Civil Justice System Administration: Courts, Reform, and Management

Introduction to the Judicial Branch and Its Constitutional Foundations

Since the creation of the United States Constitution, there has been a clear distinction between the three branches of government. The third branch, the Judiciary, exists for two purposes: to determine justice according to current laws and policies, and to eliminate any legislation that violates the Constitution. As with the other two branches, the Supreme Court has experienced many reforms over the years. In the 1870s, the number of justices on the Court was increased from seven to nine — a number that has remained the same ever since. Additionally, the Supreme Court has gained greater discretion over which cases it will hear. The key principle that the Supreme Court has stood for over the years, however, is judicial independence: the court's ability to make decisions based upon justice alone.

The courts were established under Article III of the Federal Constitution, which 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." From this provision, the federal court system emerged. The purpose of this branch is to ensure that judicial power remains in the highest offices of the United States — preventing Congress from passing unconstitutional laws and preventing the president from enforcing laws in an unconstitutional manner. The Supreme Court exercises this authority by determining whether a current law is unconstitutional; when a law is held to be unconstitutional, it is struck down and can no longer be applied to citizens. In recent years, however, the courts have begun overstepping their constitutionally defined role by attempting to rewrite the law rather than interpret it. This overstepping — known as judicial proactivity — is at the center of much contemporary debate and controversy.

Core Concepts Shaping Supreme Court Reform

There are three primary concepts that have shaped the measures taken by the Supreme Court in reforming its system. The first is administrative independence. Prior to Chief Justice Taft, the Supreme Court did not have full discretion in setting its own docket; any case deemed constitutionally appropriate for appeal was brought before the Court, resulting in an overfilled docket. Today, the justices exercise full discretion over their caseload.

The second concept is unification within the court system. Currently, state courts and federal courts are set up as separate entities that hear separate cases. The idea behind unification is to streamline state courts and centralize them under the federal court system. The third concept aligns with unification and is best described as the management perspective. This perspective argues that the Supreme Court's position as the highest court in the land ensures that state courts remain unified under its decisions. It is these three concepts that have pushed the Supreme Court into its modern form.

Along with the justices are those who serve the courts, the primary office of which is known as court management. Court managers are retained by the courts to handle the daily caseload and ensure that all cases are heard in a timely and efficient manner. This position, like that of the judges themselves, is considered one of civil service. As with any government position, there are many issues weighing on how the courts could improve. This paper discusses the issues of court security, case flow, budgeting, jury management, computerization and informational integration, trial court performance evaluations, and the likely future direction of the courts.

Court Management, Security, and Public Records

It has been well established for decades that all legal hearings are public record. In other words, the public may listen to and observe any hearings within the courthouse, and transcripts and decisions from all cases are available through the courts. With modern threats to safety and privacy, however, there is considerable debate as to whether the public should retain such broad access to these records (Winn 307). Modern legal theorists argue that:

Courts must limit the disclosure of judicial information when it threatens the effective administration of justice and when necessary in order to protect the safety and privacy of individuals participating in the judicial process. (Winn 317)

Originally, the requirement for openness was intended to ensure that all interested parties could discover the results of a case. With more court records being placed on the internet, however, uninterested parties increasingly have access to otherwise private proceedings. One visible consequence of this trend is the growing movement toward the creation of an inter vivos trust as a means of avoiding the public scrutiny that accompanies probate.

Works Cited

Andersen, Seth. "Judicial Retention Evaluation Programs." Louisiana Law Review, vol. 34, 2000, pp. 1375–1389.

Bakke, H., and M. Solomon. "Case Differentiation: An Approach to Individualized Case Management." Judicature, vol. 73, no. 1, 1989, pp. 17–21.

Rios, Celina. Developing a Proposal for Differentiated Case Management for the Family Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. Institute for Court Management.

Winn, Peter. "Online Court Records: Balancing Judicial Accountability and Privacy in an Age of Electronic Information." Washington Law Review, vol. 79, no. 1, 2004, pp. 307–332.