Judicial Branch Seeks $9.4 Billion in FY 2026 Budget Request

Two federal judges told Congress that the Judiciary has been negatively affected by two straight years of flat funding in most accounts, and they said a 9.3 percent increase in appropriations for the upcoming fiscal year is needed to ensure that the Judiciary can perform its essential constitutional functions.

“More than half of the branch’s accounts are operating … on funding levels that have not been adjusted since FY 2023,” said Seventh Circuit Judge Amy J. St. Eve, chair of the Budget Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States. “An effective and efficient Judiciary is foundational to the system of government envisioned by our founders. … Adequate and consistent funding is absolutely critical to the conduct of those responsibilities.” 

St. Eve testified (pdf) before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. Also testifying (pdf) was Judge Robert J. Conrad Jr., director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and secretary of the Judicial Conference. 

The federal Judiciary is seeking $9.4 billion in discretionary funding from Congress for fiscal year 2026, according to the Judiciary’s budget request, which was made public on April 25. An additional $872 million in mandatory funding covers judicial salaries and retirement costs. 

In written submissions that accompanied their oral testimony, Judges St. Eve and Conrad said funding is needed to maintain existing services, protect judges and courthouses, and bolster IT security. 

St. Eve said the funding shortages are especially critical for defender services. Federal defender organizations are under a hiring freeze until at least Oct. 1. And due to insufficient funding this year, voucher payments to court-appointed private lawyers will be suspended in late July, two months before the end of the 2025 fiscal year. That will delay an estimated $93 million in payments until Oct. 1, when the new fiscal year starts. 

“These disruptions in panel attorney payments negatively affect our panel attorneys,” St. Eve said, “potentially reducing their willingness to accept future appointments and jeopardizing the ability to provide necessary and timely representation.”  

The Judiciary is requesting $1.8 billion for defender services, an increase of $315 million (22 percent) over the FY 2025 hard-freeze  level. This includes funding to cover the deferred payments to attorneys in the current fiscal year, St. Eve said. The request will also enable federal defender organizations to hire staff to address workload needs.

“Fewer than 10 percent of federal defendants have the financial means to afford an attorney, and so the Judiciary’s Defender Services program provides representation in the overwhelming majority of cases,” St. Eve said. “In doing so, we not only protect that constitutional and statutory right for the accused, but we also improve the overall operation of the federal court system.”

The judges noted that security funding has remained flat for two years, creating a growing safety threat to both judges and courthouses. For the Court Security account, the Judiciary is requesting $892 million, an increase of $142 million (19 percent) over the FY 2025 enacted level.

Conrad cited the growing incidence of physical threats and public attacks on judges for decisions they make in the courtroom. 

“The independence of the Judicial Branch is jeopardized when judges are threatened with harm or impeachment for their rulings,” Conrad said. “Our constitutional system depends on judges who can make decisions free from threats and intimidation. This is essential not just for the safety of judges and their families, but also to protect our democracy.” 

The judges noted that courts have deferred significant amounts of critically needed new security systems and equipment spending in order to avoid reducing Court Security Officer staffing or the funds dedicated to protecting judges from threats and attacks.

“This is one of the Judiciary’s accounts that is now operating at a hard freeze level for the second year in a row despite a dynamic and very active threat environment,” St. Eve said. “At a time when dozens of individuals have been criminally charged in connection with threats against judges and the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) is taking extraordinary security measures to ensure judges’ safety, these reductions in security capabilities are extremely worrying.”

Specific requests for security funding include: 

• $91 million in increases for critical systems and equipment needs. This includes emergency management equipment, vehicle barriers and mobile guard booths, radios, screening equipment, as well as video management systems that enable visual monitoring of all areas of a courthouse and systems that restrict access to non-public areas like judges’ chambers.
• An additional $4 million for the Judiciary’s Vulnerability Management Program, which serves as a resource to judges to enhance their personal security and that of their court facilities. A key function is helping judges remove personally identifiable information on the internet that can make judges vulnerable to attack. 
• $ 7 million in new courthouse hardening funds to protect courthouses from external attacks, such as during public disturbances. 
• An additional $2 million to add a targeted number of Court Security Office (CSO) positions to those circuits and districts that have been identified as short on CSOs relative to the approved staffing standard.

Conrad said protecting courts from cyber-attacks also requires funding support. 

“These attacks pose risks to our entire justice system, including civil and criminal court proceedings, law enforcement and national security investigations planned or underway, and trade secrets for businesses involved in bankruptcy proceedings or patent and trademark litigation,” Conrad said. “The Judiciary has been modernizing its cybersecurity operations and is continually strengthening its cybersecurity posture.  Sustaining these efforts and implementing additional security-related initiatives continues to require significant resources.”

St. Eve closed by stressing the Judiciary’s commitment to containing costs. 

“The Judiciary takes very seriously its commitment to the responsible stewardship of its funds. We have had a formal and active cost containment program in place for more than twenty years,” St. Eve said. “This cost containment mindset has become thoroughly ingrained into the Judiciary’s governance practices, and we are proud of our successes.”

She added, “I understand that the FY 2026 budget we have put forward is a large one that requires serious investment. That is because such an investment is necessary to carry out our constitutional and statutory missions, and to support the fair, efficient, and secure administration of justice in this country.”