(a) General. The rules of this Court and any procedures adopted by the Court that deal
with the assignment and reassignment of cases shall be construed to secure an equitable
distribution of cases, both in quantity and kind, among the judges. Except as specifically
provided by the rules of this Court or by procedures adopted by the Court, the assignment
of cases shall be by lot.
(b) Supervision of Assignment System. The assignment of cases to calendars and
judges and the preparation of calendars and supplements thereto shall be done solely
under the direction of the Executive Committee by the clerk or a deputy clerk who is
designated by the clerk as an assignment clerk.
(c) Contempt. Any person who violates the case assignment procedures shall be
punished for contempt of court.
(d) Condition of Reassignment. No case shall be transferred or reassigned from the
calendar of a judge of this Court to the calendar of any other judge except as provided by
the rules of this Court or as ordered by the Executive Committee.
(e) Calendars. In each Division of the Court there shall be criminal, civil and Executive
Committee calendars. The cases on the criminal and civil calendars of the court shall be
assigned among the judges in the manner prescribed by the rules of this Court. The cases
so assigned shall constitute the calendars of the judges. The calendar of the Executive
Committee shall consist of the following classes and categories of cases:
(1) civil cases to be transferred to another judge or district for multidistrict litigation
pursuant to procedures adopted by the Court;
(2) criminal cases to be held on the Committee’s Fugitive Calendar pursuant to
procedures adopted by the Court;
(3) such cases as are assigned to the Executive Committee for purposes of reassignment;
and
(4) such other cases as the Executive Committee directs be assigned to its calendar.
(f) Calendar of Departing Judge. Cases on the calendar of a judge who dies, resigns, or
retires ("departing judge") shall be reassigned as soon as possible under the direction of
the Executive Committee, pro rata by lot among the remaining judges, provided that the
Committee may direct that such calendar be transferred in its entirety or in part to form the
calendar of a newly-appointed district judge where the departing judge was a district
judge, or to form the calendar of a newly-appointed magistrate judge where the departing
judge was a magistrate judge. Referrals pending before a departing magistrate judge shall
be considered returned to the calendar of the district judge before whom the underlying
case is pending, provided that the Executive Committee may direct that they be
maintained as a calendar for a newly-appointed magistrate judge. Where a judge wishes
to re-refer a case returned to that judge’s calendar pursuant to this section, the procedure
set forth in LR 72.1 shall be followed except that where the Executive Committee
approves the referral, it shall direct the clerk to assign it by lot.
(g) Calendar for New Judge. A calendar shall be prepared for a newly-appointed judge
("new judge") to which cases shall be transferred by lot, under the direction of the
Executive Committee in such number as it may determine. Where the new judge is a
magistrate judge, the calendar shall include referrals made pursuant to LR 72.1 and LCR
50.3(d) and cases assigned pursuant to LR 73.1 which shall be transferred by lot, under
the direction of the Executive Committee in such number as it may determine. The new
magistrate judge will be the designated magistrate judge in all matters on that judge’s
calendar. Where a magistrate judge is appointed to succeed a leaving magistrate judge,
the Executive Committee may direct that the new judge be the designated magistrate
judge in all cases in which the former was the designated magistrate judge at the time of
the former’s death, retirement, or resignation. Once a referral has been transferred to a
newly appointed judge, as part of the new calendar, it remains with the new judge "as the
designated judge".
Committee Comment. 28 U.S.C. §137 provides in part as follows:
The business of the court having more than one judge shall be divided among the judges
as provided by the rules and orders of the court. The chief judge of the district shall be
responsible for the observance of such rules and orders, and shall divide the business
and assign the cases so far as such rules and orders do not otherwise prescribe.
This Court has used a random assignment system for more than 50 years. As stated in
section (a), an important goal of the system is to achieve "an equitable distribution of
cases, both in quantity and kind, among the judges." Over the years the system grew in
complexity. In part, this was a result of increases in the size of the Court, the complexity of
its organization and the size of its caseload. It was also a result of a more sophisticated
understanding of how the "equitable distribution" should be achieved.
An equally important goal is implicit in the sanctions found in section (c). This is that no
one should be able to manipulate the assignment system in order to determine in advance
which judge will get a case where the assignment is by lot.
As part of the process of renumbering the rules to comply with the uniform system
adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States in March 1996, the Court
significantly revised its assignment rules. Much of the detail formerly included in local
General Rules 2.00 and 2.44, the former assignment rules, has been moved from the
rules to procedures adopted by general order. Because of the importance of the
assignment system, the Court included this summary to provide parties and counsel with
a basic overview of the way in which cases are assigned in this Court.
The Court is divided into two divisions: the Eastern at Chicago and the Western at
Rockford. Eastern and Western Division cases can be distinguished by their case
numbers. Case numbers in the Eastern Division start with the number 1 each year. In the
Western Division they start with 50,001.
Most of the provisions of the random assignment system apply only to the Eastern
Division. For assignment purposes civil cases are grouped into categories, usually by the
type of case. The case types chosen for each category are expected over the long run to
generate about the same amount of judicial work. Criminal cases are grouped in a similar
fashion.
The current assignment system is computer based. A separate assignment deck is kept
for each category. (Prior to the introduction of the computerized assignment system,
physical decks of assignment cards were used. The terms "assignment deck" and even
"assignment card" continue in use as metaphors to describe the manner in which the
computer operates.) In the deck the name of each regular active judge on full assignment
appears an equal number of times. The name of the chief judge appears half as often as a
regular active judge. The ratios for senior judges depend on the caseloads they are
carrying, varying from being no different from that of a regular active judge, to a one-half
share less than all of the categories.
As part of filing a new case, the assignment clerk enters the case category information
into the assignment system. The system keeps track of cases processed and
automatically shows the next available case number.
Once the case number and category are verified, the computer uses a shuffle procedure
to pick a name from one of the unused names remaining in the assignment deck for the
category selected. For obvious security reasons, the deputies assigning the cases do not
have access to the software that sets up the assignment decks. The deputies responsible
for setting up the decks do not assign cases. This system together with the changes in the
make up of the deck due to equalization and the shuffling of the names prior to the actual
assignment assures that staff cannot determine in advance the name of the judge to
whom a case will be assigned.
The assignment system also handles the reassignment of cases. Cases are reassigned
for a variety of reasons. The most frequent is the need to reassign a case because it is
related to one pending on another judge’s calendar. Recusals result in reassignments or
equalization. When a new judge takes office, cases are reassigned from the calendars of
sitting judges. When a judge leaves, the cases on the judge’s calendar are reassigned
among sitting judges. There are even provisions in the procedures for reassignments due
to errors made at assignment.
When a judge is appointed to the Court an initial calendar is prepared. It consists of civil
cases equal in number to the average number of civil and criminal cases pending on the
calendars of sitting judges. The new judge gets only civil cases in the initial calendar. A
civil case that was twice previously reassigned to form a new calendar cannot be
reassigned a third time for that reason. Any civil case in which the trial is in process or has
been held and the case is awaiting final ruling also cannot be reassigned. The remaining
cases are arranged in case number order and a random selection is made. In this way the
age distribution of the cases on the new judge’s initial calendar reflects the average age
distribution of all civil cases pending. Such a distribution serves to provide the new judge
with a calendar that is reasonably close to the average in terms of workload. The
incoming judge will be added to the Court's criminal case assignment system ninety (90)
days from the entry of the initial calendar reassignment order so that the judge shall
thereafter receive a full share of such cases. Should the incoming judge be a current
Assistant United States Attorney, the judge will be added to the criminal case assignment
system after 12 months.
Amended October 23, 2017 and November 6, 2019
