Enter to open, tab to navigate, enter to select
The Impact of Sequestration on Federal Courts
Practical Law Legal Update 9-527-6065 (Approx. 4 pages)
The Impact of Sequestration on Federal Courts
by Practical Law Litigation
| Published on 07 May 2013 • USA (National/Federal) |
This Legal Update examines the impact of recent sequestration cuts on federal courts and how these cuts may impact cases and litigation strategy throughout the year.
In the weeks after the start of automatic spending cuts to the federal budget, Judge Julia Gibbons, chair of the Judicial Conference Budget Committee, warned US House of Representatives committee members that sequestration cuts resulting in almost a $350 million reduction in judiciary funding will have a devastating effect on federal court operations nationwide. Judge Gibbons explained that the sequestration cuts impact every aspect of court operations, affecting individuals and businesses looking for relief in the courts as well as the public at large. In particular, Judge Gibbons noted that the sequestration cuts will lead to compromises in public safety, lessened court security, delay of processing civil cases due to reduced staffing in clerks' offices and decreased funding for the courts' information technology programs. As courts continue to operate with a drastically reduced budget and workforce throughout the year, the effects of sequestration will accumulate and additional difficulties will emerge.
Reduced Access to Courts
While each individual federal court will determine how sequestration cuts will affect its operations, some of Judge Gibbons' concerns have quickly come to fruition as several courts have already announced closings and limits to the services they provide due to forced staff reductions. These closings and the limited access to court services, combined with the backlog of civil cases caused by the numerous vacancies in the federal district courts, will undoubtedly lead to delays in the processing of civil cases.
Court Closings and Reductions
Courts that have announced closings and changes to their hours of operation include:
- The US District Court for the Northern District of California announced that from May through September 2013:
- the San Francisco, San Jose and Eureka divisions will be closed on the first Friday of each month; and
- the Oakland division will be closed on the first Monday of each month, except for September, when it will be closed on the second Monday.
- The US District Court for the Central District of California announced that it would furlough staff and reduce court services on seven Fridays from April 2013 through August 2013, and the clerk's office will be closed except for the intake of criminal cases and acceptance of the following emergency civil filings:
- a new action where the statute of limitations expires that day;
- an application for a temporary restraining order about an event that will take place before the next business day; and
- an application for a warrant of arrest of a vessel about an event that must take place before the next business day.
As other federal courts reduce staff because of sequestration, additional announcements of court and office closings can be expected. To see if a court has implemented or plans to implement any changes to its operations as a result of sequestration, see Practical Law's Court Rules page.
Delay in Criminal Proceedings
Although criminal cases are prioritized over civil cases in federal courts under the Speedy Trial Act (18 U.S.C. § 208), criminal proceedings also will be delayed as the sequestration cuts also reduce criminal court services. Several US district courts have announced limitations on when they would hear criminal proceedings, including:
- The US District Court for the District of Colorado.
- The US District Court for the District of Delaware.
- The US District Court for the Western District of New York.
- The US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
- The US District Court for the District of Utah.
These reductions likely will lead to further delays of civil cases. As Judge Gibbons testified, the prioritization of criminal cases will lead to significant delays in processing civil and bankruptcy cases because of the reduction in court staffing. Therefore, additional delays in the criminal courts will magnify delays in the civil courts.
Additional Considerations
While the impact of sequestration cuts can be evidenced by court closings, reductions to court services and limitations on when courts will hear certain proceedings, less apparent effects of the budget cuts are yet to be determined. Counsel and their clients should monitor how these budget cuts affect the federal courts' operations and determine what effect, if any, these cuts may have on current and anticipated litigation.
Counsel should be aware of how sequestration cuts may affect:
- Case assessment and evaluation. The length of time between the commencement of a case and trial likely will increase as a result of budget cuts. For example, dates for hearings and conferences may be pushed out because staff reductions and the elimination of overtime pay for court personnel may bar judges from conducting them after normal business hours. As the snowball effect of delays causes further delays, litigation fees may escalate. Counsel should be aware of this risk and be prepared to address litigation exposure if these delays impact counsel fees. For information about estimating the costs of litigation, see Practice Note, Case Assessment and Evaluation and Case Assessment Decision Tree and Costs Worksheet.
- Change in case strategy. In attempts to keep their dockets current despite the sequestration cuts, judges might become more stringent with the number of days on which trial will be held. Counsel must be prepared to put on their case succinctly in the event that their previously scheduled three-week trial is reduced to two weeks on short notice. For information about how to assess whether a case is trial-ready and its strengths and weaknesses, see Standard Document, Proof Matrix.
- Settlement of civil cases. Increased delays in bringing a civil case to trial may lead parties to seek quicker resolution of the action. For information about settlement agreements, see Standard Document, Settlement Agreement and Release: A US Example.
- Electronic filing of case initiating documents. Some federal district courts require electronic filing of case-initiating documents through the court's CM/ECF system. However, in many courts an action still is commenced by filing a paper version of the complaint with the clerk's office. Because of anticipated cuts to federal court clerks' offices, courts requiring paper complaints may accelerate implementation of mandatory e-filing of new actions to ease the burden on reduced staffs. For information about electronic filing, see Practice Notes, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Filing and Serving the Complaint and E-Filing in Federal District Court: Filing and Service: Case-Initiating Documents.