Judge Warns Federal Cuts Will 'Strike at the Heart' of Judiciary

Updated 5:53 p.m.

Speaking today at the Judicial Conference's biannual meeting in Washington, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Julia Gibbons warned that sequestration – mandatory budget cuts that went into effect March 1 – put the federal judiciary "in uncharted territory," according to a release from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

Gibbons, who chairs the conference's budget committee, said that the cuts will affect "every facet of court operations." Sequestration required the judiciary to find $350 million in cuts, representing a five percent reduction of the courts' budget this year.

The largest share of those cuts, $93 million, would come from salaries, as previously reported by The National Law Journal. Court officials in each district will have to decide whether to achieve the cuts by closing courts, furloughing employees, or layoffs.

The judiciary has estimated that the cuts could mean that 2,000 employees are laid off this year, or face furloughs for one day each pay period, which would be the equivalent of a 10 percent pay cut. Gibbons told the Judicial Conference that the measure approved to make the cuts "are unsustainable, difficult, and painful to implement."

"Indeed, the Judiciary cannot continue to operate at sequestration funding levels without seriously compromising the Constitutional mission of the federal courts," she said.

As the federal courts weighed cuts, the Judicial Conference accepted the results of a new judgeship survey that called for six new appellate judges and 85 more district judgeships to meet growing federal caseloads across the country. According to the AO, the committee that carried out the survey acknowledged that the current fiscal situation meant they'd have to prioritize which courts could get more judgeships.

The AO identified a slew of other problems posed by sequestration: fewer probation officers to supervise ex-offenders; a 20 percent cut in funding for drug testing and mental health treatment; case processing backlogs because of fewer clerk's office staff; a 30 percent cut in funding for court security systems; delays in payments to court-appointed criminal defense lawyers; and "deep cuts" to information technology programs.

"Reductions of this magnitude strike at the heart of our entire system of justice and spread throughout the country," Gibbons said. "The longer the sequestration stays in place, the more severe will be its impact on the courts and those who use them."

On March 20, Gibbons and U.S. District Senior Judge Thomas Hogan, director of the administrative office, are scheduled to testify before a U.S. House appropriations subcommittee.

A previous version of this article misstated Judge Julia Gibbons title.

Comments

[Avon]

I agree with Jerri Cook that too many crimes have been "federalized" by statute - but they should still be prosecuted, and if the feds don't then the states will have to. Also, the courts only get a criminal case if the prosecutors decide to file one, so even if there are too many laws, clogged courts are not Congress's fault alone.

As to McKinney's opinion - it's he himself who is guilty of "sensational claims based on hyperbole" !! If the cases he doesn't like (which is ALL tort cases) aren't based on the law, or baseless on the facts, they'll indeed be dismissed ... and very possibly punished with sanctions.
If that isn't happening, then the law is that these cases are not frivolous.

It's absolutely ridiculous to blame the courts for following the law when the law is that tortfeasors are accountable.

[Jerri L Cook]

Like the other two branches of government, the judiciary is going to have to cut waste, which includes sensational claims based on hyperbole, not law. Mr. McKinney rightly points this out, but omits the most draining process on the judiciary--the processes of criminal justice.

The legislature has made so many laws that nearly everyone has broken at least one. After a while, this adds up to exorbitant legal expenses for defendants and drains the courts of needed resources. Reign in the legislature, and there will be plenty of resources for the judiciary.

[Darren McKinney]

Judges -- federal and state -- could easily yet significantly lighten the budgetary drag on precious court resources were they to begin aggressively dismissing many of the preposterous, wholly speculative and arguably parasitic civil claims that are filed by the thousands across the country every day.

Instead, many judges in several jurisdictions, such as the Northern District of California that has now become derisively known as the "Food Court" for its absurd embrace of ridiculous food labeling class actions, seem to go out of their way to curry favor with the relentless, if shameless, personal injury bar as our nation's economy and fisc suffer the consequences.

If Judge Gibbons wants to be a real leader in seeking budget solutions, she could start by counseling her colleagues to get tough on those who brazenly clog our courts with get-rich-quick schemes that pose as legitimate litigation, but which the overwhelming majority of reasonable Americans find insultingly illegitimate and corrosive.

Darren McKinney
American Tort Reform Association
Washington, DC

[MJP]

Judge Gibbons is an appellate judge - not a district judge.

[JoshMBlackman]

Judge Gibbons is a Circuit Judge on the 6th Circuit, not a District Court Judge. She was previously a District Court Judge.

[MRDubs]

Judge Gibbons is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; she's not a District Court judge.