The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Judicial Conference Recommends 71 New Judgeships, Including Two on the Ninth Circuit
The Judicial Conference again asks Congress to create more judicial seats to address judicial backlogs.
The Judicial Conference of the United States has again asked Congress to create additional judgeships to address burgeoning caseloads in many courts. Specifically, the Judicial Conference has recommended the creation of two additional seats on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and 69 additional district court seats.
From the release:
District court filings have grown by 30 percent since 1990, when the last comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted. Since 1991, the overall number of authorized district court judgeships increased by only four percent.
Burgeoning caseloads can lead to significant case delays. Delays result in increased costs for litigants and raise access to justice concerns, especially in civil cases that may take years to get to trial. Over the past 20 years, the number of civil cases pending more than three years rose 346 percent, from 18,280 on March 31, 2004, to 81,617 on March 31, 2024.
In developing judgeship recommendations, the Conference and its Committee on Judicial Resources use a formal survey process to study and evaluate Article III judgeship needs. Before a judgeship recommendation is transmitted to Congress, it undergoes several levels of careful consideration and review. The surveys are conducted every two years and the resulting recommendations are based on established criteria, including current workload factors and empirical standards.
In fiscal year 2024, weighted filings, which account for the different amounts of time district judges require to resolve various types of civil and criminal actions, were above 500 per judgeship in 20 of the 25 district courts where the Conference is recommending additional judgeships.
In 12 of these courts, weighted filings exceeded 600 per judgeship and in five courts filings were greater than 700 per judgeship. The Conference generally requires district courts to have over 430 weighted filings per judgeship to recommend additional judgeships. Weighted filings data for each district court are published in Federal Court Management Statistics.
The specific recommendations are here.
Last year, Congress passed the JUDGES Act with bipartisan support to create additional judgeships recommended by the Judicial Conference. The Federal Judges Association and Federal Bar Association both endorsed the bill, but President Biden vetoed the legislation because it created seats in districts in which Senators had blocked confirmations and would have created too many seats for his successor to fill.
Ideally, Congress would approve this recommendation quickly, with legislation that staggers the creation of the new seats over the next eight years. In this way, Congress could meet the need of the judiciary while minimizing any partisan advantage from the creation of new seats. That is what Congress tried to do last year. We will see if they try again.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Just start throwing out frivolous suits and charging the idiots that bring them.
You shouldn't talk about President Trump like that.
Ah, the "frivolous litigation" trope.
It should be enshrined next to the "all government workers are lazy" trope.
Add federal judges to speed up the docket and watch those "frivolous" lawsuits drop away. When parties can get speedy resolution, there's less value in bringing strike suits.
The Ninth Circuit needs to be broken up, not added to. Putting aside its partisan lean, it is a huge gangly mess of a circuit. It can't even get a true en banc because of its size. Its size might have served a purpose back when its population was much smaller, but that's no longer the case. They broke up the Fifth Circuit back in the 80s, so there's no reason why the Ninth can't be broken up now (or at least parts of it absorbed into other circuits). And to avoid worries about a current administration getting to fill all the seats, they can just make certain numbers of seats come into existence shortly after the next two or three presidential elections.
Add Arizona to the 10th circuit, make California and Nevada the new 9th circuit, and everything else from the 9th circuit becomes the new 12th circuit. That would neaten the map, and make the circuits reasonably equal in population.
That's not a terrible idea, but I think politically a lot of that wouldn't fly. Maybe California and Hawaii in one district, and the rest in another. Or maybe California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington stay in the Ninth, while the rest become a new circuit. (I would put all the territories in the DC Circuit no matter where they're located, but that's a different issue.) That way the politics remain roughly the same throughout the circuit. (Not that I think politics should matter to judicial rulings, but I'm not naïve enough to understand that they don't. Members of Congress and the state officials would certainly be very invested in which circuit their states ended up in.)
The problem is that California is so big that any possible arrangement is also going to create something weird: a circuit that’s probably still too big, one with too few states, or a state split between multiple circuits. And politically, it’s going to make the things that conservatives dislike about the ninth circuit even worse, so it has an uphill battle there. I’m not saying it won’t happen, and I certainly think it should, but I wouldn’t count on it.
Why not make California its own "circuit"? I doubt any GOPer is going to oppose that, like a quarantine area for crazy decisions.
Conceivably you could do that and it would make things close to bearable for now. California has 15 of the 29 seats on the Ninth Circuit which would make them the second biggest circuit just by themselves.
Nope, the biggest, by population. The second largest circuit after the 9th is the 11th, at 37,274,374. California's population is estimated at 39,531,263. And dropping, of course, but at current rates it could take another decade to drop below the 11th circuit.
By the way, if anybody needs more judges it's the 11th, which has by far the highest ratio of population to number of judges.
Does the 11th have fewer suits per person?
As is pretty obvious from context, MonitorsMost is talking about judgeships.
Yes, that’s the “ d politically, it’s going to make the things that conservatives dislike about the ninth circuit even worse, so it has an uphill battle there”
Who says that a state can't be split?
If California only had one district it couldn't be -- but it has several.
No where does Article III say that you have to respect a state line...
And some states are in two different time zones...
Practicing lawyers? While constitutional, that would be insane in terms of the forum shopping it would lead to.
Of the plausible arguments against splitting a state, I'm not seeing that as one of them. Consider two scenarios:
a. Ninth gets split into CA vs all the other states now in the Ninth
b. Ninth gets split into North-Ninth vs South-Ninth with CA split on the county lines close to the 36th parallel (or if you don't like that, pick some other way of dividing the state)
Why would b lead to any more (or less) forum shopping than a? And how would either lead to significantly more forum shopping than there already is under the status quo?
Why not use the existing District lines -- two in one, two in the other.
There are four Federal districts in California, asd as I understand it, there is no difference between the Northern and Eastern Districts of California than there is between the Districts of New Hampshire and Vermont.
Hence you put the North and East districts in one circuit and the South and West in the other.
There would be no more forum shopping than lawyers deciding to cross the river and file in New Hampshire or Vermont because they are in different circuits. I don't see that happening much.
No one. But it would be weird (in a bad way, which is why we haven’t seen it done or seriously considered.
"I’m not saying it won’t happen, and I certainly think it should, but I wouldn’t count on it."
Yeah, unfortunately, I don't think the Ninth will actually be split up. But if any circuit is ripe for a split, that's the one. And rather than give it more seats, now is as good a time as any to do it.
Abolish the DC circuit and assign Federal appeals randomly to the 11 circuits. Do it mathematically so that attorneys can't play games, and keep jurisdiction with that circuit so attorneys can't play games that way. It would be fair because it's 11 different en bancs.
Either you’re getting the DC Circuit confused with the Federal Circuit, or this is even dumber than usual for you.
I didn't know there WAS a DC circuit and why on earth isn't DC in the 4th Circuit?!?
I was referring to the Federal Circuit, which I presume sits in DC.
That was my immediate reaction, too. I'm less concerned about the partisan lean (because that tends to self-correct over time) but much more concerned about the sheer impossible size of that one circuit. Break it apart into two more manageable circuits.
+1 to Area Man and Bellmore
Alternatively, judges can work smarter and/or harder. Short opinions would help a lot.
No DOGE-ing the Judiciary! 🙂
Most of those new judges will be leftwing judges. For those who might say Trump would never nominate a leftwing judge, look at the people he nominated during his first term; nearly all have proven that they are leftists, not that there was any doubt before they were nominated by Trump.
People forget that Trump is a 1980s moderate to liberal Democrat. Some people can't see it either because they've drunk the Trump Kool-Aid or because they are so far to the left, Stalin was a right-winger compared to them.
Congress needs to pass a new Judiciary Act that completely abolishes all current district courts and courts of appeals. The Act should then create a new set of district courts and appellate courts. Once signed it into law, Article III judges on the lower courts are effectively out of a job. Trump can then reappoint the loyal judges and fill the new vacancies with loyal judges. Tada....a constitutional method for creating a judiciary loyal to Trump, without the need for pesky impeachments.
How's my audition going?
Sounds unconstitutional to me.
To be sure, the current circuit system could be abolished, and the lower judiciary reorganized on a different basis, but you can't effectively fire them all by any pretext.
You have to pay them, but give them a court?
Allow new Federal judgeships to be created and filled in pairs, with required 2/3 Senate confirmation vote. This would require bipartisan deal-making for each pair, eliminating the usual fear of giving the opposing party a political advantage.
> President Biden vetoed the legislation
In Biden's defense, it should be noted that the Republican House had stalled the legislation until after the November 2024 election, when they could be sure a Republican President and Senate would be naming the new judges.