Sequester-Related Staff Cuts Resulted in Longer Federal Civil Cases, Says Report
Sequestration took a toll on the processing of federal court cases, according to a report from the Judicial Conference of the U.S. announced on March 11. Lower funding levels mean there are 15 percent less staff at clerks’ offices, probation and pretrial services offices, and courts of appeals offices in federal courts than there were two and a half years ago, said the report. That has resulted in slower processing of federal civil cases, with the average time to process a case rising from 7.3 months in October 2011 to 8.5 months in September 2013, it said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
“This directly impacts individuals, small businesses, and corporations seeking to resolve disputes in the federal courts,” said Judge Julia Gibbons of the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. “Had it remained in place, we believe sequestration would have done significant harm to commerce, orderly and prompt resolution of disputes, public safety, and Constitutional rights ranging from effective representation by counsel for criminal defendants to jury trials.”
The federal judiciary received some relief in its fiscal year 2014 budget, but that followed several years of nearly flat funding, said the report. And while the non-defense discretionary budget cap increased by $24 billion in FY 2014, the corresponding cap available to Congress for FY 2015 will increase by only $1 billion, it said. As a result, the federal courts “must continue their decade-long cost containment program.”
“Such initiatives are likely to be controversial, difficult to implement quickly, and potentially would result in significant change within the Judiciary,” said Judge Gibbons. “Nevertheless, we strongly believe that future budget constraints ... dictate that cost containment must continue to be a top priority of the ... Judiciary as a whole.”