Recommendation for New U.S. Circuit and District Court Judgeships by the Judicial Conference of the United States (117th Congress)

Recommendation for New U.S. Circuit and District Court Judgeships by the Judicial Conference of the United States (117th Congress)

link to page 2

INSIGHTi
Recommendation for New U.S. Circuit and
District Court Judgeships by the Judicial
Conference of the United States (117th
Congress)
March 26, 2021
Congress determines, through legislative action, both the size and structure of the federal judiciary.
Consequently, the creation of any new permanent or temporary U.S. circuit and district court judgeships
must be authorized by Congress. Congress can authorize either permanent or temporary judgeships. A
“permanent judgeship,” as the term suggests, permanently increases the number of judgeships for a court,
whereas a “temporary judgeship” increases the number of judgeships for a specified amount of time
(although Congress can later convert such a judgeship to a permanent one).
Figure 1 shows, for the period 1891 (when Congress established nine courts of appeals, one for each
judicial circuit at the time) through 2020, changes in the number of U.S. circuit and district court
judgeships authorized by Congress. As the country’s population increased, its geographic boundaries
expanded, and federal case law became more complex, the number of judgeships authorized by Congress
increased regularly during the 19th and 20th centuries.
The number of permanent circuit court judgeships increased to 179 in 1990 during the 101st Congress and
has remained at that number to the present day. This represents the longest period of time since 1891 that
Congress has not authorized any new permanent circuit court judgeships.
The number of permanent district court judgeships increased to 663 in 2003 during the 108th Congress
and has remained at that number to the present day. This represents the longest period of time since
district courts were established in 1789 that Congress has not authorized any new permanent district court
judgeships.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN11639
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

link to page 3
Congressional Research Service
2
Figure 1. Number of U.S. Circuit and District Court Judgeships Authorized by Congress
(1891-2020)

Source: Congressional Research Service.
The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body of the federal courts, makes a
biennial recommendation to Congress that identifies any circuit and district courts that, according to the
conference, require new judgeships to more effectively administer civil and criminal justice in the federal
system.
U.S. Circuit Court Judgeships
The conference’s most recent recommendation, released in March 2021 during the 117th Congress,
requests the authorization of 2 new permanent circuit court judgeships for the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit (comprised of California, eight other western states, and two U.S. territories). This
would bring the number of authorized judgeships for the Ninth Circuit from 29 to 31. The Ninth Circuit is
the country’s most populous appel ate circuit, with a population of approximately 66.9 mil ion.
U.S. District Court Judgeships
The conference also recommends that Congress authorize 86 new permanent U.S. district court
judgeships across 26 judicial districts (with more than one new judge being recommended for some
district courts). Figure 2 shows the 26 judicial districts for which the conference has recommended new
district court judgeships. Of the 26 districts, the conference recommends the creation of more than one
new judgeship in 17, or 65%, of the districts.
The greatest number of new judgeships, 16, was recommended for the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (which exercises jurisdiction over Los Angeles County and six other counties). This
federal judicial district is the most populous district in the country, with an estimated population of 19.4
mil ion.

Congressional Research Service
3
Figure 2. New Judgeships Recommended by the Judicial Conference
(March 2021)

Source: Congressional Research Service.
A total of 60 (or 70%) of the new judgeships are recommended for U.S. district courts located in the
country’s four most populous states—California, Texas, Florida, and New York.
Of the 86 new permanent district court judgeships that the conference recommends be authorized by
Congress, 9 (10%) are currently temporary judgeships—each of which was first authorized by Congress
in either 1990 or 2002.
Weighted Filings
The Judicial Conference’s recommendation as to which lower federal courts need new judgeships is
based, in part, upon a comparison across courts of the complexity of different types of cases handled by
judges, as wel as the amount of time it takes for judges to dispense w ith such cases. For example, types
of civil cases that are general y more complex or time-consuming for judges include environmental,
patent, civil rights, antitrust, and Freedom of Information Act actions.
For district courts, the specific statistic used by the Judicial Conference to make its comparison across
courts is the number of “weighted filings” per authorized judgeship in each district. The weighted filings
statistic is a mathematical adjustment to the number of case filings for a district court that takes into
account the relative complexity of cases and the expected amount of time required for disposition of a
court’s cases. A similar statistic, not discussed in detail in this Insight, is used for U.S. circuit courts (it is
referred to as “adjusted filings per three-judge panel”).
National y, for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2020, there were on average 681 weighted
filings per judgeship across al 91 U.S. district courts (excluding 3 territorial district courts). In contrast,
the numbers of weighted filings per judgeship during the same period for several of the district courts
recommended to receive new judgeships included 903 (District of Delaware), 880 (Southern District of
Indiana), 860 (District of New Jersey), 830 (Western District of Texas), and 702 (Central District of
California).

Congressional Research Service
4
Although the number of weighted filings per judgeship is the primary factor in the Judicial Conference’s
evaluation of a district court’s need for additional judgeships, the conference’s recommendations for new
judgeships are not based solely upon this particular statistic. Other factors that the conference might
consider in making its recommendations include the number of judgeships requested by the district court
itself; the availability of senior, visiting, and magistrate judges to assist in handling a district court’s
caseload; geographical factors; unusual caseload complexity for a court; and whether a court is
experiencing temporary increases or decreases in its caseload.

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.

IN11639 · VERSION 1 · NEW