Read on Twitter
What better way to ring in the New Year than with a little judicial administration history? 
On the menu today, we have court commissions! (This is a dish that you will not want to missâŚ) 
(1/x)
On the menu today, we have court commissions! (This is a dish that you will not want to missâŚ) (1/x)
As I mentioned in a recent thread, we have long had commissions to consider the organization of the federal courts. One of my personal favorites (because really, who doesnât have a favorite court commission) is the Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System. (2)
Why was this Commission convened in 1972, you may ask? The caseload of the federal courts was rising considerably and there was particular concern about a workload âcrisisâ at the courts of appeals. (Indeed, those courts would be bestowed with 35 judgeships six years later.) (3)
And who served on the Commission, you may ask? First, we had several senators and congressmen. Indeed, Senator Roman Hruska was Chair. (This is why the Commission is often referred to by his name.) Judge J. Edward Lumbard of the Second Circuit (
) served as Vice-Chair. (4/x)
) served as Vice-Chair. (4/x)
It was a little short on academics â only two made the cut. The first was Roger Cramton, Dean of @CornellLaw. And the second was some professor you *may* have heard of â Herbert Wechsler. 
(5/x)
(5/x)
The Commission ultimately submitted two major reports to Congress - one on the geographical boundaries of the circuits in 73, and another on structure and internal procedures in 75. To be sure, not everything that the Commission recommended in those reports came to pass. (6/x)
For example, one of the Commissionâs main recommendations was the creation of a National Court of Appeals. That court would have consisted of 7 Article III judges who would have sat only en banc, with its decisions to be binding upon the courts of appeals and district courts. (7)
The idea of a National Court of Appeals was not entirely new; an earlier committee, the Freund Study Group, had proposed something by the same name. But the new version was to be structured differently - its main task was to decide intercircuit conflicts. (8/x)
Now as we know, no National Court of Appeals came to pass. While some initially supported the proposal, there was also strong opposition to it â including from Judge Henry Friendly of the Second Circuit (). (9/x)
). (9/x)
Now this does not mean that none of the Hruska Commission's proposals succeeded. Another major proposal of the Commission was that the (old) Fifth Circuit be split â and indeed, it was, in 1981 (into the ânewâ Fifth Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit). (10/x)
The key point is that there is much to be said for gathering thoughtful people in a room and having them discuss the operation of the courts, what potential problems they see, and what a set of feasible solutions might look like. Hereâs hoping we see such a commission in 2021!
(P.S. For those interested in the Hruska Commission, I recommend this thoughtful article in the @CalifLRev by Peter Menell & @ryanvacca, https://www.californialawreview.org/print/path-for-federal-judiciary-reform/) (Fin!)
