Recommendation for New U.S. Circuit and District Court Judgeships by the Judicial Conference of the United States (118th Congress)
link to page 2 
INSIGHTi
Recommendation for New U.S. Circuit and
District Court Judgeships by the Judicial
Conference of the United States (118th
Congress)
April 5, 2023
Congress determines through legislative action both the size and structure of the federal judiciary,
including the number of U.S. circuit and district court judgeships. 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. This Insight provides information
related to the Conference’s most recent recommendation that was released on March 14, 2023.
U.S. Circuit Court Judgeships
The Conference’s most recent recommendation requests two new permanent 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 increase the number of judgeships for the Ninth Circuit from 29 to 31. The Ninth
Circuit is the country’s most populous circuit, with a population of approximately 67 million.
U.S. District Court Judgeships
The Conference also recommends that Congress authorize 73 permanent judgeships across 28 district
courts (this includes authorizing 66 new permanent judgeships and converting 7 existing temporary
judgeships to permanent judgeships). Of the 28 district courts, the Conference recommends authorizing
more than one permanent judgeship for 17 (61%). The Conference also recommends extending two
existing temporary district court judgeships for an additional five years (one for the Northern District of
Alabama and one for the District of Kansas).
Figure 1 shows the 30 judicial districts for which the Conference made judgeship recommendations to
Congress.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN12140
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
link to page 3
Congressional Research Service
2
The greatest number of new permanent judgeships 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). Specifically, the Conference recommends nine new permanent judgeships for the court and also
converting the court’s one existing temporary judgeship to a permanent judgeship (for a total of 10 new
permanent judgeships). The Central District of California is the most populous district in the country, with
an estimated population of 19.2 million.
Figure 1. Judgeship Recommendations by the Judicial Conference
(118th Congress)
Source: Map by Congressional Research service based on information provided by the Administrative Office of U.S.
Courts.
A total of 51 (or 70%) of the 73 recommended permanent judgeships are for U.S. district courts located in
the country’s four most populous states—California (22 judgeships), Texas (14), Florida (10), and New
York (5).
Weighted Filings
The Judicial Conference’s recommendation as to which district courts need new judgeships is based, in
part, upon a comparison across district courts of the number of “weighted filings” per authorized
judgeship. Weighted filings “account for the different amounts of time district judges require to resolve
various types of civil and criminal actions.” Specifically, the weighted filings statistic takes into account
the relative complexity of cases and the expected amount of time required for the disposition of cases for
any given court. For example, for FY2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware had the
fourth-highest number of weighted filings per authorized judgeship, in part, because cases involving
intellectual property rights, which can be complex and time-consuming, comprised 43% of civil case
filings for the court (compared to 5% of all civil case filings nationally).
As shown by Figure 2, the median number of weighted filings per authorized judgeship across U.S.
district courts was 395 weighted filings. The greatest number of weighted filings per authorized judgeship
Congressional Research Service
3
was for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (5,902), while the fewest number of
weighted filings was for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (183). The
relatively high number of weighted filings for the Northern District of Florida is attributable to
multidistrict litigation involving products liability claims.
In general, the Conference requires a court to have over 430 weighted filings per judgeship in order for it
to recommend at least one additional judgeship for the court (although other factors can be considered).
Of the 34 district courts with over 430 weighted filings per authorized judgeship, the Conference
recommended additional permanent judgeships for 23 (68%).
Figure 2. Judgeship Recommendations by Number of Weighted Filings
(118th Congress)
Source: Figure by the Congressional Research Service based on public data provided by the Administrative Office of U.S.
Courts.
Of the 57 district courts with 430 or fewer weighted filings per judgeship, the Conference recommended
additional permanent judgeships for 5 (9%)—including the conversion of 3 existing temporary judgeships
to permanent status for 3 district courts. The Western District of North Carolina, with a weighted filings
statistic of 325, is the district court with the lowest number of weighted filings for which the Conference
recommended a new permanent judgeship (by converting the court’s existing temporary judgeship to
permanent status).
There are four district courts for which the Conference recommends the authorization of two or more
permanent judgeships and the conversion of an existing temporary judgeship to permanent status. Of
these four, the Eastern District of Texas has the highest number of weighted filings per authorized
judgeship (657).
Congressional Research Service
4
The two district courts with the highest number of weighted filings per authorized judgeship and for
which the Conference did not recommend at least one new permanent judgeship are the Western District
of Louisiana (1,147 weighted filings) and the Southern District of Ohio (635).
While the number of weighted filings per judgeship is the primary factor in the Judicial Conference’s
evaluation of the need for additional judgeships, the Conference’s recommendations are not based solely
upon this particular statistic. The Conference considers other factors, such as the availability of senior,
visiting, and magistrate judges to assist in handling a district court’s caseload or unusual caseload activity
that temporarily increases or decreases a court’s workload.
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.
IN12140 · VERSION 1 · NEW
INSIGHTi
Recommendation for New U.S. Circuit and
District Court Judgeships by the Judicial
Conference of the United States (118th
Congress)
April 5, 2023
Congress determines through legislative action both the size and structure of the federal judiciary,
including the number of U.S. circuit and district court judgeships. 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. This Insight provides information
related to the Conference’s most recent recommendation that was released on March 14, 2023.
U.S. Circuit Court Judgeships
The Conference’s most recent recommendation requests two new permanent 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 increase the number of judgeships for the Ninth Circuit from 29 to 31. The Ninth
Circuit is the country’s most populous circuit, with a population of approximately 67 million.
U.S. District Court Judgeships
The Conference also recommends that Congress authorize 73 permanent judgeships across 28 district
courts (this includes authorizing 66 new permanent judgeships and converting 7 existing temporary
judgeships to permanent judgeships). Of the 28 district courts, the Conference recommends authorizing
more than one permanent judgeship for 17 (61%). The Conference also recommends extending two
existing temporary district court judgeships for an additional five years (one for the Northern District of
Alabama and one for the District of Kansas).
Figure 1 shows the 30 judicial districts for which the Conference made judgeship recommendations to
Congress.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN12140
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
link to page 3
Congressional Research Service
2
The greatest number of new permanent judgeships 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). Specifically, the Conference recommends nine new permanent judgeships for the court and also
converting the court’s one existing temporary judgeship to a permanent judgeship (for a total of 10 new
permanent judgeships). The Central District of California is the most populous district in the country, with
an estimated population of 19.2 million.
Figure 1. Judgeship Recommendations by the Judicial Conference
(118th Congress)
Source: Map by Congressional Research service based on information provided by the Administrative Office of U.S.
Courts.
A total of 51 (or 70%) of the 73 recommended permanent judgeships are for U.S. district courts located in
the country’s four most populous states—California (22 judgeships), Texas (14), Florida (10), and New
York (5).
Weighted Filings
The Judicial Conference’s recommendation as to which district courts need new judgeships is based, in
part, upon a comparison across district courts of the number of “weighted filings” per authorized
judgeship. Weighted filings “account for the different amounts of time district judges require to resolve
various types of civil and criminal actions.” Specifically, the weighted filings statistic takes into account
the relative complexity of cases and the expected amount of time required for the disposition of cases for
any given court. For example, for FY2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware had the
fourth-highest number of weighted filings per authorized judgeship, in part, because cases involving
intellectual property rights, which can be complex and time-consuming, comprised 43% of civil case
filings for the court (compared to 5% of all civil case filings nationally).
As shown by Figure 2, the median number of weighted filings per authorized judgeship across U.S.
district courts was 395 weighted filings. The greatest number of weighted filings per authorized judgeship
Congressional Research Service
3
was for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (5,902), while the fewest number of
weighted filings was for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (183). The
relatively high number of weighted filings for the Northern District of Florida is attributable to
multidistrict litigation involving products liability claims.
In general, the Conference requires a court to have over 430 weighted filings per judgeship in order for it
to recommend at least one additional judgeship for the court (although other factors can be considered).
Of the 34 district courts with over 430 weighted filings per authorized judgeship, the Conference
recommended additional permanent judgeships for 23 (68%).
Figure 2. Judgeship Recommendations by Number of Weighted Filings
(118th Congress)
Source: Figure by the Congressional Research Service based on public data provided by the Administrative Office of U.S.
Courts.
Of the 57 district courts with 430 or fewer weighted filings per judgeship, the Conference recommended
additional permanent judgeships for 5 (9%)—including the conversion of 3 existing temporary judgeships
to permanent status for 3 district courts. The Western District of North Carolina, with a weighted filings
statistic of 325, is the district court with the lowest number of weighted filings for which the Conference
recommended a new permanent judgeship (by converting the court’s existing temporary judgeship to
permanent status).
There are four district courts for which the Conference recommends the authorization of two or more
permanent judgeships and the conversion of an existing temporary judgeship to permanent status. Of
these four, the Eastern District of Texas has the highest number of weighted filings per authorized
judgeship (657).
Congressional Research Service
4
The two district courts with the highest number of weighted filings per authorized judgeship and for
which the Conference did not recommend at least one new permanent judgeship are the Western District
of Louisiana (1,147 weighted filings) and the Southern District of Ohio (635).
While the number of weighted filings per judgeship is the primary factor in the Judicial Conference’s
evaluation of the need for additional judgeships, the Conference’s recommendations are not based solely
upon this particular statistic. The Conference considers other factors, such as the availability of senior,
visiting, and magistrate judges to assist in handling a district court’s caseload or unusual caseload activity
that temporarily increases or decreases a court’s workload.
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.
IN12140 · VERSION 1 · NEW