Underfunding and Workload

Federal funding and workload

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts published a study detailing the changes in federal judicial caseloads over a five year period from 1993 to 1997.  [i]  The study finds that the “major trend emerging from the last five years of bankruptcy, civil, and appeals data is that the federal courts’ caseload has increased.”  [ii]

Administrative Office Director Leonidas Ralph Mecham has said, “The workload of the federal Judiciary has increased dramatically.  This five-year look back . . . tells us what influences our caseload.  And all indications are that our future caseloads will be larger and the demands on judicial resources even greater in the years to come.”  [iii]  Growing federal judicial caseloads and their impact on judicial workload are aggravated by vacancies in judgeship positions.  The study notes, “On July 1, 1997, in the U.S. District Courts, 73 vacancies existed among the 647 district judgeship positions authorized.”  [iv]  Currently there are 76 vacancies in the federal court system with 36 nominees pending.  [v]

Another problem affecting federal judicial case and workloads is the federalization of traditionally state crimes.  Making state crimes federal offenses does not accomplish significant changes in crime rates.  Chief Judge Marvin E. Aspen notes, “In most instances, it really makes no sense to federalize a state crime because it really has no impact at all on crime rates or law enforcement.”  Aspen explained the impact on federal courts, saying, “When these cases are added to the smaller federal court system they add significantly to the workload.”  [vi]

Growing judicial case- and workloads necessitate an expansion in support staff and court facilities.  Without Congress approving funding, courts are constrained to effectively manage these caseloads.  For example, Judge Norman H. Stahl of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit stated, “Over the past 10 to 15 years, there has been an enormous increase in the workload of the federal judiciary, resulting in a similar increase in the personnel need by the courts . . . .”  Noting the demand for new judges, Stahl stated, “The need for additional court space . . . will grow more urgent in the future.”  [vii]  Judge Jane Roth of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals echoed Stahl’s concerns, stating, “While the number of judges and court employees has grown to meet the needs of a rapidly increasing caseload, court facilities have often not kept pace.”  [viii]

Judicial independence is threatened by underfunding and workload in two specific ways.  First, the judiciary cannot work independently if it lacks sufficient funds.  The effective administration of justice becomes impaired when the system lacks sufficient numbers of judges and support staff as well as adequate facilities.  This problem leads to legislative influence and control over the judiciary because the legislature controls the purse strings.  The judiciary cannot reduce the caseload or workload on its own; it must look to the legislature to approve funds to make needed changes and improvements.  Legislators may be reluctant to approve necessary funds when they perceive judges as being too independent—failing to decide cases the way legislators want them to.

State funding and workload

State courts face funding and caseload problems similar to those of the federal courts.  Lack of funds leaves state courts to face increasing caseloads with inadequate numbers of judges, support personnel, and facilities.  For example, in Virginia, Cathy Agee, Director of Personnel for the state court system, has said, “The two main reasons for the workload are that the caseloads have increased and new regulations and procedures have created more work in handling those cases.”  [ix]  The increasing complexity of cases leads to more time spent on each case, and the consequent need for more judges.  Court administrators in Georgia have commented on this problem.  Art O’Neill, court administrator in Gwinnett, has said, “Five years ago, a criminal State Court jury case would take less than a day . . . .  Now it takes two days a case.  Civil cases used to take a day and a quarter.  Now they take two and three quarters days.”  [x]

Washington state courts are experiencing similar problems.  Philip Talmadge, justice of the Washington State Supreme Court, addresses the paucity of judges in relation to increasing caseloads.  While both numbers of judges and cases have increased in the state, there have not been corresponding increases, “A 64 percent increase in cases, but only a 36 percent increase in the number of judges.”  [xi]

State courts face the same independence issues resulting from underfunding and heavy workloads as federal courts.  They cannot adequately serve justice without increased funds to provide for necessary support staff and other needs, yet they are unable to change this situation without depending on the legislature.  These circumstances put the courts in the position of being beholden to the legislature, and allows the legislature to exert subtle and overt influence over the courts by using funding as a bargaining chip for decisions they desire.

[i] For more information see Federal Judicial Caseload: A Five-Year Retrospective, published by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.  The study is available online at http://uscourts.gov/publications.html. 

[ii] Federal Judicial Caseload: A Five-Year Retrospective, published by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts at page 1.  The study is available online at http://uscourts.gov/publications.html.  See also:  Study: Judges Workload At Record High, Consumer Bankruptcy News, Vol. 8, Issue 10, February 11, 1999. 

[iii] Study: Judges Workload At Record High, Consumer Bankruptcy News, Vol. 8, Issue 10, February 11, 1999.

[iv] See the Study at page 12. 

[v] www.uscourts.gov/vacancies/judgevacancy.htm.

[vi] Congress Making a Federal Case of Too Much, Judge Warns, Brendan Stephens, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, June 15, 1998. 

[vii] Judge Norman H. Stahl’s testimony before the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure United States House of Representatives on the Courthouse Construction Program and the Fiscal Year 1999 Budget. 

[viii] Judge Jane R. Roth’s statement before the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives on the Courthouse Construction Program for Fiscal Year 2000. 

[ix] District Courts Feel the Crunch of More Cases Lack of Personnel Also Poses Problems, Charles Boothe, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Sunday, August 17, 1997. 

[x] Senate Gets Bill to Add Fifth Judge Ballooning Workload: State Court Seeing More Cases With More Complexity, Backers Say, Peter J. Kent, The Atlanta Journal-The Atlanta Constitution, Wednesday, March 1, 2000. 

[xi] Justice Says State Courts Need Basis Reworking, Philip Talmadge, The News Tribune Tacoma, WA, Sunday, October, 24, 1999.