Parties in civil lawsuits are not the only ones caught in legal limbo. Federal courts must prioritize their limited resources to resolve criminal cases as required under the Sixth Amendment and the Speedy Trial Act of 1974. However, with escalating electronic discovery demands, even criminal cases are taking more time to resolve than they did just five years ago. The result is defendants spending more time behind bars before a jury can decide their cases.

“There is an idea that because something is electronic discovery that it has somehow made the process easier,” said Judge Kathleen Williams, of the Southern District of Florida, whose court faces a growing backlog. “It just means that a vast, vast amount of information is now available for review, and that is going to take a significant amount of time.”

The Judiciary employs magistrate judges, senior judges, and even visiting judges to try to reduce case delays. Visiting judges — usually federal judges on senior status — temporarily volunteer their services in jurisdictions with large caseloads to help fill the gaps. But judges say these are Band-Aid measures that are insufficient to resolve case backlogs.

“We rely heavily on our Article I magistrate judges. But there are limits to their authority and while they can assist district judges, they alone cannot solve the shortage of Article III judges that we face,” said Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly, of the District of Delaware. “Oftentimes, using magistrate judges as a replacement for Article III judges creates more work for the court because the parties, especially in complex civil cases, file objections to their recommendations and request that district judges get involved anyway.”

Corrigan, of the Middle District of Florida, said, “We are grateful for our senior district judges. They have been critical to keeping our overloaded courts afloat. However, our senior judges are getting older, and they simply cannot continue to hear cases at the pace that they were able to previously and many of them are understandably retiring from the bench. We need more district judges to support the workload changes our court has seen over the last several decades.”

The last comprehensive judgeship bill for the U.S. courts of appeals and district courts, the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, was enacted more than 30 years ago. 

In 2023, the Judicial Conference of the United States, recommended to Congress the creation of several new district and court of appeals judgeships to meet increased workload demands in certain courts. The recommendations included adding two judgeships to the courts of appeals, adding 66 judgeships to the district courts, converting seven temporary district court judgeships to permanent judgeships, and extending two temporary district court judgeships for an additional five years.

The JUDGES Act, a bill passed by the Senate and pending in the House, would meet many of the Judiciary’s needs for additional judgeships.

Federal judges fear that continued delays will erode public confidence in the Judiciary and the judicial process, steering potential litigants away from federal courts altogether.

“Without having a jury hear your case and a judge rule on legal issues in a timely manner, you stall the progression of legal precedents that are vital to economic, technological, and social advancement, and undermine public trust in the legal system,” Crane said. “Additional Article III judgeships are essential to the system’s well-being.”

Related Topics: Judges & Judgeships