Special to The Laker/Lutz News

Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Laurel Lee (FL-15) questioned witnesses Feb. 25 at the House Judiciary Committee hearing, “Crisis of Undermanned Federal Courts.”

District courts nationwide are facing more than 700,000 pending cases due to a shortage of judgeship.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, which includes Florida’s 15th District, has more than 10 million people living there, with the active caseloads per judge 20% above the national average.

In the 118th Congress, the House and Senate passed the Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2024 (JUDGES Act) but was vetoed by President Joe Biden. 

The JUDGES Act would have created 63 permanent judgeships in six phases from 2025 to 2035; tasked the U.S. Government Accountability Office with evaluating the efficiency of federal courts and assessing detention space needs; and would have required the Judicial Conference to publicly release its judicial seat recommendations and methodology.

Below is a transcript of Lee questioning U.S. Circuit Judge Timothy Tymkovich about judges during the hearing: 

 

Laurel Lee

During your opening statement, you referenced the bipartisan JUDGES Act and the veto and message associated there from the White House. 

It indicated that it was not reflective of reality and a misunderstanding of the facts.

I agree completely and believe that is such an important part of this hearing today.
First, it’s also important to note that the suggestion that that act was partisan is not rooted in facts. It was a bipartisan bill that would have not only added additional Article III judges, it would have staged the addition of those judges so that they crossed multiple administrations.

So it was an unnecessary and an unwarranted veto that has exacerbated the burden on the courts and continued to inhibit access to justice. 

I come from the Middle District of Florida where, as I’m sure you know, is one of the most populous and the busiest districts anywhere in the United States of America. Whether we go by weighted caseloads or unweighted, it is an incredibly busy district.

I had the privilege early in my career of serving as a judicial law clerk to one of our Article III  judges. 

Later as an AFPD (Assistant Federal Public Defender) and an AUSA (Assistant United States Attorney), I spent much of my career inside the walls of the Tampa Federal Courthouse and can attest first hand as to just how diligent and hardworking those judges, the magistrates and everyone else in that courthouse is and how vital it is that we properly fund our courts as a co-equal, independent branch of government that needs to be properly staffed and funded to do its job.  

You mentioned something else in your opening that I want to go back to and that is the concept of speedy trial.  

For those who are not criminal practitioners, would you please elaborate for us, your honor, on the distinction between civil and criminal cases?

What happens if criminal defendants do invoke their right to a speedy trial, what then happens to a judge’s civil docket and how does that affect access to courts?

 

Timothy Tymkovich

As you know as a former law clerk, the criminal cases take precedent over the civil cases.

A defendant in our system of justice is entitled to statutory protections that ensure that the trial occurs on a speedy basis.

The Constitution also has a due process guarantee that requires judges to expedite those cases within timelines set either by statute or by case law. 

If we have in inadequate number of judges in district courts with particularly heavy criminal dockets, presumably the Middle District of Florida, which I see would be eligible for several new judgeships, it can be put a lot of pressure on the rest of the civil docket if those criminal cases are taking over the time that’s necessary to try them. 

 

Laurel Lee

That’s exactly, I think, something that’s very important to understand.

So when that happens, then civil litigants, individuals and businesses that have disputes that need resolution in the courts, their cases will get delayed.

Another thing that you touched on is the concept that when that happens, when those delays are too pronounced, when they’re too long. That can have a chilling effect on people coming to court or electing to use a trial as a potential resolution for their dispute. 

Would you share with us a little bit more about your view on why it’s important that Americans who have a dispute, that want it resolved, that would like to go to trial, have the ability to utilize our courts efficiently and effectively to do that?

 

Timothy Tymkovich

Every dispute in this country should be resolved quickly, fairly and efficiently. 

The current status of the federal courts because of our judgeship needs is compromising the ability of those types of cases and those types of litigants to have their day in court. 

Without getting their day in court, we think that erodes trust in the judiciary and the faith in our system. To the extent we have an adequate number of judges to maintain and move our dockets, everybody benefits from that.

 

Laurel Lee

I noted in your introduction today that you take on a number of special responsibilities within the judicial conference and I know many of your colleagues also do this.

We’re talking with one of the easiest to access data points, which is the overwhelming number of cases that are assigned to every judge across America. 

Tell me why those extra responsibilities, judges who are willing to teach, to take on the FISA court, to work on cybersecurity, why are those important and how does that add to the workload of a judge who’s really performing their job very well?

 

Timothy Tymkovich

It’s an important question and it’s also equally important to note that the survey results, the  methodology that we use to estimate the number of judgeships that are needed, is not based on those extra duties. 

The numbers that you get for the basis for this legislation are purely based on whether the court is doing deciding cases. 

Most of our judges do extracurricular activities – teaching, going out into the community, serving on judicial conference committees like I am. Those are all important functions for the judges.

I think it’s important for the public at large but we don’t get credit for those for purposes of this judgeship bill. Just note that that’s in addition to what the basis for this request is.