Representatives from judicial systems from around the world continue to seek to learn more about our Judiciary. This year more than 475 representatives of over 95 foreign judiciary systems formally visited the Supreme Court of the United States seeking information about our system of justice. Several other judicial entities also play an important role in educating international visitors and providing technical assistance to judicial systems worldwide, including the Federal Judicial Center, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and the International Judicial Relations Committee of the Judicial Conference.

Appellate Court Structure

Although the most effective way of preserving our federal Judiciary's ability to perform its function is by restraining unnecessary expansion of its jurisdiction, structural adjustments are occasionally necessary as well. Last year, several members of the Senate introduced legislation to implement the December 1998 recommendations of the legislatively created Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals, chaired by retired Justice Byron R. White. I am grateful to Senator Charles Grassley and Representative Howard Coble for holding hearings on these recommendations, and I urge Congress to act on the Commission's proposals. Congress' immediate concern in creating the Commission was the size of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As requested, however, the Commission proposed legislation that would accommodate the inevitable growth of other courts of appeals as well, while preserving the regional circuits. I hope that Congress, which asked for this study, will give the recommendations full and complete consideration.

II. The Year in Review

In 1999, there were 54,693 filings in the 12 regional courts of appeals. These figures include, for the first time, certain original proceedings. If original proceedings are not included, there has been a 3% decline in filings in the courts of appeals since last year. If included, however, there has been a 2% rise in filings in the courts of appeals in 1999.⁽¹⁾ District court activity was characterized by an increase in criminal filings and a smaller increase in civil filings. Following a 15% expansion in 1998, criminal filings returned to a more normal level of growth in 1999, rising 4%.⁽²⁾ This increase resulted in a 2% gain in the number of defendants serviced by pretrial services,⁽³⁾ while the number of persons on probation, which is less directly affected by criminal filings, went up by 4%.⁽⁴⁾ Civil filings changed little from the previous year, increasing 1% to 260,271.⁽⁵⁾ Filings in the U.S. bankruptcy courts dropped 6% from 1,436,964 to 1,354,376 and, in doing so, broke a four-year trend of rapid growth.⁽⁶⁾

In 1999, some progress was made by the Senate and the President on judicial confirmations with 33 new judges confirmed. Although the 1999 confirmation rate did not match the rate accomplished in 1998 when 65 new judges were confirmed, the number of judicial vacancies has been reduced over the last two years.

The total number of case filings in the Supreme Court increased from 6,781 in the 1997 Term to 7,109 in the 1998 Term - an increase of slightly more than 4.8%. Filings in the Court's in forma pauperis docket increased from 4,694 to 5,047 - a 7.5% rise. The Court's paid docket decreased by 23 cases, from 2,085 to 2,062 - a 1.1% decrease. During the 1998 Term, 90 cases were argued and 84 signed opinions were issued, compared to 96 cases argued and 93 signed opinions in the 1997 Term. Two cases from the 1998 Term were scheduled for re-argument in the 1999 Term.

III. Administrative Office of the United States Courts

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts celebrated its 60th anniversary this past year as the central support agency for the administration of the federal court system. A century ago, federal court administration was almost entirely decentralized. Each district court handled its own affairs, relying on the district's United States Marshal for some administrative services. For those necessarily centralized activities, such as submitting a budget request to Congress, the federal Judiciary had to rely upon the Department of Justice, the chief litigant in the federal courts. This arrangement presented problems obvious to both the courts and the Justice Department.

Congress established the Administrative Office in 1939 and stated its intention to "furnish the Federal Courts the administrative machinery for self-improvement, through which those courts will be able to scrutinize their own work and develop efficiency and promptness in their administration of justice." Since then, under the supervision of the Judicial Conference and the leadership of six directors, the Administrative Office has advanced the Judiciary's legislative agenda with Congress; secured funding to carry on the work of the courts; provided facilities, services, and supplies to support the needs of judicial officers and court staff; collected statistics and reported on the work of the courts; developed and implemented automated systems; and provided program leadership, oversight, and assistance.

Among the Administrative Office's key functions are preparing and submitting the Judiciary's budget to the Congress, and executing the budget. Because of the tight budget caps for discretionary domestic spending imposed by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the fiscal year 2000 budget process was a challenging one for the Judiciary. Originally, neither the House nor the Senate appropriations bills provided enough funding to maintain court operations at 1999 service levels. Administrative Office Director Leonidas Ralph Mecham and his staff, the Judicial Conference Budget Committee Chair Judge John G. Heyburn II and members of the committee, and many others of us within the Judiciary led a successful effort to obtain substantially more appropriated funds than either the House or the Senate had originally allotted.

In the interest of continuing improvement and preparing for future needs, the Administrative Office is currently conducting or overseeing an unprecedented number of strategic studies of Judiciary programs and operations. An independent assessment of the Judiciary's space and facilities program by an outside consultant is under way to make recommendations for future facilities planning, budgeting, and management. Another expert consulting firm will be considering the future information technology needs of the courts and how the Judiciary can best organize and manage resources to carry out its information technology program to meet these needs.

An independent study of the court security program will consider ways to provide adequate security to the Judiciary more efficiently and effectively. Experts will conduct a strategic assessment of the probation and pretrial services programs to make recommendations to ensure the future quality and success of these programs.

Work measurement studies will be used to develop new staffing formulas for the appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts, as well as probation and pretrial services offices. Another study managed by the Administrative Office, the Federal Judicial Center and the Sentencing Commission is assessing judicial branch training needs.

Enhancing communications with the courts remains a high priority for the agency. The Administrative Office is the biggest user of the Federal Judicial Television Network, currently broadcasting 80 hours of live and taped educational and informational programming per month to more than 240 viewing sites located throughout the Judiciary. This year, agency staff redesigned the "J-Net," the Judiciary's intranet web site, making it easier for judges and court personnel to access time-sensitive and important information. Using the Judiciary's data communications network, the Administrative Office has begun sending official Administrative Office correspondence addressed to chief judges and other court executives by electronic mail. This provides for nearly instantaneous communication of important information.

The Administrative Office, working closely with court users, develops, implements, and supports new systems and technologies for the courts. One of the most significant projects under way is to replace automated systems and technology supporting the current case management systems in the appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts. These systems will have electronic filing capabilities, which will allow a court to receive, store, and retrieve documents in an electronic format, potentially reducing paper volume and enabling easier access to case information. In 1999, the agency completed implementation of an automated library management system and launched a web-based virtual law library. A web-based electronic public access network providing the public with access to court records and other information via the Internet was implemented. The Administrative Office is also in the midst of implementing new systems for jury administration, financial accounting, and the processing of criminal justice act payment vouchers.

IV. The Federal Judicial Center

The Federal Judicial Center improves federal court operations through analysis and education.

This year, the FJC's Board, which I chair, selected Judge Fern M. Smith of San Francisco as the FJC's eighth Director. Judge Smith became a federal district judge in 1988. She brings a wealth of experience to the FJC, having served on both the federal and state bench, as well as having chaired the Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on the Rules of Evidence from 1996-99.

FJC research and education helps the judicial branch deal with vexing policy questions created by modern litigation. FJC education programs provide federal judges the continuing education they need to manage their dockets effectively. They also offer a range of perspectives on complicated areas of the law and non-legal subjects that intersect with the law, such as economics.

To cite but two examples, the FJC's study of mass tort litigation constituted a major element of the volume submitted to me earlier this year by the Judicial Conference's Mass Tort Working Group. Under the direction of a Board of Editors chaired by Judge Stanley Marcus, the FJC is preparing a revision of its frequently used Manual for Complex Litigation.

Also, as decisions of the Supreme Court fix the responsibilities of district judges to determine the admissibility of expert witness testimony, the FJC continues to assist judges in how to exercise these responsibilities. It is completing, for release next year, the second edition of its Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Over 75,000 copies of the first edition have now been printed by either the government or private publishers. The FJC is also updating its earlier monograph on effective utilization of visiting judges, which will help ensure maximum deployment of judicial resources.

The FJC uses technology to diversify the means by which it meets its responsibilities to educate judges and court employees. In 1999, the great majority of the over 30,000 participants who benefited from FJC education did so through alternatives to traditional classroom programs, thus minimizing travel costs.

The Federal Judicial Television Network, which the Center operates for the Judiciary, broadcast over 1,400 hours of educational and informational programming to federal courts nationwide. For one example, interactive FJC broadcasts helped probation and pretrial services officers supervise defendants and offenders through programs on substance abuse and the pharmacology of drugs.

The FJC has also used technology to promote understanding of federal court history. The FJC's web page will soon include a wealth of historical information, including the first complete list of all federal district and appellate judges and Justices, along with basic information about them and their courts. It will allow scholars and others to answer many questions about the men and women who have served on the federal bench and about the changes in the make up of the federal Judiciary over its 200-year history and in more recent times.

V. The United States Sentencing Commission

On November 10, 1999, the Senate not only confirmed the President's nomination of U.S. Circuit Judge Diana E. Murphy of Minneapolis, Minnesota, to be the new Chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, it also confirmed as new Commissioners udge Ruben Castillo of Chicago, Illinois; Judge Sterling Johnson, Jr. of Queens, New York; Judge Joe Kendall of Dallas, Texas; Professor Michael O'Neill of Chevy Chase, Maryland; Judge William K. Sessions, III of Cornwall, Vermont; and Mr. John R. Steer of Fairfax Station, Virginia. These seven voting commissioners join ex officio members Mr. Michael J. Gaines and Mr. Laird C. Kirkpatrick. The Commission had been without any voting commissioners since October 31, 1998.

Judge Murphy is a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; Judge Castillo serves as a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Illinois; Judge Johnson is a U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of New York; Judge Kendall serves as a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Texas; Professor O'Neill is an assistant professor of law at George Mason University School of Law; Judge Sessions serves as a U.S. district judge for the District of Vermont; and John Steer had previously served as the general counsel of the Commission.

The Commission already has made a preliminary determination to focus its policy agenda on promulgating guideline amendments to implement the crime and sentencing-related legislation enacted by the 105th Congress. The Commission's shortened amendment cycle ends May 1, 2000.

In addition, as it has in the past, the Commission also proposes to resolve a limited number of conflicts among the circuit courts on sentencing guideline interpretation. The Commission is working with the Criminal Law Committee of the Judicial Conference, the United States Department of Justice, and other interested participants in the federal criminal justice system to identify which circuit conflict issues the Commission should resolve this amendment cycle, with the goal of enhancing the consistency with which the guidelines are applied.

In fiscal year 1999, the Commission also received documentation on more than 50,000 cases sentenced under the guidelines.

During fiscal year 1999, Commission staff trained approximately 3,304 individuals at 48 training sessions (including ongoing programs sponsored by the Federal Judicial Center and other agencies). Commission staff continue to work collaboratively with the Federal Judicial Center and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to plan and develop educational and informational programming for the Federal Judicial Television Network. In May 1999, as part of the Commission's effort to address the long-established need for defense bar training, the Commission and the Federal Bar Association once again co-sponsored the Eighth Annual National Seminar on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. During the year, the Commission's "HelpLine" provided guideline application assistance to approximately 200 calls per month.

VI. In Memoriam

This year, the Judiciary and nation lost a friend and colleague when Harry A. Blackmun passed away on March 4, 1999. Justice Blackmun was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Richard M. Nixon and served from June 1970 until his retirement in August 1994. During his 24 years on the Court, Justice Blackmun was careful and meticulous in his judicial work. He was also a thoughtful and compassionate man, who will be remembered for his integrity, his sense of justice, and his exemplification of decency and modesty.

VII. Conclusion

Our judicial experiences in 1999 and throughout the 20th century have confirmed the wisdom of the fundamental structure provided for our government by our founders. It is a system that is capable of adjusting to change without altering its core functions. Although we can no more foresee the technological advances that will come in the 21st century than our predecessors did 100 years ago, we enter the new century with some confidence that the Judiciary an adapt to and utilize those developments based upon our past experiences. To ensure this, however, we must be careful that the fundamental structure of our federal Judiciary is not undermined either through neglecting our judges' needs or by expanding our courts' jurisdiction unnecessarily.

The Judiciary continues to prepare for the challenges it will surely face. I point to the Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts and the 1998 Report of the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals chaired by retired Justice Byron White as but two relatively recent examples of forward thinking about the Judiciary.

Chief Justice Melville Fuller observed at the close of the last century that, "the new century may be entered upon in the spirit of optimism . . . essential to the accomplishment of great ends." On balance, I believe I can make the same observation 100 years later.

¹ Overall growth in appellate court caseload this year was due to a 349% upsurge in original proceedings. This sudden expansion resulted from newly implemented reporting procedures, which more accurately measure the increased judicial workload generated by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, both passed in 1996. Declines in filings were recorded for all other types of appeals with civil, criminal, bankruptcy, and administrative agency appeals decreasing 2%, 3%, 8%, and 14%,respectively.

² Criminal case filings rose from 57,691 in 1998 to 59,923 in 1999, and the number of defendants grew 2% from 79,008 to 80,822. Criminal case filings per authorized judgeship went up from 89 to 93 cases. The current levels of criminal case and defendant filings are higher than in any year since 1933, the year the Prohibition Amendment was repealed. This year's increase, as last year's, was significantly impacted by filings related to drugs and illegal immigration in the southwestern border districts, although drug-related filings also increased in more than 50 other districts. Nationwide, immigration filings rose 14% to 10,641 cases, and drug filings rose 7% to 17,483. Weapons and firearms filings grew 20% to 4,367.

³ In 1999, the number of defendants activated in the pretrial services system increased 2% to 80,154, while the number of defendants interviewed went up 1%, and the number of pretrial reports also increased 1%. Pretrial case activations have risen for five consecutive years, and this year's total is 43% higher than that for 1994. During this period, pretrial reports prepared rose 42%, persons interviewed grew 32%, and defendants released on supervision increased 25%.

⁴ Supervised release following a period of incarceration now accounts for more than 60% of the probation population, and there is an average lag of several years before defendants found guilty and sentenced to prison appear in the probation numbers. Of the 59,450 persons serving terms of supervised release, 54% had been charged with a drug-related offense.

⁵ The overall increase in filings of civil cases was related primarily to cases involving the United States as a plaintiff, while filings involving the U.S. as a defendant and private cases involving both federal question jurisdiction (i.e., actions under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States) and diversity of citizenship declined slightly.

     Total U.S. cases increased 13% from 57,852 to 65,443, with filings involving the U.S. as plaintiff increasing 33% and filings involving the U.S. as a defendant declining less than 1%. The rise in U.S.-plaintiff filings was primarily a result of a 54% jump in cases related to the recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments. Student loan recoveries continued to climb sharply, growing from 14,080 filings in 1998 to 21,915 in 1999. This 56% rise reflects the continued intense debt collection procedures implemented by the Department of Education in the late 1990's.

     The decrease in cases involving the U.S. as a defendant largely reflected a 4% decrease in Social Security cases and a 9% decline in motions to vacate sentence. Social Security disability insurance and supplemental security income filings each dropped, at 6% and 3%, respectively.

     Motions to vacate sentence fell by 535 cases, likely the continued effect of the 1995 Bailey v. United States Supreme Court ruling restricting the imposition of enhanced penalties for using firearms.

     Federal question jurisdiction and diversity of citizenship filings each declined, at 1% and 4%, respectively. Federal question jurisdiction fell from 146,827 to 144,898 (down 1,929filings), mainly because filings related to personal injury cases decreased 13%, with product liability filings (mostly breast implant cases) dropping 58%. Habeas corpus petitions filed by state prisoners increased 9%. Diversity of citizenship filings declined from 51,992 to 49,793 (down 2,199 filings) as a result of a large reduction in the number of personal injury/product liability breast implant cases.

⁶ Prior to 1995, bankruptcy filings had declined for two years after eight years of continuous growth. This year's decline resulted from decreases in filings of both personal and business petitions, with drops in chapter 7 and chapter 13 petitions primarily responsible for the overall decline.

   Following seven years of decline, filings of petitions under chapter 11, which represent about 1% of all bankruptcy filings, rose 2.5%. Filings under chapter 7, which accounted for 71% of all bankruptcy filings, fell 6.5%. Chapter 13 filings, which constituted 28% of all bankruptcies, declined 4%. Filings under chapter 12, which made up less than 0.1% of all bankruptcy filings, dropped 8%.