Recent Recommendations by the Judicial Conference for New U.S. Circuit and District Court Judgeships: Overview and Analysis

Summary: Congress determines through legislative action both the size and structure of the federal judiciary. Consequently, the creation of any new permanent or temporary U.S. circuit and district court judgeships must be authorized by Congress. A permanent judgeship , as the term suggests, permanently increases the number of judgeships in a district or circuit, while a temporary judgeship increases the number of judgeships for a limited period of time.

Summary: Congress last enacted comprehensive judgeship legislation in 1990. Since then, there have been a relatively smaller number of district court judgeships created using appropriations or authorization bills.

Summary: The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body of the federal courts, makes biennial recommendations to Congress that identify any circuit and district courts that, according to the Conference, require new permanent judgeships to appropriately administer civil and criminal justice in the federal court system. In evaluating whether a court might need additional judgeships, the Judicial Conference examines whether certain caseload levels have been met, as well as court-specific information that might uniquely affect a particular court. The caseload level of a court is expressed as filings per authorized judgeship, assuming all vacancies on the court are filled.

Summary: The Judicial Conference's most recent recommendation, released in March 2019, calls for the creation of five permanent judgeships for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (composed of California, eight other western states, and two U.S. territories). The Conference also recommends creating 65 permanent U.S. district court judgeships, as well as converting 8 temporary district court judgeships to permanent status.

Summary: In making its recommendations to Congress, the Judicial Conference also identifies any courts that might have the most urgent need for new judgeships. These courts are considered, by the Conference, to have extraordinarily high and sustained workloads. In its most recent recommendations, the Conference identified six U.S. district courts it considers to have the most urgent need for new judgeships to be authorized by Congress.

Article III, Section I of the Constitution provides that the "judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Consequently, Congress determines through legislative action both the size and structure of the federal judiciary. For example, the size of the federal judiciary is determined, in part, by the number of U.S. circuit and district court judgeships authorized by Congress. Congress has, at numerous times over the years, authorized an increase in the number of such judgeships in order to meet the workload-based needs of the federal court system.

The Judicial Conference of the United States, the national policymaking body of the federal courts, makes biennial recommendations to Congress to assist it in identifying any U.S. circuit and district courts that may be in need of additional judgeships. The most recent recommendations for new U.S. circuit and district court judgeships were released by the Judicial Conference in March 2019.

U.S. courts of appeals, or circuit courts, take appeals from U.S. district court decisions and are also empowered to review the decisions of many administrative agencies. When hearing a challenge to a district court decision from a court located within its geographic circuit, the task of a court of appeals is to determine whether or not the law was applied correctly by the district court. Cases presented to U.S. circuit courts are generally considered by judges sitting in three-member panels (circuit courts do not use juries).

The nation is divided into 12 geographic circuits, each with a U.S. court of appeals. There is also one nationwide circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has specialized subject matter jurisdiction.

Altogether, 179 judgeships for these 13 circuit courts are currently authorized by law (167 for the 12 regional circuits and 12 for the Federal Circuit). The First Circuit (comprising Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico) has the fewest number of authorized judgeships, 6, while the Ninth Circuit (comprising Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) has the most, 29.

U.S. district courts are the federal trial courts of general jurisdiction. These trial courts determine facts and apply legal principles to resolve disputes. Trials are conducted by a district court judge (although a U.S. magistrate judge may also conduct a trial involving a misdemeanor).

Each state has at least one district court (there is also one district court in each of the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico). States with more than one district court are divided into judicial districts, with each district having one district court. For example, California is divided into four judicial districtsâeach with its own district court. Altogether there are 91 U.S. district courts.

There are 673 Article III U.S. district court judgeships currently authorized by law. Congress has authorized between 1 and 28 judgeships for each U.S. district court. Specifically, the district court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma (Muskogee) has 1 authorized judgeship, the smallest number among U.S. district courts. The district courts located in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan) and the Central District of California (Los Angeles) each have 28 authorized judgeships, the most among U.S. district courts.

The Role of Congress in Creating New Judgeships

Congress first exercised its constitutional power to determine the size and structure of the federal judiciary with passage of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The act authorized 19 judgeships, 13 for district courts and 6 for the Supreme Court. Congress, however, began expanding the size of the judiciary almost immediatelyâadding two additional district court judgeships in 1790 and another in 1791.

Changes in the Number of U.S. Circuit and District Court Judgeships from 1891 through 2018

As the population of the country increased, its geographic boundaries expanded, and federal case law became more complex, the number of judgeships authorized by Congress continued to increase during the 19 th and 20 th centuries. By the end of 1900 Congress had, under Article III, authorized a total of 28 U.S. circuit court judgeships and 67 district court judgeships.

By the end of 1950, there were an additional 37 circuit court judgeships authorized (for a total of 65) and 145 additional district court judgeships (for a total of 212). By the end of 2000, there were a total of 179 circuit court judgeships and 661 district court judgeships. At present, there remain 179 circuit court judgeships, while the number of district court judgeships has increased to 673.

Figure 1 shows the change, over time, in the number of U.S. circuit and district court judgeships authorized by Congress from 1891 through 2018.

The largest increase in the number of circuit court judgeships occurred in 1978 during the 95 th Congress when the number of judgeships increased by 35, from 97 to 132. The second-largest increase occurred in 1984 during the 98 th Congress when the number of judgeships increased by 24, from 144 to 168. The next-largest increase in circuit court judgeships also occurred during the 97 th Congressâin 1982 the number of circuit court judgeships increased by 12, from 132 to 144. The 12 judgeships authorized by Congress in 1982 were for the newly established U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The number of circuit court judgeships increased to 179 in 1990 during the 101 st Congress and has remained at that number to the present day. This represents the longest period of time since the creation of the U.S. courts of appeals in 1891 that Congress has not authorized any new circuit court judgeships.

The largest increase in the number of district court judgeships occurred in 1978 during the 95 th Congress when the number of judgeships increased by 117, from 394 to 511. The next-largest increase in district court judgeships occurred in 1990 during the 101 st Congress when the number of judgeships increased by 74, from 571 to 645. The third-largest increase in the number of district court judgeships occurred in 1961 during the 87 th Congress when the number of judgeships increased by 62, from 241 to 303.

The number of permanent district court judgeships increased to 663 in 2003 during the 108 th Congress and has remained at that number to the present day. This represents the longest period of time since district courts were established in 1789 that Congress has not authorized any new permanent district court judgeships.

Ratio of District Court Judgeships to Circuit Court Judgeships

The ratio of the number of authorized district court judgeships to circuit court judgeships has also varied during this period. In 1899 there were 2.3 district court judgeships authorized for every circuit court judgeship (this was the lowest value in the ratio of district to circuit court judgeships). In contrast, in 1970 there were 4.1 district court judgeships authorized for every circuit court judgeship (this was the highest value in the ratio of district to circuit court judgeships).

The median ratio of district court judgeships to circuit court judgeships during the entire period (from 1891 through 2018) was 3.5. Most recently, for each year from 2010 through 2018, there were 3.8 district court judgeships for every circuit court judgeship authorized by Congress.

In some instances, Congress has authorized the creation of temporary judgeships rather than permanent judgeships. A permanent judgeship , as the term suggests, permanently increases the number of judgeships in a district or circuit, while a temporary judgeship increases the number of judgeships in a district or circuit for a limited period of time.

Temporary judgeships are sometimes considered preferable by Congress if a court is dealing with an increased workload deemed to be temporary in nature (e.g., when workload increases as a result of new federal legislation or a recent Supreme Court ruling) or if Congress is uncertain about whether a recent workload increase is temporary or permanent in nature.

Once a temporary judgeship is created, Congress may later choose to extend the existence of a temporary judgeship beyond the date it was initially set to lapse or expire. When extending a temporary judgeship, Congress specifies the number of years the judgeship will continue to exist. Congress can also convert a temporary judgeship to a permanent one.

If Congress does not extend a temporary judgeship or change it to a permanent one, the temporary judgeship eventually lapses. If a judgeship lapses it means that, for the court with the temporary judgeship, the first vacancy on or after a specified date is not filled. By not filling the first vacancy that arises after a temporary judgeship lapses, the number of judgeships for a court returns to the number authorized by Congress prior to the authorization of the temporary judgeship.

At present, there are 179 permanent U.S. circuit court judgeships and no temporary circuit court judgeships. Additionally, there are 663 permanent U.S. district court judgeships and 10 temporary district court judgeships. These temporary judgeships are listed alphabetically by state in Table 1 .

Legislation Creating New Judgeships Since 1977

Congress has a variety of legislative vehicles at its disposal to establish new U.S. circuit and district court judgeships. Legislation that authorizes new judgeships must pass both the House and Senate (and is also subject to a presidential veto). Such legislation does not always involve either or both of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. As discussed further below, Congress has sometimes used the appropriations process to provide the judiciary with additional district court judgeships.

If it desires to create a relatively large number of judgeships at one time, Congress may choose to use an "omnibus judgeships bill."

An omnibus judgeships bill, for the purposes of this report, is either a stand-alone bill or a title of a larger bill concerned exclusively or mostly with the creation of federal judgeships. Since 1977 Congress has enacted three omnibus judgeship bills, with the most recent omnibus bill enacted in 1990. Information related to these three pieces of legislation is presented in Table 2 .

Each of the three omnibus bills was first introduced in the House and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The Omnibus Judgeship Act of 1978 passed the House in its final form by a vote of 292-112 and the Senate by a vote of 67-15. The Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984 passed the House in its final form by a vote of 394-0 and the Senate by voice vote. Most recently, the Federal Judgeship Act of 1990 passed both the House and Senate in its final form by voice vote.

Each of the three bills was passed in a different political context (in terms of whether there was unified or divided party control of the presidency and Congress). In 1978, there was unified Democratic control of the presidency, the Senate, and the House. In 1984, there was divided party controlâwith Republicans controlling the presidency and Senate while Democrats were the majority party in the House. Finally, in 1990, there was also divided party controlâwith Republicans controlling the presidency and Democrats holding majorities in both the Senate and House.

Since the last omnibus judgeships bill passed Congress in 1990, the overall workload of U.S. circuit and district courts has increased. From 1990 through the end of FY2018, filings in the U.S. courts of appeals increased by 15%, while filings in U.S. district courts increased by 39%. In terms of specific types of cases, civil cases increased by 34% during the same period, and cases involving criminal felony defendants increased by 60%. For civil cases, the greatest growth occurred in cases related to personal injury liability; many of these filings are part of multidistrict litigation actions involving pharmaceutical cases.

In the past, Congress has at times created a relatively smaller number of judgeships through other legislative vehicles. In recent years this has been the most common method of creating new judgeships, with Congress authorizing a relatively small number of new judgeships using appropriations and authorization bills.

This has occurred on three occasions in the past 19 years and has involved only the creation of new district court judgeships (not circuit court judgeships). Overall, 34 new district court judgeships were created between 1999 and 2003 using appropriations and authorization bills. Information related to these three pieces of legislation is presented in Table 3 .

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000 received final approval in the House by a vote of 296-135 and in the Senate by a vote of 74-24. The District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 2001 passed in its final form in the House by a vote of 206-198 and in the Senate by a vote of 48-43. The 21 st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act passed in its final form in the House by a vote of 400-4 and in the Senate by a vote of 93-5.

Each of the three bills was passed during periods of divided party control. In 1999 and 2000, Democrats held the presidency while Republicans held both the House and Senate. In 2002, Republicans held the presidency and were the majority party in the House while Democrats were the majority party in the Senate.

Congress has also routinely used appropriations bills to extend temporary district court judgeships that were initially authorized in prior years. Additionally, Congress has used an authorization bill to convert several temporary district court judgeships to permanent ones.

Finally, Congress may choose to establish new judgeships when passing an act that would, at least in part, restructure the federal judiciary. This occurred, for example, in 1982 when Congress created the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The creation of the Federal Circuit was a partial restructuring of the judiciary by Congress, as it led to merging the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals with the appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Claims to create the new Federal Circuit. In creating the new court, Congress authorized 12 permanent circuit court judgeships.

Biennial Recommendations by the Judicial Conference for New Judgeships

While Congress is constitutionally responsible for determining the size and structure of the federal judiciary, the judiciary itself can recommend legislation that alters or affects the size and structure of the federal court system. This includes legislation to increase the number of U.S. circuit and district court judgeships (and to identify which judicial circuits and districts are most in need of new judgeships).

The Judicial Conference of the United States, the national policymaking body for the federal courts, is the institutional entity within the judiciary that is responsible for making the judiciary's recommendations for new judgeships. The Judicial Conference may recommend to Congress that new judgeships be either permanent or temporary. Additionally, the Judicial Conference may recommend that a temporary judgeship be extended or converted into a permanent one, or that a judgeship serving multiple districts be assigned to a single judicial district or dual districts.

The Judicial Conference makes its judgeship recommendations biennially, typically in March or April at the beginning of a new Congress.

Process Used to Evaluate Need for New Judgeships

In long-standing practice, the Judicial Conference, through its committee structure, periodically reviews and evaluates the judgeship needs of all U.S. circuit and district courts. Specifically, the Conference uses a formal survey process to determine if any courts require additional judges in order to appropriately administer civil and criminal justice in the federal court system.

The multistep survey process is conducted biennially by the Conference's Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics and takes into account current workload factors and the local circumstances of each court. The process is very similar for both the courts of appeals and the district courts.

First, a court submits a detailed justification for additional judgeships to the Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics. The subcommittee then reviews and evaluates the court's request and prepares an initial recommendation that is given to both the court and the judicial council for the circuit where the requesting court is located.

The circuit judicial council itself then reviews the new judgeship request and makes its recommendation to the subcommittee (which subsequently does a second analysis using the most recent caseload data). The subcommittee prepares its final judgeship recommendation for approval by the Committee on Judicial Resources. The committee's recommendation is then provided to the Judicial Conference for final approval (prior to being transmitted to Congress). This multistep evaluation and recommendation process is used for each court that submitted a new judgeship request to the subcommittee.

Factors Used to Evaluate the Need for New Judgeships

In evaluating a court's judgeship request the Judicial Conference examines whether certain caseload levels have been met, as well as court-specific information that might uniquely affect the court making the request.

The caseload levels of the courts determine the standards by which the Judicial Conference begins to consider any requests for additional judgeships. The caseload level of a court is expressed as filings per authorized judgeship, assuming all vacancies on the court are filled.

The specific measure or statistic related to case filings that the Judicial Conference examines for U.S. circuit courts is called adjusted filings per panel . The standard used by the Judicial Conference as its starting point for evaluating any judgeship request by a circuit court is 500 adjusted filings per panel (based on authorized judgeships).

The specific measure related to case filings that the Judicial Conference examines for U.S. district courts is called weighted filings per authorized judgeship . The standard used by the Judicial Conference as its starting point for evaluating any judgeship request by a district court is 430 weighted filings per authorized judgeship after accounting for any additional judgeships that would be recommended by the Conference.

For smaller district courts, however, with fewer than 5 authorized judgeships, the standard used is current weighted filings above 500 per judgeship (since accounting for any new judgeships in the calculation would often reduce, for these smaller courts, the weighted filings per authorized judgeship below the 430 level).

While caseload statistics are important in evaluating a court's request for additional judgeships, the Judicial Conference also considers court-specific information that might affect the judgeship needs of a particular court. According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, "other factors are also considered that would make a court's situation unique and provide support either for or against a recommendation for additional judgeships." These factors include the availability of senior, visiting, and magistrate judges to provide assistance; geographic factors; unusual caseload activity; temporary increases or decreases in a court's workload; and any other factors that an individual court highlights as important in the evaluation of its judgeship needs.

Most Recent Recommendations for New Judgeships (116th Congress)

The Judicial Conference's most recent recommendations to Congress for new circuit and district court judgeships were made in March 2019. The Conference recommended that Congress authorize 5 new circuit court judgeships and 65 new permanent district court judgeships (as well as convert 8 existing temporary district court judgeships to permanent status).

Judicial Circuits Recommended for New Judgeships

The Judicial Conference recommended that Congress establish five new judgeships for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit given its "consistently high level of adjusted filings [per three-judge panel]" and the court's "heavy pending caseload."

In June 2018, the Ninth Circuit had 740 adjusted filings per panel (the third highest among the 11 regional circuits).

Congressional authorization of 5 additional judgeships for the Ninth Circuit would increase the number of authorized judgeships for the circuit from 29 to 34 and increase the total number of circuit court judgeships, nationally, from 179 to 184.

Judicial Districts Recommended for New Judgeships

The Judicial Conference recommended that Congress establish 65 new judgeships for 27 judicial districts (with more than one judgeship recommended for some districts) and convert 8 temporary district court judgeships to permanent positions.

Figure 2 shows the 27 judicial districts for which the Conference has recommended new judgeships. Of the 27 districts, the Conference recommended the creation of more than one new judgeship in 15 (or 56% of districts). The greatest number of new judgeships, 10, was recommended for the Central District of California (composed of Los Angeles County and six other counties). The Central District of California is the most populous judicial district in the country, with a population of nearly 19.5 million.

Of the 73 new district court judgeships recommended by the Judicial Conference (which includes converting 8 temporary judgeships to permanent positions), 45 (or 62%) are recommended for district courts located in the country's three most populous statesâCalifornia, Texas, and Florida. Of the 45 judgeships, 23 are recommended for district courts in California, 11 for courts in Texas, and 11 for courts in Florida.

Altogether, there are 10 new judgeships recommended for district courts located in four southwestern states (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico). There are also nine new judgeships recommended for district courts located in three northeastern states (Delaware, New Jersey, and New York). The remaining nine judgeships are recommended for courts located in other states.

Many of the U.S. district courts recommended to receive new judgeships hold court in some of the nation's most populous citiesâincluding, but not limited to, Dallas (Northern District of Texas); Houston (Southern District of Texas); Jacksonville (Middle District of Florida); Los Angeles (Central District of California); New York City (Southern District of New York); Phoenix (District of Arizona); San Antonio (Western District of Texas); San Diego (Southern District of California); San Francisco (Northern District of California); and San Jose (Northern District of California).

U.S. District Courts Identified as Having Urgent Need for New Judgeships

During the Judicial Conference's March 2011 proceedings, the Conference authorized the Director of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts to pursue separate congressional legislation for Conference-approved additional judgeships for certain district courts meeting a designated threshold of weighted filings. The purpose of such a policy change was to enable the Director "to focus Congress' attention on those courts determined to have the greatest need based on specific parameters."

The Conference's most recent recommendations identified six district courts with an urgent need for new judgeships, stating that these particular courts "continue to struggle with extraordinarily high and sustained workloads." These district courts include the Western District of Texas, Eastern District of California, Southern District of Florida, Southern District of Indiana, and the Districts of New Jersey and Delaware.

The "severity of conditions" in these districts, according to the Conference, "require immediate action." Consequently, the Conference urged Congress "to establish, as soon as possible, new judgeships in those districts."

The Conference's final judgeship recommendations describe select caseload statistics for each of these six district courts. These descriptions, provided in part below, are based upon the biennial survey process conducted by the Conference's Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics.

The Conference's recommendations, quoted at length below, note the change in different types of filings that occurred between September 2017 and June 2018. The September 2017 date was used as the "cut-off date" by the subcommittee to make its initial judgeship recommendations (it was the most recent date for which the subcommittee had caseload data prior to the start of the survey process). The June 2018 reporting date was used by the subcommittee to make its final judgeship recommendations (it was the most recent date for which the Conference had caseload data available prior to submitting its recommendations to Congress).

Western District of Texas . From September 2017 to June 2018, overall filings in the court increased by 13% "due to an increase in criminal felony filings. Criminal filings rose 28 percent due to a 48 percent increase in immigration filings. The increase was partially offset by moderate declines in drug and fraud prosecutions. Criminal filings are now the highest in the nation at 644 per judgeship. The number of civil cases filed fell three percent as declines in prisoner petitions and private contract litigation more than offset increases in tort actions, copyright litigation, and patent filings." The Conference also notes that the number of supervised release hearings declined 11% but is currently more than twice the national average at 109 per judgeship. Eastern District of California . The "number of civil cases filed [excluding contract actions related to a multidistrict litigation action] rose four percent as cases related to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act more than doubled and prisoner petitions rose substantially, more than offsetting a decline in real property litigation. Civil filings continue to exceed 700 per judgeship, among the highest in the nation [even if the multidistrict litigation action is excluded]. The number of criminal felony filings rose 12 percent as a result of increases in most types of offenses, the largest of which occurred in firearms prosecutions." The Conference also notes that criminal filings in the Eastern District of California, at 99 per judgeship, remain below the national average. Southern District of Florida . The overall filings in the district "rose two percent due to moderate increases in both civil and criminal filings. The number of civil cases filed rose three percent as increases in insurance contract cases, torts filings, and civil rights litigations were partially offset by declines in Fair Labor Standards Act cases, prisoner petitions, cases related to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and social security appeals....The number of criminal felony filings increased two percent as increases in most offense types, the largest of which occurred in fraud prosecutions, more than offset" a decline in drug, burglary, larceny, and theft filings. The Conference also notes that the district court's pending caseload "remains substantially below the national average." Southern District of Indiana . Since September 2017, "the court experienced an influx of over 2,200 personal injury product liability filings related to a multidistrict litigation (MDL) action in which the district serves as the transferee court. Apart from these cases, overall filings fell two percent as a decline in civil filings was partially offset by an increase in criminal filings. The number of civil cases filed decreased four percent as declines in social security appeals, civil rights cases, and federal prisoner petitions were partially offset by an increase in state prisoner petitions. The number of criminal felony filings rose 16 percent due almost entirely to a 63 percent rise in firearms prosecutions." The Conference also notes, however, that criminal filings in the Southern District of Indiana, at 108 per judgeship, remain "slightly below" the national average. District of New Jersey . Excluding certain types of cases, "overall filings rose 10 percent due to increases in both civil and criminal felony filings. The number of civil cases filed ... also rose 10 percent due primarily to increases in copyright litigation, civil rights actions, ERISA filings, land condemnation cases, and social security appeals. A 27 percent increase in criminal filings results from higher number of firearms, drug, fraud, and immigration prosecutions." Additionally, the pending caseload for the court "nearly doubled as a result of the influx of personal injury product liability cases." The Judicial Conference also notes that "despite the increase, criminal filings are among the lowest in the nation at 36 per judgeship." District of Delaware . From September 2017 to June 2018, "overall filings rose seven percent due to an increase in civil filings. The number of civil cases filed rose eight percent due almost entirely to a 20 percent increase in patent litigation. The court has the highest number of patent filings in the nation, which have risen substantially since the Supreme Court's May 2017 decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC , which modified the venue standards for patent infringement lawsuits.... Civil filings are now well above the national average at 518 per judgeship." In contrast, the "number of criminal felony filings declined ... as filings of all offense types remained relatively stable." Additionally, in its recommendation, the Judicial Conference states that criminal filings in the District of Delaware "are the 2 nd lowest in the nation at 21 per judgeship."

Weighted Case Filings of Judicial Districts Recommended for New Judgeships

As discussed above, the specific statistic used by the Judicial Conference to compare caseloads across U.S. district courts is the number of weighted filings per authorized judgeship for each court. Figure 3 shows the number of weighted filings per judgeship for each of the 27 district courts included in the Conference's most recent recommendation to Congress.

The national average of 521 weighted filings per authorized judgeship is shown by the reference line in the figure. For the 27 district courts where the Judicial Conference recommends additional judgeships (including conversion of existing temporary judgeships to permanent status), weighted filings averaged 646 per authorized judgeship.

Of the 27 district courts recommended to receive additional judgeships, 5 courts have caseloads that fall below 500 weighted filings per authorized judgeship; 6 have 500 to 599 weighted filings; 8 courts have 600 to 699 weighted filings; 4 courts have 700 to 799 weighted filings; 1 court has 800 weighted filings; and 3 courts have more than 1,000 weighted filings.

The five districts listed in Figure 3 with the greatest number of weighted filings are among the six U.S. district courts discussed above as having the most urgent need for additional judgeships (the remaining district, the Southern District of Florida, has the seventh-highest number of weighted filings).

A plurality of the U.S. district courts listed in Figure 3 last had a permanent judgeship authorized in 1990 (10 of 27, or 37%). Another 8 district courts last had a permanent judgeship authorized prior to 1990 (2 in 1984, 5 in 1978, and 1 in 1954). And 9 district courts last had a permanent judgeship authorized after 1990 (1 in 1999, 5 in 2000, and 3 in 2002).

Several of the courts listed in the figure have weighted filings that fall below the national average (521 weighted filings per judgeship), including the District of Nevada, Northern District of Iowa (Cedar Rapids), District of Puerto Rico, Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte), and the District of Kansas.

As noted previously, a court's caseload is not the only factor the Judicial Conference considers in evaluating a court's judgeship needs. Consequently, the Conference's recommendations can be based, in part, on additional factors. For example, in its evaluation of the judgeship needs for districts where weighted filings are below the national average, the Conference identifies various reasons why it recommends additional judgeships. Some of the reasons include a substantial decline in senior judge assistance in handling cases, the geographic challenges associated with managing workload imbalances between different courthouses in the district, a high pending caseload relative to other district courts in the nation, and a number of criminal filings that is well above the national average.

As discussed above, Congress determines through legislative action the size of the federal judiciary. Consequently, creating additional U.S. circuit and district court judgeships requires congressional authorization of such judgeships. Such authorization can be accomplished by passing legislation devoted solely to judgeships (i.e., "omnibus judgeships bills") or by including the authorization in an appropriations bill or other legislative vehicle.

Congress may decide not to authorize additional circuit and district court judgeships. If Congress were to authorize such judgeships, it has several options available to it. These include (but are not limited to) the following:

Adopting all of the most recent recommendations of the Judicial Conference by creating 5 additional permanent judgeships for the Ninth Circuit and 65 additional permanent judgeships for the district courts specified by the Conference (as well as converting 8 temporary district court judgeships to permanent status). Adopting, in part, the recommendations of the Judicial Conference by creating additional permanent circuit and/or district court judgeships for some of the courts identified by the Conference's biennial review process as needing additional judgeships. Adopting, in part, the Conference's recommendations by authorizing new judgeships only for the six U.S. district courts identified by the Conference as having the most urgent need for such judgeships. It might also include only adopting the Conference's recommendations for converting eight temporary judgeships to permanent status. As presented in Table 1 , each of the current temporary judgeships is set to lapse in 2020 if not further extended or made permanent by Congress. Authorizing new judgeships for circuit and/or district courts that were not recommended for additional judgeships by the Judicial Conference (such judgeships might be permanent or temporary). Congress might conclude on the basis of its own review that there is a need for such judgeships in other courts not included in the Conference's most recent recommendations. For example, the Judicial Conference only assesses a circuit court's need for additional judgeships if at least a majority of active judges serving on the court approve of a request for additional judgeships. Congress may nonetheless decide to authorize additional judgeships for circuit courts where this threshold has not been met.

Authorizing new judgeships for some of the courts recommended by the Judicial Conference as needing new judgeships, as well as authorizing new judgeships for other courts not included in the Conference's most recent recommendations.


Illicit Drug Flows and Seizures in the United States: What Do We [Not] Know?

Summary: Policy discussions around issues such as border security, drug trafficking, and the opioid epidemic include questions about illicit drug flows into the United States. While there are numerous data points involved in understanding the trafficking of illicit drugs into the United States, these data are often estimated, incomplete, imperfect, or lack nuance. For example, debates about drug flows and how best to counter drug trafficking into the country often rely on selected drug seizure data from border officials, which do not reflect all drug flows into the United States.

Summary: One way of conceptualizing the flow of illicit drugsâboth plant-based and syntheticâinto the United States is as a funnel. At the top of this funnel is the universe of illicit drugs produced around the world, both foreign and domestic. Factors affecting actual illicit cultivation and/or production are numerous and diverse, as are those affecting analysts' and officials' abilities to measure total worldwide production. Of all the illicit drugs that are produced around the world, some portion is destined for the United States. Of the total amount of illicit drugs that reach the U.S. border by land, air, or sea, some portion is known because it was seized by border officials, and an unknown portion is successfully smuggled into the country. While the proportion of illicit drugs coming into the country that are seized is unknowable, the amount of drugs seized is. And, data on drug seizures at the U.S. borders have sometimes served as a reference for policy debates on border security and drug trafficking into the country, in part because it is a knowable portion of drug trafficking problem.

Summary: The primary agency charged with safeguarding the U.S. borders (including seizing illicit drugs and other contraband) is the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Within CBP, the Office of Field Operations (OFO) is responsible for managing ports of entry and seizes drugs being smuggled into the United States at ports of entry; the Border Patrol is responsible for securing the border between ports of entry and seizes drugs being smuggled into the country between ports of entry. CBP data from OFO and Border Patrol indicate that for cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and fentanyl, larger quantities by weight are seized at legal ports of entry than are seized between the ports. Conversely, a larger quantity by weight of illicit marijuana is seized between the ports of entry.

Summary: CRS analysis of OFO drug seizure data from FY2014 to FY2018 indicate that across those five years, about 65% of seized illicit drugs, by weight, were seized at land ports of entry at the border, about 28% of seized drugs were seized at air ports of entry, and about 5% were seized at sea ports of entry. CRS analysis of these data also indicate that nearly 97% of drugs were seized during inbound inspections across those years. CBP is not the only agency that seizes illicit drugs in the United States or even in the border regions. Federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies are all involved in enforcement actions thatâeven if not focused on drug-related crimesâmay involve drug seizures. Notably, though, there is no central database housing information on illicit drug seizures from all law enforcement agencies, federal or otherwise.

Summary: Even though the quantity of total illicit drugs produced around the world that is destined for the United Statesâand successfully smuggled into the countryâis unknown, the likely source of the drugs seized may, in some instances, be knowable. U.S. officials chemically analyze a portion of illicit drugs seized to identify the source and, in conjunction with drug intelligence, assess which countries may be the major suppliers of certain illicit drug types found in the country.

Summary: In the absence of precise data on illicit drugs moving toward and into the United States, seizure data can provide insight into various elements of drug flows such as smuggling points into the United States and target markets within the country. If policymakers are interested in having a more robust view of drug seizures throughout the country, they could move, through mandates or incentives, to enhance data collection and consolidation of drug seizure data by law enforcement officials. Policymakers may also question how border officials use intelligence about drug flows and data on drug seizures to assess the risks posed by drug trafficking and appropriately allocate resources to counter the threat. They may also evaluate how well available data on drug seizures can help measure progress toward achieving goals outlined in national strategies aimed, at least in part, at reducing drug trafficking into and within the country.

P olicy discussions around issues such as border security, drug trafficking, and the opioid epidemic often involve questions about illicit drug flows into the United States. For instance, while U.S. border officials are charged with facilitating the lawful flow of people and goods, they are also responsible for stopping unauthorized entries and preventing illicit drugs and other contraband from being smuggled into the country. Border security policy debates include questions of how to balance sometimes competing priorities and allocate finite border enforcement resources to respond to various threats. For example, some have questioned where to place border enforcement and drug detection resources to best target the flow of illicit opioids such as heroin, fentanyl, and synthetic opioid analogues being smuggled into the United States.

Available data that can help policymakers understand how illicit drugs are trafficked into the United States are often estimated, incomplete, imperfect, or lack nuance. And debates about drug flows and how best to counter drug trafficking into the country often rely on selected data on drug seizures by border officials. This report provides a brief discussion of what data are and are not available to help understand the universe of illicit drugs produced globally as well as what data are and are not available to indicate how much of the illicit drugs produced are destined for and trafficked into the United States. The report illuminates available data on illicit drug seizures by U.S. border officials and discusses potential implications of using these data to inform U.S. policy on drug trafficking into and within the country.

Starting at the Beginning: Illicit Drug Production

One way of conceptualizing the flow of illicit drugs into the United States is as a funnel. At the top of this funnel is the universe of illicit drugs produced around the world. These drugs generally fall into two categories: plant-based (e.g., cocaine, heroin, and marijuana) and synthetic (e.g., methamphetamine and fentanyl). Although some illicit drugs are produced in the United States, many originate elsewhere and are smuggled into the country. See Figure 1 for a depiction of the illicit drug supply chain.

The illicit supply chain for plant-based drugs ultimately destined for the United States begins in the agricultural fields of cash crop farmers. These farmers cultivate coca bush, opium poppy, and cannabis plants in locations that are often remote, politically unstable, or insecure. Potential cultivation and its measurement are affected by a variety of factors. For instance, illicit drug crop productivity varies with each harvest and in each location where the crops are grown; it can be dependent on a mix of factors that include weather, plant disease, soil fertility, field maturity, and farming techniques.

There are also factors that limit officials' and analysts' abilities to detect, measure, and obtain comprehensive data on the universe of illicit drugs. For example, where ground-based measurements of the crop fields are impractical, analysts rely on satellite imagery of varying picture quality to estimate the amount of land used for illicit crop cultivation. These estimates can be hampered by cloud cover and techniques to obscure the true scale of cultivation (e.g., interspersing illicit crops between legitimate crops, cultivating smaller plots in new locations). While coca bush and opium poppy crop surveillance programs are ongoing in most major source countries, they do not capture all global cultivation. And, in the case of drug crops that can be cultivated indoors or grown in small amounts (such as cannabis), cultivation estimates are often unreliable or unavailable. Moreover, due to changes in survey methodologies and in the areas surveyed, cultivation estimates may not be directly comparable over time. Satellite imagery-based crop survey data are coupled with information derived from crop yield studies, drug processing efficiency tests, and government-reported eradication totals to arrive at estimates of illicit drug production. Where reported eradication cannot be independently verified, such data can be prone to errors.

In addition, variations in the process of refining illicit crops into finished products introduce a host of variables that limit the accuracy of drug production estimates. The U.S. Department of State notes "differences in the origin and quality of the raw material and chemicals used, the technical processing method employed, the size and sophistication of laboratories, the skill and experience of local workers and chemists, and decisions made in response to enforcement pressures all affect production." Ultimately, drug production estimates are calculated in terms of "potential pure" illicit drugs by volume, which assumes that all harvested illicit drug crops are converted into illicit drugs, though this assumption may not hold in all circumstances. In Asia, for example, where opium poppy is often consumed as opium rather than processed further into heroin, the State Department acknowledges that the proportion of opium ultimately processed into heroin is "unknown." At each stage in the illicit drug development cycle, added variables further complicate the ability of analysts to accurately estimate the true amount of illicit drugs produced.

Unlike plant-based drugs, whose cultivation footprint can provide a starting point for estimating potential drug production, the illicit supply chain for synthetic drugs ultimately destined for the United States begins in chemical manufacturing and pharmaceutical facilities. Although the import and export of some chemical inputs (precursors) used in illicit synthetic drug production are internationally regulated, others are notâand the trade data for such chemicals are not necessarily current, available for all countries, or indicative of diversion trends.

For example, the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 (CMEA; Title VII of P.L. 109-177 ) requires the State Department to conduct annual economic analyses on global production of and demand for three precursor chemicals commonly used in the production of methamphetamine, but its efforts have been hampered by data limitations. The State Department has noted that "[e]phedrine and pseudoephedrine pharmaceutical products are not specifically listed chemicals under the 1988 U.N. Drug Convention. Therefore, reporting licit market trade and demand for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as well as pharmaceutical products derived from them is voluntaryâ¦. Thus far, the economic analysis required by the CMEA remains challenging because of outdated, insufficient, and unreliable data."

Challenges in acquiring and analyzing relevant data on synthetic drug production and precursor chemicals used in illicit drug production are further compounded by the proliferation of new psychoactive substances (NPS)âmolecularly altered variants, or synthetic analogues, of known illicit substances that are not internationally controlled and thus designed to avoid detection by authorities. NPS also include fentanyl analogues destined for the United States. Law enforcement authorities around the world have reported to the United Nations more than 850 uncontrolled NPS as of the end of 2018.

Illicit Drugs in Transit to the United States

The next step in the supply chain of illicit drugs produced abroad and destined for the United States is the transit of these substances toward and into the country, as depicted in Figure 1 . The United States, while a major consumer of illicit drugs, is just one of many drug consumption markets. Of the illicit drugs that are produced around the world, some may be consumed in the country of production, some may be destined for the United States, and some may be intended for an alternate market. Of those drugs intended to be moved to the United States, some may become degraded or lost in transit, some may be seized by law enforcement or otherwise destroyed or jettisoned by traffickers pursued by enforcement officials, and some reach the U.S. border.

The challenge of estimating drug flows in transit is a longstanding one. While there are estimates of certain types of illicit drugs produced in certain countries that are subsequently bound for the U.S. market, there is not a comprehensive publicly available dataset detailing the estimated amount of each type of illicit drug produced in each source country that is suspected to be destined for the United States. However, snapshots of these data exist. One of these datasets is the Consolidated Counterdrug Database (CCDB), managed by the Office of the U.S. Interdiction Coordinator. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the CCDB "records drug trafficking events, including detections, seizures, and disruptions. The database is vetted quarterly by members of the interagency counterdrug community to minimize duplicate or questionable reported drug movements." Specifically, it records drug trafficking events, which helps provide estimates on illicit drugs, particularly cocaine, destined for the United States via the transit zone from South America.

Of the unknown total amount of drugs that reach the U.S. border by land, air, or sea, some portion is seized by border officials, and some portion makes its way into the country. While the pro portion of illicit drugs coming into the country that are seized at the border is unknowable, the amount of illicit drugs seized is. It is this snapshot of seizure data that has served as a point of reference for current policy debates surrounding border security and drug flows into the country.

Illicit Drugs Seized (or Not) at the Border

There are no exact data on the total quantity of foreign-produced illicit drugs flowing into the United States. Indeed, a fundamental element to understanding drug smuggling is the acknowledgement that the total flow of drugs crossing the borderâat and between ports of entry (POEs) âinto the United States is unknowable. As reflected in Figure 1 , as illicit drugs are brought to the border of the United States, they generally fall into two initial categories:

drugs that are detected and seized by officials at the border, and drugs that, whether detected or not, are not seized by officials at the border.

Illicit drugs that are detected and seized at the border during inbound inspections are quantifiable. Those drugs that are not seized at the border are generally not quantifiable at the time they enter the country. However, some portion of illicit drugs successfully smuggled across the border may later be seized by law enforcement officers. The largely unknown subset of foreign-produced drugs that enter the country but are not seized by officials during inbound inspections at the border is divided into two categories:

drugs that are later detected and seized by federal, state, local, or tribal officials; and drugs that, whether detected or not, are not seized by officials.

Illicit drugs not seized at the border enter the United States where there are also domestically produced drugs. As such, drugs that are later seized by federal, state, local, or tribal officials in the United States may be of foreign or domestic origin. These drugs may be seized in the interior of the country or by border officials conducting outbound inspections of people and goods leaving the country.

In the absence of data on the flow of all illicit drugs entering the United Statesâboth those that are seized and those that successfully evade enforcement officialsâpolicymakers can use certain drug seizure data to better understand how and where drugs are crossing U.S. borders. While a number of agencies may be involved in seizing illicit drugs in the border regions, the primary agency charged with safeguarding the U.S. border (including seizing illicit drugs and other contraband) is U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Within CBP, the Office of Field Operations (OFO) is responsible for staffing POEs, and drugs seized by OFO are generally seized at POEs . In addition, the Border Patrol is responsible for patrolling the land borders with Mexico and Canada, and the coastal waters surrounding Florida and Puerto Rico; given its responsibilities, drugs seized by the Border Patrol are generally drugs seized between POEs .

CBP publishes selected enforcement statistics, including a snapshot of illicit drug seizuresâof marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and fentanylâby OFO and the Border Patrol. CBP data indicate that larger quantities by weight of cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and fentanyl are seized at POEs than between the ports. Figure 2 illustrates seizures of these four drugs by OFO and the Border Patrol for FY2012âFY2018.

Cocaine. From FY2012 to FY2018, CBP reported seizing 388,970 pounds of cocaine at and between POEs. OFO seized 86.1% of this cocaine at POEs, and the Border Patrol seized the remaining 13.9% between POEs.

Methamphetamine. From FY2012 to FY2018, CBP reported seizing 266,828 pounds of methamphetamine at and between POEs; 82.2% was seized at POEs and the remaining 17.8% between POEs. Of note, the amount of methamphetamine seized by CBP increased more than three-fold, from 17,846 pounds in FY2012 to 67,676 pounds in FY2018. The consistent increase in methamphetamine seizures during this period was seen both at and between POEs.

Heroin. From FY2012 to FY2018, CBP reported seizing 35,193 pounds of heroin at and between POEs. OFO seized 88.0% of this heroin at POEs, and the Border Patrol seized the remaining 12.0% between POEs.

Fentanyl. CPB started reporting fentanyl seizures by OFO in FY2015 and by the Border Patrol in FY2016. From FY2015 to FY2018, CBP seized 5,000 pounds of fentanyl at and between POEs; 85.5% was seized at POEs and the remaining 13.5% between POEs. Fentanyl seizures increased from the 70 pounds seized by OFO in FY2015 to 2,173 pounds seized across OFO and the Border Patrol in FY2018.

Mar i juana. The landscape for CBP marijuana seizures is different than that for the four drugs discussed above. Whereas intelligence and seizure data indicate that most of these four drugs are moved through the legal POEs, a greater quantity of illicit foreign-produced marijuana is smuggled and seized between the ports (see Figure 3 ). From FY2012 to FY2018, CBP reported seizing 14,023,570 pounds of marijuana at and between POEs. The Border Patrol seized 77.1% of this marijuana between POEs, and OFO seized the remaining 22.9% at the ports. Marijuana seizures dropped from over 2.8 million pounds in FY2012 to 761,319 pounds in FY2018. The bulk of this decline can be seen in Border Patrol seizures, which fell from 2.3 million pounds in FY2012 to 461,030 pounds in FY2018.

In current discussions of border security, policymakers and the media have relied on this snapshot of regularly published CBP data on seizures of certain illicit drugs (cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, fentanyl, and marijuana) at and between POEs. While these data provide a summary view of certain CBP drug seizures and indicate generally where certain types of illicit drugs are most often seized by border officials, CBP's dataset that is the foundation for this regularly updated snapshot of seizure data provides a more nuanced view. For instance, the foundational seizure data provide additional information such as the type of POE (e.g., land, air, sea) where drugs were seized and whether the drugs were seized during inbound inspections, outbound inspections, or in operations away from the POEs.

Specifically, CRS analysis of OFO drug seizure data from FY2014 to FY2018 indicate that across those five years, about 65% of seized illicit drugs by weight were confiscated at land POEs. In addition, about 28% of seized drugs were confiscated at air POEs, and about 5% were seized at sea POEs (see Figure 4 ).

In addition, CRS analysis of OFO drug seizure data from FY2014 to FY2018 indicate that nearly 97% of seized drugs were confiscated during inbound inspections across those years. While nearly all OFO illicit drug seizures occur during inbound inspections, some are seized during outbound inspections of people and goods exiting the country, some may be seized at a POE but cannot be attributed to an inbound or outbound inspection, and some may be seized during enforcement activities occurring away from official POEs (see Figure 5 ).

The enforcement statistics that CBP publishes on its website regarding seizures of cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, fentanyl, and marijuana do not always distinguish between seizures at northern, southern, and coastal border areas. However, officials have noted that "most illicit drug smuggling attempts occur at southwest [border] land POEs." Consistent with this testimony, CRS analysis of OFO drug seizure data indicates that, on average, over 65% of the illicit drugs seized by OFO from FY2014 to FY2018 were seized during inbound inspections at land POEs within the jurisdiction of the OFO field offices along the Southwest border.

CBP is not the only agency that seizes illicit drugs in the United States or even in the border regions. Federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies are all involved in enforcement actions thatâeven if not focused on drug-related crimesâmay involve drug seizures. Notably, there is no central database housing information on illicit drug seizures from all law enforcement agencies. In addition, there is not a set of discrete, yet comprehensive, drug seizure datasets that, if combined, could tally illicit drug seizures for all of the United States. Rather, there are a number of datasets and systems that contain some information on drug seizures.

For instance, law enforcement agencies have case management systems, and case files may have certain information on drug seizures. However, this information may or may not exist in electronic format, and may or may not consistently appear in dedicated data fields that allow agencies to sort and tally drug seizure data. In addition, law enforcement case information, including that on drug seizures, may change throughout the course of an investigation, and there is always a chance that case management systems may not be updated to reflect final information, including results of forensic lab tests, on the drugs seized. For instance, an initial report on a case may contain estimates of quantities of drugs seized as well as suspicions or results from preliminary field testing regarding drug types involved. This information could all change as a case progresses and any drugs seized are more thoroughly measured and chemically analyzed.

In addition, the data that are available from law enforcement agencies throughout the United States provide imprecise insight into illicit drug smuggling into the country. Foreign-produced illicit drugs that cross the border into the United States without being seized enter the U.S. market along with domestically produced drugs; as such, seizure data from law enforcement agencies across the country may not in and of itself provide information as to the drug's source countryâand thus cannot always add to an understanding of drug trafficking into the United States. This may be particularly so for marijuana, which has seen increased domestic cultivation coupled with decreased Mexican production and trafficking into the United States.

As border officials have noted, CBP seizure data include illicit drugs not just from inbound inspections of goods and people entering the country but from outbound inspections as well. In addition, there is a set of seizures for which it cannot be determined whether the intended flow of drugs seized was into, within, or out of the country. While most drugs flowing across U.S. borders may be coming into the country, some unknown portion of drugs crossing the borders are leaving the country. Drugs leaving the country include those produced in the United Statesânamely marijuanaâas well as drugs that pass through in transshipment.

Despite an acknowledged imprecision in the completeness, accuracy, and nuance of seizure data, some systems can provide selected information on illicit drugs seized in the United States.

National Seizure System (NSS). The DEA runs the NSS through the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC). This system allows law enforcement entities to submit data on illicit drug seizures around the country. Certain federal law enforcement agencies (DEA, FBI, CBP, ICE, and Coast Guard) are required to report drug seizures that surpass certain threshold levels, but reporting by other law enforcement agencies is voluntary. As such, while the NSS contains mandatory reported data on drug seizures of certain sizes made by specific federal agencies as well as other voluntarily reported drug seizure data, this reflects only a subsetâand unknown proportionâof total illicit drugs seized across the country. Nonetheless, these seizure data can provide officials with information on the location and magnitude of seizures to help build knowledge of the U.S. illicit drug market, drug trafficking activity in the country, and enforcement strategies.

National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS). The DEA runs the NFLIS, which "collects results of forensic analysis, and other related information, from local, regional, and national entities." One component of NFLIS is NFLIS-Drug, which collects drug chemistry analysis results from "50 State systems and 104 local or municipal laboratories/laboratory systems, representing a total of 283 individual laboratories." Currently, the NFLIS reports on the number of drug cases submitted to laboratories for testing as well as the number of distinct drug reports made from those cases. It does not report on the total quantity of drugs seized that are associated with those samples submitted for chemical testing. Because the NFLIS records drug reports from specific labs around the country, it is possible for law enforcement and analysts to gain a better understanding of trends in drug reports involving certain drugs or substances in certain areas of the United States.

Sourcing Drugs Seized in the United States

As discussed above, the quantities of illicit drugs produced in various countries around the world that are destined for the United States and that are successfully smuggled into the country are unknown, and are likely unknowable. Instead, U.S. officials look at the set of illicit drugs seized in the United States and, in conjunction with drug intelligence, produce estimates of which countries are the major suppliers of certain types of illicit drugs found in the United States. In formulating these estimates, officials submit samples from selected seizures of illicit drugs for chemical testing and analysis. For certain illicit drugs seized in the United States, this chemical analysis helps determine, among other things, the primary source countries and/or methods of production. The chemical testing reveals different information about plant-based drugs than it does about synthetic drugs.

Heroin. The DEA operates a heroin signature program (HSP) and a heroin domestic monitor program (HDMP) that helps identify the geographic source of heroin found in the United States. Chemical analysis of a given heroin sample can identify its "signature," which indicates a particular heroin production process that has been linked to a specific geographic source region. The HSP analyzes wholesale-level samples of "heroin seized at U.S. ports of entry (POEs), all non-POE heroin exhibits weighing more than one kilogram, randomly chosen samples, and special requests for analysis" and the HDMP assesses the signature source of retail-level heroin samples seized in the United States. Of the heroin analyzed in the HSP, 86% was identified as originating from Mexico, 10% had inconclusive results, 4% was from South America, and less than 1% was from Southwest Asia in 2016. Cocaine. The DEA's Cocaine Signature Program (CSP) analyzes cocaine samples from bulk seizures for "evidence of how and where the coca leaf was processed into cocaine base (geographical origin), and how cocaine base was converted into cocaine hydrochloride (processing method)." Analyses of cocaine samples seized in 2017 indicate that 93% originated in Colombia, 4% originated in Peru, and 3% had an unknown origin. Methamphetamine. The DEA's methamphetamine profiling program (MPP) examines methamphetamine samples to help determine trends in production methods. The DEA notes, however, that because methamphetamine is synthetically produced, the MPP cannot determine the original source of the drug. Domestic production of methamphetamine commonly involves pseudoephedrine/ephedrine tablets along with household items like lithium batteries, camp fuel, starting fluid, and cold packs. In contrast, Mexican criminal networks "produce methamphetamine using the reductive amination method, which uses the precursor, Phenyl-2-propanone (P2P) instead of pseudoephedrineâ¦. According to the DEA MPP, 97 percent of samples analyzed were produced using the reductive amination method, using P2P as the precursor chemical." This implies that most of the methamphetamine samples analyzed in the MPP were produced using techniques employed by Mexican criminal networks. Fentanyl. The DEA also has a Fentanyl Signature Profiling Program (FSPP), analyzing samples from fentanyl seizures to help "identify the international and domestic trafficking networks responsible for many of the drugs fueling the opioid crisis." The DEA has indicated that fentanyl shipped directly from China often has purity levels above 90%, while fentanyl trafficked over the Southwest border from Mexico has purity levels below 10% on average. However, it is unclear how much of the fentanyl consumed in the United States is coming directly from China versus Mexico.

In the absence of comprehensive and precise data on illicit drugs trafficked into the United States, seizure data can provide some insight into various elements of drug flows such as smuggling points into the United States and target markets within the country. For instance, some have relied on selected border seizure data to help understand the locations at which federal enforcement efforts are stopping a portion of the illicit drugs produced abroad from entering the country and joining the domestic drug market. In current policy discussions regarding border security, CBP drug seizure data can help inform policy decisions that involve the most effective placement of counterdrug resources. In addition, drug seizuresâboth at the border and in the interior of the countryâthat are chemically analyzed can provide information on the likely geographic sources of certain illicit drugs found throughout the United States. Policymakers may ask a variety of questions as they debate how to target finite resources to countering illicit drug flows, including which types of illicit drugs are of the highest concern, what are the means traffickers most often employ to smuggle illicit drugs into and throughout the United States, and where can enforcement officials interdict the greatest quantity of top-priority illicit drugs?

Border seizure data can also help inform efforts to act on certain policy priorities. If, for example, lawmakers and enforcement officials are particularly concerned with specific categories of illicit drugs such as illicit opioids, they may examine the sufficiency of existing enforcement efforts in the areas where intelligence and seizure data indicate that the flow of these substances may be the highest. For instance, the most recent DEA National Drug Threat Assessment notes that illicit opioids such as heroin are more often smuggled through than between POEs; likewise, CBP seizures of these substances have also been higher at the ports than between them, as reflected in greater seizures of illicit opioids by OFO than by the Border Patrol. As such, in order to counter threats posed by illicit opioids, and in balancing other law enforcement and counterdrug priorities, Congress may consider whether CBP should maintain or change the amount and types of resources allocated to screening for and interdicting illicit drugs at and between POEs.

Notably, as reflected in Figure 1 , a focus on border seizures largely excludes a discussion of drug seizures by law enforcement officials throughout the interior of the country. As such, border seizures cannot speak to drug transportation and distribution throughout the U.S. market or law enforcement priorities in the interior of the country. A focus on border seizures also largely excludes a discussion of illicit drugs that are produced domestically. This is, in part, because border seizures largely reflect drugs detected during inbound inspections (and thus are more likely to reflect foreign-produced drugs being moved into the United States). However, drugs detected and seized during outbound inspections may reflect both foreign-produced drugs that were not seized when they entered the country as well as domestically produced drugs being taken out of the country.

Enhancing Seizure Data Collection and Reporting

If policymakers are interested in having a more comprehensive view of drug seizures throughout the United States, they could move to enhance and consolidate data collection. With respect to federal agencies, Congress could take a variety of steps to enhance data availability on drug seizures, both at the border and in the interior of the country. As noted, the NSS at EPIC contains data on drug seizures of certain sizes by specific federal agencies, as well as additional voluntary reports from additional law enforcement entities, but these data are not comprehensive. Lawmakers could ask GAO to conduct a study on agencies' collection and reporting of drug seizure data; this could provide a better understanding of the portion of drug seizures currently included in the NSS. Another option is that Congress could require that all federal law enforcement agencies report information on a greater portion ofâor allâdrug seizures to a central database like the NSS. Congress could also direct the NSS to enhance outreach to state and local law enforcement agencies to encourage them to submit drug seizure data. Yet another option would be for policymakers to incentivize statesâfor example, by providing or withholding grant fundingâto collect and report such data to help establish a more robust view of seizures in the United States. Enhanced data on drug seizures away from the border may not illuminate how these drugs entered the country; however, these data could help provide a more nuanced picture of the domestic drug market.

To counter threats at U.S. borders, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) uses a risk management approach, which the department defines as "the process for identifying, analyzing, and communicating risk and accepting, avoiding, transferring, or controlling it to an acceptable level considering associated costs and benefits of any actions taken." Border threats are continually evolving and include those posed by a wide range of actors, from terrorists who may have weapons of mass destruction and transnational criminals smuggling drugs and other contraband to migrants entering the country without authorization. Risks associated with various threats can be seen as a function of the likelihood that the threat will be realized and its potential consequences. However, threats are complex, threat actors are strategic and adaptive in their behaviors, and assessing the likelihood and gauging potential consequences of the various threats can be challenging.

For instance, in understanding the risks posed by threat actors smuggling drugs into the United States, one may consider the likelihood of drugs successfully flowing into the country. This likelihood may be complicated by a variety of factors including past and expected frequencies. As the true frequency of illicit drug smuggling is unknown, officials may rely on a combination of intelligence and known drug seizure levels to inform their expectations. Notably, seizure data reflect illicit drugs that were not successfully smuggled into the country; they reflect known, unsuccessful smuggling attempts. In addition, seizures vary across sectors of the border, differ on whether they were made at or between POEs, and are diverse in the associated modes of land, air, or sea transport; as such, they can help inform, along with intelligence, the likelihood of smuggling attempts at various locations and via a host of transport modes. However, seizure data do not speak to the portion of drugs successfully smuggled into the country. Moreover, expectations of future drug flows may combine knowledge about past flows with intelligence and analysis of additional information such as drug market forces in source and destination countries.

Policymakers may question how border officials use intelligence about drug flows and data on drug seizures to assess the risks posed by drug trafficking and appropriately allocate resources to counter the threat. Because there is a need to balance resources for sometimes competing priorities, some may also question whether DHS's risk management approach to countering threats at the borders is able to effectively evaluate and reduce threats posed by drug traffickingâand whether the data to make this evaluation exist.

Evaluating Drug Trafficking-Related Strategies

The United States has a number of strategies aimed, at least in part, at reducing drug trafficking into and within the country, and data on drug flows can help evaluate progress toward achieving goals outlined in them. For instance, the 2019 National Drug Control Strategy outlines that one of three key elements in the overarching goal of building a stronger, healthier, drug-free society is reducing the availability of illicit drugs in the United States. The strategy notes that some measures of performance are to "significantly reduce the availability of illicit drugs in the United States by preventing their production outside the United States, disrupt their sale on the internet, and stop their flow into the country through the mail and express courier environments, and across our borders." It also notes that some measures of effectiveness are that "[t]he production of plant-based and synthetic drugs outside the United States has been significantly reduced, illicit drugs are less available in the United States as reflected in increased price and decreased purity, and drug seizures at all U.S. ports of entry increase each year over five years."

A robust picture of drug production and movement toward and into the United States can help inform, for instance, whether changes in drug seizures at POEsâas outlined in the strategyâmay be attributable to the effectiveness of U.S. drug control efforts. Intelligence and data on drug flows and seizures could also inform whether changes in seizures may be influenced by other factors such as the amount of drugs arriving at U.S. borders, the means by which traffickers attempt to smuggle drugs into the country, or the staffing levels at and between POEs. For instance, policymakers and officials may question whether fluctuations in drug seizures at ports of entry by OFO, as shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 , taken with intelligence about other drug supply and demand factors, reflect progress toward meeting goals outlined by the National Drug Control Strategy.

Other strategies, such as the National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy and the Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime, also provide action items that involve reducing drug trafficking. While these strategies do not outline specific effectiveness measures, as does the National Drug Control Strategy, the action items and goals could potentially be better evaluated with more specific data such as that on illicit drug production (both domestic and foreign), flows, and seizures.