Judicial Conference Urges Congress to Consider Statutory

Judicial and Legislative Branches Speak Out on Courthouse Issues

Federal Judges and members of Congress from across the nation joined forces today to stress the need for new federal court facilities. Testifying on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Judge Jane R. Roth (3rd Cir.), chair of the Committee on Security and Facilities, spoke of the burgeoning caseload in the federal courts and need for adequate facilities. “The lack of sufficient space can cause great waste and inefficiency in court operations,” she told the House Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, Hazardous Materials and Pipeline Transportation. “In addition, security risks are a grave concern in all public buildings, including federal courthouses.”

Both members of Congress and judges urged the subcommittee to authorize the 19 courthouse projects on the Judiciary’s 5-year construction plan that will be ready in FY 2001 for design, site acquisition, or construction. FY 2001 is the first time in four years that the Administration has requested funding for federal courthouse construction, but the President’s budget included funds for just 7 of the 19 projects.

While congress did appropriate funds for courthouses in FY 1999, a backlog of projects has resulted and many courts continue to operate in substandard conditions. These delays are costly in more ways than one. The General Services Administration (GSA) estimates that construction costs are increasing 3-4 percent for each year of delay, with significantly higher escalation in some cases. A House appropriations subcommittee is scheduled to hold hearings on the courthouse funding issue next week.

The workload of the federal courts has grown tremendously over the past 10 to 15 years, largely as a result of legislative efforts to wage a federal war on crime and the illegal drug trade. The courthouse projects awaiting authorization in FY 2001 are in areas of the country where there is dynamic population growth, combined with increased law enforcement activities. (See attached list of projects.) While the criminal caseload in these areas has increased, the civil jurisdiction of the federal courts has broadened and the number of bankruptcy filings also has risen substantially.

Many of the existing courthouse facilities were built over 50 years ago and no longer meet the needs of today’s justice system. Older structures cannot accommodate modern courtroom technology features and often have problems with deteriorating heating and cooling systems as well as other building infrastructure problems. Further, judges and court staff are conducting court business in unsafe, overcrowded facilities. Security for jurors, witnesses, court employees, judges, and the public is compromised as they pass through the same hallways as individuals charged with serious crimes.

Roth and other Judiciary representatives also expressed concern over the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) arbitrary decision to impose courtroom sharing on judges, nullifying the Judicial Conference’s policy of one courtroom per active judge and an adequate number of courtrooms to accommodate senior and visiting judges in each court. This decision resulted in the deletion of as many as half of the planned courtrooms in some of our nation’s busiest courts. “[T]he doctrine of separation of powers creates serious constitutional concerns if the executive branch should attempt to establish judicial process and policy,” Roth said.

Presently there is no research to support the concept of courtroom sharing, and none of the 50 state court systems has adopted courtroom sharing policies. Courtrooms are essential tools in the delivery of justice, allowing the timely dispensation of cases pending before the court and eliminating last minute delays. Minimal monetary gain would result from deleting a courtroom, but the cost to efficient court operations would be significant.

Also making statements at today’s hearing were Chief Judge John E. Conway (D. N.M.), Chief Judge Edward B. Davis (S.D. Fla.), Chief Judge Harry T. Edwards (D.C. Cir.), Chief Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. (C.D. Calif.), Judge William M. Skretny (W.D. N.Y.), Representative Bob Clement (TN-D), Representative Phil English (PA-R), Representative John J. LaFalce (NY-D), Representative Richard Neal (MA-D), Representative Jack Quinn (NY-R), Representative George Radanovich (CA-R), Representative Silvestre Reyes (TX-D), Representative Robert Scott (VA-D), and Representative Gene Taylor (MS-D).

FY 2001 Courthouse Projects
Judiciary’s Prioritized Plan

1. Los Angeles, California*	Site and Design
2. Seattle, Washington*	Construction
3. Richmond, Virginia*	Site and Design
4. Gulfport, Mississippi*	Construction
5. Washington, D.C.*	Construction
6. Buffalo, New York	Site and Design
7. Springfield, Massachusetts	Construction
8. Miami, Florida*	Construction
9. El Paso, Texas	Site and Design
10. Mobile, Alabama	Site and Design
11. Fresno, California	Construction
12. Norfolk, Virginia	Site and Design
13. Las Cruces, New Mexico	Design
14. Little Rock, Arkansas*	Design
15. Rockford, Illinois	Site and Design
16. Cedar Rapids, Iowa	Site and Design
17. Nashville, Tennessee	Site and Design
18. Erie, Pennsylvania	Construction
19. Savannah, Georgia	Construction

* Included in the President’s FY2001 Budget.