HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.crs/goveowr0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
Congressional Research Servic
informing the legislative debate since 1914
0
April 4, 2024
Expediting Cases and Setting Deadlines for Court Actions
Federal court litigation is subject to various deadlines.
Often, statutes or procedural rules set time limits for actions
by the litigants. For instance, statutes of limitations require
cases to be filed within a certain time after the conduct at
issue. Once a case is filed, generally applicable court rules
and case-by-case scheduling decisions may set deadlines
for the parties to file motions and briefs and argue the case.
Less commonly, statutes may require prompt action by
courts themselves. Some such statutes require courts to
expedite proceedings without setting exact time limits for
action. Others impose specific deadlines by which courts
must take certain actions. This In Focus provides an
overview and examples of both types of statutes, then
discusses selected considerations for Congress related to
setting deadlines for court actions.
Expediting Proceedings
Expediting a court proceeding means that the court handles
the matter more quickly than ordinary procedures would
provide, including giving the matter priority over matters
that are not expedited.
28 U.S.C. § 1657(a), a provision within the title of the U.S.
Code that governs courts and court procedures, generally
gives courts discretion to determine the order in which civil
cases should be considered. It requires expedition of
petitions for writs of habeas corpus under chapter 153 of
Title 28, proceedings to confine a recalcitrant witness under
28 U.S.C. § 1826, claims for temporary or preliminary
injunctive relief, or or any other action if good cause
therefor is shown.
Multiple other federal statutes provide for courts to expedite
certain matters without setting specific deadlines. Congress
can require courts to expedite certain matters, can set
standards for deciding whether to expedite, or can
encourage courts to resolve certain disputes quickly.
Examples include the following:
* 2 U.S.C. § 1412(b) provides, in appeals in cases
involving the constitutionality of the Congressional
Accountability Act: The Supreme Court shall, if it has
not previously ruled on the question, accept jurisdiction
over the appeal ... , advance the appeal on the docket,
and expedite the appeal to the greatest extent possible.
* 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3)(D) requires federal courts at all
levels to advance on the docket and to expedite to the
greatest possible extent the disposition of any case
considered under this paragraph involving orders of
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
* 16 U.S.C. § 6516 governs judicial review of certain
hazardous fuel reduction projects on federal lands. It
does not require but rather encourages a court of
competent jurisdiction to expedite, to the maximum
extent practicable, the proceedings in the action with the
goal of rendering a final determination on jurisdiction,
and (if jurisdiction exists) a final determination on the
merits, as soon as practicable after the date on which a
complaint or appeal is filed to initiate the action.
* 18 U.S.C. § 3509(j) seeks to minimize the length of
time [a] child must endure the stress of involvement
with the criminal process. It provides that, when a child
is called to give testimony in a criminal case, on
motion by the attorney for the Government or a guardian
ad litem, or on its own motion, the court may designate
the case as being of special public importance, and then
expedite the proceeding and ensure that it takes
precedence over any other.
* 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-5(b) provides that, upon receipt of a
request from the Attorney General for certain civil rights
cases to be heard by a three-judge panel, it shall be the
duty of the chief judge of the circuit or the presiding
circuit judge ... to designate immediately three judges in
such circuit ... to hear and determine such case, and it
shall be the duty of the judges so designated to assign
the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date ... and
to cause the case to be in every way expedited.
* 52 U.S.C. § 10701 governs Attorney General suits to
enforce the Twenty-Sixth Amendment and provides in
part: It shall be the duty of the judges designated to
hear the case ... to cause the case to be in every way
expedited.
Setting Time Limts for Court Actions
Other federal statutes set specific deadlines by which courts
must take certain actions. One example is the Speedy Trial
Act, which seeks to ensure that criminal defendants are
brought to trial promptly as required by the Sixth
Amendment. One provision of the act states:
In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered,
the trial of a defendant charged in an information or
indictment with the commission of an offense shall
commence within seventy days from the filing date
(and making public) of the information or
indictment, or from the date the defendant has
appeared before a judicial officer of the court in
which such charge is pending, whichever date last
occurs.
Certain periods of delay are excluded from the calculation
of time elapsed, but unexcluded delays by both prosecutors](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.crs/goveowr0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)