In Re Approval of Judicial Emergency, 639 F.3d 970

The Ninth Circuit Judicial Council approved an extension of a judicial emergency in the District of Arizona, suspending the Speedy Trial Act deadlines for one year, ending February 19, 2012.
The declaration followed the death of Judge Roll and ongoing extraordinary criminal and civil caseloads in Arizona, especially in Tucson, creating severe resource shortages.
Judge Roll’s death created vacancies (three total) with no nominees yet to fill them, exacerbating congestion in a border-heavy district.
The District of Arizona has seen a surge in border-related prosecutions and immigration cases, expanding the workload for U.S. Attorneys, Border Patrol, and court staff.
Facilities and space constraints at the Evo A. DeConcini Courthouse limit the ability to accommodate visiting judges and schedule, aiding measures.
The Judicial Council proposed mitigations including visiting judges, mediation for civil cases, and state a long-term need for additional judgeships and budgetary resources to meet STA requirements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a judicial emergency exists under §3174(a).	Arizona shows crushing caseloads and vacancies.	Data and history show no reasonable remedy short of emergency relief.	Yes, a judicial emergency exists.
Whether suspending STA time limits is warranted under §3174(b).	Suspension necessary to prevent dismissals and ensure due process.	Suspension should only occur if no reasonable remedy is available.	Yes, time limits are suspended for one year.
Whether visiting judges and courthouse constraints adequately address congestion in the short term.	Visiting judges help but space and scheduling limits hinder relief.	Visiting judges are insufficient long-term; space constraints impede deployment.	Visiting judges aid but cannot fully resolve congestion.
Whether additional judgeships and resources are the proper long-term solution.	Congress should authorize new judgeships and fund staff to meet STA goals.	Long-term relief requires staffing, funding, and legislative action beyond temporary measures.	Yes; the recommended solution is swift legislation creating additional judgeships.

United States v. Bilsky, 664 F.2d 613 (6th Cir.1981) (emergency used to avoid imminent dismissals; not a dismissal device)
United States v. Rodriguez-Restrepo, 680 F.2d 920 (2d Cir.1982) (recognizes emergency for calendar congestion in border districts)