Tag: legislation

Federal judiciary warned of effects of budget shortfall

A press release from the U.S. Courts highlights concerns that Congressional inaction on the federal budget will leave the federal courts about $800 million short of what they need to operate in the coming year.

The judicial branch has requested $9.4 billion in discretionary funding for Fiscal Year 2026. (If that sounds like a lot, consider that the discretionary budget for the Department of the Interior alone was nearly double that amount for FY2025, and the judiciary is an entire branch of government.) However, the requested amount is hardly assured. If Congress chooses to operate under another full-year continuing resolution for the coming year instead of passing a new budget, the courts would expect to receive only $8.6 billion, a nearly 10% shortfall in requested funds.

More limited appropriations could hurt the federal courts’ implementation of courthouse security and cybersecurity measures, IT modernization, and funding attorneys for indigent defendants. The new Fiscal Year starts October 1.

House reintroduces JUDGES Act

The JUDGES Act, a bill that would have added 66 new federal judgeships over ten years, received bipartisan support in the last Congress before it was coldly vetoed by Joe Biden in the waning days on his presidency. This blog took Biden to task for a petty act of partisanship, denying a co-equal branch of government its basic needs just because an opposite-party president would have the opportunity to fill the first tranch of judgeships.

Rep. Darrell Issa has now reintroduced the Act, aiming at adding the same 66 new judgeships as before. And as before, Democrats are playing games. Representatives like Jamie Raskin, who certainly should know better, will continue to delay the legislation and punish the judiciary for no viable reason.

The bill worked its way out of committee on a party-line vote, but it’s hard to be optimistic that the courts will get this much-needed influx of judges anytime soon.

Georgia legislature advances bill to keep judges’ private information out of public records

The Georgia House Judiciary Committee had advanced a bill that would shield personal information of state judges. The bill would allow judges to submit certain forms through the state Administrative Office of the Courts. The AOC would then forward information to the relevant local authorities, which would be charged with removing the judges’ personal information from public records.

The bill comes in response to ongoing threats to the judiciary across the United States. Keeping judicial addresses and phone numbers confidential is a small way to prevent harassment by dissatisfied litigants or others.

Illinois courts grapple with forum shopping law

The Judicial Conference of the United States made headlines last March when it instituted a new policy designed to prevent plaintiffs from strategically choosing a particular court (and really a particular judge) to hear their cases. The move toward random case assignment was an effort to balance a plaintiff’s traditional power to choose the forum (subject to important jurisdictional and venue limitations) against the growing scourge of “judge shopping” in cases seeking nationwide injunctions against federal government policies.

The Illinois Supreme Court is now confronting a similar question about a plaintiff’s limits on the choice of forum. In 2023, the Illinois legislature passed a law that requires constitutional challenges to state laws to be filed in either Cook County (the state’s largest county) or Sangamon County (the seat of state government). The law appears to have been a reaction to a series of lawsuits challenging legislation ending cash bail, banning assault weapons, or mandating specific actions in light of COVID-19. By limiting such suits (and those like them) to two designated counties, the state can restrict plaintiffs from selecting a court elsewhere in the state whose judges might be more sympathetic to a constitutional challenge. (Remember that Illinois trial judges are elected, and their political leanings may be easier to decipher as a result.)

But what if the plaintiff’s closest and most convenient court is not one of the two designated in the law? In the case now before the Illinois Supreme Court, a gun shop located in East Alton (just across the border from St. Louis, Missouri) brought a challenge to the constitutionality of a 2023 firearms regulation. The case was filed in Madison County, the plaintiff’s home county, whose courthouse is located about half an hour away. Citing the forum shopping law, the state (as defendant) tried to move the case to Sangamon County, which is about 90 minutes away. The judge based in Madison County denied the motion, arguing that forum shopping law denied parties their due process rights by depriving them of their ability to mount their best possible case. The state appealed.

On the face of it, this case is not an obvious example of forum shopping. The Madison County court is indeed the home court of the plaintiff and the most convenient location. Moreover, if judges are randomly assigned cases within a judicial circuit, Madison County does not provide a strategic advantage over Sangamon County. The former (located in the state’s Third Judicial Circuit) has 20 circuit judges; the latter (located in the Seventh Judicial Circuit) has 21. In either case a random assignment would give a plaintiff only a 5% chance of landing a specific judge.

Underlying all of this is the state legislature’s engagement in the administrative workings of the courts. It will be interesting to see how the state supreme court untangles this issue.

House votes to add 66 new federal judgeships; will Biden veto?

This week, the House of Representatives comfortably passed the JUDGES Act (S.4199), which would add 66 federal judgeships over the next ten years. The judgeships would be phased in over ten years, with the first two tranches coming in 2025 and 2027.

The Senate passed the same bill back in August, but House Republicans stalled a vote on the bill until after the election. Now that Donald Trump will return to the White House, the House Democrats decided that it was their turn to play politics with the judiciary and slow-played the vote until mid-December.

This is an excellent result for a resource-starved judiciary. But it appears that the drama will continue for a while, as President Biden has threatened to veto the bill on his way out the door. It’s worth unpacking the illogic and petulance of his threat.

Continue reading “House votes to add 66 new federal judgeships; will Biden veto?”

New Florida state budget will increase judicial salaries, repair courthouses, hire more court staff

Florida’s $116.5 billion state budget for the coming year will include about $741 million for the judiciary, an increase of just over $30 million from last year. The money will go to–among other things–3% salary bumps for judges and other judicial branch employees, hiring 101 new FTEs throughout the court system, and improvements to existing courthouses.

More federal judges on the way?

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.

Senate passes bill to improve security for state judges

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 legislature advances measure to eliminate judicial term limits

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”

Judges speak out about growing threats of violence. Should they be able to arm themselves more easily?

This week, members of the Idaho Supreme Court issued a statement claiming that they, their families, and their employees have been targeted with threats and harrassment: “when disagreement becomes personal, to the point of threats against personal safety and security … a line has been crossed.” Threats of violence are now commonplace for many state and federal judges. And all too frequently, real violence erupts with tragic consequences.

Congress passed legislation last year that would increase security for federal judges. And now a Republican legislator is proposing a bill that would make it easier for federal judges to arm themselves on their way in and out of the courthouse.

It’s a difficult policy question as to whether the security of judges and their families is enhanced by easing their own access to firearms. But plainly more needs to be done to build confidence that those in the judiciary are safe from threats of violence and harassment simply for doing their jobs.