Skip to main content

Federal Judgeships: General Accuracy of District and Appellate Judgeship Case-Related Workload Measures

GAO-03-937T Published: Jun 24, 2003. Publicly Released: Jun 24, 2003.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

GAO appeared before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, House Committee on the Judiciary to discuss the results of our review and assessment of case-related workload measures for district court and courts of appeals judges. Biennially, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's principal policymaking body, assesses the judiciary's needs for additional judgeships. If the Conference determines that additional judgeships are needed, it transmits a request to Congress identifying the number, type (courts of appeals, district, or bankruptcy), and location of the judgeships it is requesting. In assessing the need for additional district and appellate court judgeships, the Judicial Conference considers a variety of information, including responses to its biennial survey of individual courts, temporary increases or decreases in case filings, and other factors specific to an individual court. However, the Conference's analysis begins with the quantitative case-related workload measures it has adopted for the district courts and courts of appeals--weighted case filings and adjusted case filings, respectively. These two measures recognize, to different degrees, that the time demands on judges are largely a function of both the number and complexity of the cases on their dockets. Some types of cases may demand relatively little time and others may require many hours of work.

Full Report

Office of Public Affairs

Topics

Hiring policiesJudgesLabor forcePolicy evaluationStrategic planningWork measurementLaw courtsAppealsCase weightsCase workload