Skip to main content

Federal Judiciary: How the Judicial Conference Assesses the Need for More Judges

GGD-93-31 Published: Jan 29, 1993. Publicly Released: Jan 29, 1993.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the Judicial Conference of the United States' policies, procedures, and methodologies for recommending district and appellate court judgeships, focusing on whether the Conference: (1) accurately measured the workload of existing federal judges; (2) consistently applied methodologies to district courts and courts of appeals; and (3) provided accurate indicators of the need for additional judgeships. GAO also reviewed efforts to: (1) improve case weight measurement of district judges' workload; and (2) develop a more accurate measure of appellate court workload.

Recommendations

Recommendations for Executive Action

Agency Affected Recommendation Status
Judicial Conference of the United States The Conference should provide to Congress all the policies and criteria it uses in making it judgeship recommendations.
Closed – Implemented
In its report to Congress on judgeship needs, the Conference will fully explain its methodology, including the reasons for recommending new judgeships in districts that vary from its general workload threshold for recommending new judgeships.
Judicial Conference of the United States Where it finds that special circumstances in an individual court warrant departure from its general policies and criteria, the Conference should clearly explain the basis for its departure.
Closed – Implemented
Special circumstances are clearly identified to Congress when Conference recommendations for individual courts depart from the Conference's criteria. This process relates to the previous recommendation regarding providing Congress with written explanations for its recommendations. The Subcommittee on Statistics has agreed to provide this information in its report to Congress on the need for additional judgeships. The Judicial Conference will consider in late 1996 a recommendation from the Statistics Committee that a new methodology be developed for assessing appellate judge workload. No specific alternations were recommended.
Judicial Conference of the United States Until the new district court case weights are available, the Conference should indicate where its recommendations reflect its judgement that the 1979 case weights do not reflect the demands that particular types of cases, such as multiple defendant drug cases, place on district judges. The district court case weights should also be revised more regularly.
Closed – Not Implemented
New district court case weights were approved in 1993 and are being used for the report that will be sent to Congress in 1995.
Federal Judicial Center The Conference and the Federal Judicial Center should move to develop a better work-load measure for the courts of appeals.
Closed – Not Implemented
The Subcommittee on Statistics did not approve the Center's proposed initial methodology for the workload of courts of appeals judges. The Center proposed a revised approach that is less work-intensive, which the Subcommittee reviewed and rejected. At this time, the Judicial Conference has no intention of altering the workload measure for courts of appeals judges anytime in the foreseeable future. Therefore, GAO is closing this recommendation.
Judicial Conference of the United States The Conference and the Federal Judicial Center should move to develop a better work-load measure for the courts of appeals.
Closed – Not Implemented
The Subcommittee on Statistics did not approve the Center's proposed initial methodology for the workload of courts of appeals judges. The Center has proposed a revised approach that is less work-intensive, and which the Subcommittee is reviewing.

Full Report

Office of Public Affairs

Topics

Appellate courtsCourts (law)Federal courtsHiring policiesJudgesJudicial procedureWork measurementAsbestosAppealsLaw courts