Tracking court organization, administration, structure, and strategy
Over the years, there has been no shortage of workarounds for the federal courts’ PACER system, whose fee structure has been widely criticized and even engendered a lawsuit. Here is another workaround, an extensive database of case dockets going back to 2013, compiled by a Newsweek investigative reporter and posted on the Internet Archive.
(h/t Center for Data Innovation.)
This is an interesting article about the shortage of interpreters in the South Dakota court system. The state only has about 80 qualified interpreters, and only a fraction of them speak the primary languages of non-English-speaking litigants: Spanish, Arabic, Swahili, and Dinka.
The lack of qualified interpreters presents a serious access to justice issue. It can delay cases or even corrupt proceedings if the interpreter translates incorrectly. Moreover, interpreters must have familiarity with the technical language of court proceedings in order to be effective.
The article suggests one technology-based solution: bringing in interpreters remotely through videoconferencing. This approach has its own challenges, including technical glitches and lag time, but it may be the best available response at the moment. Still, it only seems a matter of time before high-quality, reliable AI could be used for simultaneous courtroom translation.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has advanced S.4199, a bill that would create 63 new authorized judgeships for the federal district courts. Thirty-one new judgeships would be created effective January 2025, with the rest going into effect in 2029. If it passes the full Senate and the House, it would represent the first comprehensive judgeship legislation since 1990.
This is a big deal. The Judicial Conference of the United States has warned about the mismatch between judicial resources and the federal courts’ growing docket for years, and just last year recommended 66 new district judgeships to keep up with demand. In the past, similar requests have been ignored, often because neither political party was willing to give the other the chance to fill a large number of judicial vacancies.
Our present political divide, however, seems to have provided a unique opportunity. With both parties confident that they will win the Presidency in 2025, it seems a reasonable gamble to authorize the judgeships now. And indeed, the bill passed the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support. We’ll see if it maintains traction going forward.
The Senate has unanimously passed the Countering Threats and Attacks on Our Judges Act, a bipartisan bill to provide additional security measures for state judges. The bill would establish a State Judicial Threat Intelligence and Resource Center, to be housed within the State Judicial Institute, which would provide technical assistance, training, and threat monitoring for state and local judges and court personnel.
The bill is supported by many key players, including the National Center for State Courts, the Conference of Chief Justices, the American Judges Association, and the National Association for Court Management. The bill now moves to the House for further consideration.
Arizona lawmakers have advanced a ballot measure that would eliminate term limits for many state judges, instead making judicial service dependent on “good behavior.” The bill would have retroactive effect, meaning that if voters pass it in November, all judges who currently face periodic retention elections would effectively be granted life terms. This would apply even to judges who lose a retention bid in the same November election.
The immediate practical impact of the measure is to severly curb the number of judicial retention elections, a mainstay in Arizona for decades. Currently, all state appellate judges, as well as Superior Court judges in Coconimo, Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties, face retention at the end of their set terms of office. Under the proposed measure, however, such judges would only face a retention vote upon (1) conviction of a felony or another crime involving fraud or dishonesty, (2) initiation of personal backruptcy proceedings, or (3) a determination by the Judicial Performance Review (JPR) Commission that the judge does not meet performance standards. Continue reading “Arizona legislature advances measure to eliminate judicial term limits”
Last week, a number of Congressional Democrats wrote a letter requesting that the Judicial Conference of the United States make an exception from its longstanding policy of not televising federal criminal trials. The reason for the exception: the defendant is one Donald Trump, and Americans have a right to see the criminal proceedings against him in their full glory.
I spoke to several media outlets (including the Washington Post and NPR) about the prospect of a televised trial. A few additional thoughts follow. Continue reading “Televising the Trump trials”
At its annual meeting this week, the American Bar Association passed a resolution recognizing the many mental health challenges faced by state and federal judges, including exposure to traumatic evidence in the courtroom and increased threats against judges at their homes and workplaces.
The JD Journal reports:
The resolution sheds light on the psychological toll these challenging circumstances take on those within the judiciary and urges national court leaders to develop specialized training and processes. The goal is to provide judges, their support staff, and their families with access to professional, confidential treatment, working in tandem with court security teams.
The catalyst for this resolution has been the unsettling surge in threats and violent incidents targeting judges. Among the distressing incidents mentioned is the arrest of an armed individual outside the residence of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh last year. The assailant was later charged with attempted assassination. Additionally, the tragic 2020 murder of the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, shot by a disgruntled litigant at her New Jersey home, underscores the gravity of the situation.
…
The National Conference of State Trial Judges Chair, Delaware Superior Court Judge Vivian Medinilla, submitted the resolution’s report. The document emphasizes the necessity of shifting attention beyond judges’ well-being and towards the broader group affected by traumatic events – including judges’ staff and their families.
In an arena where exposure to distressing scenarios is all too common, the report argues that these individuals are also at risk of experiencing trauma, whether stemming from explicit threats or the very nature of court proceedings. From complex sentencing hearings to divorce cases, abuse situations, and matters involving sexual crimes, the judicial staff’s exposure to distressing scenarios is extensive.
Yes.
Pandemic shutdowns, “quiet quitting,” and other strains on workplace productivity have become increasingly common over the past few years. The courts are no exception. Law360 has a detailed article on the staffing issues that are affecting state court systems around the country. The article is paywalled, but here is a taste:
In many parts of the country, state court leaders are again raising the alarm about retirements, COVID-related resignations and a tight job market that is luring valuable staff members away. All the empty seats, along with an influx of less-experienced new hires, are slowing the gears of justice and threatening key court functions, from front-door security checks to final case filings at the clerk’s office.
Behind the scenes, administrators are scrambling, pressing lawmakers for more money to juice salaries and identify new recruiting channels, said Danielle Hirsch, managing director at the National Center for State Courts.
“In many courts around the country, vacancies are reaching crisis levels,” Hirsch told Law360 Pulse, referring to a gap between private-sector pay and salaries paid by state courts and other government employers.
“Recruiting and retaining talent is essential, and many courts are embarking on everything from working with state legislators, executive branch agencies and county boards on salaries to identifying new channels for recruiting staff,” she said.
It is probably to soon to say how this will shake out, but if staffing woes continue, it would not be surprising to see court systems start to turn to AI and other technologies to help with the workload.
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is soliciting entities which can help run a simulated cybersecurity breach. The goal is to “identify levels of risk that may not be immediately apparent.” A sensible strategy, given the importance of security within the court system and its own historic vulnerability to attack.
Three stories came across the wire today. A Washington woman was sentenced to nineteen months in prison after she left multiple voice mails for the judge threatening to “put a bullet in [his] head.” A South Bend, Indiana man was arrested at his home after making “disturbing threats” against two local judges. And a Minnesota man was charged after posting a Facebook video in which he threatened a judge and contemplated shooting up a courthouse.
Each of these individuals seems to have been angry about their own legal problems, and in some instances intoxication or mental illness may have been a factor. But they also made these threats in a modern political atmosphere that devalues judges and the court system, and makes personal attacks on judges–whether physical or verbal–almost ordinary. Just a few years ago, the vehemence with which Donald Trump attacked individual judges by name was shocking. Now that tactic has been embraced by the Democrats, who are doing everything they can to cloud the legitimacy of the courts and sully the names (and safety) of jurists who do not fall in line with the progressive agenda.
Do politicians want blood on their hands? They are not responsible for every lunatic who wants to harm a judge, but they could stop creating such fertile ground for lunacy to blossom.
The Interdependent Third Branch 