Recent Responses to COVID-19 by the Judicial Conference of the United States, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and Select Courts Within the Federal Judiciary (July 2020)

INSIGHTi

Recent Responses to COVID-19 by the

Judicial Conference of the United States,

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and

Select Courts Within the Federal Judiciary

(July 2020)

July 21, 2020

This Insight provides information related to recent responses to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), and

select courts within the federal judiciary. Most of the responses discussed below have occurred since June

1, 2020. A previous Insight provides information about responses prior to June 1, 2020. Another Insight

provides information about some of the initial responses to COVID-19 by the federal judiciary.

This Insight is not intended to provide a comprehensive overview of policies and practices adopted by

each federal court or judicial entity since June 1, 2020 (or earlier). The information provided in this

Insight may be superseded by new information from that which is described below.

Judicial Conference of the United States

House Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing

On June 25, 2020, United States Senior District Judge David. G. Campbell testified at a hearing before

the U.S. House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet

about the impact of COVID-19 on the federal courts. Judge Campbell, appearing on behalf of the Judicial

Conference of the United States (the national policymaking body of the federal judiciary), chairs the

Conference’s Committee on Practice and Procedure for the Federal Courts. In his testimony, Judge

Campbell outlined the measures taken by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts and various courts to

address the effects of COVID-19 on the operations of the judiciary. He emphasized that “by necessity,

[the judiciary’s response] has been and continues to be implemented through local, court-specific

approaches, reflecting the disparate nature and evolving nature of the pandemic.”

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov

IN11464

CRS INSIGHT

Prepared for Members and

Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service

2

One of the measures cited by Judge Campbell in his testimony was the publication in April of the Federal

Judiciary COVID-19 Recovery Guidelines. The guidelines “provide courts with gating criteria to consider

as they prepare for the phased return of courthouse operations.” Another measure cited by Judge

Campbell was the greater use of technology—for example, the temporary use of video and

teleconferencing to conduct various judicial proceedings.

Judge Campbell also testified on behalf of the Judicial Conference’s request, submitted on April 28, 2020,

for $36.6 million in supplemental funding from Congress for FY2020 to address costs associated with the

judiciary’s response to COVID-19. Such costs, according to the Judicial Conference, include enhanced

cleaning of court facilities, health screening at courthouse entrances, and changes to information

technology hardware and infrastructure needs. Congress previously appropriated $7.5 million in the

CARES Act for the federal judiciary to address its initial response to the pandemic.

Public Input Regarding Emergency Procedures

The Judicial Conference also began addressing Congress’s directive in the CARES Act (see

§15002(b)(6)) that the Conference and Supreme Court consider potential amendments to its rules

(governing federal judicial proceedings) to include procedures that could be used to guide court

operations during future national emergencies.

Specifically, the Conference’s Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure solicited comments from

lawyers, judges, and the public, with particular interest “in hearing about situations that could not be

addressed through the existing rules or in which the rules themselves interfered with practical solutions.”

The committee is to consider the comments submitted on or before June 1, 2020, and any proposed

amendments “will be transmitted to the Judicial Conference for potential adoption by the Supreme Court

and Congress according to the process outlined in the Rules Enabling Act.”

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is the agency within the federal judiciary that provides, in

part, administrative services and program support to federal courts.

Report on Restarting Jury Trials

On June 10, 2020, AO announced the release of a report by the Jury Subgroup of the COVID-19 Judicial

Task Force on the plan to restart jury trials and grand jury proceedings. Several of the issues addressed by

the 16-page report include the type and amount of personal protective equipment needed to accommodate

jurors and others; social-distancing and deep-cleaning procedures for courthouse spaces; and seating

jurors and others in ways that mitigate health risks. The report emphasizes that the “appropriate time to

reconvene juries will differ state by state, district by district, and perhaps even division by division”

within a single judicial district.

United States Supreme Court

On July 9, 2020, the Supreme Court issued the final opinions of its 2019-2020 term. The Court’s building,

which was initially closed to the public on March 12, 2020, remains closed to the public.

Congressional Research Service

3

Judicial Business and Operating Status of Low er Federal Courts

Naturalization Ceremonies

Several federal courts have resumed naturalizations ceremonies for new U.S. citizens. According to AO,

“more than a half-dozen courts have conducted naturalizations at courthouses and community settings,

using various strategies to minimize health risks.” In each court, “family members could not attend the

ceremonies in person” but were able to watch through windows or view livestreamed audio and video of

the ceremonies on YouTube.

Court Orders and Notices

Individual federal courts have also continued to issue orders and notices related to judicial business or

their operating status in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Examples of recent orders include an

extension, under the CARES Act, of the use of videoconferencing or telephone conferencing in certain

federal criminal proceedings (Eastern District of California); the suspension of all grand juries until

further order of the court (District of Arizona); and granting individual judges the discretion to determine

whether to hold any nonjury civil or criminal proceeding in the courtroom (District of Connecticut). The

actions taken by these courts are presented as illustrative examples, and may not be representative of

actions taken by other courts.

A full list of orders by U.S. circuit and district courts can be accessed online (available here).

Author Information

Barry J. McMillion

Analyst in American National Government

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff

to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of

Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of

information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.

CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United

States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,

as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the

permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

IN11464 · VERSION 1 · NEW