Suchergebnisse

The Conference held its ninth annual meeting in Washington on October 1-3, 1931. Authorized by the Judiciary Act of September 14, 1922, the conference of the senior circuit judges with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Attorney-General has become an established part of the judicial system of the United States. The reports of these conferences are to be found in the annual reports of the Attorney-General, beginning in 1924. The 1922 and 1923 reports may best be found in the Texas Law Review, Vol. II, pages 445 and 448, and in the Journal of the American Judicature Society, Vol. VIII, pages 85 and 92. In view of the general inaccessibility of the reports of the Attorney-General to the legal profession, it has been suggested that they be published in the Supreme Court Reports. The suggestion has not as yet, however, been adopted.

Thanks to C-Span, video is now available.

The Chief Justice and his associates target only one type of forum shopping in response to political criticism through a secret policy that will not be released for months.

Today Justice Kavanaugh spoke at the Fifth Circuit Judicial Conference in Austin. I was pleased this session was open to the press, and saw several reporters in the room. The Washington Post has an early report. Chief Judge Richman interviewed Justice Kavanaugh. It was a very engaging exchange. I thought Richman ably showed off the…

Rather than addressing bankruptcy and patent forum and judge shopping, on which there is a large bipartisan consensus, the Judicial Conference rushed through a botched proposal in response to political pressure and Twitter noise.

I obtained a copy of the report approved by the Judicial Conference. First, why on earth could this memo not have been issued contemporaneously with the press release? This may be one of the most-botched governmental rollouts since HealthCare.gov. The Executive Committee should carefully re-assess their procedures here. Second, the policy sweeps quite broadly, far…

The Civil Justice Reform Act (CJRA) of 1990 instituted a nationwide experiment with procedures for decreasing expense and delay in federal civil litigation. Congress required all ninety-four federal district courts to adopt civil justice expense and delay reduction plans and to apply cost and delay reduction measures for at least four years.Congress correspondingly prescribed considerable evaluation of the experimentation which the federal districts undertook. The 1990 legislation mandated that each court annually assess the efficacy of the procedures which the district employed. Moreover, Congress required that an "independent organization with expertise in the area of Federal court management" conduct a comprehensive analysis of measures being implemented in the pilot program instituted by ten districts under the CJRA. Congress also mandated that the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking component of the federal courts, in consultation with the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, important research arms of the federal courts, thoroughly scrutinize the effectiveness of procedures which five districts applied in the statutorily-prescribed demonstration program. Furthermore, Congress asked that the Judicial Conference submit to Congress reports on the pilot and demonstration court experimentation and a recommendation on whether the pilot project warranted expansion. The RAND Corporation, the independent entity which undertook the multi-year examination of the pilot program, completed its evaluation of these districts' experimentation during September 1996. The FJC, which had responsibility for assessing the demonstration courts, concluded this study in January 1997. The Judicial Conference submitted its report to Congress during May 1997, and that report is reproduced in last month's advance sheet of Federal Rules Decisions. Because the Judicial Conference report on civil justice reform represents the culmination of this unprecedented experiment with measures for reducing expense and delay, it is important to analyze the Judicial Conference report and the current status of the Civil Justice Reform Act. This essay undertakes that effort. The first section of the essay affords a descriptive assessment of the Judicial Conference report on federal civil justice reform. The second part offers constructive criticisms of the Conference report. The final portion provides suggestions for the future.

A general power to issue orders to judicial employees does not trump a specific power for district courts to make their own rules about case assignments.

This court will not "make any change to our case assignment process at this time."

Now, for better or worse, the Judicial Conference has shown itself to be pliable by the political currents.

"It is Congress that decides how cases should be assigned in the inferior courts and Congress has already spoken on this issue in an enacted statute."