Content area
Abstract
The theory behind this project is that as Congress increases jurisdiction the workload of the district courts increases through more cases being filed in the federal district courts. The increase in district court workload results in a need for new resources for the district courts. When Congress does not respond to the increases in workload in the district courts the United States Supreme Court responds by reducing workload in the district courts through placing limits on congressional jurisdiction.
The topic of the dissertation is the influence of congressional jurisdiction increases on the workload of the district courts, and the Supreme Court's reaction to those increases. The dissertation begins by investigating the influence of increases in federal criminal jurisdiction on the number of criminal cases filed in district courts. I have found a strong correlation among these two variables. I use the connection between criminal jurisdiction and increases in criminal cases in the district courts to infer that congressional increases in other areas will result in similar increases in the overall workload of the district courts. From this inference I examine how the courts respond to increased workload through requests for new judges. I have also found a strong correlation in this regard. From the requests for new judges I look at the reaction to these requests by Congress. I have found that Congress is fairly responsive to requests for new judges by the judiciary. Finally, I look at 3 cases in which the Court restricts and expands the commerce clause; Usery v. National League of Cities, Garcia v. San Antonio Metro., and Lopez v. U.S. These cases illustrate the reaction of the Court to the action or inaction of Congress to requests for new judges by the judiciary.
