955 F.3d 1135
9th Cir.2020Background
- On March 13, 2020 Chief Judge Virginia A. Phillips (C.D. Cal.) declared a judicial emergency under 18 U.S.C. § 3174(e) because COVID-19 national/state/local emergency measures and CDC guidance curtailed in‑person proceedings.
- The Court reported inadequate numbers of trial and grand jurors and diminished availability of counsel, witnesses, defendants, Probation/Pretrial Services, and court staff for in‑court appearances.
- After review, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council found no reasonable remedy and approved suspending the Speedy Trial Act 70‑day limits (18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)) for up to one year (April 13, 2020–April 13, 2021) for the Central District.
- Contributing operational constraints: very high weighted filings per judgeship (692; adjusted 1,076 with vacancies), ten judicial vacancies, limited courtroom capacity, limited video/telephone access at detention facilities, and restricted GSA cleaning/safety protocols.
- The District explored remote hearings under the CARES Act/Judicial Conference authority but identified technological and logistical limits (many detention centers lack video capability), making remote alternatives inadequate to process the caseload.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to suspend STA under 18 U.S.C. § 3174 | Judicial Council may declare a judicial emergency and suspend 70‑day STA limits up to one year if no reasonable remedy exists | Statute is fact‑specific and requires demonstration that no other remedies (e.g., visiting judges, scheduling) are available | Judicial Council invoked § 3174 and suspended STA time limits for one year for C.D. Cal. |
| Whether COVID‑19 restrictions make convening juries and trials infeasible | CDC/public‑health orders limit gatherings and physical distancing, preventing adequate juror pools and essential participants | Remote procedures or limited in‑court sessions could mitigate impacts | Council concluded public‑health constraints materially impede jury trials and grand juries; emergency exists |
| Adequacy of alternative remedies (visiting judges, remote hearings) | Visiting judge designations and remote proceedings are impracticable due to travel limits, nationwide impacts, and detention centers lacking AV capacity | Alternatives could be expanded to avoid statutory suspension | Council found alternatives insufficient to address backlog and safety concerns |
| Effect on detained persons and risk of dismissals under STA | Suspension targets STA time limits except for those detained solely awaiting trial; necessary to avoid imminent dismissals of other defendants | Concern that suspension alters STA protections and defendants’ rights | Suspension applied consistent with § 3174(b); time limits for persons detained solely awaiting trial remain unaffected; suspension prevents imminent dismissals |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bilsky, 664 F.2d 613 (6th Cir. 1981) (Sixth Circuit approved a one‑year suspension of STA time limits for the Western District of Tennessee soon after the Act took effect)
- United States v. Rodriguez‑Restrepo, 680 F.2d 920 (2d Cir. 1982) (Second Circuit approved an emergency declaration for the Eastern District of New York in light of burgeoning caseload and calendar congestion)