- Joined
- Apr 27, 2023
- Messages
- 1,593
- Reaction score
- 2,126
- Gender
- Male
I bring this up now because the House Judiciary Committee just passed H.R. 1702, the JUDGES Act of 2025, similar to the bill vetoed by President Biden.
District - 2023 Federal Judgeship recommendation - 2025 Federal Judgeship recommendation - (My recommendations, based on the weighted caseloads found in the Federal Court Management Statistics publication of the Judicial Conference and using the Judicial Conference's 430 weighted caseload target)
These are judgeships to be added, not total judgeships.
Arizona - 2 - 3 - (7) - Conference's recommendations well short here.
California Central - 9 - 12 - (12) They actually get it right in California Central and Eastern, but blow it in California Northern and Southern.
California Eastern - 4 - 5 - (5)
California Northern - 6 - 2 - (5)
California Southern - 2 - 0 - (4)
Colorado - 2 - 2 - (3)
Delaware - 2 - 2 - (3)
Florida Middle - 5 - 7 - (7)
Florida Northern - 1 - 1 - (1)
Florida Southern - 3 - 3 - (10) Conference has consistently gotten it wrong here, while managing to get it right this time in Florida Middle and Northern.
Georgia Northern - 2 - 4 - (3)
Idaho - 1 - 1 - (1)
Illinois Northern - 0 - 0 - (1)
Indiana Southern - 1 - 1 - (2)
Iowa Northern - 1 - 1 - (0) The ONLY explanation for requesting a Judgeship here is as a sop to Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Minnesota - 0 - 0 - (2)
Missouri Western - 0 - 0 - (1)
Nebraska - 1 - 1 - (1)
Nevada - 0 - 0 - (1)
New Jersey - 3 - 4 - (5)
New Mexico - 0 - 0 - (1)
New York Eastern - 2 - 2 - (5) The Conference has consistently lowballed New York Southern and Eastern, both critically important districts.
New York Southern - 2 - 2 - (5)
New York Western - 1 - 1 - (1)
North Carolina Eastern - 0 - 0 - (2)
Oklahoma Eastern - 2 - 2 - (0)
Oklahoma Northern - 1 - 1 - (1)
Pennsylvania Middle - 0 - 0 - (1)
South Carolina - 0 - 0 - (1)
Tennessee Middle - 0 - 1 - (1)
Texas Eastern - 2 - 2 - (5)
Texas Northern - 1 - 1 - (4)
Texas Southern - 4 - 2 - (8) The Conference has ridiculously lowballed Texas Southern and lowballed the rest of Texas.
Texas Western - 6 - 6 - (10)
Utah - 0 - 0 - (1)
Washington Western - 0 - 0 - (1)
Wisconsin Western - 0 - 0 - (1)
The Judicial Conference would have created 66 new Judgeships in 2023, 69 in 2025, while I would create 122 new Judgeships. Their recommendations fall way short in a number of districts and don't make any mathematical sense. Meanwhile, they would create an absolutely unneeded Judgeship in the Northern District of Iowa.
In recent years, the only consistency in the Judicial Conference's recommendations has been their inevitable inconsistency. Congress should hire some independent bean counters to crunch the Federal Court Management Statistics and produce judgeship recommendations that reflect the realities demonstrated by those numbers. The Judicial Conference's recommendations simply don't match the weighted caseload in their own statistical sources.
And I don't even address the Circuit Judgeship recommendations above. The Judicial Conference requested 2 Judgeships, both in the Ninth Circuit. By my count, they need 19 Judgeships, 2nd Circuit (2), 5th Circuit (6), 9th Circuit (5), 11th Circuit (6). Part of this is political, in that Congress is unlikely to create new Circuit Judgeships and part of it is a desire not to dilute their own personal power. For example, being one Judge among 12 in the 11th Circuit is more powerful than being one Judge among 18. Increasing the size of the Court of Appeals dilutes the individual power of existing Judges, ergo, they are not likely to recommend new Judgeships, instead resorting to such tactics as unpublished opinions to deal with the overwhelming caseload. This is not a factor with District Judges, only with Circuit Judges.
Congress at least recognizes this problem. In the legislation they passed that was vetoed by President Biden, language was included requiring the Judicial Conference to "show their work" when issuing Judgeship recommendations. They would have been required to detail the whole process that led to the recommendations. I still believe that Congress should engage outside experts to go through the statistics and compile their own recommendations for Congress.
District - 2023 Federal Judgeship recommendation - 2025 Federal Judgeship recommendation - (My recommendations, based on the weighted caseloads found in the Federal Court Management Statistics publication of the Judicial Conference and using the Judicial Conference's 430 weighted caseload target)
These are judgeships to be added, not total judgeships.
Arizona - 2 - 3 - (7) - Conference's recommendations well short here.
California Central - 9 - 12 - (12) They actually get it right in California Central and Eastern, but blow it in California Northern and Southern.
California Eastern - 4 - 5 - (5)
California Northern - 6 - 2 - (5)
California Southern - 2 - 0 - (4)
Colorado - 2 - 2 - (3)
Delaware - 2 - 2 - (3)
Florida Middle - 5 - 7 - (7)
Florida Northern - 1 - 1 - (1)
Florida Southern - 3 - 3 - (10) Conference has consistently gotten it wrong here, while managing to get it right this time in Florida Middle and Northern.
Georgia Northern - 2 - 4 - (3)
Idaho - 1 - 1 - (1)
Illinois Northern - 0 - 0 - (1)
Indiana Southern - 1 - 1 - (2)
Iowa Northern - 1 - 1 - (0) The ONLY explanation for requesting a Judgeship here is as a sop to Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Minnesota - 0 - 0 - (2)
Missouri Western - 0 - 0 - (1)
Nebraska - 1 - 1 - (1)
Nevada - 0 - 0 - (1)
New Jersey - 3 - 4 - (5)
New Mexico - 0 - 0 - (1)
New York Eastern - 2 - 2 - (5) The Conference has consistently lowballed New York Southern and Eastern, both critically important districts.
New York Southern - 2 - 2 - (5)
New York Western - 1 - 1 - (1)
North Carolina Eastern - 0 - 0 - (2)
Oklahoma Eastern - 2 - 2 - (0)
Oklahoma Northern - 1 - 1 - (1)
Pennsylvania Middle - 0 - 0 - (1)
South Carolina - 0 - 0 - (1)
Tennessee Middle - 0 - 1 - (1)
Texas Eastern - 2 - 2 - (5)
Texas Northern - 1 - 1 - (4)
Texas Southern - 4 - 2 - (8) The Conference has ridiculously lowballed Texas Southern and lowballed the rest of Texas.
Texas Western - 6 - 6 - (10)
Utah - 0 - 0 - (1)
Washington Western - 0 - 0 - (1)
Wisconsin Western - 0 - 0 - (1)
The Judicial Conference would have created 66 new Judgeships in 2023, 69 in 2025, while I would create 122 new Judgeships. Their recommendations fall way short in a number of districts and don't make any mathematical sense. Meanwhile, they would create an absolutely unneeded Judgeship in the Northern District of Iowa.
In recent years, the only consistency in the Judicial Conference's recommendations has been their inevitable inconsistency. Congress should hire some independent bean counters to crunch the Federal Court Management Statistics and produce judgeship recommendations that reflect the realities demonstrated by those numbers. The Judicial Conference's recommendations simply don't match the weighted caseload in their own statistical sources.
And I don't even address the Circuit Judgeship recommendations above. The Judicial Conference requested 2 Judgeships, both in the Ninth Circuit. By my count, they need 19 Judgeships, 2nd Circuit (2), 5th Circuit (6), 9th Circuit (5), 11th Circuit (6). Part of this is political, in that Congress is unlikely to create new Circuit Judgeships and part of it is a desire not to dilute their own personal power. For example, being one Judge among 12 in the 11th Circuit is more powerful than being one Judge among 18. Increasing the size of the Court of Appeals dilutes the individual power of existing Judges, ergo, they are not likely to recommend new Judgeships, instead resorting to such tactics as unpublished opinions to deal with the overwhelming caseload. This is not a factor with District Judges, only with Circuit Judges.
Congress at least recognizes this problem. In the legislation they passed that was vetoed by President Biden, language was included requiring the Judicial Conference to "show their work" when issuing Judgeship recommendations. They would have been required to detail the whole process that led to the recommendations. I still believe that Congress should engage outside experts to go through the statistics and compile their own recommendations for Congress.
