Vol. 37, Number 4—April 2005

Judiciary Asks Congress to Ease
Financial Hardships of Courts

The federal Judiciary has asked Congress to provide the courts with funding to help restore personnel cutbacks incurred in recent years.

"At the present time, the Judiciary is in a most difficult and paradoxical situation," said Judge Julia S. Gibbons (6th Cir.), chair of the Judicial Conference Budget Committee in a House appropriations hearing in April.

"Courts desperately need to add staff in order to keep our growing caseload flowing smoothly through the courts, but court managers are deeply concerned that they may again need to cut staff in fiscal year 2006. In the middle of this funding crisis, we face new responsibilities and increased workload... in addition, our rent bill is growing dramatically... "

Gibbons was joined at the hearing by Administrative Office Director Leonidas Ralph Mecham, who testified at a Judiciary budget hearing for the 20th time.  They appeared before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia and Independent Agencies. This was the first time the Judiciary presented its budget to this particular Subcommittee.

During the two-hour hearing, Representative  Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.), chair of the Subcommittee,  said that he "understands and appreciates the significant needs of the Judiciary." He indicated that current budget constraints make it unlikely that the Judiciary will receive the full funding increase it is requesting, and pledged to look for "innovative solutions" to meet court staffing needs and to address the "rapidly escalating" rental payments.

In turn, Mecham told the Subcommittee, "We fully recognize that overall budget constraints will continue in FY 2006. However, within these limitations, I urge you to make the Judicial Branch one of your highest priorities. Core court functions must be adequately funded so the administration of justice is uninterrupted."

The full testimony of Judge Gibbons and Director Mecham can be found at www.uscourts.gov/Press_Releases/index.html.

Staff Cutbacks and Workload Increases
Because of FY 2004 budget constraints, the federal courts have lost over 8 percent of their workforce, 1,791 employees... "a loss," said Gibbons, "from which we have not yet begun to recover... We are unaware of any other federal entity that sustained such a reduction in staffing."

From FY 2001 to FY 2005, the workload of the courts increased by 18 percent, but funded staffing levels over the same period decreased.  Courts have had to fire or furlough employees, offer early retirements and buyouts, and hold vacant positions open.

"This loss of court staff has affected court operations and degraded services," said Gibbons. Many courts have reduced the hours that the public can file papers, seek information, and ask questions in the clerk's office. Because of the budgetary shortfall, supervision of lower-risk offenders by probation officers is being suspended or reduced in order to maintain the level of supervision for more serious cases. Payments to citizens who have served as jurors have been delayed. Some courts have had to decrease their emphasis on fine collection and restitution payments to victims of violent crimes.

Mecham pointed out that the courts located in the districts of the Subcommittee's members lost 8.7 to 11 percent of their staff, adversely impacting those courts and their ability to serve the public.

Additional Resources Needed for Growing, Uncontrollable Workload
Gibbons cited the impact on the Judiciary's workload of legislation enacted by Congress, policy changes by the Department of Justice, and decisions by the Supreme Court. For example, the new Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 is expected to result in hundreds of additional class action cases being brought in federal court each year. When guidelines were streamlined by DOJ's Board of Immigration Appeals, immigration filings in the federal courts of appeals rose 592 percent. And the Supreme Court's Booker/Fanfan decisions will have a major impact on the Judiciary's workload as sentenced defendants seek re-sentencing. The Judiciary estimates there will be an additional 12,000 indigent representations as a result of the Booker/Fanfan decisions.

In addition, the Judiciary must pay rent to the General Services Administration for court facilities owned by the federal government, many of which were built and fully amortized many years ago. Currently, rent for all federal court buildings consumes a full 22 percent of the Judiciary's operating budget. In contrast, Mecham said, the Executive Branch and Congress pay, on average, less than one percent of their budgets to the General Services Administration for rent.

The Judiciary is asking Congress for relief from having to pay what it considers to be exorbitant rent to another federal entity during this time of severe budget constraint, Mecham said. The Judiciary believes its limited budget resources need to be applied to the staffing and related expenses required to process a growing caseload and not to continue rent payments on federally-owned buildings that have been paid for, in some instances, two or three times already.

Cost-Containment Initiatives
The Subcommittee also heard that the budgetary constraints of recent years have caused the Judiciary to redouble its efforts to cut costs, to reduce court requirements without harming the delivery of justice.

"The Judicial Conference is committed to cost-containment and has made the cost-containment program a permanent part of the Judiciary's budget process," said Gibbons.  "Efforts remain underway to consider ways to temporarily or permanently reduce costs in areas such as space rental, as well as to maximize the receipt of non-appropriated funds by ensuring that fees are regularly and appropriately adjusted to reflect economic changes."

FY 2006 Request
For FY 2006, the federal Judiciary is requesting a 9.7 percent, or $526 million increase, over FY 2005 appropriations.

Of the $526 million increase,

• nearly 27 percent, or $142 million, to pay for standard pay and benefit increases of staff currently on board;
• $30 million for pay and benefit costs associated with the current level of Article III judges;
• $55 million for space rental increases, including inflationary increases and new space delivery;
• $22 million for Federal Protective System security charges, which GSA passes on to the courts in rented space;
• $48 million to cover the projected loss in non-appropriated sources of funding;
• $26 million to pay costs associated with Criminal Justice Act representations, the number of which is expected to increase by nearly 6,000 in FY 2006 as the number of defendants for whom appointed counsel is required increases;
• $25 million, approximately, for items such as security system replacement, body armor for court security officers, and software licenses and upgrades.

"These increases total $348 million over FY 2005 levels," said Gibbons, "or 66 percent of the requested increase, and represent absolute must-pay items for which little to no flexibility exists."  

Consequently, the areas funded by the remaining $178 million would bear the full impact of any reduction to the Judiciary's request.  These areas include $18 million for additional court security, $13 million for information technology systems and courtroom system upgrades—and $95 million for additional staff and associated expenses.

"If the Judiciary is granted this funding increase," said Gibbons of the increased staff funding, "it will only provide the courts with essentially the same number of staff funded in Fiscal Year 2001."

Gibbons pointed out that while statistically developed formulas are used to determine the number of positions needed to address workloads, the Judiciary has reduced even those levels—and is asking for less than half of the staffing increase called for by the formulas.

Gibbons expressed the hope that her testimony had given the Subcommittee a better appreciation for the hurdles the Judiciary faces and the many factors that influence judicial workload.

"The Judiciary has, with great care and consideration," she said, "placed before you a budget request that is mindful of the fiscal constraints you are facing, but that reasonably tries to alleviate some of the hardship under which the Judiciary has been operating."

Expanded Service, Reduced Staff
Testifying with Gibbons at the hearing, Mecham told the Subcommittee that the Administrative Office's primary function is to support the federal court system. He cited the AO's role, unique in government, providing administrative, legal, financial, management, program, security, and information technology services to the federal courts, as well as staff support to the Judicial Conference. 

The AO promotes initiatives to support the stewardship and management oversight responsibilities of chief judges and court unit executives; trains court employees; and develops, implements, and supports new information technology systems, such as the Case Management/Electronic Case Files system, an automated personnel processing system, and the first Judiciary-wide accounting system—systems that will enhance the performance of court business functions.

Mecham noted that events over the past several years have required the AO to provide even greater support to the courts in the areas of security, emergency preparedness, financial planning, and cost containment. At the same time, the AO implemented broad spending restrictions: reducing or delaying normal salary increases; restricting travel, training, contracts, and services; and cutting back program reviews and technical assistance.

"During 2004, virtually no AO positions that became vacant were filled," Mecham testified, "increasing the AO vacancy rate from 5 percent to nearly 10 percent by the end of the fiscal year. AO staffing declined to its lowest point since 1991, even though our workload increased significantly."