ABA has praise, caution for Safe Access to Justice bill

In an October 2005 letter to U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, the American Bar Association expressed its “vigorous support” of many provisions of H.R. 1751, the “Safe Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005.” The ABA in particular applauded provisions that would:

• Require the U.S. Marshals Service to consult on a regular basis with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts about the security needs of the judicial branch;
• Authorize circuit, district and bankruptcy courts to conduct special sessions outside their geographic boundaries if the chief judge or judicial council determines such action is necessary because of emergency conditions, so as to keep Congress from having to pass special legislation on an emergency-by-emergency basis on the rare occasion such as 9/11 or following Hurricane Katrina;
• Permanently authorize redaction of information on judges’ and judicial employees’ federal financial disclosure statements, prior to disclosure to the public, if a finding is made by the Judicial Conference of the United States, in consultation with the U.S. Marshals Service, that revealing the information would endanger a particular judge, judicial employee or family member

At the same time, the ABA raised concerns over the constitutionality of a provision that would create a new federal offense involving Internet transmission of certain information about judges, arguing that the provision was overbroad and did not require malicious intent; expressed the association’s opposition to provisions that would enhance or create new mandatory minimum sentences, noting that the ABA has opposed mandatory minimums in principle since 1968; and expressed opposition to a provision that would further restrict federal habeas corpus in matters involving the killing of a public safety officer, arguing that the prosecution of such cases, because of the public passion that surrounds them, are more likely to be infected by error.

During mark-up, the habeas provision and many — although not all — of the mandatory minimums were stripped from the bill, and the language about posting judges’ information on the Internet was amended to make it more likely to pass constitutional muster.

The bill is not likely to see further action in 2005.

Back to top