So in original. The word “the” probably should appear.
United States Marshals Service on a continuing basis regarding the security requirements for the judicial branch of the United States Government, to ensure that the views of the Judicial Conference regarding the security requirements for the judicial branch of the Federal Government are taken into account when determining staffing levels, setting priorities for programs regarding judicial security, and allocating judicial security resources. In this paragraph, the term “judicial security” includes the security of buildings housing the judiciary, the personal security of judicial officers, the assessment of threats made to judicial officers, and the protection of all other judicial personnel. The United States Marshals Service retains final authority regarding security requirements for the judicial branch of the Federal Government.
Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 218 (Sept. 14, 1922, ch. 306, § 2, 42 Stat. 838; July 5, 1937, ch. 427, 50 Stat. 473).

Provisions as to associate justice acting when Chief Justice is disabled are omitted as unnecessary in view of section 3 of this title giving senior associate justice power to act upon the disability of the Chief Justice.

The provision of section 218 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., as to traveling expenses is incorporated in section 456 of this title.

Provision as to time and place for holding conference was omitted as unnecessary since the Chief Justice is vested with discretionary power to designate the time and place under the language retained.

The references to “chief judge” are in harmony with other sections of this title. (See Reviser’s Note under section 136 of this title.)

Provision for stated annual reports by the chief judge of the district was omitted as obsolete and unnecessary in view of sections 332 and 333 of this title.

The last paragraph is new and is inserted to authorize the communication to Congress of information which now reaches that body only because incorporated in the annual report of the Attorney General.

Numerous changes were made in phraseology and arrangement.

Editorial Notes
References in Text

Rule 45(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in fourth paragraph, is set out in the Appendix to this title.


2008—Pub. L. 110–177 added ninth par. relating to security requirements for the judicial branch of the United States Government.

2002—Pub. L. 107–273 substituted “chapter 16” for “section 372(c)” in two places in fourth par.

1996—Pub. L. 104–317 added second par. and struck out former second par. which read as follows: “The district judge to be summoned from each judicial circuit shall be chosen by the circuit and district judges of the circuit at the annual judicial conference of the circuit held pursuant to section 333 of this title and shall serve as a member of the conference for three successive years, except that in the year following the enactment of this amended section the judges in the first, fourth, seventh, and tenth circuits shall choose a district judge to serve for one year, the judges in the second, fifth, and eighth circuits shall choose a district judge to serve for two years and the judges in the third, sixth, ninth, and District of Columbia circuits shall choose a district judge to serve for three years.”

1988—Pub. L. 100–702 inserted paragraph requiring Judicial Conference review of section 2071 rules prescribed by courts other than Supreme court or district courts for consistency with Federal law.

1986—Pub. L. 99–466, § 1(a), inserted “, the chief judge of the Court of International Trade,” and substituted “Conference may” for “conference may” in first par.

Pub. L. 99–466, § 1(b), inserted “, the chief judge of the Court of International Trade,” and “or any other judge of the Court of International Trade, as the case may be” in first sentence of third par.

Pub. L. 99–466, § 1(c), substituted “Conference” for “conference” in sixth par.

1982—Pub. L. 97–164, in first par., struck out references to the chief judge of the Court of Claims and to the chief judge of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in the enumeration of judges which the Chief Justice must summon each year for a conference and, in third par., struck out provision that authorized the Chief Justice to summon an associate judge of the Court of Claims or the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals if the chief judge of either of those courts could not attend.

1980—Pub. L. 96–458, in fourth par., substituted “It shall also submit suggestions and recommendations to the various courts to promote uniformity of management procedures and the expeditious conduct of court business.” for “and shall submit suggestions to the various courts, in the interest of uniformity and expedition of business.”, and inserted provisions relating to exercise of authority under section 372(c) as the Conference or through standing committee, the holding of hearings, taking of testimony, and the issuance of subpoenas pursuant to rule 45(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1978—Pub. L. 95–598 directed the amendment of section by inserting references to bankruptcy judges, which amendment did not become effective pursuant to section 402(b) of Pub. L. 95–598, as amended, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 101 of Title 11, Bankruptcy.

1961—Pub. L. 87–253 provided for the summoning to the judicial conference of the chief judge of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, and if he is unable to attend, for the summoning of an associate judge of such court.

1958—Pub. L. 85–513 inserted paragraph requiring a continuous study of the operation and effect of the general rules of practice and procedure.

1957—Pub. L. 85–202 provided generally in first three paragraphs for the representation of district judges on the Judicial Conference.

1956—Act July 9, 1956, inserted provisions relating to participation of Court of Claims judges.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–702 effective Dec. 1, 1988, see section 407 of Pub. L. 100–702, set out as a note under section 2071 of this title.

Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Pub. L. 99–466, § 4, Oct. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 1191, provided that: “This Act and the amendments made by this Act [enacting section 335 of this title, amending this section and section 569 of this title, renumbering section 873 of this title as 872, and repealing former section 872 of this title] shall take effect 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 14, 1986].”

Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

Effective Date of 1980 Amendment

Pub. L. 96–458, § 7, Oct. 15, 1980, 94 Stat. 2041, provided that: “This Act [amending this section and sections 332, 372, and 604 of this title and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section and section 1 of this title] shall become effective on October 1, 1981.”

Termination of Reporting Requirements

For termination, effective May 15, 2000, of provisions in this section relating to requirement that the Chief Justice submit to Congress an annual report of proceedings of the Judicial Conference and recommendations for legislation, see section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance, and page 13 of House Document No. 103–7.

Deposit of Fees for Processing of Violations Through Central Violations Bureau Cases

Pub. L. 108–447, div. B, title III, § 308, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 2895, as amended by Pub. L. 109–13, div. A, title VI, § 6066, May 11, 2005, 119 Stat. 299, provided that: “For fiscal year 2005 and hereafter, such fees as shall be collected for the processing of violations through the Central Violations Bureau cases as prescribed by the Judicial Conference of the United States shall be deposited as offsetting receipts to the fund established under 28 U.S.C. 1931 and shall remain available to the Judiciary until expended to reimburse any appropriation for the amount paid out of such appropriation for expenses of the Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services and the Administrative Offices of the United States Courts.”

Policies, Procedures, and Methodologies Used in Recommendation for Creation of Additional Federal Judgeships; Study by General Accounting Office and Report to Congress

Pub. L. 101–650, title II, § 205, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5103, provided that the Comptroller General was to review the policies, procedures, and methodologies used by the Judicial Conference of the United States in recommending to Congress the creation of additional Federal judgeships and, not later than 18 months after Dec. 1, 1990, report the results of the review, with recommendations, to the appropriate congressional committees.

Federal Courts Study Committee

Pub. L. 100–702, title I, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4644, known as the “Federal Courts Study Act”, established within the Judicial Conference of the United States, a Federal Courts Study Committee on the future of the Federal Judiciary, which was directed to examine problems and issues currently facing the courts of the United States, develop a long-range plan for the future of the Federal Judiciary, including assessments involving alternative methods of dispute resolution, the structure and administration of the Federal court system, methods of resolving intracircuit and intercircuit conflicts in the courts of appeals, and the types of disputes resolved by the Federal courts, and to submit, within 15 months after Jan. 1, 1989, a report to the Judicial Conference of the United States, the President, the Congress, the Conference of Chief Justices, and the State Justice Institute on the revisions, if any, in the laws of the United States which the Committee, based on its study and evaluation, deemed advisable, and further provided for membership of the Committee, duties, powers and functions, compensation of members, appropriations, and expiration of the Committee 60 days after submission of report.