Government shutdown would have little impact on federal legal system

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even if the U.S. Congress fails to pass a short-term budget measure and prevent a government shutdown before midnight Friday, the various arms of the Indiana federal legal community will remain operating mostly as usual – at least for the time being.

The clock is ticking toward 12 a.m. when a one-week stopgap resolution expires. If federal lawmakers and President Barack Obama don’t break the impasse, most nonessential government services will come to a halt. Negotiations have been ongoing all day and both political sides agreed on $38 billion in spending cuts, but no final resolution had been reached by deadline for this story.

At the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, spokeswoman Karen Redmond said the judiciary would use non-appropriated fees to continue full operations for the first weeks of a government shutdown. Each appellate, District, and bankruptcy court – as well as the judges – would continue those operations as part of their exercise of judicial power, and each would individually determine the number of court staff, probation, and pretrial service officers necessary to adequately maintain those court services. Notices are posted on each of Indiana’s federal courts, including the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, about how the shutdown would impact that court.

Clerk Laura Briggs in the Southern District said the court might have to limit its operations to those services deemed necessary and essential – such as accepting new cases – if a shutdown lasts longer than two weeks.

Since the courts will be open on Monday regardless, Briggs said that a planned event featuring 7th Circuit Judge Ann C. Williams will proceed as scheduled after initially being pushed back from February because of inclement weather.

But not everything would go on as usual.

Both U.S. Attorney’s Office districts directed questions to the Department of Justice, and spokesman Robert O’Donnell responded that all criminal litigation will continue without any interruption as “an activity essential to the safety of human life and the protection of property.”

“If there is a government shutdown, the Department will be forced to stop or significantly curtail an array of different activities and services that will have a national impact, including most civil litigation, community outreach to victims of crime, and the processing of grants,” he wrote in an email.

One question that concerns Chief Judge Richard Young in the Southern District of Indiana is whether background checks on potential magistrates will continue, impacting the ongoing review of Indianapolis attorney Denise LaRue who was confirmed as a federal magistrate judge earlier this year. She’d be able to begin as soon as a background check is complete since funding for the new position was authorized to begin April 1.

It wasn’t immediately clear if a shutdown would impact the Federal Community Defenders in Indiana, as some nationally have said they have enough funding on hand to continue operating on a temporary basis.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?