Coping With the Great Flood

The problem is nothing short of “nightmarish,” says the Judicial Conference of the United States. Federal trial and appellate court caseloads are burgeoning; judges are overworked and people who use the courts are poorly served. The available solutions are three, each equally unpalatable: tolerate growing delays; emphasize speedy resolution over careful deliberation; unload parts of the courts’ caseload onto federal agencies and state courts. This last option is essentially the one the conference favored in a draft report released last month. But the conference--and Congress, which will ultimately consider these proposals--must not think that the caseload problem will be solved just because it temporarily drops out of sight.

The federal caseload has more than doubled since 1970, but the number of federal judges has not kept pace. If filing trends continue--as is almost sure--the federal courts will be inundated. The growing burden of criminal cases--made worse as Congress defines new federal crimes--has already forced delays in handling civil cases. In Southern California, where criminal cases now account for more than 85% of all federal trials, “the civil trial is a chimera,” according to the report. Indeed, one district judge here “can’t even remember” the last civil trial he presided over.

Getting enough new judges is probably out of the question. Even with better productivity, the conference estimates the size of the federal bench, now 846 judges, would have to balloon to 4,000 to keep pace with likely caseload growth.

So the challenge for the Judicial Conference was to find ways to manage in this era of fiscal limits. A panel of nine judges produced the draft report; the full conference will consider a final version in March. Some of the proposed changes could be made by the judges but most would require congressional action. We suggest that Congress think hard before adopting several:

--The panel recommends that disputes over Social Security disability benefits be resolved in the Department of Health and Human Services, perhaps by establishing a new “benefits review board.” But who would monitor this board to ensure that all claimants received a fair hearing?

--Job discrimination claims would be initially resolved by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. But could the commission handle the increased load?

--State courts, which already handle 97% of all litigation, would become the primary forum for routine claims under employee pension, health and welfare benefit plans and for other disputes between litigants from different states. But California courts are already staggering under the weight of “three strikes” cases; other state courts are little better off.

Federal caseload growth is a serious problem, but the long-term solution lies in rethinking--and improving--the administration of justice at all levels.