WASHINGTON (CN) — As Congress gears up for what could be a bitter battle over the budget this fall, the chief policymaking body for U.S. federal courts warned lawmakers that proposed spending levels for the judiciary could lead to hundreds of layoffs per judicial operations.
In a pair of budget bills passed last month in the House and Senate appropriations committees, lawmakers proposed funding the judiciary at levels hundreds of millions of dollars lower than the roughly $9 billion that the branch had requested for the 2024 fiscal year.
Under the House-side spending plan, the judicial branch — which includes the Supreme Court, federal district and appeals courts and an assortment of judicial services — would be allocated around $8.7 billion next year. The Senate’s proposed budget is even more restrictive, appropriating the judiciary just about $8.6 billion.
Sounding the alarm about what it said was “deep concern” about budget drawbacks, the U.S. Judicial Conference urged lawmakers in a letter Friday to ensure that the judiciary had enough resources to fund its operations.
“[W]e are compelled to advise Congress of the detrimental impacts of the House and Senate funding levels on the administration of justice and the functioning of the federal courts if those funding levels were enacted into law,” wrote conference budget chair Amy St. Eve and secretary Roslynn Mauskopf.
The letter, sent to lawmakers on both chambers’ appropriations panels just days before Congress began its August recess, warned that the proposed funding levels would force the judiciary to downsize several of its programs.
Among the services hardest hit would be the federal public defender’s office, which provides court-appointed lawyers to defendants who cannot afford their own counsel. The House and Senate budget bills propose funding for the program at levels as much as $150 million less than requested, St. Eve and Mauskopf said.
Such a budget shortfall would force the judiciary’s public defender’s office to downsize significantly, the judicial conference officials cautioned — under the House plan, the program would have to do away with the equivalent of 368 full-time positions, or about 9% of its workforce. Under the more austere Senate bill, that figure would rise to as much as 493 full-time positions, or a 12% decrease.
If the judiciary were to instead apply the spending drawbacks to panel attorneys — private practice lawyers paid by courts to take on public defense cases under the Criminal Justice Act — it would be forced to defer payments until September 2024, St. Eve and Mauskopf wrote.
The proposed shortfall could bring consequences similar to the sequestration spending cuts of 2013, they forecast.
“Staffing cuts would limit [the federal defender’s office’s] ability to accept appointments, and the prospect of monthslong payment delays could deter CJA panel attorneys from accepting appointments or discourage them from remaining on the CJA panel altogether,” the judicial conference officials said, adding that over 90% of federal defendants rely on court-appointed representation.
Congress’ proposed funding levels could also affect staff working at federal courts, the letter warned. “Absent other budget balancing reductions, clerks of court and probation and pretrial services offices would have to downsize on a national basis” by around 582 full-time positions under the House bill and as many as 840 positions under the Senate plan, St. Eve and Mauskopf wrote.
The loss of court clerks would slow down vital court functions such as case intake, docketing and jury selection, the letter said. Layoffs in pretrial and probation services pose a public safety risk as remaining probation officers are forced to manage a higher number of offenders.
Proposed budget shortfalls could also impact court security, the judicial conference officials said — taking particular issue with the Senate bill’s $750 million line item for the program, a figure roughly $33 million lower than the judiciary’s 2024 budget request.
“Funding at the lower Senate level would come at a time that the Judicial Branch is working to enhance courthouse security in response to growing threats,” St. Eve and Mauskopf said. The upper chamber’s bill would require the judiciary to defer upgrades to court security, such as enhanced security screening, X-ray equipment and updated video security systems, requested by the U.S. Marshals Service, the letter said.
“We look forward to working closely with the Appropriations Committee prior to conference on a final [budget] bill to ensure the Judicial Branch is sufficiently resourced to carry out its constitutional and statutory responsibilities,” St. Eve and Mauskopf wrote.
Carl Tobias, chair of the University of Richmond School of Law, said that it was “unfortunate” that Congress appeared to be bottlenecking judicial spending at a time when the courts are already financially hamstrung.
“I think the judiciary tends to be conservative about requests of this sort over the years, and I think that they probably need this money,” Tobias said in an interview. “I think they’ve made a strong case for it.”
Tobias pointed out that Congress has not taken action to create new judgeships nationwide since the Federal Judgeship Act of 1990, and that in the proceeding 30 years jurists in some states have taken on large caseloads that strain court resources.
Federal public defenders, Tobias added, are “chronically underfunded” and Congress’ lean spending proposal puts extra pressure on attorneys who are already sacrificing lucrative private sector work. “There are many, many good people in those offices,” he said, “but their backs are against the wall.”
Shortfalls in court security spending are also troubling, Tobias said, arguing that congressional legislation aimed at protecting federal judges is rendered ineffective without proper funding. “It doesn’t help much to pass legislation looking to have more security for the courts, but then not fund what you need to make that a reality,” he said.
Lawmakers left Washington this week with the federal budget for 2024 still largely unfinished. Although the fiscal year ends Sept. 30, the House is not scheduled to return from August recess until Sept. 12, giving Congress just about three weeks to approve an appropriations bill.
That’s an incredibly short timeline for what promises to be a contentious budget scuffle in the lower chamber. Some members of the Republican-controlled House are pushing for drastic spending cuts which the White House has said it would oppose and which would likely not survive a vote in the Democrat-run Senate.
Tobias, meanwhile, said he was cautiously optimistic lawmakers could reach a consensus and fully fund judicial programs. However, he said that he was worried that more right-wing members of the House who have been critical of government institutions — such as the FBI and the Justice Department — could turn their ire towards the courts.
“There’s a lot of rhetoric,” Tobias said, “some of which is not deserved, given what federal courts do and what judges and their staff do.”
If both chambers fail to reach a budget compromise before Sept. 30, or if Congress can’t pass a stopgap spending bill to keep federal programs funded, the U.S. could face a government shutdown this fall.
Follow @BenjaminSWeiss
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
