NCJ Number
143791
Date Published
1993
Length
71 pages
Annotation
This paper analyzes the arguments for and against capping the number of Federal district and circuit judgeships; two other approaches currently favored are a policy of slow growth and a policy of steep and immediate growth to double the number of judgeships.
Abstract
The first section describes the current process for creating life-tenured judgeships and summarizes the evolution of the idea of a moratorium on their number. The authors also discuss how moratoria on the number of members in the House of Representatives and U.S. Supreme Court were reached. The primary argument for capping the number of Federal judges is that continuing increases in the size of the judiciary will eventually vitiate the historic understanding of Federalism, undermine cohesiveness and efficiency, decreasing the quality of Federal courts, and require more resources than Congress is prepared to allocate. Others argue that, without an explicit moratorium, Congress will compensate for the growing workload of the Federal judiciary by adding more judgeships to the system. A moratorium would presumably allow the courts to avoid growing larger by forcing Congress to control jurisdictional expansion and restrict unnecessary access to the courts. Finally, a cap on the number of Federal judges could be implemented through statute, while taking into account geographical shifts in demand for judicial services. 1 appendix