INSIGHTi
Recent Responses to COVID-19 by the
Judicial Conference of the United States,
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and
Select Courts Within the Federal Judiciary
(July 2020)
July 21, 2020
This Insight provides information related to recent responses to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), and
select courts within the federal judiciary. Most of the responses discussed below have occurred since June
1, 2020. A previous Insight provides information about responses prior to June 1, 2020. Another Insight
provides information about some of the initial responses to COVID-19 by the federal judiciary.
This Insight is not intended to provide a comprehensive overview of policies and practices adopted by
each federal court or judicial entity since June 1, 2020 (or earlier). The information provided in this
Insight may be superseded by new information from that which is described below.
Judicial Conference of the United States
House Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing
On June 25, 2020, United States Senior District Judge David. G. Campbel testified at a hearing before
the U.S. House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intel ectual Property, and the Internet
about the impact of COVID-19 on the federal courts. Judge Campbel , appearing on behalf of the Judicial
Conference of the United States (the national policymaking body of the federal judiciary), chairs the
Conference’s Committee on Practice and Procedure for the Federal Courts. In his testimony, Judge
Campbel outlined the measures taken by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts and various courts to
address the effects of COVID-19 on the operations of the judiciary. He emphasized that “by necessity,
[the judiciary’s response] has been and continues to be implemented through local, court-specific
approaches, reflecting the disparate nature and evolving nature of the pandemic.”
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN11464
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

---

Congressional Research Service
2
One of the measures cited by Judge Campbel in his testimony was the publication in April of the Federal
Judiciary COVID-19 Recovery Guidelines. The guidelines “provide courts with gating criteria to consider
as they prepare for the phased return of courthouse operations.” Another measure cited by Judge
Campbel was the greater use of technology—for example, the temporary use of video and
teleconferencing to conduct various judicial proceedings.
Judge Campbel also testified on behalf of the Judicial Conference’s request, submitted on April 28, 2020,
for $36.6 mil ion in supplemental funding from Congress for FY2020 to address costs associated with the
judiciary’s response to COVID-19. Such costs, according to the Judicial Conference, include enhanced
cleaning of court facilities, health screening at courthouse entrances, and changes to information
technology hardware and infrastructure needs. Congress previously appropriated $7.5 mil ion in the
CARES Act for the federal judiciary to address its initial response to the pandemic.
Public Input Regarding Emergency Procedures
The Judicial Conference also began addressing Congress’s directive in the CARES Act (see
§15002(b)(6)) that the Conference and Supreme Court consider potential amendments to its rules
(governing federal judicial proceedings) to include procedures that could be used to guide court
operations during future national emergencies.
Specifical y, the Conference’s Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure solicited comments from
lawyers, judges, and the public, with particular interest “in hearing about situations that could not be
addressed through the existing rules or in which the rules themselves interfered with practical solutions.”
The committee is to consider the comments submitted on or before June 1, 2020, and any proposed
amendments “wil be transmitted to the Judicial Conference for potential adoption by the Supreme Court
and Congress according to the process outlined in the Rules Enabling Act.”
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is the agency within the federal judiciary that provides, in
part, administrative services and program support to federal courts.
Report on Restarting Jury Trials
On June 10, 2020, AO announced the release of a report by the Jury Subgroup of the COVID-19 Judicial
Task Force on the plan to restart jury trials and grand jury proceedings. Several of the issues addressed by
the 16-page report include the type and amount of personal protective equipment needed to accommodate
jurors and others; social-distancing and deep-cleaning procedures for courthouse spaces; and seating
jurors and others in ways that mitigate health risks. The report emphasizes that the “appropriate time to
reconvene juries wil differ state by state, district by district, and perhaps even division by division”
within a single judicial district.
United States Supreme Court
On July 9, 2020, the Supreme Court issued the final opinions of its 2019-2020 term. The Court’s building,
which was initial y closed to the public on March 12, 2020, remains closed to the public.

---

Congressional Research Service
3

Judicial Business and Operating Status of Lower Federal Courts
Naturalization Ceremonies
Several federal courts have resumed naturalizations ceremonies for new U.S. citizens. According to AO,
“more than a half-dozen courts have conducted naturalizations at courthouses and community settings,
using various strategies to minimize health risks.” In each court, “family members could not attend the
ceremonies in person” but were able to watch through windows or view livestreamed audio and video of
the ceremonies on YouTube.
Court Orders and Notices
Individual federal courts have also continued to issue orders and notices related to judicial business or
their operating status in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Examples of recent orders include an
extension, under the CARES Act, of the use of videoconferencing or telephone conferencing in certain
federal criminal proceedings (Eastern District of California); the suspension of al grand juries until
further order of the court (District of Arizona); and granting individual judges the discretion to determine
whether to hold any nonjury civil or criminal proceeding in the courtroom (District of Connecticut). The
actions taken by these courts are presented as il ustrative examples, and may not be representative of
actions taken by other courts.
A ful list of orders by U.S. circuit and district courts can be accessed online (available here).

Author Information

Barry J. McMillion

Analyst in American National Government




Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

IN11464 · VERSION 1 · NEW

---