Search the archive.

Because international law scholarship uses the term "enforcement" in several ways, defining it is a necessary first step. As used in this Article, "transnational enforcement" refers to the imposition by official actors of lawful penalties on non-state actors such as individuals and corporate entities. The "transnational" component indicates that enforcement is directed at activity that causes cross-border harm.32 The term also includes the process that leads to penalties, such as investigation, arrest, and prosecution. Because states play a predominant role in this kind of [*248] enforcement, and some of its components are considered exclusive sovereign prerogatives, this Article focuses on enforcement by states.33 The definition excludes state-to-state enforcement such as economic sanctions or the use of force, although, as will be discussed later, many of the insights developed here may also apply in that context.34 Finally, the analysis excludes enforcement measures prohibited by international law, such as sending covert agents to a foreign state to abduct a suspected criminal. Outside a few clear prohibitions, international law provides ample latitude for states to engage in transnational enforcement, especially in economic matters.35

Enforcement is a mechanism to force compliance with a particular standard through informal or formal procedures of dispute settlement and decisions implementation, which "implies compulsion to obedience." 39 [[Footnote 39 begins]] See Qureshi, supra note 11, at 51-53. In this context, the term "enforcement' is used in its narrower literal meaning. Some scholars argue that this term can have a wider meaning to include non-coercive measures designed to induce adherence to norms by the state (for example, the transparency obligations). In this regard, they actually expand the meaning of "enforcement' to cover all means of implementation. [[Footnote 39 ends]] It has the strongest sense of coercion, immediacy and particularity among four implementation mechanisms. Dispute settlement procedures constitute the core element of this mechanism, serving to adjudicate disputes between the Members, to recognize violations by the Members, and to force the offending Members to act in line with the agreed upon rules through efficient sanctions.

In reaching this conclusion, the court's analysis focused on specific language in 201(d)(2), the so-called "protection and remedies" clause. 40 The second sentence of 201(d)(2) provides that, "the owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title." 41 The court interpreted 201(d)(2) as providing only "protection and remedies" to the owner of the exclusive right and not all the "rights" afforded to a copyright owner. 42 According to the court, the term "protection and remedies" includes the right for an exclusive licensee to sue in her own name, but does not include the right to transfer the exclusive license. 43 Furthermore, relying on the principle of statutory construction, the court held that the more specific term of 201(d)(2) prevails over the more general language of 101 and 201(d)(1). 44 Therefore, the court held that 201(d)(1) did not apply to the present case, and thus [*371] 201(d)(2) only provided "protection and remedies" but not the rights. 45

a. Section 408. A number of application-approach courts "rely on the language of [the second clause of] § 408, that registration is not a condition of [*134] copyright protection." 173 Implicitly, these courts appear to take "copyright protection" at its face value, 174 [[Footnote 174 begins]] Protection is defined as "[t]he condition of being protected." The American Heritage Dictionary 995 (2d College ed. 1991). Protect, in turn, is defined as "[t]o keep from harm, attack, or injury; guard." Id. [[Footnote 174 ends]] as they construe that term to encompass the ability to prevent injury to a copyright rather than to merely convey legal recognition of the validity of a copyright. 175 Since the only means, plausibly considered by issuance-approach courts, of preventing such injury would be judicial enforcement of a copyright, these courts must infer from § 408(a) that the issuance of a certificate of registration or a denial of the same is not needed in order for a court to be competent to enforce a party's copyright. 176

The Examiner responds that the Specification's description of "geometrical properties" of the axial slots "to minimize 'mixing loss' and extract low momentum fluids . . . appear[s] to contradict an accepted definition of 'strengthen' of 'to make stronger.'" Ans. 2-3. The Examiner also finds that "the [S]pecification does not describe such effects [(as a reduction in the blockage with an increased axial momentum and reduced pressure, or by the curvilinear shape)] "nor does the [S]pecification link the described effects to 'strengthening' the extracted flow.'" Id. at 3.

To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The issue of whether the written description requirement has been satisfied is a question of fact. Wang Labs, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 865 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

The word "protection" often creates confusion as it means very different things in strict intellectual property law and in ordinary usage. "Protection" in intellectual property is usually perceived as a means enforcing private, exclusive economic rights to a specific creation in order to prevent others from using or reproducing it. "Protection" of TK, on the other hand, implies protecting the whole social, ecological, cultural and spiritual context of that knowledge so that it continues to be produced and reproduced.

The intellectual divide in antitrust policy breaks at the fine line that defines the difference between procompetitive and anticompetitive conduct. The Sherman Act itself causes this issue in part because it does not define what it means "to monopolize" or "attempt to monopolize." Legislative historyand the courts affirm that monopolies are not illegal per se.Likewise, courts acknowledge that "monopoly may be obtained by superior skill and unmatched effort." Herbert Hovenkamp, a notable antitrust scholar, helped elucidate the distinction between illegal and legal monopolization. He points out that "in most circumstances involving monopoly, the "intent' to create a monopoly anticompetitively cannot be distinguished from the intent to do so competitively." Here, he simply refers to how normal business conduct works in competitive markets; a firm "intends" to increase its profits which, if successful, invariably leads to excluding profits from other firms.If the market is competitive, and many firms are vying for market share, it is harder to conclude that competitive conduct is intended to harm any particular rival.In a concentrated market, this scenario looks different. When a dominant firm has few competitors and it "intends" to increase its profits, it likely does so with the awareness that its actions will harm rivals. However, this scenario does not necessarily lead to the conclusion of intentional harm either. The goal of business is well [*308] understood. Companies big and small are formed to make money. Therefore, in monopolization cases adjudicators are pressed to determine when a dominant firm's profit-seeking conduct and market share exceed the benefits associated with it.

New Brandeisians claim that the competitive process is best protected by "structural conditions (competition) as a way of promoting a set of outcomes and principles" such as "preventing unfair wealth transfers from consumers, producers and workers to monopolistic firms; preserving open markets in order to ensure opportunity for entrepreneurs; and halting excessive concentrations of private power." However, this structural framework ignores the fine line between procompetitive and anticompetitive acts and, under certain circumstances, could be employed to prevent behavior that enhances competition.

A lawsuit Meta filed against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) late last month could fundamentally change the agency if the tech giant prevails, including by preventing it from all independent actions to regulate companies and by paving the way for presidents to remove commissioners without cause, former high-ranking FTC officials told Recorded Future News. The agency would lose power in trying to enforce federal consumer protection rules, including those that apply to digital privacy and digital fraud, as well as to a variety of other issues, the former officials said. The commission also would be open to court challenges before it has a chance to settle in-house with companies found to be in violation of regulations. “This is a serious and thoughtful shot right at the heart of the FTC,” David Vladeck, who was director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection during the Obama administration, said in an interview. “There are some issues here that are threatening to the FTC not just in this case but more broadly.” The Washington D.C.-based federal judge presiding over Meta’s case said Monday that he will hear arguments on its lawsuit in late January. Meta owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. Meta’s suit challenges the constitutionality of the FTC’s structure and comes in response to proposed new restrictions the commission announced against the tech company in May, unilaterally changing the terms of a prior order. The action was unprecedented, former officials say; typically the commission negotiates with companies before revising orders, particularly as extensively as it did in this case.

In yet another setback to the Federal Trade Commission’s competition agenda against Big Tech, a district court rejected the agency’s bid to block the Microsoft/Activision Blizzard transaction. The FTC’s appeals to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court were to no avail. The Microsoft/Activision Blizzard loss follows the agency’s loss in its challenge of the Meta/Within transaction. These losses raise questions about the agency’s judgment in pursuing bad cases and what it might do differently. The two cases share many similarities. The acquirers in both transactions are Big Tech firms. Both merger challenges were decided by district court judges appointed by Democratic presidents, Judge Edward J. Davila (appointed by President Barack Obama) overseeing the Meta/Within case and Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley (appointed by President Joe Biden) overseeing the Microsoft/Activision Blizzard case, both in the Northern District of California. In both cases, the main theories of harm did not imply a loss of current competition between the merging parties. In Meta/Within, the FTC challenged the transaction based on the “actual potential competition” and “perceived potential competition” theories where the main concern is the loss of potential future competition. The FTC challenged the Microsoft/Activision Blizzard transaction based on vertical theories of harm. The Agencies (the FTC and Department of Justice Antitrust Division) rarely litigate potential competition and vertical merger cases and have a poor record in winning such cases in court. What the Microsoft/Activision Blizzard and Meta/Within cases also have in common is that the FTC’s evidence in both cases was shockingly weak.

Oversight of the dominant digital platforms’ broad effects on society is not possible within the existing federal regulatory structure. Agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) are filled with good and dedicated professionals, yet they are constrained in what they can do. Such limitations are perversely demonstrated by the recent headline-grabbing antitrust actions by both agencies. Antitrust enforcement, while important, is targeted against specific circumstances and cannot protect against general consumer abuses. Similarly, while the FTC also has authority over unfair and deceptive acts, many abuses in the digital marketplace are harmful but not considered deceptive and unfair. The FTC is further hampered by limited power to promulgate broad rules, thus constraining most of its activities to one-off proceedings against a singular company for a specific type of abuse rather than establishing broad behavioral rules across the consumer-facing digital economy.

“Reprioritizing digital policy to reflect the public interest requires focused attention on the broad sweep of corporate behaviors by the dominant digital companies.”

The 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) is widely viewed as the most significant patent statute enacted by Congress in over 50 years. Although the AIA made many important changes to U.S. patent law, the most practically significant was the creation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). PTAB is a tribunal within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the federal agency responsible for reviewing patent applications and granting patents. The AIA created PTAB and granted it authority to hear several new types of administrative challenges to the validity of patents previously granted by USPTO. These challenges, which were also created by the AIA, include inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR). IPRs and PGRs are typically decided by a panel of three administrative patent judges (APJs). Entities accused of patent infringement have always been able to challenge the validity of patents asserted against them in federal court. Because those patents were reviewed and granted by USPTO, patents carry a presumption of validity when challenged in court. Patent invalidity must be demonstrated by a higher standard of proof (clear and convincing evidence) than the standard used for most issues in civil litigation (preponderance of the evidence). Litigating a patent case to a final judgment in a federal court is time-consuming and expensive: it typically takes several years, with average legal costs amounting to over a million dollars. In addition, because of judicial standing requirements, an entity can usually ask a court to decide the validity of a patent only if they have been sued or at least threatened with a patent lawsuit. Congress’s stated aim when creating IPR and PGR was to improve patent quality by providing a more efficient means to adjudicate patent validity issues. Congress was also concerned that poor-quality patents fueled litigation by so-called “patent trolls,” a pejorative term for patent plaintiffs that do not manufacture or sell the patented products. From the perspective of a person accused of patent infringement (or worried about being sued), PTAB procedures are often more advantageous than federal court litigation in that they are faster, cheaper, and use a lower standard of proof. By statute, IPRs and PGRs are supposed to reach a final determination no later than one year after PTAB decides to institute the proceeding. The administrative procedures are more streamlined than civil litigation, with average legal costs typically in the hundreds of thousands of dollars (as opposed to millions). In addition, PTAB does not require standing, so any person other than the patent holder can challenge a patent before PTAB. As a result, it has become common for entities sued for patent infringement in federal court or before the U.S. International Trade Commission to petition PTAB to institute an IPR and seek to challenge the patent in that forum. PTAB procedures—and IPR in particular—have aroused controversy among patent stakeholders since the enactment of the AIA. Critics of PTAB argue that it is biased against patent holders, creates uncertainty in patent rights, and discourages investment in innovation. PTAB critics further maintain that IPR is unfair to patent holders, who have successfully obtained a patent before USPTO but must now again defend their patent’s validity before the same agency.

APRIL 26, 2024 (New York, NY) – A newly released study from Marcum LLP reveals surprising trends in two decades of patent litigation, shedding light on unexpected patterns that counter the steady increase in patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The 2024 Marcum Patent Litigation Study examines the decline in patent infringement lawsuits, median damage awards, the impact of court decisions on permanent injunctions, and shifting legal venue preferences, providing strategic insight for business and legal professionals. KEY FINDINGS.Overall Drop in Litigation: Although the number of patents granted annually continues to rise, the number of patent infringement lawsuits filed in U.S. District Courts has decreased significantly. In 2013, 6,497 cases were filed, but by 2022, this number had dropped to 3,639. Median Damages: Over the last 20 years, median damages in patent cases are approximately $3.7 million. Excluding default judgments, this rises to $5.6 million, peaking at $9 million in 2005 and more recently trending downward to $2.4 million. Permanent Injunctions: Post eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, permanent injunctions granted fell sharply, with a noticeable annual decline from 80 to 36 over the last fifteen years. Venue Shifts: The TC Heartland decision reshaped venue preferences, diminishing the Eastern District of Texas’s dominance in favor of the Western District of Texas. However, recent changes are also affecting the Western District’s status. Enhanced Damages: After Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., from 2003 to 2022, 22% of cases saw enhanced damages due to willful infringement, averaging a 2.3x award multiplier. “The research effort behind the patent litigation study was substantial, aimed at going beyond academic analysis to provide a strategic perspective on intellectual property trends,” said William Scally, the lead author of the study and the National Leader of Litigation Advisory Services at Marcum LLP. “The findings of this study offer insight into the trends and shifts that may influence how businesses approach patent litigation and consider intellectual property management strategy moving forward.” Marcum’s litigation support team utilized Westlaw databases, Law360, and CaseText to provide this comprehensive overview of patent litigation trends.

The simplest facts are sometimes the most difficult to comprehend. Patent suits are not as pervasive as they are portrayed in the media or by defendants. Remarkably few are filed relative to the number of patents that are active.

The necessity to litigate patent disputes to get the attention of potential infringers and hold a meaningful licensing discussion has likely increased the total number of suits filed. If it has, it has not had much of an impact on the net total. This suggests that many patent holders who should be suing are not.

WASHINGTON—Today, Meta  at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, pushing back against the Federal Trade Commission for its lack of evidence in its case against the company. NetChoice applauds this effort from Meta to halt the FTC’s ideological crusade that lacks the necessary facts or evidence required for U.S. antitrust lawsuits. 

In its new motion for summary judgment, Meta  why the FTC has not presented the necessary facts required for an anticompetitive claim against the company. This is not shocking, considering that this FTC has been using antitrust as a weapon to be wielded against U.S. businesses consumers love but regulators personally dislike, with claims relying on little evidence and ideological assertions. 

There is an immediate and most pressing need for additional judges… In many places, this failure is throwing a burden on judges which they are not able to bear. If it were not for many of the retired judges who continue to serve so faithfully, we would, indeed, be in a terrible condition. Scholars and practitioners alike have noted the high increase in judicial caseloads and the relative lack of proportional increases in judicial positions. While the quote above could be easily attributed to a modern jurist, it was actually delivered in 1959 by Chief Justice Earl Warren. This quote, from over 50 years ago, remains highly relevant in today’s discussions of the federal courts and represents an often-heard complaint by those involved in the legal process–the increase in judicial workload without a corresponding increase in personnel poses significantly negative consequences for the judiciary. In addition to the relative lack of new judicial positions, particularly at the circuit court level, the confirmation process, even for lower court appointments, has become more tedious, particularly in terms of the personal scrutiny placed on the nominees. As well as the more personal nature of the modern hearings, the nomination process has become a longer ordeal based on the delay of lower court confirmations.  

MIAMI (AP) — Eight months after crossing the Rio Grande into the United States, a couple in their 20s sat in an immigration court in Miami with their three young children. Through an interpreter, they asked a judge to give them more time to find an attorney to file for asylum and not be deported back to Honduras, where gangs threatened them. Judge Christina Martyak agreed to a three-month extension, referred Aarón Rodriguéz and Cindy Baneza to free legal aid provided by the Catholic Archdiocese of Miami in the same courthouse — and their case remains one of the unprecedented 3 million currently pending in immigration courts around the United States. Fueled by  who seek asylum after being apprehended for crossing the border illegally, the court backlog has grown by more than 1 million over the last fiscal year and it’s now triple what it was in 2019, according to government data compiled by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Judges, attorneys and migrant advocates worry that’s rendering  unworkable, as it often takes several years to grant asylum-seekers a new stable life and to deport those with no right to remain in the country. “Sometimes hope already sinks,” said Mayra Cruz after her case was also granted an extension by Martyak because the Peruvian migrant doesn’t have an attorney. “But here I’ve felt a bit safer,” added Cruz, who said she had to flee with only the clothes on her back with her partner and their children after repeated threats from gangs. About 261,000 cases of migrants placed in removal proceedings are pending in the Miami court — the largest docket in the country. That’s about the same as were pending nationwide a dozen years ago, said Syracuse University professor Austin Kocher. The backlog includes migrants who have been in the United States for decades and were apprehended on unrelated charges, but most are new asylum seekers who declare a fear of persecution if they are sent back, he added. Backlogged courts, administered by the Justice Department, often get little attention in immigration debates, including in  over the Biden administration’s $110 billion proposal that links aid for Ukraine and Israel to asylum and other border policy changes. When migrants are apprehended by U.S. authorities at the border,  with a record of their detention and instructions to appear in court in the city where they are headed. That information is passed on from the Department of Homeland Security to the Justice Department, whose Executive Office for Immigration Review runs the courts, so that an initial hearing can be scheduled. “They’re just being released without any idea of what comes next,” said Randy McGrorty, executive director of Catholic Legal Services for the Archdiocese of Miami, which has seen hundreds of thousands of migrants . So many migrants go to them for advice that, in the last couple of years, they’ve largely switched to teaching how to self-petition and represent themselves before judges. “We help them understand what judges want, and we help judges with efficiency and preserving fundamental rights,” said Miguel Mora, a Catholic Legal Services supervising attorney in Miami. Advocates say that most migrants ask for individual legal representation, something that’s becoming increasingly rare given the huge numbers, and how to get work permits, which migrants can apply for 150 days after filing their asylum application. It’s a vicious cycle — without regular work, most can’t afford even a low-cost lawyer, so their cases can take even longer. “We don’t have the money,” Rodriguéz, 23, told Judge Martyak, who had already granted him an extension for having no attorney at a previous hearing, as his partner rocked the stroller where their U.S.-born baby slept. They fled Honduras after the gang that had killed the father of Baneza’s oldest child threatened further violence unless they started paying from the meager profits of their tortilla shop. “We were left with no other option than get out of the country,” Rodriguéz told The Associated Press. “We’ve already had three court appearances. Time is helping. We’re getting a little bit oriented.” But the slow-moving process also means it takes years for asylum-seekers to be able to reunite with families they left behind and integrate fully in American society, said Karen Musalo, an attorney and professor who leads the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at the University of California in San Francisco. Time also doesn’t help with the backlog, even though government records show judges completed far more cases in the last year than ever before, because their dockets keep growing so fast. Their average caseload is now 5,000 per judge, said Mimi Tsankov, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. She cited estimates that doubling the current number of judges to about 1,400 might solve the current backlog by 2032. In the new budget request, the Executive Office for Immigration Review is requesting funds from Congress to hire 150 new judges and support staff, said its press secretary, Kathryn Mattingly. Experts like retired judge Paul Schmidt, who also served as government immigration counsel while the last major reform was enacted nearly forty years ago, say the broken system can only be fixed with major policy changes. An example would be allowing most asylum cases to be solved administratively or through streamlined processes instead of litigated in courts. “The situation has gotten progressively worse since the Obama administration, when it really started getting out of hand,” said Schmidt, who in 2016, his last year on the bench, was scheduling cases seven years out. In the mid-2010s, families and children from Central America seeking asylum became the majority of illegal crossers at the U.S. southern border. In response, the Obama administration as well as the Trump and Biden administrations started prioritizing some categories of cases they want solved faster to reflect enforcement priorities. But courts are ineffective deterrents to people desperate to flee their countries, and judges say shuffling cases around only adds to the chaos as they wade through dozens if not hundreds of cases a day. At the courthouse in Miami last week, one judge went looking for a Haitian family who hadn’t shown up, then granted an order of deportation in absentia, just as she had for a Colombian family who also failed to appear at their hearing immediately before. Another judge found that a Cuban mother, then a Venezuelan man had applied for other forms of protection special to their countries and dismissed their cases, telling them they were done with the court. The woman broke into grateful tears. The man, who had come more than 200 miles for the minutes-long hearing, mumbled “God bless you” in Spanish. And a steady stream of migrants went to find Catholic Legal Services — one couple directed there by the judge to figure out how to present in court their video of the gang murder that had forced them to flee.

Still reeling from the COVID-19 pandemic, court systems in many states are working to clear their case backlogs. Some court systems have moved cases faster using virtual court proceedings, court data dashboards and online jury selection. In other states, lawmakers are stepping in. The pandemic worsened problems that already had caused state and local court delays, legal experts say. The hurdles include insufficient funding, judicial vacancies, lawyer shortages and delays processing digital and physical evidence. Some state legislators are particularly focused on shortages of prosecutors and judges. In Georgia, New York and Vermont, for example, lawmakers have filed or plan to offer bills that would increase prosecutor pay, boost the number of judges or streamline procedures to reduce the number of cases. “Managing cases today is much more complex on the part of our courts than it used to be, and the pandemic is just one more complexity,” said Brittany Kauffman, the CEO of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, an independent research center at the University of Denver. The bulk of the backlog in most states and counties are criminal trials. Unlike civil or family law cases, they typically cannot be conducted online because criminal defendants have a constitutional right to face their accusers. The backlog poses significant challenges for defendants, whose right to a speedy trial can be jeopardized by extended pretrial detention. Those held in jail during pretrial detention may lose jobs and experience housing instability. And for crime victims, extended court proceedings can make navigating the already complex justice system even more difficult, said Renée Williams, the executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime. “[Victims] are very much facing the justice system alone and kind of left to navigate the best they can, so when we start to see court backlogs, that becomes especially an issue because there might be a lack of communication to them about what’s going on,” Williams said in an interview. As proceedings drag on, there’s also a higher chance that victims may face intimidation or retaliation for coming forward — discouraging them from participating altogether, Williams said. Too few prosecutors Public defenders and prosecutors are leaving in large numbers because of low salaries and heavy caseloads, with a shortage of applicants to fill the gaps, legal experts said. In Georgia, the five-year average turnover rate for assistant district attorneys is 25%, coupled with a 10% vacancy rate for state prosecutors, according to data from the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, which assists and provides training for state prosecutors. In 2021, the state saw its highest turnover rate for a single year, peaking at 43.5%. Eight of the state’s 49 judicial circuits are facing assistant district attorney vacancy rates exceeding 25%, according to the group’s data. “Something has to be done, because if we can’t get people to be prosecutors and public defenders, the system will come to a grinding halt,” said Peter Skandalakis, the executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia. “It’s already slow enough.” The shortage of state prosecutors comes down to noncompetitive pay, said Coweta County District Attorney Herb Cranford Jr. Prospective assistant district attorneys often opt for positions in urban metro areas, where salaries are higher, leaving rural areas with fewer resources. Georgia’s , which determines the number of assistant district attorneys, compounds the issue. The formula limits the state to paying for one assistant district attorney per judge in each judicial circuit. This formula, dating back to at least the 1980s, fails to consider factors such as population growth and caseload size, Skandalakis said. “The most populated judicial circuit is treated the same as the least populated judicial circuit. That is just not a good way to do business,” he said. Cranford said that while changing the formula may help reduce the state’s backlog, addressing pay would have more of an impact. “We can add as many prosecutors as we want. If we don’t address the competitive pay problem, it’s not going to matter because we can’t even fill the current positions we have,” Cranford said. Georgia Republican state Sen. Randy Robertson said he’s open to exploring budgetary options that would offer better pay and benefits to state prosecutors while also ensuring “good return on the taxpayers’ investment.” Robertson said he also plans to address the state’s assistant district attorney formula. “We absolutely need to look at the formula and make sure that we’re giving the courts that need it as much help as possible, and at the same time, making sure that some of the circuits aren’t overloaded,” Robertson said.

A CBS News investigation has uncovered a massive backlog of court cases that has delayed progress on hundreds of thousands of criminal cases across the United States. CBS News obtained and analyzed data from courts and district attorneys' offices in more than a dozen major American cities and found "pending" criminal cases jumped from 383,879 in 2019, just before the pandemic, to 546,727 in 2021. In California, New York, Florida and Michigan, the number of "pending" cases in 2021 totaled nearly 1.3 million. The backlog has resulted in delayed justice for crime victims and their families and threatens to deny the constitutional right to a speedy trial for the accused. It also raises concerns of a possible public safety threat, with thousands of convicted criminals remaining free as they await sentencing. "We want justice for our son," said Colette Grabow, whose 24-year-old son was killed in a hit-and-run crash in San Jose, California. The suspect is accused of running a stop sign and hitting Barrett Grabow as he crossed an intersection on his way home from a party just before midnight on February 23, 2018. Prosecutors say the driver, who has a history of criminal convictions, sped away from the scene with a severely injured Grabow trapped halfway through the car's windshield, before pulling over, dragging Grabow into the car through the broken glass and dumping his body on a sidewalk. Grabow died in the hospital several days later. "When you lose a child, you miss him every day," Jim Grabow said about his son, who was pursuing a law degree at the time of his death. "His younger brother just got engaged [and] Barrett won't be his best man. And that just breaks my heart." The suspect in Barrett's death eventually turned himself in to authorities and is charged with second-degree murder and vehicular manslaughter. But nearly five years later, no evidence has been presented to a jury. The trial has been postponed 20 times. "This is absolutely a crisis," said Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, who is prosecuting the Grabow case. "There's not accountability in our court system because cases are not moving, and we need to break through this kind of thinking and have an all-hands-on deck approach." Criminal attorneys and political leaders blame this delay, and others, on courts backlogs they say have paralyzed the pursuit of justice.

BURLINGTON, Vt. (WCAX) - The pandemic may be over but the Vermont Judiciary continues to struggle with a backlog of thousands of court cases, leaving victims and defendants stuck in legal limbo. “In one way, you’re reliving it every time you have a hearing and then there’s also no closure,” said Missy Semprebon, who says she continues to relive the day her brother, David Auclair, was killed in Hinesburg. Police say Auclair’s wife, Angela, did it, but her case is still going through the court process five years after the alleged murder. “I have not actually dealt with my grief at all. I am still focused on the results. I just keep going next step to next step, taking care of the people that are left behind,” Semprebon said. Prompt case resolution is the goal, but a pandemic-era backlog on top of an existing backlog has created a bottleneck in the court system. The reopening of courthouses and a concerted effort to reduce the backlog have helped. Officials say the system is currently clearing 120 percent of the cases it takes on, meaning each month they are clearing more old cases than new ones, an improvement of 12 percent over the preceding year. Since December the overall backlog numbers have gone down in nearly all counties. “It’s been really difficult. Honestly, it’s been a real challenge,” said Windsor County State’s Attorney Ward Goodenough. “It’s taken, I would say, a general effort to address this and a lot of people working together to do that. And a lot of the times we’re talking about imperfect solutions, and sometimes making really tough calls on cases that we’ve had to resolve.” Goodenough says prosecutors, defense lawyers, judges, and other partners have put in a lot of overtime to come to agreements on old cases. “We are lucky that we’ve been able to cut our backlog, but the efforts to do that have not been efforts that we will be able to maintain and sustain long term without, again, additional burnout,” he said. There is statewide progress too, including in Rutland County, which used to have one largest backlogs. “I believe we are on track to resolving the backlog here. That gives me a lot of hope that the criminal justice system will be functioning the way it should in the near future,” said Rutland County State’s Attorney Ian Sullivan. Nearly all judge vacancies were filled by Governor Scott last year.  “There’s been a big emphasis on scheduling as many jury draws and jury trials as possible. And that, particularly in the criminal docket, is where you see the most movement. When you have a jury draw scheduled, then you’ll see cases either go forward or settle,” said Vermont Court Administrator Teri Corsones. After multiple years of a frustratingly slow court system, defense attorney David Sleigh says he also sees the light at the end of the tunnel. But for people still stuck in the court system, he says it remains frustrating. “Even without adjudication, your life, opportunities are severely limited, let alone just the constant living with the anxiety that you may at some point, you know, face some significant consequences. So, I think, you know, it’s very real,” he said. Sleigh says while progress is being made, the process is still far too slow. Missy Semprebon agrees. “One step at a time. There’s no magic pill that’s going to make everything better. It’s just, you know, that eventually you’re going to get to the conclusion and that’s why we just keep stepping forward,” she said. And it’s not just the judges and lawyers dealing with the legal logjam, but victims advocates too. We’ve learned that each one of them in Vermont is juggling around 600 cases. Copyright 2024 WCAX. All rights reserved.

An already overburdened and backlogged federal court system got worse during the coronavirus pandemic, prompting some legal experts and lawmakers to call for an expansion of the judicial bench. And unlike the deeply divisive idea of packing the with more justices, there’s some bipartisan agreement that lower-court federal judges are overworked and need help presiding over their growing caseload. The Washington Examiner spoke with several attorneys who said the pandemic had a significant impact on delaying cases, compounding the large uptick in pending civil cases. “Backlogs have always been an issue in the civil court system, but they became especially pronounced following COVID,” said Evan Walker, owner of a legal firm in La Jolla, California. In 2020, there were 397,492 pending civil cases filed in federal court. By 2021, the figure spiked to 590,288 pending civil cases, marking a nearly 49% change in one year, according to official U.S. federal judicial caseload statistics. During this period, the COVID-19 pandemic affected the workload of almost all components of the federal judiciary, resulting in the shuttering of some federal courthouses and the reliance on electronic methods to conduct proceedings. The adaptations were not seamless and had the effect of delaying justice. “Not only court employees, but also attorneys and others making use of the courts had to acquire new skills and equipment to handle judicial work remotely,” according to a 2021 U.S. federal court report on judicial caseloads. “Many persons who otherwise would have become involved in litigation or other proceedings during the pandemic likely were unable or unwilling to do so.”