Overview of 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

Overview of 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

INSIGHTi
Overview of 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
Updated June 11, 2020
This CRS Insight provides information related to recent responses to Coronavirus disease 2019, or
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. It is not intended to provide a comprehensive
overview of the policies and practices adopted by each federal court or judicial entity. Additional y, the
information provided in this Insight may be superseded by new information from that which is described
below.
A previous Insight provides information about how COVID-19 has impacted federal jury trials (available
here). Another Insight provides information about the provisions of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136) that address COVID-19 and the federal courts
(available here).
Judicial Conference of the United States
In March 2020, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the national policymaking body for the
federal courts, issued guidance that provides the media and public teleconference access to federal civil
court proceedings. Following enactment of the CARES Act on March 27, the conference issued additional
guidance that provides for media and public access to certain electronic criminal proceedings. Along these
lines, some courts “are providing cal -in and video conferencing links from their websites and others are
asking that the media and other third parties cal the clerk of court’s office for the information.”
On April 28, 2020, the Judicial Conference requested $36.6 mil ion in supplemental funding from
Congress to “address emergent needs such as enhanced cleaning of court facilities, health screening at
courthouse entrances, [and] information technology hardware and infrastructure costs associated with
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN11292
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
expanded telework and videoconferencing.” The requested funding would also be used for “costs
associated with probation and pretrial services supervision of offenders released from prison and
defendants on pretrial release, and security related costs.” Congress had previously appropriated $7.5
mil ion in the CARES Act for the federal judiciary to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.
In addition to the request for supplemental funding, the conference also submitted a set of legislative
proposals for congressional consideration. These proposals, according to the conference, are “to address
immediate COVID-19 impacts on the federal courts, as wel as to address concerns regarding court
operations after the pandemic eases.” One of the proposals is to convert eight existing temporary U.S.
district court judgeships to permanent status. Certain other proposals, intended to protect detainees and
litigants in criminal cases during the COVID-19 pandemic, would expedite the “compassionate release
procedures under the First Step Act” and reduce “unnecessary pretrial detention of certain low-risk
defendants.”
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) is the agency within the federal judiciary that
provides, in part, administrative services and program support to federal courts. The AO has distributed
guidelines to the courts “for restoring operations that rely heavily on conditions in local communities and
on objective data from local and state public health officials and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.” The AO guidelines emphasize “local decision-making by the courts,” acknowledging that
“courts would progress through the phases [of reopening] at their own pace.”
Such an approach is needed, according to AO, because of variation across judicial districts in whether
communities are experiencing a sustained downward trend in COVID-19 cases, the status of state or local
orders related to individual movement and shelter-in-place, and whether there have been recent confirmed
or suspected cases of COVID-19 in a court facility.
Additional y, the Director of AO announced the creation of a group, comprised of chief judges and court
executives, which is responsible for developing protocols for how to safely resume grand jury and trial
jury proceedings. According to the Director, “issues such as testing potential jurors, social distancing
considerations during jury assembly, voir dire, jury deliberations, and many others are being considered. ”
United States Supreme Court
On April 13, 2020, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear oral arguments by telephone
conference for its May session (May 4-6 and May 11-13). The Court provided a live audio feed to several
media outlets and, following the oral arguments on each day, posted audio and a transcript of the
arguments on the Court’s website. The arguments heard during the Court’s May session were the final
scheduled oral arguments for its current term. Some of the cases that were scheduled for argument in
March and April are to be rescheduled for argument during the Court’s October 2020 term.
During June 2020, the Court continues to release electronical y, on its website, its opinions for cases and
orders from its weekly conferences.
The Court’s building, which was initial y closed to the public on March 12, 2020, remains closed to the
public until further notice.
Recent Lower Federal Court Orders Related to Cour t Business and Operating Status
As discussed above, federal courts may individual y issue orders or notices to respond to COVID-19.
Several recent orders have required al persons over two years of age to wear a face covering or mask
while in public spaces or common areas of the district’s courthouses (District of Alaska); indicated that
bench trials for some criminal and civil proceedings may resume on June 11, 2020 (

Congressional Research Service
3
Eastern District of Virginia); and that al in-person oral arguments are indefinitely suspended (U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). The Federal Circuit previously suspended such arguments on a
month-to-month basis but issued the current order on May 18, 2020, in response to the ongoing pandemic
in the nation’s capital. The actions taken by these courts are presented as il ustrative examples, and may
not be representative of actions taken by other courts.
A full 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.

IN11292 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED