The federal trial courts have been operating with caseloads that have, for over a decade, exceeded the capacity the existing bench can sustainably handle. The capacity question is structural rather than political; the political conversation about judicial nominations has consistently displaced the structural question that the system most needs addressed.

What the data shows

The data shows trial-court filings per active judge at levels that substantially exceed the levels the Judicial Conference of the United States has identified as sustainable. The result is delay, less-careful adjudication of complex cases, and the kind of compromises judges report having to make to keep their dockets moving.

What is needed

What is needed is the addition of authorised judgeships at levels the Judicial Conference's recommendations have, for years, identified. The recommendations have been ignored across multiple administrations of both parties. The arithmetic has continued to deteriorate.

Why it has not happened

It has not happened because judicial expansion has, in the contemporary political configuration, been treated as a partisan question rather than as a capacity question. Both parties have been reluctant to authorise expansion when the other party would be filling the new positions; the standoff has produced the compounding capacity gap.

The recommendation

This board recommends that judicial expansion be addressed through bipartisan negotiation that decouples the expansion from the immediate appointment cycle. The Judicial Conference's recommendations are the right starting point. The work is overdue.