A study requested by the Federal Courts Study Committee Implementation Act of 1990 of the problems facing the federal courts of appeals and the numerous changes, structural and otherwise, that have been suggested as solutions. Areas of concern include the increased volume of appeals, the effects of caseloads on the quality of appellate decision making, intercircuit and intracircuit conflicts, the preservation of appellate traditions, and the scope of federal jurisdiction. The study outlines proposed changes to the structure of the courts, as well as techniques used by judges to keep pace with increased caseloads. The study concludes that no major proposal for change to the structure of the courts would substantially reduce appellate filings in the near future.

Related Resources

In 1997 Congress created the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals to study the structure and alignment of the federal appellate system, with particular reference to the Ninth Circuit. In its final report, the Commission recommended several measures to "equip the courts of appeals with an ability, structurally and procedurally, to accommodate continued caseload growth into the indefinite future, while maintaining the quality of the appellate process and delivering consistent decisions--assuming, of course, that the system has the necessary number of judges and other resources." The five-member Commission was chaired by Retired Justice Byron White.

All documents published by the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals, including its Final Report, are available in an electronic research collection that is maintained by the University of North Texas Libraries at http://www.library.unt.edu/gpo/csafca/app_comm_uscourts_gov.html . The University of North Texas Libraries and the U.S. Government Printing Office, in a Federal Depository Library Program partnership, established this site to provide permanent public access to the publications of the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals.-The commission was created by Public Law 105-119 on November 26, 1997. This site exists exactly as it did when the Commission closed operation in March 1999.

Beginning on July 1, 1972 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit designated a panel of judges to be responsible for hearing "oil and gas" cases in the Fifth Circuit. This research reviewed relevant cases decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and the special oil and gas panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and concluded that the special panel, among other things, played a significant role in the development of the law governing producer prices and pipeline curtailment plans. This research was conducted by Professor David E. Pierce, Washburn University School of Law, pursuant to Federal Judicial Center Contract No. 91-092800-JXXXXXC-84454-2501.

Note: The title page reads “Draft Report,” but the Research Division confirms that this is the only and final version of the report.

In section 302 of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, Congress took steps to address long-felt concerns about the capacity of the federal judicial system to provide, within a reasonable time, a uniform construction of federal law where uniformity is needed. Adopting a recommendation of the Federal Courts Study Committee, Congress asked that the Federal Judicial Center undertake a study to determine "the number and frequency of conflicts among the judicial circuits . . . that remain unresolved because they are not heard by the Supreme Court." The Center asked the author to design and conduct the study. The results of the first phase of the research are presented in this report.

Despite the various adages concerning statistics and lies, statistics don't lie. Instead, we often mislead ourselves by misinterpreting statistics. Court caseload statistics present numerous opportunities for this sort of self-deception. Obvious ways of looking at caseload data and obvious nostrums about assessing a court's caseload are sometimes just simply wrong. Their flaws are unappreciated not because they are hard to grasp, but because we are conditioned to think about statistics using apples-and-oranges or dicethrowing examples. Because significant time elapses over the life of many court cases, the better statistical analogy is that of human populations. Failure to appreciate how the lifespans of cases affect caseload statistics causes numerous misunderstandings. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate three closely related misunderstandings about caseload statistics, in the hope that a basic understanding of the problem can help prevent mistakes on the part of the various parties charged under the Civil Justice Reform Act with trying to improve the condition of court dockets.