THE DAILY POST

Main content

Federal judges are taking part in a monthlong celebration of Constitution Day and Citizenship Day, presiding over special naturalization ceremonies at sports stadiums and local landmarks, leading public readings of the Constitution, and conducting civics education conversations with students. 

“Constitution Day is a day when citizens, by birth and naturalization, share in the community of being Americans who celebrate the ‘blessings of liberty’ as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution,” said U.S. Magistrate Judge Anthony Porcelli, of the Middle District of Florida, who participated in a recent naturalization ceremony at Tropicana Field in St. Petersburg.

Federal judges hope their participation heightens awareness of the role of the courts in daily life and encourages the public to take a greater interest in the legal system, and individual’s rights under the Constitution. Constitution Day and Citizenship Day are officially observed on Sept. 17, the date the Constitution was signed in Philadelphia in 1787, but federal courts often conduct special events up to a month before or after.

Here is a sampling of Constitution Day and Citizenship Day events:

California

The Eastern District of California hosted a reading of the Constitution in the rotunda of the Robert T. Matsui U.S. Courthouse in Sacramento, on Sept. 15. U.S. District Chief Judge Kimberly J. Muller hosted the event for a crowd of more than 100 attendees, including readers from high schools, the court and associated agencies, community members, and judges. Readers wore 19th Amendment sashes and received bookmarks celebrating women’s suffrage.

On Sept. 27, U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher, of the Southern District of California, presided over a naturalization ceremony at the Cabrillo National Monument.

Florida

A naturalization ceremony was held for 30 new citizens on the steps of the federal courthouse in Fort Myers, on Sept 16. U.S. Magistrate Judge Kyle Dudek, of the Middle District of Florida, presided, and Florida Supreme Court Justice Jorge Labarga, who is a naturalized citizen, was the keynote speaker. After the ceremony, judges, local officials, and school children participated in a live reading of the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. Magistrate Judges Patricia Barksdale and Laura Lothman Lambert, of the Middle District of Florida, hosted Mandarin High School students at a naturalization ceremony, on Sept. 16, at the federal courthouse in Jacksonville where students interacted with new citizens and observed a court hearing. They also met in small groups with attorney volunteers to discuss the Preamble to the Constitution and its relevance to students and to individuals appearing before the court.

On Sept. 17, U.S. Magistrate Judge Anthony Porcelli, of the Middle District of Florida, presided over the Constitution Day naturalization ceremony for candidates from 20 countries at Tropicana Field in St. Petersburg.

Illinois

On Sept. 20, U.S. District Chief Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, of the Northern District of Illinois, swore in 65 new U.S. citizens from 32 countries at Daley Plaza in Chicago.

Iowa

In downtown Des Moines, U.S. District Chief Judge Stephanie M. Rose, of the Southern District of Iowa, swore in new citizens at the World Food and Music Festival, on Sept. 16.

Kansas

Outside the federal courthouses in Kansas City, Topeka, and Wichita, on Sept. 16, federal judges and members of the local Federal Bar Association welcomed students, public officials, and the public to read sections of the entire Constitution.

Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia

U.S. Fourth Circuit Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory hosted writers of the three winning essays in the Fourth Circuit’s sixth annual writing contest to read their work at a virtual program, on Sept. 16. Some 115 ninth graders through twelfth graders in the five states of the circuit submitted essays on the Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Rights Amendment.

Minnesota

On Sept. 13, U.S. District Judge Kate M. Menendez, of the District of Minnesota, was joined by the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul for a naturalization ceremony at the Saint Paul RiverCentre.

Missouri

U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Bough, of the Western District of Missouri, welcomed 500 new citizens at a naturalization ceremony hosted by the Kansas City Royals at Kauffman Stadium, on Aug. 19.

On Sept. 14, U.S. District Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk, of the Eastern District of Missouri, presided over a naturalization ceremony at Busch Stadium hosted by the St. Louis Cardinals.

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Autrey, of the Eastern District of Missouri, presided over a naturalization ceremony at the Gateway Arch National Park in St. Louis, on Sept. 16.

On Sept. 28, U.S. Eighth Circuit Judge Raymond W. Gruender presided over a non-game day naturalization ceremony for 300 new citizens at Busch Stadium.

Nebraska

On Sept. 17, the grounds of an historic, one-room schoolhouse in Papillion was the site of a naturalization ceremony. U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson, of the District of Nebraska, presided. 

Nevada

On Aug. 20, U.S. District Judge Andrew P. Gordon, of the District of Nevada, swore in 700 new citizens from 80 countries during halftime at the soccer game between the Las Vegas Lights FC and the Sacramento Republic FC.

New York

On Sept. 16, U.S. District Chief Judge Margo K. Brodie, of the Eastern District of New York, presided over a naturalization ceremony at the federal courthouse in Brooklyn that included a special musical performance. U.S. District Judge Raymond J. Dearie administered the oath, and U.S. Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Ohio

U.S. District Judge James R. Knepp III, of the Northern District of Ohio, presided over a naturalization ceremony at the University of Toledo College of Law, on Sept. 16. New citizens took the Oath of Allegiance in the law school’s auditorium where family and friends were joined by students and by representatives of Ohio’s Congressional delegation.

On Sept. 19, federal judges Algenon L. Marbley, Douglas R. Cole, Michael J. Newman, Walter H. Rice, Thomas M. Rose, Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., Michael H. Watson, Stephanie K. Bowman, Peter B. Silvain, Jr., and Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers, from the Southern District of Ohio, participated in naturalization ceremonies across three locations — Miami University in Hamilton, the Ohio History Center in Columbus, and the University of Dayton School of Law.

Tennessee

On Sept. 19, federal judges of the Eastern District of Tennessee and the Knoxville Chapter of the Federal Bar Association hosted their annual public reading of the Constitution in the courtyard at the federal courthouse. One-minute segments of the Constitution were read by more than 100 public officials, students, judges, court staff, lawyers, and other community members.

On Sept. 23, more than 100 high school students spent a morning at the federal courthouse in Chattanooga. Students participated in a courtroom scenario, with a focus on the First and Fourth Amendments. Student journalists also interviewed U.S. District Judge Curtis L. Collier, of the Eastern District of Tennessee. 

Washington

On Sept. 16, 50 candidates for citizenship were naturalized at Central Valley High School in Spokane Valley. The marching band played as a crowd of 2,000 students, families, and friends cheered. U.S. Magistrate Judge James A. Goeke, of the Eastern District of Washington, swore in the new citizens.

Related Topics: Public Education

Main content

U.S. District Judge Sarah S. Vance, of the Eastern District of Louisiana, is the 2022 recipient of the Edward J. Devitt Distinguished Service to Justice Award. Vance will receive the award in a ceremony at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Devitt Award honors an Article III judge who has achieved a distinguished career and made significant contributions to the administration of justice, the advancement of the rule of law, and the improvement of society as a whole.

Recipients are chosen by a committee of federal judges. This year, the committee was chaired by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, and included Judge Britt C. Grant, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

“Judge Sarah Vance is an extraordinary federal judge who has devoted her career to improving the administration of justice and safeguarding the American rule of law,” Kavanaugh said in a statement.  “Judge Vance is well known for her razor-sharp intellect, astounding work ethic, sound judgment, and superb judicial temperament.”

“I am overwhelmed at the thought of joining the pantheon of judges who have received the Devitt Award,” Vance said in a statement.  “My entire judicial career has been a happy collaboration with my law clerks and staff, and the many dedicated judges and staff members who worked beside me in the Eastern District of Louisiana. The Devitt Award is the capstone of a judicial career that has already been highly rewarding.”

Vance was appointed to the Eastern District of Louisiana in 1994 and served as the district’s chief judge from 2008 to 2015. The daughter of a World War II veteran father and an Italian immigrant mother, she graduated first in her class at Louisiana State University and at Tulane Law School, according to the Dwight D. Opperman Foundation, which sponsors the award. Before her appointment to the bench, she worked in a New Orleans law firm, with a focus on commercial litigation, white-collar criminal defense, and antitrust law.

Vance has served on the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, as Chair of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, as a member of the Federal Judiciary Workplace Conduct Working Group, and on the board of the Federal Judicial Center. She has “played a vital role in the administration and governance of the federal Judiciary,” Kavanaugh said.

The Devitt Award is named for the late Edward J. Devitt, longtime chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The award was established in 1982.

Main content

On Dec. 28, 1922, Chief Justice William Howard Taft convened a meeting in the Capitol building, in the rooms then reserved for the Supreme Court. The present Supreme Court building had not yet been built. Joining him were the most senior judges from each of the nine existing circuit courts. It was known as the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges.

The group listened to a report from the attorney general, who told them that federal court cases had increased dramatically in the past year. He attributed this increase to “the vast number of Prohibition cases which had been filed.”  

While meetings of judges to discuss policy are routine today, that first gathering was a unique milestone in the Judiciary’s history. Taft, who previously had served as president and as a judge for the Sixth Circuit, had a vision that federal judges could chart their own path as an efficient and independent branch of government. It would begin with judges working together on issues of common interest.

“Heretofore, each judge has paddled his own canoe and has done the best he could with his district,” Taft said. “He has been subject to little supervision, if any … [H]e is likely to cooperate much more readily in an organized effort to get rid of business and do justice than under the ‘go-as-you-please’ system of our present federal judges.”

Fast forward 100 years; what Taft envisioned has evolved into the Judicial Conference of the United States, a body that is central to the modern federal Judiciary.

The Conference, formed by Congress in 1922, establishes policy for the Judiciary. The Conference operates through 25 committees that work on virtually every facet of the federal court system — including budget, court administration, facilities, human resources, the public defense function, information technology, judicial security, and rules of practice and procedure. This work is supported by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO), whose director serves as Secretary of the Judicial Conference. 

In addition to ensuring more efficient administration, the Conference has helped the Judiciary meet new challenges, including national emergencies such as COVID-19, and it has protected the Judiciary’s Constitutional role and independence through effective self-governance.

“Taft knew that no one seriously questioned that judges ‘should be independent in their judgments,’” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in his 2021 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary. “But Taft recognized that courts also require ample institutional independence. The Judiciary’s power to manage its internal affairs insulates courts from inappropriate political influence and is crucial to preserving public trust in its work as a separate and co-equal branch of government.”

On Sept. 20, 2022, the Conference, which now meets twice annually, gathered in the Supreme Court building and marked its centennial year.

In some ways, the Conference has exhibited surprising continuity from its initial meeting in 1922. During their first deliberations about heavy Prohibition caseloads, the judges recommended a solution that continues today: permitting judges from less busy districts to help districts with heavier caseloads.

To take one modern example, visiting judges have helped courts in border states to cope with large immigration dockets. Case statistics, judgeship requests, and courthouse needs also have been recurring topics through the decades.

But Taft and the original judges would have been hard-pressed to predict other changes. In 1922, the judges would have traveled by train to the first Conference. Movies were still silent, and conference calls did not exist. In recent decades, technology has transformed the courts. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, federal courts have conducted many proceedings by video, and the Conference and its committees met virtually for two years.

And like the federal Judiciary as a whole, the Judicial Conference is larger and more diverse than 100 years ago. The membership includes chief judges from all circuits, the chief judge of the Court of International Trade, and one district judge from each of 12 regional circuits, who are chosen by their peers.

Carl E. Stewart, who was chief judge in the Fifth Circuit from 2012 to 2019, noted that he was one of four African American members in the Conference in 2016, and again in 2018 with a different set of judges. “That was remarkable,” Stewart said. “Those moments stand out for me for a personal reason.”

Stewart, who was a member of the Executive Committee from 2017 to 2019 and also chaired the Conference’s strategic planning process, said one of the greatest values of the Conference is that it brings judges together from across the country, with a shared goal of improving the delivery of justice.

“We all have common concerns and common interests,” Stewart said. “To represent my circuit as the chief circuit judge, sitting around the table in the East Conference Room at the Supreme Court with all my colleagues and contemporaries, I was thrilled and honored to have the opportunity to be in that space.”

According to the judges gathering for the Conference this September, Taft’s vision of a national body to set Judiciary policy has been validated over time — especially when courts face large-scale emergencies that require a collective response.

And they feel privileged to be a part of the Conference’s 100-year history.

“I am extremely proud, but I am also so grateful to have had the opportunities I had, and to hopefully contribute a little to the work of the Conference,” said Judge Claire V. Eagan, chair of the Judicial Conference’s Executive Committee. “Chief Justice Taft was very prescient. He realized that we had an opportunity to communicate more, and to assist the courts to give them a more cohesive and national framework. It had to be done, but he’s the one who did it.”

While today’s Conference may be a more efficient and diverse body than in the past, its mission has largely remained the same. Running like threads through its history are concerns about case management, judgeships, security, budget, court staffing, rules of procedure, and the independence of the judicial branch. 

“The independence of our courts is a hallmark of the federal Judiciary,” said U.S. District Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf, director of the AO and secretary to the Conference. “We are a nationwide court system, sharing common challenges and common goals. The work of the Conference and its committees unify us in the administration of justice, and brings a real dimension of camaraderie and collegiality to the Branch as a whole.”

Information about the Judicial Conference’s history is available on the Judicial Conference page, and in a timeline of historical milestones. Below are some highlights from the Conference’s century of service.

Budget

The Judiciary has not always controlled its own budget. When Taft and his fellow judges convened for the first time, the attorney general and the Department of Justice were responsible for the Judiciary’s accounts. There were frequent inter-branch conflicts. These were resolved in 1939, when Congress created the AO. The legislation provided that the AO Director, as the administrative officer of the courts, disburse appropriations and other funds for the maintenance and operation of the courts, under the supervision and direction of the Conference. Since then, the chair of the Budget Committee and the AO Director have presented the Judiciary’s annual budget request each year to Congress. 

In the past 25 years, the Judiciary has weathered numerous financial storms, including sharp budget cuts known as sequestration, lapses in federal appropriations, and unforeseen expenses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Conference has approved emergency measures and cost-containment initiatives, such as reducing the Judiciary’s space requirements, to meet budgetary challenges.

Court Administration

The Conference continually considers ways to improve case management and court administration. Over the Conference’s long history, these initiatives have run the gamut from encouraging clerks’ offices in 1951, to adopt effective receipt systems, loose-leaf dockets, and card indices; to directing the AO in 1985, to develop an office automation plan. This led eventually to an electronic case filing system, which was introduced nationwide in 2001. The new system also gave public access to electronic court records through PACER.

In the past quarter century, the Judiciary has continued to make technological advances. The Conference has approved measures allowing circuit courts to live stream certain proceedings. In addition, in March 2022, the Conference endorsed recommendations by the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management to make searches free of charge for all non-commercial users of any future new modernized case management, electronic filing, and public access systems implemented by the Judiciary. Efforts to replace the Judiciary’s Case Management/Electronic Case Files technology are currently underway.

Courthouse Construction

Although the General Services Administration is responsible for the Judiciary’s courthouse needs, the Conference is a partner in the process. Shortly after World War II, a Conference committee submitted a manual establishing general standards of design and construction for federal court space in federal buildings. This manual evolved into the U.S. Courts Design Guide, which was adopted in 1984, revised in 1991, and further updated in 2021, with the Conference’s approval. The Conference also reviews and endorses an annual list of Courthouse Project Priorities developed by the Space and Facilities Committee.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, courts around the country reviewed their security measures. The Conference has approved the construction of special security pavilions and other security measures to safeguard federal courthouses. 

The Conference also supported an ambitious and ultimately successful effort to cut long-term costs by reducing overall space capacity by 3 percent as well as requiring that circuits not expand their total space in the future. 

Court Staff

The Conference sets qualifications and salary levels for nearly every type of court employee, including probation officers, court reporters, and law clerks. The Conference also authorizes work measurement studies that provide empirical data to help determine staffing levels. The Conference has strived over the years to pay staff on par with the other branches of government, and to support a diverse and inclusive workplace.

In his 2017 year-end report, Chief Justice Roberts called for the creation of a working group to examine the sufficiency of the federal Judiciary’s policies and procedures addressing inappropriate conduct in the workplace, with a goal of ensuring “an exemplary workplace for every judge and every court employee.”

For the past four years, the Federal Judiciary Workplace Conduct Working Group, the Judicial Conference, the courts and circuits, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and the Federal Judicial Center have made significant strides to strengthen protections and streamline processes to ensure a workplace of respect, civility, fairness, tolerance, and dignity, free of discrimination and harassment. 

The AO established the Office of Judicial Integrity, and Directors of Workplace Relations positions were created in each circuit. In addition, the Conference has approved or endorsed updates to the Model Employment Dispute Resolution (EDR) Plan for judiciary employees, the codes of conduct for judges and judicial employees, and the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Disability proceedings.

Emergencies

In recent decades, the Judicial Conference has handled several national emergencies, starting with the abrupt suspension of a Conference meeting during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Other emergencies have required coordinated national responses. These included sharp budget cuts mandated by sequestration, government shutdowns, natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, and most recently COVID-19.

While federal courts retain considerable administrative autonomy, making many decisions at a circuit and local level, judges acknowledge that the Conference and AO have been essential in informing and assisting the courts during times of crisis.

“There have been a lot of emergencies in the last 20 years,” said Judge Eagan, chair of the Conference’s Executive Committee. “We’ve had climate emergencies, we’ve had security emergencies, we’ve had health emergencies. We had the aftermath of terrorist attacks. Because of this experience, the Conference is now poised to handle any future emergencies effectively and efficiently.”

Judgeships

In 1964, the Conference adopted a policy of submitting a comprehensive report to Congress every four years on the judgeship needs of the appellate and district courts. In 1977, the Conference changed the frequency of these judgeship reports to every other year. It has become the means by which the judicial branch communicates its Article III judgeship needs to Congress.

For example, the 2021 biennial survey of judgeship needs (pdf) needs prompted a request to Congress to create two additional circuit court judgeships for the courts of appeals and 77 additional district court judgeships. In addition, the Conference agreed to request five total additional judgeships in the Eastern and Northern Districts of Oklahoma. Felony filings have significantly increased in those districts after the Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which shifted many criminal prosecutions involving Native Americans from state to federal courts.

Legislation

From the beginning, pending national legislation was considered at Conference meetings. In 1922, one topic was a bill to form a commission “to formulate recommendations for statutory changes in the practice and procedure in the federal courts to enable a more expeditious dispatch of their business.”

Over the next 100 years, the Conference reviewed nearly every bill introduced in Congress that might affect the courts, from the most comprehensive crime bill to the smallest proposals for technical changes in judicial procedure or court operations.

On occasion, the Conference affirmatively proposes legislation to improve the administration of justice. For example, following Hurricane Katrina’s devastating impact in 2005, Congress passed legislation, requested by the Conference, that allows federal courts to conduct business outside their normal geographical boundaries when their own facilities are not reasonably accessible.

Rules of Procedure

Under the Rules Enabling Act passed in 1934, Congress delegated to the Judiciary nearly all authority to establish rules for the courts, but reserved to itself the power to reject, amend, or defer any such rules. The Conference has played a pivotal role in this process. 

The Conference’s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure and five advisory committees on civil, criminal, appellate, bankruptcy, and evidence rules conduct studies, draft new and amended rules, hold hearings, and make recommendations for Conference action. For example, the Conference recommended, and the Supreme Court adopted, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure in 1968, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure in 1973, and the rules governing post-conviction collateral (habeas corpus) remedies in 1977. Amendments have been adopted periodically as needed.

New rules typically take at least three years to gain final approval. The Judicial Conference, Supreme Court, and Congress all must assent to proposed changes.

“The rulemaking process within the Judiciary is much like a legislative process. And it’s not a closed process,” said Judge John D. Bates, chair of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, who also served as AO director from 2013 to 2015. “Public attendance at meetings is routine, particularly for some of the committees. You get suggestions from academia, from other judges and from members of the bar and from organizations. It’s a very lengthy, thorough, careful process.”

In the early stages of COVID-19, the Judiciary needed to move far more quickly to enable courts to continue functioning by using virtual technologies.

Collaborating with other Conference committees, the AO, the Justice Department, and congressional staffers, the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure helped in a matter of weeks to hammer out language that ultimately was added to the 2020 CARES Act.

The legislation authorized video and teleconferencing for certain criminal proceedings during the COVID emergency. Shortly after, the Conference’s executive committee approved an exception to rules prohibiting broadcasting of court proceedings, permitting the public and media to listen to virtual sessions.

The CARES Act authorization will end 30 days after the President’s national emergency declaration terminates, or when the Judicial Conference finds that emergency conditions are no longer affecting court functions. The temporary exception to the broadcasting policy will end 120 days after the Judicial Conference finds that the emergency conditions are no longer materially affecting court functions.   

Collectively, the Judicial Conference of the United States, its 25 committees, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts have fulfilled and expanded on Chief Justice Taft’s guiding vision. By setting policy and overseeing the full range of administrative needs, the Judicial Conference has provided a century of service to the Judiciary, and to the public.  

Related Topics: Judicial Conference of the United States, Judicial History

Main content

At court-sponsored institutes across the country, classroom teachers are hearing first-person experiences on topics ranging from judges’ perspectives on judicial independence in their decision-making, to lawyers’ insights into Constitutional tensions between the First Amendment and national security concerns.

The programs are offered as teachers institutes by federal courts in seven states. At these professional development programs, fifth-grade through twelfth-grade teachers spend one to five days at nearby federal courthouses in-person and in hybrid formats to help elevate civics education in schools.

“I’m gratified that we can support civics teachers in deepening their understanding of the Constitution and the role of the federal courts,” said U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, who co-directed the Manhattan summer institute that included a segment on First Amendment cases and controversies. “The level of preparation, insight, and analysis that teachers bring to the institute sets the stage for the next generation to be informed participants in our democracy.” 

Participating middle school and high school social studies teachers often say they leave these institutes feeling reinvigorated by their interactions with judges, attorneys, and legal scholars.

“It was a pleasure to hear from people that have worked on important cases and their experiences in the judicial system,” said a teacher attending the program in Manhattan.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave, who co-directed the program with Vyskocil, said: “I was struck by the commitment of the teachers, who had just finished their school year the day before, and the next morning they were in a professional development class with us,”

To find an institute at a nearby federal courthouse, teachers can contact the federal courts’ national educational outreach manager Rebecca Fanning at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

The programs are tuition-free, and teachers who register for some court programs can apply for continuing education credits.

Highlights of 2022 Teachers Institutes

New York City

The hybrid program at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in Manhattan explored cases illustrating conflicts between the First Amendment and national security issues throughout modern history, from the Red Scare to the Pentagon Papers.

Over the three-day institute, teachers interacted with judges and worked in small groups with scholars who mentored them throughout the program and made themselves available for future consultations. In addition to legal history and theory, teachers were introduced to a range of tools for guiding students through mock oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The program was offered under the auspices of The Honorable Robert A. Katzmann Justice for All Courts and the Community Initiative and the Justice Resource Center.

Seattle

The Judicial Institute for Teachers of fifth-grade through twelfth-grade students addressed qualified immunity for police officers, the U.S. Supreme Court, and judicial review. The featured guest was Mary Beth Tinker, the plaintiff in Tinker v. Des Moines. During the four-day program in Seattle, teachers also heard from federal judges, attorneys, and law enforcement. The annual event is hosted by the U.S. District Court in collaboration with Seattle University School of Law, which offers continuing education credits to participating teachers.

Boise, Idaho

A two-day program for high school teachers in the Boise area was on The U.S. Constitution, Tribal Sovereignty, and the Importance of an Independent, Impartial Judiciary to Preserving the Rule of Law. The institute was sponsored by the U.S. District Court, the Idaho State Judiciary, the University of Idaho College of Law, and Idaho Attorneys for Civic Education. Teachers observed federal and state court hearings, questioned judges and lawyers, and learned best practices for teaching court-related civics. A panel of federal and state judges discussed the topic: How Do Judges Understand, and Strive to Fulfill, Their Duties of Independence and Impartiality?

Chicago

Legal scholars, judges, and attorneys spent a day with teachers from the Chicago area going into depth about voting rights, past and present. The annual Judge John F. Grady Summer Institute for Teachers at the federal courthouse included a courtroom observation and debriefing conversations with judges and attorneys. A curriculum specialist and teacher helped participants explore how they could bring what they learned into their classrooms. The institute is co-sponsored by the U.S. District Court and the American Bar Association. 

Indianapolis

The two-day Federal Court Teacher Institute in Indianapolis focused on the federal criminal justice system and included courtroom observations of hearings. Teachers served as judges in a simulation of a sentencing hearing, then conversed with a judge about the sentencing process. A panel that included a federal public defender, a defense attorney in private practice, and a U.S. probation officer talked about their roles and interactions with defendants, prisoners, and their families. The annual program is hosted by the U.S. District Court.

Chattanooga, Tennessee

The Tennessee Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) partnered with the Eastern District of Tennessee to host a one-day Teachers Law School at the federal courthouse in Chattanooga. Teachers observed a court hearing and participated in a debriefing with the judge and the attorneys. Teachers also participated in a courtroom simulation, taking on the roles of a judge, lawyers, and jury.

St. Louis

Teachers got a behind-the-scenes look at the judicial selection process in the federal and state court systems at the annual teachers institute in St. Louis. Under the auspices of The Judicial Learning Center, a panel of federal judges at every level of the system talked about their personal experiences and insights. A state court judge explained how judges in Missouri are selected. Mary Beth Tinker joined the one-day program virtually. While at the courthouse, teachers toured the exhibit at the Judicial Learning Center that features the armband Tinker wore at school to protest the Vietnam War. The controversy that ensued from her protest became Tinker v. Des Moines, a landmark Supreme Court case on students’ First Amendment rights. Teachers also learned about the inner workings of the federal courts’ appellate process. 

Upcoming in Spokane, Washington

On October 20-21, the U.S. District Court in Spokane will host a virtual Judicial Institute for Middle School and High School Teachers where educators will learn how to bring lessons about civil rights and voting, the naturalization process, and the role of the appellate courts into the classroom. Participating teachers also will serve as judges in a sentencing simulation during the institute.

Related Topics: Public Education

Main content

In an unusual investiture ceremony, all seven new judges were sworn in simultaneously due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which delayed many of the individual ceremonies that the court had planned during the last two years. This is the first time any district court in the Third Circuit has conducted a group investiture ceremony of this scale, Wolfson said.

Magistrate judges play an important role in the judicial process, helping district judges in criminal and civil matters by handling complaints, issuing search warrants, holding preliminary hearings, and much more. Unlike district judges, who are nominated by the President and confirmed to life terms by the Senate, magistrate judges are appointed to eight-year terms by a majority vote of the active district judges of a court.

“The diversity in the selection of the new magistrate judges is a credit to our Merit Selection Panels, composed of lawyers and community members of diverse experiences and backgrounds, who made recommendations to our court, and then ultimately, to our district judges, who made these selections,” Wolfson said. “A court reflective of the community it serves instills public confidence, and the District of New Jersey is walking the walk.”

Related Topics: District Courts, Events and Ceremonies, Judges & Judgeships

Main content

Visitors to the new courthouse in downtown Nashville may arrive with nothing but court business in mind, but some of them leave feeling inspired by the work of Leo Friedlander, the mid-century artist known for his prominent public commissions.

Two plaster panels placed on either end of the sixth-floor corridor of the Fred D. Thompson U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building are full-scale models of never-completed granite reliefs that Friedlander designed in 1950 to flank the entrance of the Estes Kefauver Federal Building and Courthouse Annex in Nashville. The plaster panels were long forgotten in storage in the old federal building until 1989, when they were rediscovered. They were restored, and now reside in the new Fred D. Thompson building that opened in May.

Several new courthouses coming online as a result of a $948 million investment by Congress in recent years are similarly getting an aesthetic touch thanks to the federal government’s Art in Architecture program. Run by the General Services Administration (GSA), the agency responsible for building courthouses and other federal buildings, the program makes it possible to display museum-quality artwork in places frequented by the public “to create a lasting cultural legacy for the nation,” the GSA says.

“At their best, public art projects at courthouses invite those who are passing by or through the courthouse to pause and reflect on that art. It may draw a smile or an angling of the head,” said U.S. District Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick, who chairs the Judicial Conference’s Space and Facilities Committee. “The projects can reflect the history and flavor of the region. They can honor the identity of the community in a way to make its residents proud. And they can tie a federal building to the very local community in which it sits.” 

The artists are chosen from a National Artist Registry, a database of American artists who have submitted samples of their work to be reviewed by panels of experts for possible selection. Artists who receive commissions work with the building architects and others in a collaborative design team to integrate the artwork into the overall plan for a building. The program is funded by setting aside one half of 1 percent of a project’s estimated construction cost for the art.

The Friedlander installation in Nashville is imbued with local history and meaning. On one end of the corridor, a mural-sized relief titled State Pride illustrates important industries in Tennessee, with a factory on the left and a hydroelectric dam on the right. The companion panel at the opposite end of the corridor depicts the allegorical figure of Justice presiding over an idyllic landscape, with the dome of the U.S. Capitol in the background.

Friedlander was a sculpture professor at New York University who designed reliefs representing radio and television for the Rockefeller Center in 1939 and the two 1951 massive bronze sculptures titled Valor and Sacrifice, featuring the ancient Roman god of war on horseback, at the entrance to the Arlington Memorial Bridge in Washington, D.C.

A visually spectacular, second installation at the Nashville courthouse is incorporated into the soaring dome that is the first thing people notice when entering the courthouse. Artist Alyson Shotz designed a mosaic for the dome ceiling of the undulating folds in the robes of Justitia, the Roman goddess of justice who is often depicted wearing flowing robes in classical sculpture and oil painting. The mosaic consists of millions of separate pieces of glass juxtaposed to create the image of Justitia’s robes.

District Judge Aleta Arthur Trauger, who was involved in the courthouse project, said, “Visitors are immediately enveloped by the mosaic in the rotunda as they enter the new space, which personifies the goal on the rotunda’s terrazzo floor ­ ‘To Administer Equal Justice to the Poor and to the Rich.’”

Other recent art installations in new courthouses likewise strive to incorporate civic meaning and familiar concepts in the American justice system.  

San Antonio, Texas

Laredo-born artist Thomas Glassford designed twin suspended sculptures for the Western District of Texas courthouse, one hung on the outside of the building and one on the inside, both viewable through a floor to ceiling window. The exterior work is a gilded-bronze abstract sculpture and the interior work consists of a string of colorful glass forms that drop from the atrium ceiling. Viewed together, they represent the scales of justice.

A second work by the artist is a large mural in the atrium, a central gathering point in the new courthouse. Glassford used current and historical maps of San Antonio-area roads and waterways as his inspiration for the abstract painting. The courthouse is adjacent to San Pedro Creek, the source for 45 miles of manmade irrigation channels that fueled the growth of San Antonio, known for its downtown River Walk.

District Judge Xavier Rodriguez, who helped guide the courthouse project, said that the inclusion of the city’s famous waterways in the piece speaks to him of “letting justice flow like rivers of righteousness.”

Rodriguez likes the idea that the mural sits right below the jury assembly area, creating an allegory to justice flowing from juries to people seeking justice in court. The mural and the sculptures also add much-needed color to the interior space, he said.

“Courthouses can oftentimes be intimidating places,” he said. “Adding art elements can make the courthouse feel more welcoming and accessible. The mural adds vibrancy and color to the space, yet it’s respectful and has meaning to the community that the courthouse serves.”

Charlotte, North Carolina

The Charles R. Jonas Federal Building underwent a major renovation and an annex was added to the circa 1918 structure, work that is slated to be completed in the fall.  Brooklyn-based artist Ellen Driscoll created a seven-panel mosaic for the exterior of the annex, with each panel depicting historically significant aspects of life in the Western District of North Carolina.

There are representations of a U.S. Mint office, a postal carrier, children in school, and a military recruitment center where a soldier is shown saluting an American flag. A strand of garland appears at the top of each panel, serving to unite the seven pieces in a single story of the region, anchored by Charlotte.

“The seven mosaics are amazing, and they are especially beautiful when lit at night,” said Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr., the building renovation and project judge for the court. “I believe it will become an iconic part of the city.”

Greenville, South Carolina

Artist Joyce Kozloff created a work celebrating the history of mapmaking and the Upstate South Carolina region’s history as a hub of textile production in the United States. Her suite of 17 ceramic tile and glass mosaic panels depict present-day Google Earth aerial views of textile mills. At the top of each map, the artist painted a textile pattern that was produced at the mill. The maps are paired with textile artwork that was traditionally handmade by women in the region, such as quilts made in the 19th Century.

Incorporating artwork into public spaces dates to the mid-19th Century, when murals and sculptures were commissioned for federal buildings and reflected a bias in favor of European artists and styles, according to GSA’s history of the Art in Architecture program. The New Deal in the 1930s created federal arts programs emphasizing American artists and architects, reflecting “a desire to establish a distinctly American national culture.”

Related Topics: Courthouses

Main content

Judge Sylvia H. Rambo, known by peers for her modesty and work ethic, received the rarest of professional accolades last week, when she became just one of a very few women to have a federal courthouse named in her honor.

During a ceremony in Harrisburg, Pa., colleagues praised the example she set as a trailblazing woman judge, and her decades-long role in gaining approval and funding for the new courthouse, which is scheduled to open in February 2023.

“I hope you regard your marathon on this project as worth all the effort, and the frustration too,” said Judge D. Brooks Smith, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. “Your judicial work over many years speaks for itself. This courthouse, which will bear your name, becomes testament to your legacy of vision and persistence.”

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann, of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, said, “It is altogether fitting and appropriate that a significant public building be named for Judge Rambo in her lifetime. It reflects a permanent, public acknowledgment of the impact that Judge Rambo has had on her community and this district court.”

Characteristically unassuming, Rambo said she was “in total shock” when she was informed last year of an effort to put her name on the new courthouse. President Biden later signed legislation introduced by Pennsylvania U.S. Senators Pat Toomey and Bob Casey, Jr.

“Even as I stand here today, it feels unreal,” Rambo said. “As one of four children raised by a struggling German immigrant mother, I could never have imagined the life that has been bestowed on me, or on my name.”  

Rambo, 86, was appointed to the Middle District of Pennsylvania in 1979, as part of a historic class of women federal judges. President Jimmy Carter appointed women to 23 seats in that one year. Only 10 women federal judges had been appointed in the nation’s previous 190 years. Carter, now 97, congratulated her in a letter read at the ceremony.

That appointment was just one of many firsts in Rambo’s career, noted Michael Chagares, chief judge of the Third Circuit. Rambo was the first in her family to attend college, she was the only woman in her class at Dickinson Law School, and she was the first woman to serve as chief public defender and then as a judge in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.

Rambo is “a pioneer and a trailblazer, a legal powerhouse, a fearless, selfless and longtime warrior for the cause of justice,” Chagares said. “Judge Rambo is the embodiment of grit, determination, perseverance, and hard work.”

Judge Yvette Kane, of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, said Rambo was an inspiration to other women in the legal profession.

“I have to say thank you from all the women lawyers, law clerks, court staff and judges who followed you. You made being first look so easy, but I happen to know better,” Kane said. “Your dedication, preparation, integrity, and devotion to the rule of law elevated you, this court, and all of us. No one has worked harder, shouldering the most difficult of cases … always, always doing what was best for the court.”

Perhaps Rambo’s most challenging case was one of the first she was assigned. She handled litigation from the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor disaster, a case that lasted two decades. When she became chief judge in 1992, again the first woman to assume that role in the Middle District, Rambo began a 30-year effort to secure approval and funding for a new courthouse in Harrisburg.

“It has taken 30 years to stand before this building, a building which represents the third branch of our democracy, the Judiciary,” Rambo said. “This courthouse didn’t come easily. But as my mother taught me, once you start something, don’t you ever give up.”

Rambo said her career as judge was guided by counsel from Socrates: to hear courteously, answer wisely, consider soberly, and decide impartially.

“It is that latter quality that speaks to the independence of the Judiciary,” Rambo said. “And it is that independence that will ensure the continuation of this democracy. It is because of my respect for this institution that I have given most of my career to the federal Judiciary. I am deeply humbled to receive this distinction, and I thank everyone.”

Related Topics: Courthouses

Main content

In the federal system, people placed on supervision (i.e., a term of supervised release or probation) can have the supervision term revoked for either failure to comply with supervision conditions or an arrest for new criminal activity. When a person under supervision fails to comply with release conditions, which in the community corrections context is labelled a technical violation, that person can be sent back to federal prison.

Technical violations encompass a range of activities in which a supervisee violates the terms of release but does not commit new crimes. Examples include failing to report to a probation officer, failing a drug test, refusing to engage in mandated substance abuse, mental health, or sex offender treatment, and possessing weapons or other forms of contraband (e.g., illegal drugs). Conduct leading to a technical violation is not always minor and, in some instances, may present a risk to public safety. However, research shows that relatively few people revoked from federal supervision because of technical violations are sentenced to a term of incarceration in a federal prison (that is, an incarceration sentence exceeding six months).   

The AO’s Probation and Pretrial Services Office (PPSO) conducted a study of cases closed in 2021 that resulted in revocation because of technical violations of supervision. Key findings from this research include:

• Nearly 30 percent of all closed cases in 2021 were revoked from supervision.
• Revocations resulting from solely technical violations – with no accompanying arrests for new crimes – accounted for 13 percent of all cases closed.
• About 5 percent of cases closed in 2021 were revoked for technical violations and received an incarceration sentence of more than 6 months.

Background

PPSO examined the number of revocations that occur for technical reasons alone and the percentage of those revocations that result in incarcerations of more than six months. PPSO extracted data on supervision violations – technical violations or arrests for new crimes – from the federal probation and pretrial case management system for the most recent fiscal year available, fiscal year 2021. The violation data were matched with case closure types that provided information on the percentage of violations associated with revocations and, importantly, whether the revocation occurred solely for technical reasons or was accompanied by an arrest for new criminal activity. 

Facts and Figures

The chart provides an overview of cases closed during fiscal year 2021 in which a violation was recorded, a revocation resulted for solely technical reasons, and an incarceration term of more than six months was imposed. Of the 32,123 cases closed, 60 percent involved a technical violation, meaning that the supervisee failed to comply with supervision conditions or was rearrested for new crimes. About half of all cases with violations, or 30 percent of all closed cases, resulted in a revocation from supervision. Of those cases closed through a revocation, 66 percent, or 20 percent of the total, were revoked for technical violations, while the remainder were revoked for new crimes.

New criminal activity is typically not associated with revocations for technical violations. But that is not the complete picture. An examination of the entirety of violation activity for cases revoked for technical reasons revealed that about 34 percent also recorded new criminal activity. When we take these cases into account, the percentage of revocations that resulted solely from technical violations is reduced to about 43 percent of all revocations (versus 66 percent). Put another way, 4,111 cases (13 percent of all cases closed) were revoked from supervision exclusively due to technical violations. Of those 4,111 cases, 1,713 (representing 5 percent of cases closed) were revoked for technical violations alone and involved incarceration sentences of more than six months. Generally, in the federal system, incarceration sentences of over six months result in periods of confinement within a federal prison, while sentences of six months or less are served in local jails.

PPSO also compared the distribution of cases with violations in which supervision was revoked to that of cases with violations in which supervision was not revoked. Among those cases in which supervision was revoked, 74 percent involved four or more violations prior to supervision being revoked. In comparison, 41 percent of the cases in which supervision was not revoked involved four or more violations. Moreover, cases in which supervision was revoked averaged 10 violations, while cases without revocations averaged six violations. Nearly 60 percent of supervisees who were revoked solely for technical violations received incarceration terms of six months or less, and 15 percent – 2 percent of all cases closed – were incarcerated for more than one year.

Conclusion

This research showed that revocations for technical violations had relatively negligible impacts on federal prison populations. About 30 percent of all cases closed during fiscal year 2021 resulted in a revocation, and 43 percent of those revocations showed no accompanying criminal activity. People revoked solely for technical violations and sentenced to periods of confinement of six months or more represented 5 percent of all case closures. Additionally, cases with revocations showed higher rates of violation activity than their non-revoked counterparts.

Related Topics: Probation and Pretrial Services, Statistics

Main content

Over the last 100 years, the Judicial Conference of the United States has grappled with many issues: rising court caseloads and limited resources, natural disasters, public-health crises, and the safety of the Judiciary and the public. This year marks the centennial of the national policy-making body, which has helped ensure efficient administration of justice in the courts since 1922.

“The Judiciary’s power to manage its internal affairs insulates courts from inappropriate political influence and is crucial to preserving public trust in its work as a separate and coequal branch of the government,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. said in his 2021 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary.

By statute, the Chief Justice of the United States serves as the Conference’s presiding officer, and its members are the chief judges of the 13 courts of appeals, a district judge from each of the 12 geographic circuits, and the chief judge of the Court of International Trade. The Conference convenes twice a year to consider administrative and policy issues affecting the federal court system, and to make recommendations to Congress concerning legislation involving the Judicial Branch.

Last week, the Conference met in person at the Supreme Court for the first time since September 2019. The last four regularly scheduled Conference sessions took place by teleconference due to the pandemic. At its first session in 1922, also held at the Supreme Court, then Chief Justice William Howard Taft presided, and the Conference discussed court congestion caused by the increase in Prohibition cases, among other timely matters.

The reports of the proceedings of all Judicial Conference sessions are available online and serve as an abbreviated history of judicial administration over the past century.

“Chief Justice Taft was prescient in recognizing the need for the Judiciary to manage its internal affairs, both to promote informed administration and to ensure independence of the Branch,” Chief Justice Roberts said in his report. 

“The centennial of the Judicial Conference this year represents 100 years of progress, and the Judiciary should be proud of its accomplishments. But there is still plenty of work to be done, and it will be done.”

Related Topics: Judicial Conference of the United States, Judicial History

Main content

When trying her first murder case as a young lawyer, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan wondered if she could juggle the duties of a public defender with the responsibilities of parenthood. She remembers racing home after long days in court to feed her 9-month-old son and then heading to jail to meet with clients. Like all new parents, she lost a lot of sleep.

Chutkan had to reach inside for the motivation to keep going. “Remind yourself that you’re as qualified and as hard working, and as intelligent as anyone else,” she told herself. “Fall back on the skills that have gotten you here and get to work.”

In recognition of African American History Month, the federal judge shared her experiences at a program for public defense attorneys and members of the legal community. The Feb. 8 event was hosted by the Judiciary’s Defender Services Office, an organization dedicated to helping lawyers in the field as they defend individuals unable to afford a private lawyer.

When facing virulent criticism because of the color of her skin, Chutkan said it is difficult not to give in or be distracted. “For a lot of people, I seem to check a lot of boxes: immigrant, woman, Black, Asian. Your qualifications are always going to be subject to criticism and you have to develop a thick skin.”

She said she draws her strength from “the dignity and the brilliance” of Judge Constance Baker Motley and the many women lawyers who came before her. “They put their lives on the line every time they did their jobs and had to put up with far more than I have,” she said.

Chutkan grew up comfortably in Kingston, Jamaica, with a passion for dance. At that age, she never thought of becoming a lawyer, and certainly not a judge. But after leaving home to attend college at George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., she decided to try law school. Hard work helped propel her to a successful career as an attorney before she was appointed in 2014 to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

“I worked hard to get to where I am and took advantage of the opportunities presented to me,” Chutkan said. “But I understand the privilege and good fortune I’ve had. Many people don’t have the same opportunities.”

She encouraged audience members interested in judgeships to get involved in local bar organizations and said judges and law firms need to take a proactive approach in finding more diverse applicants. “The talent is there,” she said. “You just have to go look for it. You can’t simply wait for a more diverse pool of applicants to appear.”

The judge said she often encourages law students at outreach events to seek coveted clerkships and internships, opportunities that she said she was unfamiliar with as a law student. She said she enjoys engaging with young people and watching them grow in their personal and professional lives.

“Young people inspire me in their openness, in their tolerance, and in their desire to fight injustice,” she said. “I can’t let them down. I have to be an example to them.”