest-- Judge Furgeson. It does. Chairman Sessions [continuing]. As does the Fifth, higher than the Ninth. They want seven new judges and we are prepared to consider giving them to them. But neither one are asking for more judges because they believe they could lose the uniformity and collegiality. So let me ask you, Judge Furgeson, is it wise to recommend additional judgeships when the court does not want them? Judge Furgeson. It is certainly not wise. Chairman Sessions. The 12 appellate judges that you recommend are not in those circuits? Judge Furgeson. They are not in Fifth and-- Chairman Sessions. Well, then, how come we are rewarding those who work less-- Judge Furgeson. Well, I am glad you ask that question. Chairman Sessions [continuing]. And not saluting those who do more? Judge Furgeson. First, let me say that one of my favorite judges is Judge Higginbotham. He is a bright and shining star on the Fifth Circuit and a remarkable judge and a remarkable person. I think what does happen, Mr. Chairman, is that different regions of the country develop different court cultures. In fact, there are different cultures within the bars of different regions of the country. What we do by asking the judges first to initiate these requests is we ask them if this is what they want to do. It is true that neither the Eleventh nor the Fifth have asked for new judges, and it is true that they carry incredibly heavy workloads. I think some of it has to do with the fact that--and you have mentioned it and I am sure Judge Higginbotham mentioned that there is a great interest in collegiality; that you need to keep courts small, especially appellate courts, to develop that kind of collegiality. There is also a strong view--and it is held in different degrees in different regions, but a strong view that the Federal court should not grow very much. And I think that is a sense among all Federal judges that we don't want to grow hurly burly or for growth sake, but there are sort of different views about where that cut-off is, especially in the courts of appeals. I will just give you an example. For instance, the Second Circuit, the circuit of Senator Schumer, has asked for new judges and we have certainly concurred with that request. The Second Circuit, along with the Ninth, is really under siege right now with immigration appeals, and those two circuits are dealing in a much more thorough way and comprehensive way with a heavier immigration docket than any of the other circuits in the United States. So we certainly see a real up-tick in cases for the Second and the Ninth, especially because of immigration issues. That is why, for example, we certainly concur with the request of the Second and Ninth Circuits for more appellate judges. Chairman Sessions. I will recognize Senator Schumer, and I am glad he was able to do with us. I would just note that Senator Grassley introduced today, and I cosponsored a bill to eliminate the 12th seat on the D.C. Circuit. You all haven't recommended eliminating any judgeships, I see, but its caseload was about one-fourth the average of the others, certainly one- fourth of the busy circuits, and it continues to decline. Do you agree that we should eliminate one seat there? And I will say, Chuck, that the President and his crew wants to appoint another judge there and the only reason, I guess, they haven't is because Senator Grassley and I have objected. But I think we either ought to take off the books or fill it. So what is your thought about whether we need another judge for the Twelfth Circuit, at $1 million a year, approximately? Judge Furgeson. For the D.C. Circuit, sir? Chairman Sessions. Excuse me. The D.C. Circuit. Judge Furgeson. Instead of giving my opinion, Mr. Chairman, could I say that an argument can certainly be made that the additional 12th seat on the D.C. Circuit should not be filled at this time, given the workload of that circuit. I think a very good argument can be made to that effect. Chairman Sessions. Senator Schumer is a lawyer with great skill and expertise, and we appreciate his leadership on this Committee. I will recognize you at this time. Senator Schumer. Well, thank you, Senator, and I want to apologize to you and to our witnesses. It is the last week of session, so it is a busy week. I am on the Finance Committee. We have the tax bill on the floor and it has been busy, so I apologize. I am going to give a few brief remarks and leave it at that, but I want to thank you-- Chairman Sessions. Chuck, the professor had a train to catch. Don't feel bad about leaving whenever you need to, Professor Galanter. Mr. Galanter. Thank you. Chairman Sessions. Thank you very much for your-- Senator Schumer. Are you taking Amtrak, Professor? We are trying to help you. Chairman Sessions. We appreciate the train that comes through Mobile at 2 a.m. going east and 3 a.m. going west 3 days a week. Senator Schumer. I hear Mobile is hopping at 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. I want to thank you for having this hearing. I thank all of our witnesses for being here. It is very important in enacting laws to protect the rights of our citizens that we equip the lower Federal courts with sufficient judges to ensure that those rights are not empty rights. I often used to argue--I am a tough on crime guy and what was creating such problems in terms of the courts and people not being sentenced--it wasn't so much the ideology of the judges, but in New York State we had a lot of judges who hardly did any work. In those days, back in the 1970's and early 1980's there was much less of an administrative court structure and it was more or less up to the judge, and they just let defendants delay and delay and delay and delay, and they would being arrested for new crimes. I guess we didn't adjudicate whether they actually committed them. So we need to have courts that are efficient. We need to have enough judges. This is all very important. At the same time, this Congress is particularly aware in recent months of the need to control spending. In 1993, the Federal Judicial Center estimated an average of $18 million spent per judgeship over the lifetime span of a judge's tenure on the circuit court. That was 1993, so obviously the number is considerably higher now. When Senator Grassley was Chairman of the Subcommittee in 1999, he concluded--and Senator Grassley would be very good at this; he is very thorough and he is frugal, and at the same time cares about justice--that Congress should expend funds to fill an existing vacancy or create a new judgeship, he said, only after a comprehensive determination has been made that filling a vacancy or creating a new judgeship is absolutely essential for the court to properly administer justice. I, too, believe we have a duty to work with the Federal judiciary to find ways to improve efficiency. There may be ways to get the work done without creating a large number of additional judgeships, and we ought to try that first. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. Here are some things we could do. We could help the courts expand and strengthen their mediation and settlement programs. We could explore more effective uses of staff attorneys and law clerks. We could improve case management systems and technology. All of this has gotten better over the last decade, but there may be a ways to go. Another way we can increase efficiency is to fill the existing vacancies, especially in the circuits and districts where the Judicial Conference has recommended additional judgeships. Two weeks ago, I was proud to sit here and nominate two very talented nominees--Joseph Bianco and Eric Vitaliano, who I recommended the President appoint to the Eastern District of New York. That is one of the districts the Conference has identified in need of judgeships. I am sure that these two nominees will be easily confirmed, and that is going to help. But there are still more than 30 vacancies in which the President has yet to name a candidate, many of which are in circuits and districts identified by the Conference as under- staffed. The Conference, for instance, recommended seven in the Ninth Circuit; there are three vacancies there. In the Central District of California, four additional judgeships were recommended. We have five present vacancies without a nominee. It is not the Congress's fault; it is really the President in not nominating. In the District of New Jersey, the Conference recommended an additional judgeship. We have two vacancies now. So we could move the process along and we ought to get the White House to fill the vacancies with a little more speed. Finally, before I wrap up, I would like to say a word about the politics in the process. Judge Wilkinson, the former Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit, a man I don't agree with on a lot of legal issues, in his law review article ``The Drawbacks of Growth in the Federal Judiciary,'' points out some of the incentives, legitimate and illegitimate, to create new judgeships. He writes that, quote, ``There may be pressures on elected officials to shift the philosophical outlook of the Federal judiciary by adding more judges of the President's party.'' And I would just remind my colleague we had four vacancies on the D.C. Circuit that were not filled for years when President Clinton was nominating and the Senate was controlled by Republicans. And we didn't do that; we filled vacancies once President Bush came in. So I probably agree that that 12th vacancy should not be filled, but these vacancies were existing a very long time and I would say you could make a plausible argument that politics had something to do with it. So, Mr. Chairman, of course, politics is an illegitimate reason to create new judgeships, and you and Senator Grassley and other Republican members of the Subcommittee, as well as, of course, our Chairman--we will apply the same principles in reviewing the Judicial Conference's request for new judgeships as we did when President Clinton was in the White House. I thank the Chair. I am not going to ask questions. I will submit in some writing because I have got to get back to the other matters at hand, but I want to thank each of our witnesses--Judge Furgeson, Judge Steele and Ms. Spalter, as well as Professor Galanter. Thank you all for being here. Chairman Sessions. Senator Grassley chairs the Finance Committee and all of us feel this pressure on cost. We want to do the very best for justice that we possibly can, but everybody in the world that I know is not being asked to do more for less, but actually is doing more for less, and that is a good thing. We have, of course, developed procedures through word processing that can be recalled from years before, rulings on certain matters. We have by and large two law clerks per district judge, three per circuit judge, I believe. So we have done a lot of things well. And then I believe the judges deserve credit for seeing the decline in trials. I don't think that has occurred just totally without the judges' participation. I think judges are working harder to encourage disposition of cases. Judge DuBose, a magistrate judge, was here yesterday, and I asked her about the magistrate's role in case disposition. She volunteered that Judge Steele, when he was a magistrate judge, in every single meeting with the parties asked whether or not he could help them facilitate the settlement of the case. Do you still do that, Judge Steele? Judge Steele. I do, yes. Chairman Sessions. And do you think that sort of breaks down some of the hostility and can increase the likelihood of settlements? Judge Steele. Certainly, I think it does, and I think the offer of a magistrate judge to help settle a case in many cases will-- Chairman Sessions. When you say offer, you say to act as sort of a mediator? Judge Steele. Yes, act as a settlement conference judge or a mediator. Chairman Sessions. Ms. Spalter, do you think that Federal judges are doing a better job from the lawyer's experience in facilitating mediation and settlement of cases? Ms. Spalter. I don't think there is any doubt about that, Mr. Chairman. I think you see more and more of that everyday. One, I think it is a good thing and the lawyers appreciate it, but I think there is part of it that is done because the caseload is so large that if we tried every case, you know, where would we be? We would never have the ability to get through the process. Chairman Sessions. You are right about that. Judge Steele, it does take some time from a judge's point of view to help facilitate settlement. I mean, it is not as if you don't spend any time on that subject, I guess it is fair to say. Judge Steele. Well, it, of course, takes time in discussing the issues with the lawyers and to find out what it is that is really at stake and where the hot-button issues are that need to be resolved. And then if a magistrate judge is conducting a settlement conference, it takes a considerable amount of time from that judge to actually hold the conference. Chairman Sessions. With regard to magistrate judges, Judge Steele, in your experience, do you have any indication of how many other districts fully utilize the magistrate judges, and do you believe that that can lessen the caseload burden on the district judges if they are fully utilized? Judge Steele. To answer the first question, I don't have the numbers. I am sure the Administrative Office could produce those if requested. In answer to the second part of the question, yes, sir, the experience in the Southern District of Alabama was exactly that. By full utilization of magistrate judges, we were able to reduce the pressures and the workload of, at one time, our one district judge so that that judge could do the things that he needed to do, which was to try criminal cases and some civil cases, and actually be more effective in his case management. Chairman Sessions. But there is a privilege all Americans are given in Federal court that the fundamental issues are decided by an Article III lifetime-appointed Federal judge. Can you tell us what those basic standards are, what a magistrate can do and what a magistrate judge is not allowed to do? Judge Steele. Well, the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge is defined by 28 U.S.C. Section 636 and it allows a magistrate judge to do just about anything a district judge can do, except try criminal felony cases and sentence in a felony case. A magistrate judge is allowed to try civil cases, with the consent of the parties, under 636(c). Chairman Sessions. But only with consent of the parties? Judge Steele. With consent, right, but the limits of the jurisdiction are defined by that statute and it was our intent not to expand the jurisdiction of the magistrate judges in our district, but to fully utilize them within the limits of that Congressionally given jurisdiction. Chairman Sessions. Now that you will be assuming that Judge DuBose's confirmation will go forward--and she also was a magistrate judge, leaving you a vacancy in the magistrate judges' positions--I understand that you have made a decision about filling that vacancy. Would you share that with us--or the court has? Judge Steele. Well, the decision was not to fill the vacancy, and the decision was based on a number of factors, most of which are statistics-driven. We have experienced a decline in filings in our district and the crisis that we faced back in the mid-1990s when we went to four district judges is no longer upon us. So without the crisis, without the justification in terms of numbers, we didn't see fit to request that that position be filled. We want to leave it open, of course, in case our numbers come back up. And if they do and if we can justify it at that time, then we will ask that it be filled. Chairman Sessions. Well, I thank you for being frugal with the taxpayers' money. Some may have found otherwise. Judge Furgeson, do you have any thoughts about how many of the districts are fully utilizing the magistrates and how many are not? What about yours? Judge Furgeson. I can only talk about my district, but in my district I think the district judges see the magistrate judges as their partners in moving the dockets, and the relationship between the magistrate judges and the district judges is a very close and cooperative one. I would be surprised if that weren't the case through most of the United States. Magistrate judges are highly qualified. They are selected through a very careful process. Chairman Sessions. Would you point that out? I mean, it is a non-political review by the judges of the district court, is that not correct? Judge Furgeson. Yes. Chairman Sessions. Will you tell us how that works, generally? Judge Furgeson. Certainly. What happens is once a vacancy comes up, a Committee is appointed to screen applicants, and it is normally a blue-ribbon Committee selected by all the judges in the district. That Committee then takes applications. The applications come in, and we have had vacancies recently where 30, 40, 50 people have applied for the job. Then the Committee does a very thorough job. This is all volunteer work by a bar committee, also with lay representatives. After they finish, they normally give a recommendation. And, Judge Steele, you can help me with this. I think they rate the top five people-- Judge Steele. Top five prospects. Judge Furgeson [continuing]. In order of preference. My experience has been that almost every time the district judges accept the number one nominee and that person, at least I have certainly found in my district, is normally a very accomplished either lawyer or State judge who is every bit the judicial officer of our district judges. And we embrace our magistrate judges and, as I say, make them full partners in our effort. Chairman Sessions. Well, that certainly was not the role of the magistrate judge in the 1970s when I first was an Assistant United States Attorney. They were pretty much part-time jobs, often away from the main courthouse. They handled pre-trial criminal cases and motions, and set bail and things of that nature. But it has been a real revolution and I do think that Congress has a responsibility to ask before we fill a vacancy if perhaps that district could perform better if they utilized the magistrates completely. A trial is a big thing. I think we have got to look hard at these numbers, what they really mean, and I do think that there is a fear on the part of the judiciary that if they don't ask for enough judges, we are probably going to give half, so you want to be sure you ask for enough, on the theory you are not going to get all you ask for. And you probably should start early because the sooner you start, it might be years before it ever gets filled and then caseloads go up and down. But this decline in the number of cases actually going to trial, I do think makes a difference. Does that argue against-- how many-- Judge Furgeson. Sixty-eight. Chairman Sessions [continuing]. Sixty-eight judges, Judge Furgeson? Judge Furgeson. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe it does because of the process we use. Remember, first, we weight the cases, and so we look at people who have elevated caseloads based upon the weighting factor, so we are comparing apples and apples. Then we ask the judges themselves to fill out a very comprehensive survey, and in that survey they have to talk about utilization of magistrate judges, utilization of visiting judges, utilization of senior judges. They have to go through and give us that information. After that is initiated, it goes to our statistics subcommittee. They scrub it. It then goes to our judicial councils. And as you know, our judicial councils are populated by half appellate and half district judges, and they take a very careful look at those. Appellate judges are very careful about especially analyzing what district judge requests are. Then it comes back to the subcommittee, then to the full committee, and then to the Conference. As I say, our goal is not for the Federal judiciary to grow at a rapid rate. Judge Steele is here and he can give you his opinion, but my opinion is the Federal judiciary thinks that we have a unique position in the Constitution. We want to be careful about the number of judges that we have in the Nation. We certainly don't want to have any more than we absolutely need. I think there is a feeling in the judiciary that to add lots of judges in the system over time could diminish the special nature of the courts, and so I think we want to be very careful. That is why I think, for example, that you find a circuit like the Eleventh Circuit or like the Fifth that says we are carrying a very heavy workload, but we don't want to ask for judges. I sit on a border court. We probably just on weighted case filings could ask for, I don't know, three, four or five more judges. We haven't asked for any. Our goal, again, is that we believe that it should be a very careful process and we have just decided we are going to stay where we are. So I do believe our system of looking at formulas and then looking at conditions on the ground and scrubbing through a very careful vetting process brings us to a good number. Chairman Sessions. Judge, when you see those numbers like 600 at the Eleventh Circuit or 500 for the Ninth--this is for the circuit now--those are weighted appeals, or not? Judge Furgeson. I am glad you made that differentiation. We have weighted numbers on the district bench. We have talked to our appellate judges about how they think is the best way to look at their cases and the only adjustment they make in raw case numbers is with pro se cases. A pro se case is the equivalent of one-third of a case. In other words, we will take all the pro se cases in a circuit on appeal. To make this easy, say there are 300 of them. They will count as 100 cases, and that is the only kind of adjustment we make at the appellate level and that is because in talking to our appellate judges, at least at this point, they think those are the only kind of adjustments that should be made in their caseload. Chairman Sessions. Well, obviously, that is not correct, as we both know. Judge Furgeson. I beg your pardon? Chairman Sessions. Obviously, that is not an accurate way of doing business because you take a big asbestos class action or some of these cases, it should take a lot more, I would think. But I did notice that the Ninth Circuit is counting 6,000 immigration cases, that they have had an increase of 6,000 over the last so many years, but surely those are not as complex as many of the other cases. Surely, they are raising the same issues repeatedly there. Wouldn't you agree? And as a practical matter, surely, on average, each case would take less time. Judge Furgeson. Let me just put it this way, Mr. Chairman: I am a district judge. We are-- Chairman Sessions. I am asking you to judge the circuit judges. You have got a real opportunity. Judge Furgeson. That is right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, on the record. We are guided to a great extent by what our appellate judges have told us. Now, I would think that you are exactly right that there are appeals and then there are appeals. What our circuit judges tell us is it all balances out. Chairman Sessions. Well, that could be true. Judge Furgeson. That is what they tell us. Chairman Sessions. But in the Ninth Circuit, I think, as I recall from our previous hearing on whether it should be divided, the other cases are down. The increase is entirely immigration appeals. So I think that suggests less of a crisis. They have a high caseload. You mentioned the Ninth Circuit. They are over 500 cases, where I think the Eleventh is 640 and the Fifth had more cases than the Ninth. Judge Furgeson. I have got those numbers for you if you would like them for the record. Chairman Sessions. If you have those numbers-- Judge Furgeson. I do, for the circuits. Chairman Sessions. So they have a heavy caseload and we are trying to move legislation that would give them some new judges. Judge Furgeson. Adjusted filings per panel--the Second Circuit, which is asking for two, right now has 1,164 cases. The Ninth Circuit has 1,225 cases. You have mentioned the Fifth, which has adjusted filings per panel of 1,227 cases, and the Eleventh which has adjusted filings per panel of 1,239 cases. Chairman Sessions. They are pretty close together, according to those numbers. Judge Furgeson. That is correct. Chairman Sessions. That is per panel? Judge Furgeson. Per panel, yes, sir. Chairman Sessions. Well, the numbers we were using were per judge, I think. Judge Furgeson. OK, and that would explain the difference. Chairman Sessions. The 600, 500 range for those three circuits. I don't know what the level is at the Second. Well, on the weighting, Judge Steele said he was on a panel, he told me earlier, on which they discussed the weighting and everybody had different ideas, but nobody came up with anything any better. Is that a fair summary of it, Judge? Judge Steele. I think so. I was a representative for my district for the Eleventh Circuit, and I think we had representatives from every district court in the Eleventh Circuit that met in Atlanta and participated in that weighting program. It was an open discussion about how cases should be weighted and I think the bottom line was that they produced a result which could be relied on. I think that was the bottom line. Chairman Sessions. There is no serious concern by a large number of judges that the weighting system is clearly inaccurate or fails to meet its goals? Judge Steele. I don't sense that there is. That is my take on things. Chairman Sessions. Judge Furgeson, do you have any thoughts about that? If the weighting system is wrong, then we have got a difficult problem. Judge Furgeson. I agree with Judge Steele and I am glad Judge Steele participated in that process. We had, as I said, over 100 judges and we were looking at over 300,000 different events in our court system. You know, to some extent the third branch is like the first branch, Mr. Chairman. We do get disagreements from time to time among each other, but I think there is a generally broad acceptance in the district courts of the weighting system and the legitimacy of the weighting system. That is at least my view. Chairman Sessions. There is just no doubt about it. I mean, personally, we had just two judges and one was newly on the bench and within a few weeks he had to try a 7-week trial that I tried, and 2 weeks of full-time motions before. A big trial has got to be weighted more than a guilty plea or a small 1-day trial. Do you think they fairly rate these big cases that are really extraordinary that can affect 6 months or maybe even a year of a judge's time? Chairman Sessions. There is no question about it, and I am sure Judge Steele has the same experience. I have been in trial in one case for 11 weeks and it really wrecks your docket to be in a trial like that. Again, over time, more complex cases require that more complex trial attention, and I do think that is considered in the weighting formulas. I think it does balance out over time. Chairman Sessions. Well, you could see a few more bigger cases, like class action that we passed that will have more of those going into Federal court, which I think is perfectly appropriate in these cases, as we designated them, that are utterly interstate. I mean, they involve perhaps every State in America. Any ruling rendered would impact the entire credit card system of this country or whatever it might be. I think it is appropriate. I know the judges sometimes say, well, don't give us these cases. But I think those are good cases to go to Federal court, and you may see us give you more of that as time goes by. I believe in States' rights and their authority to handle the criminal cases, the murders, the rapes, the robberies that occur in their communities. But some of these matters involve companies that could be subjected to 50 different legal tests or whatever. So I think you could see more of that in the future. Ms. Spalter, you mentioned increases in numbers of filings. I thought I heard you say from 1990, but I am not sure. What was the basis for your statement that the number of filings had increased? Ms. Spalter. Actually, it comes from the Judicial Conference's report, and I think I heard Judge Furgeson earlier say about the same number, about 40 percent. Chairman Sessions. From 1990? Ms. Spalter. From 1990. Chairman Sessions. Apparently, it peaks around 2000 and has decreased in some areas since then. Well, this has been a very interesting hearing. It is a matter that we need to take seriously. Perhaps this Committee can figure a way to be affirmative in recommending to the full Senate how we should proceed, what vacancies should be filled and in what order. But this is the political branch, I have to tell you, and Senators are very clever sometimes. If all you need to do is approve a Federal judge for them to get their vote, they might get a Federal judge approved, which we would like to reduce as much as possible. And, frankly, as you can see from the number of judges that we have added, we haven't had too many, and I have felt that Arizona, Southern California and Southern Florida have clearly demonstrated a surge in case filings in the last 15 years and they have gotten most of the judges. Most of the judges that have been added have been in those districts that I think have the most serious need. There may have been some aberrational decisions made, but fundamentally most of the resources that we have put out, I think, have gone to districts in need. Senators Grassley, Leahy and Hagel have statements that they have submitted for the record, and we will keep this record open for 1 week for additional submissions. And if you chose to submit anything during that time, you could. Senator Grassley wanted to be here. He takes an interest in this. If he had been here, he might have asked you about your trips and your vacations. His theory was if you had so much work to do, why do you take these trips? But he is a patriot who has courts as one of his highest interests. He is managing the tax bill on the floor right now. Otherwise, he would be with us. Do you have any other comments you would like to add at this time? Judge Furgeson. Could I ask you a question, Mr. Chairman? Chairman Sessions. Yes, Judge Furgeson. Judge Furgeson. There was some controversy--that may not be the right word--there was just some question about how we count trials. I take it, though, that that is not a major issue here and there would be no necessity here for me to submit any papers on that. If you needed some more information--I just wasn't clear that the professor was absolutely correct about how we count trials, for example, if you have a multi-defendant case, if you count every defendant or not. So if there is no necessity of clearing up that little dispute, I won't make any submission on that. Chairman Sessions. Well, we would be delighted if you have anything to offer on it. It does appear that you have more than a 50-percent decline in actual trials in criminal, and maybe more than that in civil, which does impact, I believe, how we evaluate the number of judges that should be added to the judiciary. But feel free to offer anything and you are not obligated to. Judge Furgeson. And I do agree with the professor's overall point that there is clearly a decline in trials, and so this would be probably just a minor issue. And with your permission, I won't add anything to that. Chairman Sessions. Would you like to briefly speculate why? Judge Furgeson. I would be interested to hear my other panelists about that. I think there are several reasons. The Supreme Court had a trilogy of cases back in the early 1980's-- I think it was the early 1980's--where they talked about a different view toward summary judgments. When I first started practicing, it was like nobody grants summary judgments; you just don't grant them. The Supreme Court in the Celotex case and some of those other cases said, no, summary judgments are not disfavored; if there is an appropriate failure of proof, you need to grant summary judgments. And I think after that Federal courts began to grant more summary judgments. And those, by the way, are the basis for, as you suggested, some of the appeals that go up in the circuit. I think, too, there has been a movement toward arbitration and mediation. Many large companies now when they sign contracts with each other put in binding arbitration requirements, and so that takes the cases out of the court. Often, I will get a case that will be filed in my court and the other side will say, wait a minute, there is a binding arbitration clause in that case. So I will have to then stay the case, require arbitration, and then enter an order approving the arbitration after it is finished. That means no trial under any circumstances. So I think those are two of the reasons why. There is a different mix of cases now. You know, cases are sometimes more complex and sometimes it is very difficult for those people to finally take the risk of going to trial in a really complex case. And sometimes it just depends on the jurisdiction. I used to handle the Pecos division way out in the middle of nowhere in Texas. I tried 25 or 30 jury trials a year out there. I mean, we were trying them right and left. I get to San Antonio and I am lucky to get, you know, ten jury trials a year. Sometimes, it has to do with the culture of a particular jurisdiction. So it is several different reasons and my panelists may have some other ideas about that. Chairman Sessions. Those are interesting thoughts. I think all are very relevant. Judge Steele, do you have anything to add? Judge Steele. I would agree with Judge Furgeson, and I might add also that I think better case management by district judges and by the court in its entirety is also responsible for a reduction in trials. I think we see that. We have early intervention in cases, or earlier intervention in cases with regard to settlement conferences, and just the fact that the cases are more closely managed and the discovery issues are resolved early on so that there is not this continuing battle about what is at stake in a case. The parties are able to see what the issues are and focus on the issues much earlier and then resolve them themselves in most cases. With regard to criminal cases, I agree with you that I think the sentencing guidelines had a substantial effect on the number of criminal cases that would go to trial. But I also would be interested to see the long-term effect of the Booker v. Fanfan decision on that because I think in the Southern District of Alabama we are seeing more criminal cases go to trial right now, for a couple of reasons, but I think the defendants are more willing to roll the dice if they think they can later convince a judge that you don't have to follow the guidelines now and you can give me a break on the sentence. So I would be interested to see the long-term effect of that decision. Chairman Sessions. I wouldn't be surprised about that. I won't ask you to comment, but one thing, I think, that occurred that almost never occurred in State court but I believe is occurring a lot in Federal court is partial summary judgment, where a judge will say, well, those causes of action--three of the six you have got are no good, there is no basis for those; we will go to trial on only those three. Do you think that sometimes, Judge Steele, would facilitate settlement of the case? Judge Steele. Absolutely, and I have seen it time and time again where that decision by a district judge to eliminate certain claims forces settlement. You know, the parties start talking a little more seriously about what is at stake. Chairman Sessions. As long as a plaintiff still has dreams that they might prevail. Ms. Spalter, do you have any comments or thoughts on that? Ms. Spalter. I do, Mr. Chairman, if I might. I believe that one of the reasons we are seeing fewer trials is the rising costs of civil litigation. And it is interesting because I think part of the rising cost is attributable to the fact that it takes longer to get to trial and I think that is caused by the increase in the criminal cases, which, of course, statutorily require that they trump civil cases many times. In fact, I have heard anecdotally in traveling just in my short time so far as President of the Federal Bar Association stories like that. I heard one just recently where a division of a district is short-handed and so, in fact, some cases in that division end up being tried by a judge in the division here. For instance, it happened to be the inland empire of California, and then they may get a magistrate assigned from Los Angeles. Well, the client is going to pay for that. So there is a rising cost, in general, of this that is going to the clients, and I do think that rising cost then circles around and also is one of the reasons for the reduction in trials. Chairman Sessions. You know, there was a real concern about the time the sentencing guidelines--I know it was a concern in the Southern District of Alabama when they were short of judges, but my impression is the case data does not show delayed disposition of cases across the board. Are there any numbers on that? Does either one of you know that? Judge Furgeson. I do believe there are numbers and I think you are pretty much on. I don't believe nationwide there has been a big change from time of filing to time of disposition. Now, in some districts that may be different, especially districts which may get really heavily burdened with criminal cases. The Southern District of California would be one of them. Chairman Sessions. Well, these are all very important issues. I would say this with certainty and with the greatest respect: I believe we have a marvelous Federal judiciary. I think they work hard and I think they work their staffs hard. I think they produce justice as well as we can produce it day after day, and I believe, from the Administrative Office on down, they have been encouraged to manage better. Better management has allowed the judiciary to handle more cases than they ever have before, and we would really be in a crisis today had that not happened if we were still disposing of cases as we did 25 years ago. So we are interested in making sure that those districts that have the needs get them filled. We will be discussing that more and maybe we can get some done this year or next. Thank you so much. If there is nothing further to come before our Subcommittee, we will stand in adjournment. [Whereupon, at 4:49 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] [Questions and submissions follows.] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]