The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 authorizes any person to file a complaint alleging that a federal judge has engaged in conduct "prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts." The late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, in 2004, responded to criticism from Congress and others about the way in which the Act had been implemented by appointing a committee led by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

The committee reviewed several groups of complaint dispositions, including a large sample from 2001-03, and concluded that overall the judiciary is implementing the Act as Congress intended; it also found, however, an unacceptably high number of problematic dispositions among the small number of complaints it examined that had received news coverage or congressional attention. In reviewing dispositions, the Committee developed and applied standards that take into account the value of protecting judicial independence in making decisions in a case.

The Federal Judicial Center is serving as a repository for the Committee's published report.

The report is also available at 239 Federal Rules Decisions 116.

In early 2006, the Federal Judicial Center examined the prevalence of the use of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(c)(2), and the circumstances under which appeals of judgments on the merits and decisions regarding attorney fees can occur at the same time. Two resulting memoranda were presented to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules in May 2006.

• Coinciding appeals of a judgment on the merits and a decision regarding attorney fees, March 7, 2006, 6 pages
• Fed.R.Civ.P. 58(c)(2), January 30, 2006, 2 pages

This article presents a post-Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) discussion and analysis of data presented previously in An Empirical Examination of Attorneys' Choice of Forum in Class Action Litigation (FJC 2005). Data originated from a national random survey of 728 attorneys who represented plaintiffs and defendants in 621 closed class action cases. New discussion centers on the assumptions underlying CAFA about differences in federal and state court treatment of class actions. New data are presented on the types of cases (nature of suit) and the state of filing for survey cases that were originally filed in state court. From 81 Notre Dame Law Review 591 (January 2006).

At its June 2004 meeting, the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure asked the Appellate Rules Advisory Committee to ask the Federal Judicial Center to conduct empirical research that would help the Standing Committee in its consideration of a proposed new Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, which would permit attorneys and courts in federal appeals in all circuits to cite the court's unpublished opinions. The Center's research effort consisted of three components: (1) a survey of judges, (2) a survey of attorneys, and (3) a survey of case files. The rule, as amended and approved by the Judicial Conference in September 2005 and approved by the Supreme Court in April 2006, applies only to opinions issued in 2007 or later. The rule became effective December 1, 2006.