
 
 
April 4, 2024
Expediting Cases and Setting Deadlines for Court Actions
Federal court litigation is subject to various deadlines. 
•  16 U.S.C. § 6516 governs judicial review of certain 
Often, statutes or procedural rules set time limits for actions 
hazardous fuel reduction projects on federal lands. It 
by the litigants. For instance, statutes of limitations require 
does not require but rather “encourages a court of 
cases to be filed within a certain time after the conduct at 
competent jurisdiction to expedite, to the maximum 
issue. Once a case is filed, generally applicable court rules 
extent practicable, the proceedings in the action with the 
and case-by-case scheduling decisions may set deadlines 
goal of rendering a final determination on jurisdiction, 
for the parties to file motions and briefs and argue the case. 
and (if jurisdiction exists) a final determination on the 
merits, as soon as practicable after the date on which a 
Less commonly, statutes may require prompt action by 
complaint or appeal is filed to initiate the action.” 
courts themselves. Some such statutes require courts to 
expedite proceedings without setting exact time limits for 
•  18 U.S.C. § 3509(j) seeks to “minimize the length of 
action. Others impose specific deadlines by which courts 
time [a] child must endure the stress of involvement 
must take certain actions. This In Focus provides an 
with the criminal process.” It provides that, when a child 
overview and examples of both types of statutes, then 
is called to give testimony in a criminal case, “on 
discusses selected considerations for Congress related to 
motion by the attorney for the Government or a guardian 
setting deadlines for court actions. 
ad litem, or on its own motion, the court may designate 
the case as being of special public importance,” and then 
Expediting Proceedings 
“expedite the proceeding and ensure that it takes 
Expediting a court proceeding means that the court handles 
precedence over any other.” 
the matter more quickly than ordinary procedures would 
provide, including giving the matter priority over matters 
•  42 U.S.C. § 2000a-5(b) provides that, upon receipt of a 
that are not expedited. 
request from the Attorney General for certain civil rights 
cases to be heard by a three-judge panel, “it shall be the 
28 U.S.C. § 1657(a), a provision within the title of the U.S. 
duty of the chief judge of the circuit or the presiding 
Code that governs courts and court procedures, generally 
circuit judge ... to designate immediately three judges in 
gives courts discretion to determine the order in which civil 
such circuit ... to hear and determine such case, and it 
cases should be considered. It requires expedition of 
shall be the duty of the judges so designated to assign 
petitions for writs of habeas corpus under chapter 153 of 
the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date ... and 
Title 28, proceedings to confine a recalcitrant witness under 
to cause the case to be in every way expedited.” 
28 U.S.C. § 1826, claims for temporary or preliminary 
injunctive relief, or “or any other action if good cause 
•  52 U.S.C. § 10701 governs Attorney General suits to 
therefor is shown.” 
enforce the Twenty-Sixth Amendment and provides in 
part: “It shall be the duty of the judges designated to 
Multiple other federal statutes provide for courts to expedite 
hear the case ... to cause the case to be in every way 
certain matters without setting specific deadlines. Congress 
expedited.” 
can require courts to expedite certain matters, can set 
standards for deciding whether to expedite, or can 
Setting Time Limits for Court Actions 
encourage courts to resolve certain disputes quickly. 
Other federal statutes set specific deadlines by which courts 
Examples include the following: 
must take certain actions. One example is the Speedy Trial 
Act, which seeks to ensure that criminal defendants are 
•  2 U.S.C. § 1412(b) provides, in appeals in cases 
brought to trial promptly as required by the Sixth 
involving the constitutionality of the Congressional 
Amendment. One provision of the act states: 
Accountability Act: “The Supreme Court shall, if it has 
not previously ruled on the question, accept jurisdiction 
In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, 
over the appeal ... , advance the appeal on the docket, 
the trial of a defendant charged in an information or 
and expedite the appeal to the greatest extent possible.” 
indictment with the commission of an offense shall 
commence within seventy days from the filing date 
•  8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3)(D) requires federal courts at all 
(and  making  public)  of  the  information  or 
levels “to advance on the docket and to expedite to the 
indictment,  or  from  the  date  the  defendant  has 
greatest possible extent the disposition of any case 
appeared  before  a  judicial  officer  of  the  court  in 
considered under this paragraph” involving orders of 
which such charge is pending, whichever date last 
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). 
occurs. 
Certain periods of delay are excluded from the calculation 
of time elapsed, but unexcluded delays by both prosecutors 
https://crsreports.congress.gov 
Expediting Cases and Setting Deadlines for Court Actions 
and courts can cause violations of the act. If a defendant is 
courts to act promptly, including generally requiring 
not brought to trial within the applicable time limit, the act 
expedition and setting specific time limits. These 
provides that the “information or indictment shall be 
mechanisms are part of Congress’s significant legal 
dismissed on motion of the defendant.” 
authority to legislate to set procedures for the federal courts. 
However, legislation that governs the timing of court 
Other examples of federal statutes that set deadlines for 
proceedings may raise various legal and practical 
specific court actions include the following: 
challenges. 
•  12 U.S.C. § 5390(j) provides that appeals in certain 
In evaluating legislation that sets specific deadlines for 
cases brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance 
court proceedings, legislators may consider whether it is 
Corporation shall be heard within 120 days and “shall be 
feasible—or desirable—for courts and parties to meet the 
decided not later than 180 days after the date of the 
deadlines. Litigation can be time-consuming. The parties 
notice of appeal.” It also requires the court to expedite 
may need to gather evidence, file various motions, brief the 
the consideration of such cases. The statute allows the 
legal issues presented, and prepare for witness testimony or 
court to modify the schedule and time limitations on a 
oral argument. Courts may need time to schedule and hear 
case-by-case basis, “based on a specific finding that the 
cases and to decide them after they are presented. Statistics 
ends of justice that would be served by making such a 
from the U.S. district courts indicate that, in the 12-month 
modification would outweigh the best interest of the 
period ending in December 2023, federal felony cases took 
public in having the case resolved expeditiously.” 
a median of 11 months from filing to disposition. Civil 
cases took a median of 6.9 months, but civil cases that went 
•  18 U.S.C. § 2339B(f)(5)(B), which governs criminal 
to trial took a median of 35.6 months from filing to trial. 
charges of providing material support to terrorism, 
provides, “If an appeal is taken during trial, the trial 
Courts and litigants have some ability to speed up litigation 
court shall adjourn the trial until the appeal is resolved, 
timelines, but short time limits may not be possible to meet 
and the court of appeals ... shall hear argument on such 
or may limit the parties’ ability to present a case properly or 
appeal not later than 4 days after the adjournment of the 
the court’s opportunity to consider it fully. The Speedy 
trial, excluding intermediate weekends and holidays; 
Trial Act accounts for this consideration by setting a 
[and] shall render its decision not later than 4 days after 
minimum time before trial as well as a maximum to avoid 
argument on appeal, excluding intermediate weekends 
rushing cases to trial before the defense can fully prepare. 
and holidays[.]” 
Other statutes set deadlines but give courts discretion to 
extend the limits in the interest of justice. 
•  28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(D) governs second or successive 
applications for a writ of habeas corpus and provides, 
Another consideration for Congress when setting deadlines 
“The court of appeals shall grant or deny the 
for court action is what happens if the court does not meet a 
authorization to file a second or successive application 
deadline. Most of the statutes listed above do not impose 
not later than 30 days after the filing of the motion.” 
specific consequences if a deadline is not met. The 
exception is the Speedy Trial Act, which allows the 
•  28 U.S.C. § 2266(c) governs habeas petitions in capital 
defendant to move for dismissal if a criminal trial is 
cases. It provides, “A court of appeals shall hear and 
improperly delayed. By contrast, 28 U.S.C. § 2266(c) 
render a final determination of any appeal of an order 
enumerates certain forms of relief that are not available if a 
granting or denying, in whole or in part, an application 
court fails to meet a deadline. 
brought under this chapter in a capital case not later than 
120 days after the date on which the reply brief is filed, 
More generally, when deciding whether to require courts to 
or if no reply brief is filed, not later than 120 days after 
expedite certain matters, Congress may consider the 
the date on which the answering brief is filed.” 
practical effects of expedition for courts and litigants. For 
However, Section 2266(c)(4) provides that the “failure 
instance, expediting some cases may require courts to 
of a court to meet or comply with a time limitation 
deprioritize others, causing delay for litigants whose cases 
under this section shall not be a ground for granting 
are not expedited. On one hand, legislation requiring 
relief from a judgment of conviction or sentence.” 
expedition leaves courts more discretion to set schedules 
than legislation imposing specific deadlines for court 
•  29 U.S.C. § 3247(a)(2) applies to petitions for review of 
action. On the other hand, it may burden parties and counsel 
certain decisions of the Secretary of Labor related to 
who must prepare for litigation on a condensed timeline, as 
awards of financial assistance, providing, “Petitions 
well as judges and other court staff who handle expedited 
filed under this subsection shall be heard expeditiously, 
matters.  
if possible within 10 days after the date of filing of a 
reply to the petition.” 
Joanna R. Lampe, Legislative Attorney   
Considerations for Congress 
IF12624
As the non-exhaustive lists of examples above show, 
Congress has different ways that it may choose to direct 
 
 
https://crsreports.congress.gov 
Expediting Cases and Setting Deadlines for Court Actions 
 
 
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. 
 
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF12624 · VERSION 1 · NEW