U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART III— COURT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES › Chapter CHAPTER 42— FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER

28 U.S.C. § 620

Federal Judicial Center

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) There is established within the judicial branch of the Government a Federal Judicial Center, whose purpose it shall be to further the development and adoption of improved judicial administration in the courts of the United States.(b) The Center shall have the following functions:(1) to conduct research and study of the operation of the courts of the United States, and to stimulate and coordinate such research and study on the part of other public and private persons and agencies;(2) to develop and present for consideration by the Judicial Conference of the United States recommendations for improvement of the administration and management of the courts of the United States;(3) to stimulate, create, develop, and conduct programs of continuing education and training for personnel of the judicial branch of the Government and other persons whose participation in such programs would improve the operation of the judicial branch, including, but not limited to, judges, United States magistrate judges, clerks of court, probation officers, and persons serving as mediators and arbitrators;(4) insofar as may be consistent with the performance of the other functions set forth in this section, to provide staff, research, and planning assistance to the Judicial Conference of the United States and its committees;(5) Insofar 11 So in original. Probably should not be capitalized. as may be consistent with the performance of the other functions set forth in this section, to cooperate with the State Justice Institute in the establishment and coordination of research and programs concerning the administration of justice; and(6) insofar as may be consistent with the performance of the other functions set forth in this section, to cooperate with and assist agencies of the Federal Government and other appropriate organizations in providing information and advice to further improvement in the administration of justice in the courts of foreign countries and to acquire information about judicial administration in foreign countries that may contribute to performing the other functions set forth in this section.(Added Pub. L. 90–219, title I, § 101, Dec. 20, 1967, 81 Stat. 664; amended Pub. L. 95–598, title II, § 227, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2665; Pub. L. 98–620, title II, § 214, Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3346; Pub. L. 99–336, § 6(b), June 19, 1986, 100 Stat. 639; Pub. L. 100–702, title III, § 303, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4648; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117; Pub. L. 102–572, title VI, § 602(a), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4514.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1992—Subsec. (b)(6). Pub. L. 102–572 added par. (6).

1988—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 100–702 amended par. (3) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (3) read as follows: “to stimulate, create, develop, and conduct programs of continuing education and training for personnel of the judicial branch of the Government, including, but not limited to, judges, clerks of court, probation officers, and United States magistrates;”.

1986—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 99–336 struck out “referees,” after “judges,” and substituted “magistrates” for “commissioners”.

1984—Subsec. (b)(5). Pub. L. 98–620 added par. (5).

1978—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 95–598 directed the amendment of par. (3) by striking out “referees,” and by substituting “magistrates” for “commissioners”, which amendment did not become effective pursuant to section 402(b) of Pub. L. 95–598, as amended, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 101 of Title 11, Bankruptcy.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesChange of Name

“United States magistrate judges” substituted for “United States magistrates” in subsec. (b)(3) pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as a note under section 631 of this title.

Effective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Jan. 1, 1993, see section 1101(a) of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 905 of Title 2, The Congress.

Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Pub. L. 99–336, § 6(c), June 19, 1986, 100 Stat. 639, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [amending this section and section 288d of Title 2, The Congress, and redesignating sections 1364 to 1366 of this title] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [June 19, 1986].”

Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–620 effective Oct. 1, 1985, see section 216 of Pub. L. 98–620, set out as a note under section 10701 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

Best Practices

Pub. L. 114–153, § 6, May 11, 2016, 130 Stat. 384, provided that:“(a)In General.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act [May 11, 2016], the Federal Judicial Center, using existing resources, shall develop recommended best practices for—“(1) the seizure of information and media storing the information; and“(2) the securing of the information and media once seized.“(b)Updates.—The Federal Judicial Center shall update the recommended best practices developed under subsection (a) from time to time.“(c)Congressional Submissions.—The Federal Judicial Center shall provide a copy of the recommendations developed under subsection (a), and any updates made under subsection (b), to the—“(1) Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and“(2) Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.”

Study of Intercircuit Conflicts and Structural Alternatives for Courts of Appeals by Federal Judicial Center

Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 302, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5104, as amended by Pub. L. 102–572, title V, § 502(c), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4513, directed Board of the Federal Judicial Center to conduct study and submit report to Congress by Jan. 1, 1992, on number and frequency of conflicts among judicial circuits in interpreting law that remain unresolved because they are not heard by the Supreme Court, and further directed Board to study full range of structural alternatives for Federal Courts of Appeals and submit report on the study to Congress and Judicial Conference of the United States, no later than 2 years and 9 months after Dec. 1, 1990.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: United States v. Larry Brock
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Larry Brock (2024) cadc “§ 333 (empowering the chief judge of each circuit to hold judicial conferences “for the purpose of * * * advising means of improving the administration of justice within such circuit”); 28 U.S.C. § 620 (b)(6) (empowering the Federal Judicial Center “to cooperate with and assist…”
United States v. Bogle (1988) flsd · cites it 2× “28 U.S.C. § 620 . The Judicial Conference of the United States is to survey the business of the courts; plan for the assignment of judges; and make other such recommendations.”
United States v. Schwartz (1988) ded “28 U.S.C. § 620 (1982). The Center is supervised by a Board composed of the Chief Justice, other judges selected by the Judicial Conference and the Director of the Administrative Office.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.