Civil and criminal filings in the federal district courts are substantially higher than they were 20 years ago — rising 28 percent since FY 1993.

But the number of federal judges provided by Congress to handle these filings has barely changed, growing by only 4 percent in the same two-decade period.

As a consequence, the time required for handling both civil and criminal cases has increased.

Since the growth in incoming federal matters varies greatly in different parts of the country, the resulting workloads for the judges also vary widely. In some districts, for example, the per-judge workload is now four times heavier than the average for the nation.

These findings by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University are based on an extensive study of information drawn from two major sources. One is the complex statistical information developed over the years by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The second is TRAC's first-ever systematic analysis of hundreds of thousands of case-by-case court and administrative records from every federal judicial district in the nation.

As noted above, an important result of the growing imbalance between the workloads and judges is that the time required to deal with federal cases, particularly civil matters, is up. Here is one measure: The time from when a civil matter is filed to when it is scheduled for trial has grown by 63 percent in the last 20 years, from 16 months in FY 1993 to 26 months in FY 2013 (see Table 1).

For civil matters, the substantially higher workloads and increased processing times have major economic and social consequences. This is because the federal courts frequently serve as the essential referee in resolving a large number of important economic and social conflicts. The legal struggles here involve a wide range of filers, from giant corporations and mom-and-pop businesses trying to resolve their disputes, to public interest groups pressing the government to act on important public issues, to civil rights organizations fighting for a more just society.

	FY 1993	FY 2003	FY 2013	FY 2013 vs FY 1993
Judgeships	649	680	677	4%
Criminal and Civil Combined Workload:
Filings	275,323	323,604	353,522	28%
Median Months:
Criminal Felony to Disposition	6.3	6.7	7.3	16%
Civil Filing to Trial	16.0	22.5	26.1	63%

But in addition to all the contending private parties, civil litigation is also central to the federal government. In some circumstances, the government is the plaintiff when it uses its civil authority for many different purposes, whether enforcing environmental laws against polluters or cracking down on fraudulent drug manufacturers. The federal government also can be the defendant, for example when a private party feels the government is improperly using its powers.

By comparison, the growth in processing times for criminal cases is considerably less, increasing by 16 percent. This measure is based on the growth in time between when an individual is charged with a felony until final disposition. Although this change is comparatively small, the damage to the broad goal of equal justice before the law that is guaranteed to all Americans by the Constitution is nevertheless vitally important.

Court administrators have made repeated requests to Congress for funds to increase the number of federal judgeships. The imbalance between the increasing flow of matters presented to the courts and the number of working judges and staff has also been a concern of Chief Justice John Roberts for many years. In his year-end report for 2013, Judge Roberts said that the "budget remains the single most important issue facing the courts."

Meanwhile, Congress has allowed the number of authorized judgeships to fall, from 680 in FY 2003 to 677 in FY 2013.

Those numbers understate the problem as Congressional inaction on disputed nominations, along with other factors, means that the actual number of full-time judges is less than the count of authorized judgeships. During the last decade, full-time judges fell from 643 to 612, according to TRAC's analysis of the U.S. District Court data[1].

As already noted, mounting caseloads have already led to different delays in the disposal of the matters presented to the courts. While Constitutional guarantees of a speedy trial mean that judges have understandably focused on minimizing the increases in criminal matters, the slowing of the ability of the courts to resolve complex civil litigation has far reaching economic and social consequences.

Increasing workload imbalance is felt much more keenly in some locations than others (see Table 2). Because the basic composition of incoming civil and criminal cases reaching the judges in each district is naturally varied, finding a way to fairly compare the incoming workloads presented to a judge serving in San Francisco with the judges serving in Houston, Chicago or Las Vegas presents a challenge.

Court managers assisted by the Federal Judicial Center, however, have devised a complex case "weighting" system for all the matters flowing into the federal district court system[2]. Their goal: find a fair way to measure the actual time demands on judges serving in different districts where the mix of cases differs. The system is based on the actual measurement of judge time[3].

TRAC's analysis uses these case weights, along with measures of court filings relative to the availability of sitting judges, to give the most accurate picture of workload per judge and per district available[4].

Judicial District	Weighted Filings per Full-Time Equivalent Judge*			Ranks
Judicial District	Civil	Criminal	Combined	Civil	Criminal	Combined
US Average	303	85	388
Ala, M	309	71	380	27	40	29
Ala, N	224	46	270	51	66	62
Ala, S	162	103	265	74	26	65
Alaska	80	64	145	90	50	91
Arizona	379	347	725	14	2	3
Ark, E	244	70	314	42	43	41
Ark, W	183	71	254	66	40	72
Cal, C	477	28	505	8	84	15
Cal, E	527	111	638	3	22	5
Cal, N	270	41	311	32	74	42
Cal, S	264	259	523	36	5	13
Colorado	291	63	355	30	53	34
Conn	242	57	299	43	54	47
D. C.	153	17	171	76	91	86
Delaware	1423	23	1446	1	89	2
Fla, M	459	71	530	9	40	11
Fla, N	348	54	402	18	57	25
Fla, S	523	144	667	5	13	4
Ga, M	228	83	310	49	32	43
Ga, N	425	44	469	11	68	17
Ga, S	242	28	270	43	84	62
Hawaii	153	88	241	76	31	80
Idaho	179	127	306	67	16	45
Ill, C	231	51	282	48	59	57
Ill, N	358	31	389	16	82	26
Ill, S	363	124	487	15	17	16
Ind, N	188	50	238	63	62	81
Ind, S	522	66	587	6	48	7
Iowa, N	111	168	279	83	8	58
Iowa, S	128	27	156	80	86	89
Kansas	156	188	345	75	7	36
Ken, E	164	108	271	73	24	61
Ken, W	331	81	412	21	37	23
La, E	225	30	256	50	83	70
La, M	256	42	298	38	72	48
La, W	167	26	193	72	88	83
Maine	102	44	146	85	68	90
Maryland	314	65	379	26	49	30
Mass	254	35	289	40	79	54
Mich, E	208	46	255	56	66	71
Mich, W	297	81	378	28	37	31
Minnesota	357	32	389	17	80	26
Miss, N	202	44	246	58	68	78
Miss, S	254	49	303	40	64	46
Mo, E	202	92	294	59	29	51
Mo, W	192	115	307	60	20	44
Montana	237	151	388	46	11	28
N Car, E	327	128	455	22	15	19
N Car, M	210	42	253	55	72	74
N Car, W	186	133	319	64	14	38
N Dakota	101	161	262	86	9	66
N Mexico	111	256	367	83	6	33
N. J.	491	38	529	7	77	12
N. Y., E	392	38	431	13	77	21
N. Y., N	268	51	318	34	59	39
N. Y., S	294	39	332	29	75	37
N. Y., W	316	95	412	25	27	23
Nebraska	140	114	254	79	21	73
Nevada	457	51	508	10	59	14
New Hamp	125	43	168	81	71	87
Ohio, N	222	64	286	52	50	55
Ohio, S	239	47	286	45	65	55
Okla, E	192	55	247	60	55	77
Okla, N	179	67	246	67	46	78
Okla, W	205	54	260	57	57	67
Oregon	178	70	248	69	43	76
Penn, E	259	32	291	37	80	53
Penn, M	269	27	296	33	86	50
Penn, W	235	39	273	47	75	60
Puerto Rico	91	348	439	89	1	20
R. I.	189	69	258	62	45	69
S Car	277	20	297	31	90	49
S Dakota	73	90	163	91	30	88
Tenn, E	340	121	461	20	18	18
Tenn, M	523	50	573	4	62	9
Tenn, W	148	111	259	78	22	68
Texas, E	1350	161	1510	2	9	1
Texas, N	416	116	532	12	19	10
Texas, S	318	268	586	23	4	8
Texas, W	267	330	597	35	3	6
Utah	184	83	267	65	32	64
Vermont	93	82	175	88	35	85
Virg, E	219	73	292	53	39	52
Virg, W	169	82	251	71	35	75
W Virg, N	171	147	318	70	12	39
W Virg, S	212	64	276	54	50	59
Wash, E	117	108	225	82	24	82
Wash, W	317	55	372	24	55	32
Wisc, E	255	94	348	39	28	35
Wisc, W	346	67	413	19	46	22
Wyoming	99	83	182	87	32	84

In 2013, the total average burden of weighted incoming civil and criminal cases assigned per district court judge serving anywhere in the nation was 364 matters. This total included 270 civil cases and 94 criminal cases. For a more recent period from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014, the number of incoming matters per judge was 388: 303 civil and 85 criminal.

Examined on a district-by-district basis, the averages were far from uniform. Here, for example, are the average incoming workloads for judges serving in four districts in different parts of the country, each with large cities within its boundaries.

Under federal law, all sitting district court judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by Congress to serve in a specific district, so court administrators can't simply move judges from less busy courts to those with larger numbers of weighted cases. Judges who have retired from the bench do serve as volunteer judges in many districts, and where resources permit, additional U.S. magistrate judges can be appointed in a district to assist district court judges. But even after taking these sources of assistance into consideration, use of the court's sophisticated counting procedures show that the load of incoming weighted civil and criminal cases is far heavier in some districts than in others.

The variable judge-by-judge caseloads in the four districts noted above is hardly unusual. In fact, as is shown in Table 2 and described in greater detail below, the differences in the incoming cases presented to the judges can be even more extreme[5].

The district court judges in the Eastern District of Texas, six regular and one senior, had the highest workloads in the country, with an average of 1,510 weighted incoming civil and criminal matters per judge in the year preceding June 30, 2014, the most recent date for which records are available. The district with the second highest per-judge average number of weighted cases in the nation was Delaware, where the four district judges had an average of 1,446 weighted cases per FTE.

An important factor in the heavy workloads carried by the judges in these two districts is their popularity as venues for filing patent lawsuits. By combing fiscal years 2013 and 2014 (through June), TRAC has determined that the largely rural Texas East district was the top venue for patent cases, with 2,804 filings. Delaware was second with 2,335. Combined, 47 percent of patent cases for the past two years were brought in one of these two venues. Explanations for why these districts attract so many patent cases vary, and include the large number of companies incorporated in Delaware and rules developed in Texas East to help move patent cases toward resolution faster. It is unclear whether, on average, such cases are processed more quickly in these districts[6].

Under the weighting system, patent cases are considered among the most demanding, which raises a key caveat and two important questions. The caveat: Under the weighting system, Texas East judges are credited with an unusually high caseload for these highly complex cases, but if they are resolving them more quickly than the average court, it may not reflect their actual workloads. The questions: Are these "rocket docket" procedures producing fair, just and well-reasoned results? And if so, why aren't they being adopted elsewhere?

Rounding out the top five districts with the highest average per-judge workloads in the country are Arizona, Florida South and California East. Because the demographic, regulatory and criminal enforcement characteristics differ in each judicial district, the possible explanations for the very high ranking of these districts are also varied.

But one obvious aspect of Arizona's third-place ranking is its border with Mexico. As a result of this geographic reality and the concentration of Border Patrol (BP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials along the border, Arizona had one of the highest numbers of immigration prosecutions in the nation.

TRAC's analysis of weighted caseloads yielded several surprises; consider the Southern District of New York. Perhaps because Wall Street is the home of so many of the nation's major corporations and Hollywood has filmed many gangster movies in the city, "New York South" has long been regarded as the most important and busiest district in the nation. Yet New York South's 28 regular and 22 senior judges collectively rank 37th in the nation in terms of number of weighted criminal and civil matters they handle, and only 75th when looking solely at criminal cases.

Also surprising was the average workload of incoming weighted cases for the 14 regular and six senior judges in the District of Columbia. Again in terms of weighted matters, the data indicate that the workload for both civil and criminal matters for the regular judges in the nation's capital was among the lightest, ranking 86th among the districts.

These last two comparisons for New York South and Washington, D.C. reveal another limitation in the court's weighting scheme. Weights are based on the national average for the times taken by different types of cases — for example, securities fraud or money laundering. If, however, the most important and difficult securities fraud or money laundering cases were filed in either of these cities, then even the sophisticated weighted case system developed by the courts to calculate workloads may still be quite imperfect. Thus, to the extent the larger and more complex cases of a given type concentrate in certain districts, even the weighted numbers can significantly understate the actual workload of a given court.

The flow of incoming civil and criminal matters is largely controlled by outside forces, which are difficult for the managers in the federal districts to anticipate. The crux of the problem is that while the average judicial workload in the districts is varied and dynamic, the number of judgeships that Congress has established in each district is extremely rigid. Every two years, the courts submit to the Senate a list recommending that it authorize the creation of additional judgeships in a relatively small number of districts. The courts developed the case-weighting system in part to help them with the task of deciding which districts were most seriously in need of new judgeships.

In 2013 the chairman of the Judicial Conference's committee on resources recommended that Congress establish 65 new permanent judgeships and 20 new temporary judgeships at the district court level. It also recommended that eight temporary judgeships[7] be converted to permanent. That request is still pending.

TRAC's analysis finds that this current request from the judiciary to Congress seeks to create judgeships in districts that, for the most part, ranked as having higher-than-average weighted caseloads. And with the civil and criminal caseloads tools developed by TRAC, it is now possible for the public to examine the proposed location of the new judgeships in relation to the average workloads of the judges in them.

Nineteen of the 25 districts where new permanent judgeships are being sought had higher than average caseloads in 2013. Those 19 districts also account for 53 of the 65 permanent judgeships being requested. Additionally, all 25 of the districts were above the median workload in 2013. Not all of the new judgeships asked for by the courts make sense based strictly in terms of TRAC's weighted caseload measure, however. The judiciary did not recommend new judgeships in a few districts that were quite busy in 2013, such as Tennessee East and North Carolina East. Meanwhile, court officials are seeking five new permanent judgeships in California North, which had an average caseload in 2013. However, there are other legitimate factors that naturally go into the recommendations given the imperfections and challenges in developing an ideal case-weighting system.

Unmeasured in all of the shifting data are possible changes in the basic quality of the decisions made and the provision of due process to the American people. These fundamental questions are by their nature difficult, if not impossible, to answer. Some of these questions include:

Taken alone, TRAC's new judge-by-judge, case-by-case database for all federal criminal and civil cases cannot answer these crucial questions. But it provides a key element that savvy journalists, political science researchers and law schools can use to explore questions at the center of the nation's efforts to insure due process and an improved functioning of the judiciary.

There are many questions the data can directly answer. For example, the database provides lawyers with a new tool to help them best advise their clients, and policy makers with new insights into the outcomes current policies generate. The variables in the TRAC dataset are central to any cost-benefit analysis concerning the federal judiciary.

In this report, we used the database to examine the growth of caseloads and disposition times, and the differences in those times from judge-to-judge and district-to-district. It is clear from the analysis that federal courts in America are experiencing unprecedented pressure due to increased filings and stagnant resources. The end result is that the federal courts are taking significantly longer to adjudicate both civil and criminal disputes, an outcome that has important social, economic and justice implications for the nation.

As Workloads Rise in Federal Courts,Judge Counts Remain Flat

As Workloads Rise in Federal Courts,
Judge Counts Remain Flat