Predicting 3-Month Interruption Over COVID-19, Judiciary Requests $7 Million in Emergency Funds
The Judicial Conference met remotely Tuesday amid the coronavirus pandemic.
March 17, 2020 at 02:50 PM
4 minute read
The federal judiciary is seeking an additional $7 million in emergency supplemental funding from Congress as it anticipates the coronavirus will impact courts for the next three months, the chair of the Judicial Conference's executive committee said Tuesday.
U.S. District Judge Claire Eagan of the Northern District of Oklahoma, who chairs the conference's executive committee, told reporters after the Judicial Conference met remotely Tuesday that the judiciary made the request for the supplemental funding Monday.
She said that request was "based on requirements identified as of yesterday, and assuming an interruption of three months in operations."
Eagan said the majority of the requested funds, about $4.5 million, would cover individual costs for mental health and drug treatment for those under supervision by probation and pretrial services.
She said those treatments are typically administered in a group setting, and that "it's going to be more costly to provide it individually."
Eagan said other funds are to address IT requirements for judiciary staff working remotely.
"At this point the main concern and issue is, do we have enough bandwidth to accommodate the increase in teleworking?" the judge said.
She added that there is also a "small component" in the funding request for defense services staff "to work remotely and to represent their clients without disruption."
Judiciary spokesman David Sellers said a more "formal transmission" of the request will be made to Congress.
"AO staff have been in constant communications with appropriations staff on the impact of COVID-19 on courts and also have been coordinating needs internally with court programs," Sellers said in an email.
"Obviously, this is a rapidly changing situation. As of late last week, we were able to pull together an early list of supplemental funding needs and share it with the appropriations committees for their consideration," he said.
The Judicial Conference met remotely Tuesday, as federal courts around the country implement restrictions to counter the spread of coronavirus in accordance with public health guidelines. The group typically meets at the U.S. Supreme Court, which is currently closed to the public.
Eagan said no judiciary staffer has tested positive for COVID-19 as of Tuesday morning.
The judiciary said in a release issued after the conference meeting that it assembled a taskforce to address coronavirus a month ago. The group includes judges, court officials and representatives from the U.S. Marshals Service and the Federal Protective Service, and is meant "to share information and guidance related to the coronavirus outbreak as it relates to the Judiciary."
"The [Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts] also is providing courts, probation and pretrial offices, and defender services organizations with operational, human resources, funding, and other support and guidance," the release said.
Eagan said individual courts—both circuit and district—are issuing their own orders addressing courthouse operations rather than a federal mandate be put in place. She said Article III judges across the courts still have "flexibility to do what they have to, to address cases that have immediate concerns."
Read more:
As Coronavirus Threat Grows, More Courts Curb Access and Limit Oral Arguments
DC Chief Judge Postpones Proceedings Until Mid-April, Trials Until May Over Coronavirus
Big Law Goes Remote: Updates on Law Firm Closures During the Coronavirus Crisis
Paul Weiss' Brad Karp: We Need Obama, Bush and Clinton to Beat the Coronavirus
'All Hands on Deck' for Labor and Employment Firms Facing Flood of Employer Questions
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
‘A Force of Nature’: Littler Mendelson Shareholder Michael Lotito Dies At 76
3 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 2Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 3Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 4'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 5Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250