Justice Delayed: The Growing Impact of Judicial Backlogs

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Tanya Settles
September 20, 2024

A centuries old legal maxim, “justice delayed is justice denied” guides our belief in the importance of expeditious and fair trials, but burgeoning caseloads in federal, state, county and municipal judicial systems are reaching a breaking point. In the United States, trial court backlogs are often attributed to under-resourced prosecutors, but that’s just one facet of the problem.  From a systemic perspective, there is a perfect storm of delays and backlogs coupled with too few judges to manage exponential growth in caseloads. Nationwide, over three-quarters of judges and court professionals reported experiencing delays in hearings in 2023. Delays cascade into an unending and burdensome impact on the entire court docket and a multitude of up- and downstream processes. 

To complicate the problem, there’s currently a troubling shortage of federal, state, county and municipal court judges to carry out the task of trial efficiency. To address this at the federal level, the JUDGES (Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved) Act of 2024 was approved by the United States Senate in October without opposition that would create 66 new judgeships of which 63 are permanent to the most under-resourced federal court districts. Filling these vacancies only alleviates part of the backlog problem. Even if the bill is approved by the House, the problem exists at state, county and municipal levels. In state and county courts, the backlog most directly impacts those awaiting criminal trials and impedes their right to a speedy trial. 

Retirement accounts for many of the judicial vacancies across the nation, but other factors, including increased politicization of judicial appointments and returns to private practice also contribute to judicial shortages. Furthermore, younger judges are being appointed who are more likely to resign before meeting the Rule of 80, the federal law that requires judges age plus years of service on the bench equal 80 before eligible for Senior Status caseload reductions or retirement. Combined with the expectation of public scrutiny and hostility directed toward judges, oppressive caseloads, politicization and persistent under-resourcing, it is no surprise judges are leaving the bench and the judiciary is experiencing the same challenges with recruitment and retention the other sectors of public service.

Impact of Judicial Backlog

For state and county governments a judicial backlog is more than a mere inconvenience. In criminal cases, it means people accused crimes may spend more time in pretrial detention. Victims and witnesses may experience emotional trauma from lengthy delays that impede physical and emotional healing. On the civil side of the law, delays in resolving business disputes can have economic repercussions that hinder economic activities and growth. For circumstances where judicial intervention may be required, delays can be emotionally devastating to individuals who await civil resolution of cases involving child custody and divorce. Backlogs in state and local courts cause both up- and downstream impacts that exacerbate challenges with government resource allocation, budget and fiscal stability. 

Finally, and perhaps more importantly, workplace disruption caused by backlog and other circumstances may cause judges to be prone to poor application of the law. Like everyone else, when faced with backlogs and increasing workload, judges and magistrates may rush to decisions without full considerations of the merits of each case and impartial application of law. In other words, because they are human, they can make mistakes that have deleterious consequences for the millions of people and businesses who seek their help. 

Solutions

This is not a problem that money alone can solve. While better funding may help, it doesn’t resolve caseloads that for some jurisdictions have increased by upwards of 30 percent in recent years, nor does it adequately address the combined impacts of fewer qualified candidates who seek a high stress judgeship with a relentless workload. To solve these problems, particularly at the local and state level, a new range of solutions are needed. Some are legislative, others are administrative, and together they may be practical:

1. Legislative fixes include efforts to reevaluate formulas used to calculate the number of needed judges to realign caseload with reality.
2. Reduce backlogs by using specialized court programs, including drug courts, veterans’ courts and mental health courts.  
3. Embrace restorative justice programs that not only reduce the load on court dockets but have other system benefits such as reducing utilization of scarce resources related to prosecution, public defense and corrections.
4. Modernize legal processes that may include improved case management systems and appropriate use of artificial intelligence for certain tasks.

Solutions aren’t easy. They almost never are, but with innovating thinking and a multi-prong systemic approach to problem resolution, relief is available.

---

Author:  Tanya Settles is the CEO of Paradigm Public Affairs, LLC.  Tanya’s areas of work include relationship building between local governments and communities, restorative justice, and the impacts of natural and human-caused disasters on at-risk populations.  Tanya can be reached at [email protected].  The opinions in this column and any mistakes are hers alone.  

(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...