Bill Overview
Title: Circuit Court Judgeships Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the President to appoint additional judges to specified U.S. circuit courts of appeals.
Sponsors: Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [D-GA-4]
Target Audience
Population: People impacted by changes in U.S. Circuit Courts
Estimated Size: 332000000
- The U.S. has 13 circuit courts of appeals. Each court serves a group of states, territories, or federal district, and handles thousands of cases annually.
- Additional judges may allow for quicker rulings and less backlog, affecting the speed at which cases are resolved.
- Individuals, businesses, or entities involved in federal litigation, including appeals, fall under the direct impact of changes in circuit court staffing.
- Attorneys, support staff, and other legal professionals will be directly affected by any efficiency changes and case allocation changes resulting from additional judges.
- Policy effects can trickle down to influence local laws and judiciary practices if federal cases are resolved differently or quicker.
- The general populace indirectly benefits through judicial efficacy and quicker legal resolutions at a federal level.
Reasoning
- Due to the nature of the U.S. Circuit Courts, the policy directly impacts individuals involved in ongoing or potential future federal litigation. However, most of the general populace will experience only indirect effects.
- Considering the budget limitations, not all areas or courts will benefit equally, so benefits will be more pronounced in overburdened courts handling complex cases like those involving civil rights, regulatory disputes, or federal crimes.
- Attorneys and legal professionals might see more direct benefits through reduced workloads and possibly quicker case turnover, impacting their career satisfaction and income positively.
- The indirect benefits to the general populace are gradual but can lead to a sense of improved justice system efficiency over time, influencing overall societal wellbeing.
- The commonness scores used reflect how frequently such individuals might be found across the U.S., with lawyers and those in legal disputes being relatively less common compared to indirect beneficiaries.
Simulated Interviews
Corporate Lawyer (New York, NY)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The backlog in cases is a headache; more judges could speed things up.
- Corporate clients get frustrated, and this affects my practice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Tech Start-up Owner (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Delays in court rulings can make or break my business.
- More judges might finally get my case moving faster.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Federal Judge's Clerk (Miami, FL)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The workload is insane; more judges mean more sanity for everyone involved.
- Judges and us clerks need relief to improve case management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Law Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More judges might mean better opportunities career-wise, and less stress starting out.
- The court backlog is intimidating for future work plans.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Huntsville, AL)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this means better regulatory understanding and quicker resolutions for business matters.
- Decisions impact my business environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Professor (Boston, MA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a scholar, it's critical that the courts operate efficiently for justice to be served.
- Additional judges should ideally improve this efficiency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Civil Rights Activist (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Swift justice is crucial for rights cases; more judges could really help.
- Outcomes depend significantly on timely proceedings.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Software Engineer (Dallas, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe it might mean better legal processes in the long run for everyone.
- Ultimately all improvements in justice systems benefit society.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Public Defender (Portland, OR)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's heartening to see more resources for courts; should ease justice delivery.
- Court efficiency is key to public trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Federal Appellate Judge (Seattle, WA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- An increase in judges is overdue and should lighten the burden.
- More hands can make the system more responsive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $47300000 (Low: $37000000, High: $59000000)
Year 2: $47300000 (Low: $37000000, High: $59000000)
Year 3: $47300000 (Low: $37000000, High: $59000000)
Year 5: $47300000 (Low: $37000000, High: $59000000)
Year 10: $47300000 (Low: $37000000, High: $59000000)
Year 100: $47300000 (Low: $37000000, High: $59000000)
Key Considerations
- Costs are heavily influenced by the number of judges appointed.
- Benefits are difficult to quantify in direct savings but are realized through judicial process efficiencies and socio-economic improvements.
- Judicial capacity improvements must be paced with training for judges and support staff to maximize effectiveness.