The Renaissance of the Federal Courthouse The End of the 107thCongress: Budget in Limbo 2002 Open Doors to Federal Courts Memorial Honors Justice Byron R. White Judicial Milestones Judicial Boxscore Inns of Court Promote Principles in Legal Profession

Click here to go to the Federal Judiciary homepage.

The Renaissance of the Federal Courthouse

Tour the heart of any thriving American metropolis and among the most inspiring buildings is the federal courthouse, a concrete and mortar symbol of American justice. But not too long ago, many of these courthouses were grand facades hiding crumbling, cramped and antiquated facilities, unsafe and ill-equipped to deal with the security and technological requirements of the modern Judiciary.

The Judiciary’s building needs had been all but ignored, with the exception of public works projects in the 1930s and a few box-like structures built in the 1950s.

Beginning in 1985, a courthouse construction program topping $5 billion has changed the face of the Judiciary. The story behind this metamorphosis spotlights a new Director in 1985, Leonidas Ralph Mecham, armed with vision and commitment, with a dedicated committee of federal judges and an increasingly supportive Congress, and others with energy and innovation devoted to improving federal courthouses.

The need for new facilities was created by the conditions existing in the courts. Federal caseloads mushroomed after the 1960s. To handle the workload, six judgeship bills over a 30-year span added over 400 new judges, and staff was added in clerks’ offices, defender services, and probation and pretrial services programs. Most staff and judges were shoehorned into deteriorating 1930s era accommodations. Courts often shared space with post offices or other federal agencies, or carved out space as best they could in cramped quarters. In the old federal courthouse in Boston, three trial courtrooms were created out of a mail room, while another courtroom had a past life as a restroom.

Security issues plagued older courthouses where the accused and the accusers, public and staff, judges and jurors, frequently mixed in the open corridors of federal buildings. As electronic technology developed, many older court facilities were incapable of accommodating computer lines and electronic evidence presentation systems. And everyone from court reporters to counsel needed computers.

By the 1980s, the space needs of the federal courts had become urgent. Yet, there was little effort, either by the judicial or the executive branches, to acquire new buildings. There was no Judicial Conference Committee dedicated to facilities, and even within the Administrative Office the care and planning for federal courthouses was largely a custodial duty. But change was coming—and the first step came from within the federal Judiciary.

In 1985, Chief Judge Edward Devitt (D. Minn.), at the direction of Chief Justice Warren Burger, chaired a committee to look at the work of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Its report, written with substantial input from the new AO Director Leonidas Ralph Mecham, recommended, along with other proposals, that the AO assume a more active role in space and facilities planning in partnership with the General Services Administration. "I now had the Committee’s mandate," Mecham recalls, "to initiate a major court planning and construction program, which had been largely nonexistent for the past 50 years." Mecham assumed one of his greatest tasks as director, taking on a mission and program that would literally build from the ground up the public face of the Judiciary.

The courthouse construction program has changed the public face of the federal Judiciary. Here, photo left to right, Construction Coordinator David G. Allen, AO Director Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Chief Judge Paul R. Matia (N.D. Ohio), and Rich Latkowski GSA Project Manager, walk through the nearly completed courthouse in Cleveland, Ohio.

His efforts were aided in 1987, when the Judicial Conference revamped its committee structure, creating the Judicial Conference Committee on Space and Facilities. This committee would "oversee all space and facilities issues, work with the Administrative Office to assure that adequate assistance is provided to chief judges engaged in construction and remodeling projects, and recommend standards for sizes, types, and locations of accommodations."

Mecham added a key component of the Judiciary’s building program with the creation of the AO’s own Space and Facilities Division, recruiting from the GSA, P. Gerald Thacker to head the new division. During the same period, Clarence A. Lee Jr., a senior official at the GSA, came on loan to the AO and later joined the AO permanently as a trusted and experienced leader in many areas, especially facilities.

The Judiciary’s courthouse construction program was strengthened when, in 1988, the National Academy of Public Administration issued a landmark study. The academy had been commissioned by Mecham to assess how facility services were being provided to the courts, and whether—and to what extent—responsibility for defining requirements, designing, leasing, constructing, as well as other functions relating to space and facilities should be transferred from GSA to the AO. In its report entitled, "Improving Facilities Management for the U.S. Courts," NAPA recommended the Judiciary play a much greater role in planning and designing court facilities. Consequently, one of the first acts of the new Space and Facilities Committee was to recommend—and the Judicial Conference later adopted this recommendation—the development of long-range plans for each court’s facility and space requirements.

NAPA also recommended independent property authority for the Judiciary. In 1992, Judge Robert C. Broomfield (D. Ariz.), the second chair of the Space and Facilities Committee, and Mecham went before the Senate Subcommittee on Water Resources, Transportation and Infrastructure to endorse legislation that would provide the Judiciary with this authority, a move strongly opposed by GSA. The Judiciary would have gained specific authority to plan, budget for, request approval and authorization for, acquire, manage and maintain courthouses. Both Mecham, who has statutory authority to provide accommodations for the courts, and Broomfield argued that space and facilities is the only administrative area in which the Judiciary is totally dependent on another branch of government. Ultimately, the legislation did not pass, but it laid the groundwork for GSA, Mecham, and the Committee on Space and Facilities to work together to provide facilities essential to the conduct of judicial business.

Guideposts & Prioritization

By 1991, the elements were in place for what would become the largest civilian construction program authorized by Congress since the 1930s. The AO’s Office of Space and Facilities was professionally staffed, a new long range planning process was in place, and Congress had approved $939 million in new construction and alteration funding for the courts. This was an unprecedented level of support when compared to the $450 million appropriated during the previous 15 years. By 2002, $5.2 billion in funding for courthouses had been successfully pushed through Congress, most of it approved by the Office of Management and Budget and GSA. In 1991, the first comprehensive U.S. Courts Design Guide also was published.

Judge Robert C. Broomfield (D. Ariz.), chair of the Conference Committee on Space and Facilities, 1990-1995.	Judge Robert Vance (11th Cir.), first chair of the Conference Committee on Space and Facilities, 1987-1989.

The Guide, according to Broomfield, "assured levels of standardization and budget controls that are essential to meeting our needs."

The Guide was developed over a three-year period by a team of experts in space planning, security, acoustics, mechanical-electrical systems and automation, and with the direction of the federal Judiciary and the National Institute of Building Sciences. Today, the Guide provides the support needed to make informed decisions on everything from square footage of courtrooms to surface finishes.

"The Guide was a critical element," said Mecham, "not only in creating the procedures required for planning and designing buildings, but in establishing our credibility with Congress."

Judge Michael S. Kanne (7^th Cir.) chaired the subcommittee that developed the updated U.S. Courts Design Guide. "Work on the Design Guide was very demanding," Kanne remembers. "But the idea was to make a courthouse a building where people understood serious business was conducted, and also a building of which people could be proud." Former GSA Administrator Roger Johnson called the Guide a "living document." The Design Guide, he said, "points out the unique nature of the work of federal judges and the unique requirements of that work." The Guide undergoes continual revisions to reflect new technology, cost-saving requirements, and the changing needs of the Judiciary. It is dedicated to Judge Robert Vance (11^thCir.), the first Space and Facilities Committee chairman, who was killed by a mailbomb in 1989.

"Certainly, a court system can’t function without safe, well-designed and efficient buildings in which to hold court," said Judge Jane Roth (3^rd Cir.), who is the current chair of the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Security and Facilities. (The Committee was merged in 1993 with the Committee on Court and Judicial Security to reflect the growing emphasis on security and federal courthouses.) "Courthouses have been a keystone of many communities and for many people the symbol of our republic in the community. So, we feel it’s important the courthouse be a well-constructed building that will last for many years into the future and will continue to represent the republic to the people of the communities," she said.

Roth is the most recent in a progression of hard-working committee chairs who have taken the message of the Judiciary’s courthouse construction needs to Congress, along with AO staff. In what must be a record for a committee chair, Roth appeared before congressional committees three times in a two-week period to make the Judiciary’s case for funding of the federal courthouse program. The list of courthouse projects she presents to Congress is part of a five-year planning process established by the Judicial Conference. In this process, four criteria annually gauge the need for new courthouses: the year the building is projected to be out of space; security; operational concerns (physical building conditions); and the number of judges affected by the project (those without permanent courtrooms). The prioritization process allows the most necessary courthouse projects to proceed in a timely manner.

Judge Norman H. Stahl (1st Cir.), chair of the Conference Committee on Security and Facilities, 1996-1999.	Judge Robert E. Cowen (3rd Cir.), chair of the Conference Committee on Security, Space and Facilities, 1995-1996.

"Our grading and prioritizing of courthouse projects makes the process much more objective," said Roth, "and members of Congress recognize this. When we ask that a project be built, they are willing to consider our request because they recognize it is backed by specific numbers and criteria."

This does not guarantee, however, that the needed courthouses will be funded.

"We are essentially supplicants before Congress in courthouse construction," said Mecham. "We can only ask that our needs be considered. We are not funded directly for our facilities, nor do we manage our own properties. But over the last 15 years we have demonstrated high resolve and initiative in acquainting Congress and GSA with our most pressing needs."

Representative James Kolbe (R-AZ) chaired the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government during the late 1990s. In a 1998 interview with The Third Branch, Kolbe said, "Congress asked the Judicial Conference to submit a five-year plan on courthouse construction and we really stuck to it. I think that the prioritizing is done with sound, sensible criteria. I had somebody come up to me on the House floor and say that it’s impossible that a courthouse isn’t higher up in that list. I said I’d take a look, but I’m not going to second guess the criteria. Otherwise, it becomes so politicized it’s impossible."

Building for Excellence

In 2001, the U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building in Islip, New York, was awarded an "Archi" for its excellence in architectural design from the Long Island chapter of the American Institute of Architects. Eye-catching in its contemporary design, the courthouse is the most recent in a long line of architecturally significant buildings constructed since the early 1990s, when GSA introduced the Design Excellence Program.

A courtroom in the Byron White U.S. Courthouse in Denver, Colorado. The restoration of the courthouse by the GSA and Michael Barber Architecture, earned a 1995 Presidential Design Award from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). The courthouse’s preservation, according to the NEA, "illustrates a strategy that combines a deep respect for the past with the thoughtful integration of totally new uses. . . . It exemplifies an innovative model for preserving this country’s important legacy of distinguished federal buildings, while updating them to contemporary uses."

The program streamlines the selection of architects within the scope of the 1972 Brooks Act, the federal law requiring consideration of architects’ qualifications before cost. The revised selection system is an effort to improve government architecture. It considers the building designs of architects, not whether they have built government buildings before.

As a result, courthouses and federal buildings from Maine to Oregon have won awards such as the Federal Design Achievement Award from the National Endowment for the Arts, Citation Awards from the American Institute of Architects Committee on Architecture for Justice, and the GSA’s own Design Awards.

"I think that the program is working well and is a very evolutionary process," said Judge Robert E. Coyle (E.D. Cal.), who has helped organize programs on courthouse construction for courts. "The new program lets the design architect work more closely with the construction architect, which allows a combination of form and function. We get fresh thoughts from architects who otherwise wouldn’t be involved."

An inviting atmosphere is fostered in the courthouses’ public spaces as well. Begun in 1963 by GSA and revised in 1996, the Art In Architecture program earmarks one-half of one percent of a courthouse’s construction budget for public art. The whimsical sculptures of Tom Otterness grace the federal courthouses in Sacramento, California, and Portland, Oregon; the courthouse in Beckley, West Virginia has the colorful trompe l’oeil murals of Richard Haas; and visitors to the U.S. District Court in Concord, New Hampshire, enjoy Diana Moore’s serene sculpture of Justice.

The Times Change Courthouses

Courthouses reflect their society and times. The events of September 11, 2001, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the threat of anthrax contamination of mail underlined the importance of courthouse security as a prime design consideration.

"With the threat of mail contamination, we’ll have to think about designing mail rooms with this in mind, and consider centralized mail rooms separate from air systems in the buildings," said Judge Norman H. Stahl (1^st Cir.), the fourth chair of the Conference Committee on Security and Facilities.

Security also could affect where courthouses are built. Sites must accommodate a security setback of 50 feet or more while permitting future additions and expansions. "With the need for security, such as protective perimeters and controlled vehicle access, some courthouses may not fit and be functional on their intended sites," said Coyle. "These concerns may dramatically affect the designs of our courthouses." Furthermore, some courthouses have been forced to take extraordinary steps to prepare for the trials of accused terrorists. Security considerations and accommodations for the hordes of media covering the trials must be taken into account.

Judge Jane Roth (3rd Cir.), chair of the Conference Committee on Security and Facilities, 1999 to Present.	Among the first projects completed under GSA’s Design Excellence Program, the Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse in Phoenix, Arizona, won a 2000 General Services Administration Design Award.

Despite the changing environment, courthouse design that incorporates the site into the community is still desirable.

"When we began planning the Boston courthouse in 1991," said Judge Douglas P. Woodlock (D. Mass.), "the architect, Harry Cobb, told us that the courthouse should convey in every aspect of its design those qualities—probity, permanence, clarity and restraint—that are embodied in the administration of justice. There were two additional basic propositions that we thought were fundamental. First, is the sense that the courts are open and accessible to everyone. The second is that the courts are engaged, on a day-to-day basis, in attempting to craft judgments that reflect the highest aspirations of the profession, and the building should reflect that sensibility. It is hard to conceive of any building in an urban area that isn’t to some degree vulnerable. But they shouldn’t appear to be fortresses." Woodlock, the recipient of the 1996 Thomas Jefferson Award for Public Architecture, has conducted a popular series of seminars on the process and substance of courthouse construction.

Other outside forces, perhaps some unknown at this time, will conspire to shape the courts and their courthouses. Constantly evolving litigation technology will continue to exert its influence. Courtroom design must take into consideration how much space will be taken up by permanent or portable trial and evidence presentation equipment. Raised flooring may be needed to accommodate the wiring in some courtrooms. Changes in the U.S. Courts Design Guide will reflect the needs of advancing technology.

"It’s more than a reality, it’s a necessity in having these state-of-the-art courtrooms," said Judge Robert E. Cowen (3^rd Cir.), a former Committee chair. "Otherwise, you’re dealing with modern issues in a horse-and-buggy manner."

The Future

"A sense of mission since 1985, organizational changes, the long range prioritization of projects, legislative support, the development of the U.S. Courts Design Guide, the addition of professional staff—these were the major developments and initiatives that allowed the Judiciary’s building program to really take off," said Mecham.

The federal courthouse construction program has had its share of supporters—and critics. It has faced some formidable hurdles over the years, including a shortfall in the Federal Buildings Fund in 1997, a building moratorium in 1998, the omission of courthouses by the President and his Office of Management and Budget from three consecutive budgets submitted to Congress for fiscal years 1998, 1999 and 2000, and four separate studies by the General Accounting Office of how courtrooms are used. In 1997, the Judicial Conference approved a policy that one courtroom should be provided for each active district court judge, based on the finding that the certain availability of a courtroom is a major factor leading to settlements in civil cases and pleas in criminal cases. The Federal Bar Association backed that policy, and a study by Ernst & Young also concluded that courtroom sharing as a permanent policy would be counterproductive and contrary to the practice in state courts throughout the country.

"Two Urns of Justice" by Diana K. Moore. Federal Courthouse, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA. Photographer: Timothy Hursley	The Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse in Las Vegas, Nevada, shown here under construction, won a GSA Design Award for Architecture in 2000.

GSA and the federal Judiciary have disagreed occasionally on designs for proposed courthouses. The relationship between landlord (GSA) and tenant (the Judiciary) has weathered such disagreements and may have improved the process by which judges prioritize what they feel is needed in a modern federal courthouse. This process is further smoothed by the stated mission of GSA’s Public Buildings Service to deliver a superior workplace for federal employees, while simultaneously delivering superior value for U.S. taxpayers.

Broomfield calls the working relationship between the Judiciary and GSA "a very good marriage." He notes, however, that "the process has worked because the Judiciary has been a full partner."

Deeply involved with construction of the new Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse in Phoenix, Arizona, Broomfield gives an "A plus" to the Administrative Office and to Director Mecham for their participation in the process. "Since the Space and Facilities Committee was created in 1987, he [Mecham] has lent his full support for the program," he said.

At the Administrative Office, the Office of Facilities and Security, currently led by Assistant Director Ross Eisenman, with its Space and Facilities Division, coordinates the federal courthouse construction program. Staff assist the courts in identifying facilities to be replaced or renovated, in developing five-year plans, and in evaluating architectural plans submitted by outside architects. The AO’s Office of Legislative Affairs, with Judy Russell as congressional liaison, and the Office of Finance and Budget alert congressional staff to courthouses on the Judiciary’s five-year plan that are ready for design work, site acquisition, or construction. They work with congressional committees to assure adequate authorization and funding.

Construction and/or Site & Design Projects 1985 to Present

The architecture of federal courthouses and the contribution these buildings make to their city centers have been recognized by many awards. Constructed in 1911, the Edward T. Gignoux U.S. District Courthouse in Portland, Maine, in the top photo, received the 1999

What’s on the horizon? New courthouses will continue to be needed even as older courthouses require renovation. A comprehensive study of the Judiciary’s space and facilities program has recommended, among other proposals, that new courthouses and major courthouse additions should be planned and designed to satisfy space needs for 10 years after first occupancy. The Judiciary must continue to anticipate the impact of security and of changing technology on courthouse design and construction. The scope and schedule of projects—now integrated into the Judiciary’s five-year plan and GSA’s project and budgeting cycle— will need to be maintained. Budgets to fund site acquisition, design and construction must be prepared years in advance. Sites and building designs should continue the long tradition that favors integrating a courthouse within its community.

A decade ago, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, addressing the first International Conference on Courthouse Design, said, "In far too many jurisdictions, cases must be adjudicated in inadequate buildings, and courthouse personnel lack the facilities and modern equipment that would help them work efficiently."

The case today is different. With the ingenuity, management-sense, and architectural track record developed by the Judiciary since 1985, it is likely that if Congress and the President provide adequate funds, future federal courthouses across the country will continue to be the inspiring symbols of justice they are today.

"Having come in on the ground floor of this effort," said Mecham, "I have a real sense of accomplishment that I know others share. Thanks to the collective vision, energy and creativity of those who have contributed to the success of our courthouse program, I expect that judges, litigants, and other courthouse users will continue to visit and work in the finest courthouses in the world for years to come."

Robert C. Byrd Courthouse in Charleston, West Virginia.	Edward T. Gignoux U.S. District Courthouse in Portland, Maine.
The architecture of federal courthouses and the contribution these buildings make to their city centers have been recognized by many awards. Constructed in 1911, the Edward T. Gignoux U.S. District Courthouse in Portland, Maine, in the top photo, received the 1999 Institutional Preservation Award from Greater Portland Landmarks for the major interior and exterior rehabilitation of the courthouse. The Robert C. Byrd U.S. Courthouse (bottom photo) won citations in the General Services Administration National Design Competition for both architecture and for art. The citation noted the building’s "strong linear features and pronounced cornice lend a sense of permanence and formality to the community."