By: Timothy R. Wyatt and Conner Gwyn Schenck

Background

State departments of transportation have a continuing need to keep abreast of operating practices and legal elements of specific problems in highway law. The NCHRP Legal Research Digest and the Selected Studies in Transportation Law (SSTL) series are intended to keep departments up-to-date on laws that will affect their operations.

Foreword

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many transportation departments and authorities, their contractors, and consultants looked to the force majeure provisions of their contracts to determine what conditions or terms would govern their performances, what risks and obligations would be upheld, and what potential waivers would apply.

NCHRP LRD 93: Pandemics and Contractual Issues addresses the legal impacts that transportation agencies can expect to have as a result of an unusual occurrence when the nature of the occurrence (e.g., a pandemic) is not explicitly identified in contractual force majeure provisions, and the sufficiency or reasonableness of consequences for noncompliance with contract performance levels and with risk transfers.

This digest focuses on typical force majeure provisions and conditions in transportation construction, maintenance, or toll road operation contracts. It also addresses the legal aspects of government-mandated and imposed quarantine and business disruptions caused by the 2020-21 COVID-19 pandemic.

The digest provides a review of:

• Applicable force majeure clauses and the key criteria and circumstances weighed in favor of the conclusion that force majeure applies;

• How performance, time of completion, and financial provisions in the contracts affected the transportation agency and the contractor;

• The defenses or remedies a transportation agency could assert to counter the claim of force majeure legal arguments to make in support of the declaration of force majeure; and

• How the cost of shortfalls is allocated to each side without the force majeure clause.

This digest will be helpful to all involved in the legal obligations of parties to contracts concerning force majeure impacted by pandemics and other unanticipated occurrences, including attorneys representing transportation departments and authorities, their contractors and consultants, policymakers, local, state, and federal personnel, transportation practitioners, decision-makers, and stakeholders.

The National Academies Press 2024

By Heather Harris, with research support from Thomas Sloan

Adopting untested policies helped California courts resolve criminal charges safely amid a public health crisis. Of the main policies, only remote hearings have endured—and their future is uncertain. Assembly Bill 199 allows California courts to conduct most criminal hearings remotely only through 2023.

This report chronicles how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the courts in 2020, describes policy responses, and assesses the impact of remote hearing policies on conviction and sentencing outcomes within six months of arrest.

Pandemic conditions challenged the courts’ capacity to resolve cases. An estimated 55,000 criminal cases that would have completed within six months remained unresolved at the end of 2020.→

Courts acted swiftly to adapt to pandemic conditions. Three main strategies included modifying pretrial release to reduce jail populations, permitting remote hearings, and extending case timelines.→

Uneven adoption of policies, coupled with geographic differences in where people live, meant that Black and Latino defendants had greater potential than people of other races to experience pandemic policies.→

Remote hearing policies reinforced pandemic trends for lower conviction rates, but counteracted trends in sentencing. When remote hearing policies were in place, rates of conviction within six months of arrest fell, with outcomes for white, Latino, and Black people driving this result. Misdemeanor convictions were less likely to lead to jail and more likely to receive noncustodial sentences such as probation and money sanctions, mainly for white, Latino, and Black people. Felony convictions were less likely to result in prison and more likely to lead to jail, and outcomes for Black people dominated this result.→

Remote hearing policies contributed to racial differences in criminal case outcomes. Inequity in conviction and jail sentence rates narrowed between white and Latino defendants and between white and Black defendants. By contrast, racial inequity widened in the likelihood of being sentenced to money sanctions and probation.→

Arguably, whether a criminal proceeding is conducted virtually or in person should not influence whether a person is convicted or how they are sentenced; yet remote hearing policies have affected both. Before Assembly Bill 199 expires, policymakers will need to determine whether these outcomes are desirable and how to factor them into decisions about whether to allow criminal cases to proceed remotely.

San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2023.

By Heather Harris and Stephanie Barton

Adopting untested policies helped California courts resolve criminal charges safely amid a public health crisis. Of the main policies, only remote hearings have endured—and their future is uncertain. Assembly Bill 199 allows California courts to conduct most criminal hearings remotely only through 2023.

This report chronicles how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the courts in 2020, describes policy responses, and assesses the impact of remote hearing policies on conviction and sentencing outcomes within six months of arrest.

Pandemic conditions challenged the courts’ capacity to resolve cases. An estimated 55,000 criminal cases that would have completed within six months remained unresolved at the end of 2020.→

Courts acted swiftly to adapt to pandemic conditions. Three main strategies included modifying pretrial release to reduce jail populations, permitting remote hearings, and extending case timelines.→

Uneven adoption of policies, coupled with geographic differences in where people live, meant that Black and Latino defendants had greater potential than people of other races to experience pandemic policies.→

Remote hearing policies reinforced pandemic trends for lower conviction rates, but counteracted trends in sentencing. When remote hearing policies were in place, rates of conviction within six months of arrest fell, with outcomes for white, Latino, and Black people driving this result. Misdemeanor convictions were less likely to lead to jail and more likely to receive noncustodial sentences such as probation and money sanctions, mainly for white, Latino, and Black people. Felony convictions were less likely to result in prison and more likely to lead to jail, and outcomes for Black people dominated this result.→

Remote hearing policies contributed to racial differences in criminal case outcomes. Inequity in conviction and jail sentence rates narrowed between white and Latino defendants and between white and Black defendants. By contrast, racial inequity widened in the likelihood of being sentenced to money sanctions and probation.→

Arguably, whether a criminal proceeding is conducted virtually or in person should not influence whether a person is convicted or how they are sentenced; yet remote hearing policies have affected both. Before Assembly Bill 199 expires, policymakers will need to determine whether these outcomes are desirable and how to factor them into decisions about whether to allow criminal cases to proceed remotely.

San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2023. 42p.

By Gina Jurva

In 2020, the United States judicial system faced unprecedented challenges as it was required to quickly adapt to an ever-evolving virus, new health mandates, and court closures, all while ensuring that litigants had access to the court system. People are entitled to their day in court, as they say, and this has been no easy feat. Where there is a challenge, however, there is also opportunity. Judges, court staff, and attorneys have risen to the occasion, finding new and innovative ways to keep the daily operations of civil and criminal court moving. In this “new normal”, courts used short- and long-term solutions to ensure that the public has continuous access to the U.S. justice system, while also reducing the danger to public health and maintaining safety. However, these solutions still didn’t meet all the needs to ensure access to justice and elimination of backlogs. As a result, we saw an increased reliance on technology in almost all aspects of court proceedings, from virtual or remote pre-trial hearings to remote jury selection and even digital evidence sharing. Many judges found this to be challenging, but many also embraced the opportunity to act as a salve against further case backlogs. While many courts relied on social distancing and were involved in some aspect of remote hearings, they now plan to continue to do so in hybrid-fashion into the future, whether by using social media and remote meeting tools like Zoom, YouTube, Microsoft TEAMS and even Facebook Live.  

Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2021. 12p.