In law, an adjournment is a temporary pause of a court proceeding, ordered by the judge, that stops the hearing or trial and sets it to resume at a later time. The adjournment meaning in law covers everything from a short recess during a trial day to the postponement of an entire hearing for weeks or months. Courts use adjournments to protect fairness, giving parties time to prepare, secure witnesses, or handle unexpected problems that would otherwise undermine the process. The concept appears across civil cases, criminal trials, and administrative hearings, though the exact terminology varies by jurisdiction.
Adjournment vs. Continuance
You will hear “adjournment” and “continuance” used almost interchangeably in many courtrooms. A continuance typically refers to postponing a scheduled court date to a new, specific date. An adjournment, in its broadest sense, can mean either a short recess during a hearing or the postponement of an entire proceeding. In practice, most courts treat the terms as synonymous when a party asks to reschedule. The Supreme Court uses “continuance” in its landmark rulings on postponement requests, while the federal code uses “adjournment” when describing a court’s power to pause its own sessions.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 140 – Adjournment
If you are filing a request, use whichever term the court’s local rules use. Getting the label wrong will not doom the request, but matching the court’s own language avoids confusion.
Types of Adjournments
Not every adjournment works the same way. The two most common forms are:
- Adjournment to a date certain. The court pauses the proceeding and sets a specific date to resume. This is the standard outcome when a party requests more time.
- Adjournment sine die. The court pauses the proceeding without setting a return date. The Latin phrase means “without a day.” It appears most often when a legislative body ends its session, but courts occasionally adjourn sine die when there is no clear timeline for resumption.
A brief recess during a trial day is technically an adjournment too, though nobody files a motion for a lunch break. When lawyers talk about “requesting an adjournment,” they almost always mean postponing a hearing or trial date.
Why Courts Grant Adjournments
Most adjournment requests fall into a handful of categories, all rooted in the idea that proceeding right now would produce an unfair result.
- More preparation time. New evidence surfaces late, an expert witness needs additional time to complete an analysis, or the volume of documents is too large to review before the scheduled date. This is the most common reason.
- Absent witnesses or parties. A critical witness is hospitalized, a party is dealing with a family emergency, or an attorney has a conflict with another trial. Courts take these seriously when the absence is genuinely beyond the requesting party’s control.
- Settlement negotiations. Both sides may be close to resolving the case and need a few more weeks to finalize terms. Courts generally welcome this reason because settlements reduce the burden on the system.
- Changes in the law. A new appellate decision or statutory change could affect the legal theories in the case, and counsel needs time to reassess strategy.
- Substitution of counsel. When an attorney withdraws or is replaced, the new lawyer almost always needs time to get up to speed on the case.
The strength of any request depends on specifics. Telling a judge “we need more time” without explaining why is a fast way to get denied. Courts want concrete reasons backed by evidence.
Court Authority to Grant an Adjournment
Federal law gives district courts explicit authority to adjourn their sessions. Under federal statute, any district court may adjourn a regular session for good cause, and if the judge is unable to attend or issue an order, the clerk can adjourn the court to the next regular session.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 140 – Adjournment State courts have similar authority under their own procedural rules.
Beyond administrative adjournments, judges have broad discretion to grant or deny adjournment requests made by the parties. They weigh why the request is being made, how far along the case is, whether the other side would be harmed, and whether the requesting party could have avoided the problem with better planning.
How to Request One
The exact process varies by court, but the general framework is consistent. You file a written motion, usually called a motion for continuance or motion to adjourn, with the court where the case is pending. The motion should explain the reason for the request, how long of a delay you need, and what you have done to try to avoid it. Supporting evidence matters. If a witness is ill, attach a doctor’s note. If new evidence arrived late, attach the documents showing when you received it.
Timing matters too. Most courts expect adjournment requests well before the scheduled date. Filing at the last minute signals poor planning and makes denial more likely. Many courts require requests at least several business days in advance, and some have hard deadlines in their local rules.
Before filing, contact the opposing party to ask whether they consent. A motion that says “all parties agree to a two-week adjournment” is far more likely to be granted than a contested one. Even when the other side objects, disclosing that you sought consent shows good faith. After filing, the motion must be served on all other parties so they have a chance to respond. Some judges rule on the papers alone; others hold a brief hearing.
How Judges Evaluate Requests
Judges do not rubber-stamp adjournment requests. The Supreme Court has stated that “broad discretion must be granted trial courts on matters of continuances,” and a trial judge’s decision will stand unless it amounts to an abuse of that discretion.2Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (1983) In practice, judges weigh several factors:
- Good cause. Is the reason legitimate and specific? Vague claims about being unprepared carry little weight.
- Diligence. Did the requesting party act promptly, or sit on the problem? A lawyer who knew about a scheduling conflict for weeks but waited until the day before trial will face skepticism.
- Prejudice to the other side. Would the delay harm the opposing party’s ability to present their case? Fading witness memories or degrading evidence weigh against granting the request.
- Stage of the proceedings. Adjournments are easier to get early in a case than on the eve of trial, when jurors may already be summoned and the court’s calendar is committed.
- Prior adjournments. A first request is treated far more generously than a third or fourth. Courts lose patience with repeated delays from the same party.
The Supreme Court addressed the constitutional dimension in Ungar v. Sarafite, holding that not every denial of a continuance violates due process. The test is whether the denial was “so arbitrary as to violate due process,” and that answer “must be found in the circumstances present in every case.”3FindLaw. Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (1964) Judges have wide latitude, but that latitude has limits when fundamental rights are at stake.
If the other side asks for an adjournment you oppose, you can file an opposition explaining how the delay would specifically harm your position. Concrete harms carry more weight than a general objection.
What Happens if the Request Is Denied
A denial means the case proceeds as scheduled. No pause, no extra time. Your attorney must present the case with whatever preparation has been done, which can mean going to trial without a key witness or without fully developed expert testimony. All existing deadlines remain in effect, and missing them can result in sanctions or evidence being excluded.
On appeal, challenging a denied adjournment is an uphill battle. Appellate courts review these decisions under the abuse-of-discretion standard, which is deliberately deferential to the trial judge. You essentially need to show that no reasonable judge, looking at the same facts, would have denied the request. In Morris v. Slappy, the Supreme Court upheld the denial of a continuance where a substitute attorney told the court he was fully prepared for trial, even though the defendant preferred his original lawyer.2Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (1983) Most denials survive appeal.
Adjournments and the Federal Speedy Trial Act
In federal criminal cases, the Speedy Trial Act requires that trial begin within 70 days of indictment or the defendant’s first court appearance, whichever comes later. Adjournments interact with this clock in an important way: certain types of delays are “excludable,” meaning they pause the countdown rather than consuming it.
The statute lists specific categories of excludable delay, including time spent on pretrial motions, mental competency evaluations, interlocutory appeals, and periods when a defendant or essential witness is unavailable despite reasonable efforts to secure their attendance.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 3161 – Time Limits and Exclusions
The broadest category is the “ends of justice” continuance. A judge can pause the speedy-trial clock if the court finds that granting additional time serves the interests of justice more than a speedy trial would. Common scenarios include complex cases with massive discovery, multiple defendants requiring coordinated preparation, and situations where defense counsel genuinely needs more time. The catch is that the judge must state the reasons for this finding on the record, either orally or in writing. Without that on-the-record finding, the exclusion is invalid and the clock keeps running.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 3161 – Time Limits and Exclusions
If the speedy-trial clock runs out because delays were not properly excluded, the defendant can move to dismiss the charges. Whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice depends on the circumstances.
Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal
Some jurisdictions use a specialized form of adjournment in criminal cases called an “adjournment in contemplation of dismissal,” or ACD. Under this arrangement, the court adjourns the case without setting a return date. If the defendant stays out of trouble and meets any conditions the court imposes during a set period, the charges are automatically dismissed. If the defendant violates the conditions, the prosecution can ask the court to restore the case to the calendar and proceed with the charges.
Conditions attached to an ACD can include community service, counseling, substance abuse treatment, or compliance with a protective order. The mechanism is most commonly used for lower-level offenses where a full prosecution would be disproportionate, especially when the defendant has little or no criminal history. An ACD is neither an acquittal nor a conviction. It occupies a middle ground that gives defendants a path to a clean record while preserving the court’s ability to act if the defendant does not follow through.