ILNews

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.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT