The Courts and Congress – Annual Report 2023
Communication with Congress about Judicial Conference goals, policies, and positions forms the foundation of the Judiciary’s relationship with Congress and its committees and enhances the Judiciary’s role as a coequal branch of government.
The map shows the location of new district court judgeships requested (pdf) by the Judicial Conference to handle increased caseloads. The blue boxes show the number of currently authorized judgeships. The yellow boxes show the number of judgeships that would be added to a district. The red boxes indicate the locations where temporary judgeships would be made permanent under the Conference’s recommendations. The grey boxes indicate an extension of temporary judgeships.
Request for Additional Article III Judges
In 2023, the Judicial Conference of the United States asked Congress to address the critical need for new Article III judgeships throughout the federal courts. At its biannual meeting in March, the Conference recommended creation of two permanent judgeships in the courts of appeals and 66 permanent district court judgeships. The Conference also recommended converting seven temporary district court judgeships to permanent status and extending two existing temporary district court judgeships for an additional five years.
In developing judgeship recommendations, the Judicial 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 within the Judiciary. The surveys are conducted every two years, and the resulting recommendations are based on established criteria, including current workload factors and empirical standards.
In recommending the new judgeships, the Judiciary noted that the number of cases filed has grown significantly since enactment of the last comprehensive judgeship legislation in 1990. At the end of fiscal year (FY) 2023, district court filings had increased 54 percent.
Seven district courts were identified as priorities for expedited action because of their high sustained workloads. The districts and the number of recommended additional judgeships for each are as follows: Eastern California, four; Northern California, six; Delaware, two; Southern Indiana, one; Eastern Texas, two; Southern Texas, four; and Western Texas, six.
In September 2023, Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) introduced the Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act, S. 2759, which would authorize 63 new permanent and three new temporary district judgeships, convert seven temporary judgeships to permanent status, and extend two temporary judgeships for an additional five years. The bill largely mirrored the Judicial Conference’s March recommendation for both additional district judgeships and the conversion of existing temporary judgeships to permanent status. However, the Conference also recommended two permanent judgeships for the Eastern Oklahoma District Court and one permanent judgeship for the Northern Oklahoma District Court. The bill would instead authorize only temporary judgeships in the two districts.
Half of the judgeships would be created in January 2025 and the other half in January 2029. The Senate bill had bipartisan support but had not passed by the end of the first session of the Congress.
Several other bills authorizing fewer judgeships were introduced, generally by members of Congress proposing judgeships for their local courts.
Some temporary extensions of judgeships were included in appropriations bills pending in Congress at the end of the year. House and Senate appropriations bills for Financial Services and General Government, which includes the Judiciary’s funding, provided for one-year extensions of temporary district judgeships in the following districts: Northern Alabama, Arizona, Central California, Southern Florida, Kansas, Eastern Missouri, New Mexico, Western North Carolina, and Eastern Texas. Both bills also included a one-year extension for the temporary district judgeship in Hawaii.
Implementation of the Courthouse Ethics and Transparency Act
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts hired and trained additional staff in 2023 as part of an effort to fully implement the Courthouse Ethics and Transparency Act (CETA). In line with the legislation, passed in 2022, the AO added thousands of judges’ financial disclosure reports to a new online database that provides public access to the reports and processed periodic transaction reports submitted by judges throughout the year. The Judiciary launched the new online service just months after enactment of CETA in May 2022. The bill extended to federal judicial officers the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act requirements for periodic stock transaction reporting, which already were in place for the executive and legislative branches. The legislation also required the online publication of financial disclosure reports.
Judicial Ethics and Financial Disclosure
Media reports about judicial ethics and financial disclosures created considerable interest in Congress in 2023. Several bills were introduced, focused mainly on creating a code of conduct for Supreme Court justices. Other bills included broader provisions dealing with recusals, judicial disqualification, gift and travel disclosures, and other issues. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), chair of the Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), chair of the panel’s subcommittee on oversight, took the lead on those issues in the Senate, convening three hearings. The full Judiciary Committee approved one of the bills, the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act (S. 359), although all Republican members on the panel voted against it. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) introduced a similar bill in the House.
On Nov. 11, 2023, the Supreme Court released its own Code of Ethics. Accompanying the document, the justices said in a statement, “. . . We are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.”