U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Burdens of the Bench: State Supreme Courts' Non-Judicial Tasks

NCJ Number
189996
Journal
Judicature Volume: 84 Issue: 6 Dated: May/June 2001 Pages: 304-309
Author(s)
Christopher E. Smith; Heidi Feldman
Editor(s)
David Richert
Date Published
2001
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This study provided results of a survey identifying non-judicial tasks that State supreme courts are responsible for handling in addition to their judicial decision making and the special challenges these additional duties create for State courts.
Abstract
In the past, research has focused its attention on the State supreme courts role as major policy-making institutions in the political-legal system, handling the vast majority of the Nation’s legal cases. However, little attention was given to their other non-judicial duties. These tasks can consume a significant portion of their working hours. In 1998, a preliminary assessment survey of 50 State supreme court justices’ responsibilities, other than traditional judicial decision making, was conducted. The survey asked chief justices to identify administrative and other responsibilities undertaken by State supreme courts, State justices’ workloads, interactions with other branches of the State government, and their assessment of State supreme courts’ needs for undertaking non-judicial duties with greater effectiveness. The survey indicated that State supreme courts handle a wide array of responsibilities in addition to traditional decision making, such as developing court rules and attorney admissions, developing formal proposals for new laws and the selection of chief judges for lower courts. These non-judicial activities can consume a significant portion of judges’ hours and create a burden to the bench. Chief justices see their greatest needs for additional resources and training in areas related to court administration. These results should serve as notice that effective administration of justice may require greater attention be paid to the administrative burdens borne by States’ highest courts. Tables