COURT ADMINISTRATION

In the absence of Senior Judge John Biggs, Jr., Chairman of the Committee on Court Administration, the Committee's report was presented by Chief Judge John S. Hastings.

PLACES OF HOLDING COURT

H.R. 14391, 89th Congress, provides for the establishment of an additional division in the Western District of Texas in the Midland-Odessa area with an additional place of holding court at Odessa. This legislation, recommended by the Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit and approved by the Conference at its March 1966 meeting (Conf. Rept., p. 5), was again approved by the Conference. H.R. 15796 and H.R. 10867 which differ from H.R. 14391 in certain material respects were disapproved by the Conference.

S. 2070, 89th Congress, which would amend 28 U.S.C. 122 to add Rapid City as an additional place of holding court in the District of South Dakota, previously approved by the Judicial Council of the Eighth Circuit and by the Judicial Conference at its September 1965 meeting (Conf. Rept., p. 56), was again approved by the Conference.

The Conference disapproved H.R. 13658, 89th Congress, providing for the establishment of a northern and southern division within the District of Maryland, and H.R. 15742 and H.R. 15981, 89th Congress, both providing for the holding of court at Hyattsville within the District of Maryland.

The Conference approved S. 3533 and H.R. 15418, 89th Congress, both bills to transfer Haywood County from the Western to the Eastern Division of the Western District of Tennessee. The Conference was informed that this proposal had received the approval of the Judicial Council of the Sixth Circuit.

JUDICIAL DISABILITY

The Conference at its March 1966 session (Conf. Rept., p. 6) recommended that two draft bills submitted to the Conference be discussed at the Judicial Conferences of the circuits to be held in 1966. The replies received from the chief judges of the circuits reflecting discussions of these proposals at the circuit conferences were considered by the Conference and the Committee was directed

to study the proposals and the replies further and report back at a subsequent session of the Conference.

LAW BOOKS FOR NEW JUDGES

The Conference approved the suggestion of the Administrative Office that U.S. Reports furnished to new judges should start with volume 257 instead of volume 200.

EXAMINATION OF COURT OFFICES

The Conference at its March 1966 session authorized the Chief Justice to refer to the appropriate committee of the Conference the suggestion of Chief Judge Roy W. Harper that the examination of court offices be placed under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts rather than the Department of Justice (Conf. Rept., p. 25). Judge Hastings reported that the Committee on Court Administration has undertaken a preliminary study of the matter and the Conference authorized further study and subsequent report on this matter. In this connection, Chief Judge Bazelon presented a resolution of the Judicial Council of the District of Columbia Circuit urging the establishment within the Administrative Office of review and inspection units because of the increased volume and complexity of the work of the clerks of the U.S. courts. Consideration of this resolution was also referred by the Conference to the Committee on Court Administration for study.

CONTINUING EDUCATION, RESEARCH, TRAINING

AND ADMINISTRATION

Judge Hastings next discussed the ever-expanding work of the Conference and its committees, the additional demands for staff support and the requirements for research, as well as the importance of continuing programs of education for court personnel, the judges, referees, probation officers and U.S. commissioners. He pointed out that the demands on the small staff of the Administrative Office were already heavy and suggested the need for congressional approval of a broad expansion of Conference programs. After considering these suggestions the Conference authorized a study of the possible need for congressional authorization of a broad program of continuing education, training, research and

administration by an appropriate committee to be designated or appointed by the Chief Justice for report to the next session of the Conference.

REVISION OF THE LAWS

Senior Judge Albert B. Maris, Chairman of the Committee on Revision of the Laws, submitted the report of the committee.

FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION

Since May 1959 the American Law Institute has been engaged in a study of the appropriate division of jurisdiction between the State and Federal courts. The first part of the study relating to the diversity jurisdiction of the Federal courts has been completed and an official draft published. The second part involving the Federal question jurisdiction is nearing completion. The Conference decided that consideration of the results of the American Law Institute study should be deferred until both parts of it have been completed and until the reactions of the bench and bar to it have been received. The Conference instructed the Director of the Administrative Office to request the bench and bar of the country to examine the final reports of the Institute's study promptly upon completion of this study and to request comment and suggestions for use of the Conference in its own study of the Institute's final reports.

JURY SELECTION

S. 2923, 89th Congress, is a bill relating to jury selection in Federal and State courts, prosecution and removal to Federal courts, civil preventive relief and civil indemnification. Although the Senate Committee on the Judiciary has requested the view of the Conference on this bill, the Conference took the position that it should not give any opinion at this time in view of the other pending legislation in the same area.

COURT OF LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS

S. 2891, 89th Congress, is a bill which would establish a U.S. Court of Labor-Management Relations which would have jurisdiction over labor disputes which result in work stoppages that adversely affect the public interest of the Nation to a substantial

degree. This proposal was studied by the Committee on Revision of the Laws and the Committee on Court Administration. These committees were of the view that the proposed legislation would provide for a permanent compulsory arbitration authority without effective limitation on its jurisdiction or the duration of its judgments. The committees also questioned whether the settlement of labor disputes and the fixing of wages and conditions of employment are judicial functions under Article III of the Constitution and, on the other hand, whether if the legislation creates a legislative court, such a court could use the judicial function of issuing injunctions. Upon recommendation of the committees, the Conference disapproved the bill.

APPEALS FROM THE HIGH COURT OF THE TRUST

TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS

The Bureau of the Budget had requested the view of the Conference on a Department of the Interior draft bill to provide for appeals to the District Court of Guam from the High Court of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and to give the District Court of Guam jurisdiction of Federal cases arising in the trust territory. The Conference approved the draft bill but suggested that clarification be made in the text of the bill to show that the jurisdiction thus granted to the District Court of Guam would be concurrent with that of the High Court of the Trust Territory and that it would not include cases arising under the local law of the trust territory promulgated by the High Commissioner even though he has acted under the authority of the President pursuant to the Act of June 30, 1954 (68 Stat. 330) which conferred upon the President the power to govern the trust territory. The Conference was also of the view that it should be made explicit in the bill that the provisions of the local law of Guam providing that jury trials in the District Court of Guam should not be applicable to the District Court of Guam when sitting in the trust territory unless and until made so applicable by the local law of the trust territory. The Conference took the position that the proposal in the bill to confer upon the District Court of Guam jurisdiction over claims against the United States, both in tort and contract, arising in Guam and the trust territory is a question of public policy with respect to the recognition and enforcement of claims

against the United States and, thus, is a matter for congressional determination.

OTHER LEGISLATION

The Conference also considered other legislative proposals on recommendation of the Committee on Revision of the Laws and took the following action:

(a) H.R. 16550, 89th Congress, would amend the Administrative Procedure Act and related statutes so as to designate hearing examiners as "administrative judges." The Conference was of the opinion that the designation "hearing examiner" is well understood and that the proposed change would be inappropriate and confusing. Accordingly, the Conference voted its disapproval of the proposal.

(b) S. 3351, 89th Congress, a bill to amend 28 U.S.C. 1651, and S. 3352, 89th Congress, a bill to amend 28 U.S.C. 1292, are both designed to prohibit the issuance of writs of mandamus and prohibition by the courts of appeals based upon interlocutory or nonappealable orders of the district courts or a substitute for interlocutory appeals allowable under Section 1292 (b) of Title 28, United States Code. The Conference was of the view that the powers now resting in the courts of appeals in this area are salutary and necessary to protect litigants from the abuse of authority and, accordingly, disapproved both bills.

(c) S. 3631, 89th Congress, would abolish the National Labor Relations Board and in its place establish a U.S. labor court with substantially the same functions of the present board and would confer upon the court the power to enforce its decisions without reference to the Court of Appeals. The Conference agreed with the committee's recommendation that many of the functions which would be assigned to the court are not judicial in nature and, accordingly, voted its disapproval of the proposal.

(d) The Conference reaffirmed its previous approval of September 1965 (Conf. Rept., p. 62) endorsing S. 3254, 89th Congress (which is identical with H.R. 7538, 89th Cong.), to amend sections 2072 and 2112 of Title 28, United States Code so as to empower the Supreme Court to enlarge the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to include the procedure in the courts of appeals in civil actions as well as the procedure in the district courts and the courts of appeals for the judicial review or enforcement of orders of administrative agencies.