a. Burger, Warren E., Annual Report on the State of the Judiciary, d. Gest, Ted, interview with Chief Justice Warren E. Burger: "Chief Justice Burger's Challenge to the Congress," U.S. News & World b. White, Byron R., Challenges for the U.S. Supreme Court and the Bar: Contemporary Reflections, 51 Antitrust L.J. 275 (1982)... c. Letter from Hon. Byron R. White to Hon. Roman Hruska (Chairman, a. Levin, "Adding Appellate Capacity to the Federal System: A Nation- al Court of Appeals or an Intercircuit Tribunal," 39 Wash & Lee L. b. Letter to Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier from Hon. A. Leo Levin a. Lay, "Why Rush to Judgment? Some Second Thoughts on the Pro- posed National Court of Appeals," 59 Judicature 173 (1975). b. Lay, "Query: Will the Proposed National Court of Appeals Create c. Excerpt from "Report From Department of Justice Committee on Revision of the Federal Judicial System" (January 1977) at pp. 17-20. d. Nos. 81-2114 and 82-1010. Tamara Hatfield, et al. v. Bishop Clarkson Memorial Hospital, et al.—Separate Appendix to the Opinion of Chief 456 1. Hon. Harry T. Edwards (letter of April 12, 1983, to Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier, with attachment)..... 2. Milton Handler, Esq. (letter of June 14, 1983, to Hon. Robert W. Kasten- meier, with attachment, and letter of September 1, 1983 to Hon. Robert 3. Milton Handler, Esq.; Simon H. Rifkind, Esq.; William Hughes Mulligan, Esq.; and Merrell E. Clark, Jr. (letter of September 15, 1983, to Hon. 4. Judicial Conference of the United States (letter of May 3, 1983, from Leland E. Beck to Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr., with attachment).. 5. Conference of (State) Chief Justices (letter of March 6, 1984, from Chief Justice John A. Speziale to Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier, with attach- ment, and letter of August 26, 1983, from Harry W. Swegle to Hon. 3. Griswold, "Cutting the Cloak to Fit the Cloth," the Brendan F. Brown lecture, Catholic University School of Law (March 23, 1983).. 4. Hufstedler, "The Quiet Collapse: The Crumbling of the Federal Appellate 5. Wallace, "The Nature and Extent of Intercircuit Conflicts: A Solution Needed for a Mountain or a Molehill?" 71 Calif. L. Rev. 913 (1983). 6. Rx for an Overburdened Supreme Court: Is Relief in Sight?" 66 Judicature 7. Hellman, "How Not To Help the Supreme Court," 69 ABAJ 750 (1983)..... 8. Hellman, "Caseload, Conflicts, and Decisional Capacity: Does the Supreme 9. Schaefer, "Reducing Circuit Conflicts," 69 ABAJ. 452 (1983) 10. Beck, "Mandatory Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the 2. Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System (Hruska Committee), letter of transmittal and summary of recommendations 3. Position of the American Bar Association on National Court of Appeals (letter from Herbert D. Sledd to Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr., dated March 4. "Law Poll-Caseload Crisis in U.S. Supreme Court," 70 ABAJ 50 (1984). 5. Editorial "Reaction to the Chief Justice," Washington Post, February 12, SUPREME COURT WORKLOAD WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 1983 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON Courts, CIVIL LIBERTIES, AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, The subcommittee met, at 10:19 a.m., in room 2226, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Representatives Kastenmeier, Mazzoli, Glickman, Frank, Moorhead, and Sawyer. Staff present: Michael J. Remington, chief counsel; David W. Beier, counsel; and Joseph V. Wolfe, associate counsel. Mr. KASTENMEIER. The meeting will come to order. Today we commence hearings on the Supreme Court; in particular, on its workload crisis and on solutions to that crisis. Before inviting our two witnesses this morning, I would like to make several observations. First, the Supreme Court is a creation of the Constitution. In clear and concise language, article III of the Constitution states, "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." We have learned during hearings on other subjects, most notably on proposals to strip the Court of some of its powers and jurisdiction, that congressional power to change radically the Court is limited; and I would like to observe-at least the record should reflect-that we are dealing with a restoration or renovation approach rather than a "wrecking ball" or punitive response to the comments of the Court. Therefore, I am not interested in issues that in this context would destroy or injure the Court under the guise of court reform. Second, it should be noted that change comes slowly to the Federal judicial structure and even more slowly to the Supreme Court. Far-reaching changes in the appellate structure of the Federal courts directly affecting the Supreme Court have really only occurred twice in the past century, with the establishment of the circuit courts of appeals in 1891 and with the reduction of the Supreme Court's mandatory appellate jurisdiction in 1925. Although creation of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a public law processed recently by this subcommittee, was a significant change, it did not directly affect the workload or the structure of the Supreme Court. Therefore, as it relates to the High Court, that reform was not as earthshaking as the other two changes mentioned. Furthermore, the purpose of these hearings will be to inquire into causal factors as much as to identify solutions. In the latter regard, two legislative proposals are before us. One, H.R. 1968, is a bill to eliminate the mandatory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Last Congress, I received a letter from all nine Justices of the Supreme Court which expressed unanimous support for the then-pending legislation. Also pending before the subcommittee is H.R. 1970, a bill to create, and during a temporary and experimental period, an intercircuit tribunal of the U.S. courts of appeals. At this time, without objection, I would like to submit into the record copies of the bills and the letter from the nine Justices. [This information referred to follows:] |