Jordan Singer

Federal judiciary warned of effects of budget shortfall

A press release from the U.S. Courts highlights concerns that Congressional inaction on the federal budget will leave the federal courts about $800 million short of what they need to operate in the coming year.

The judicial branch has requested $9.4 billion in discretionary funding for Fiscal Year 2026. (If that sounds like a lot, consider that the discretionary budget for the Department of the Interior alone was nearly double that amount for FY2025, and the judiciary is an entire branch of government.) However, the requested amount is hardly assured. If Congress chooses to operate under another full-year continuing resolution for the coming year instead of passing a new budget, the courts would expect to receive only $8.6 billion, a nearly 10% shortfall in requested funds.

More limited appropriations could hurt the federal courts’ implementation of courthouse security and cybersecurity measures, IT modernization, and funding attorneys for indigent defendants. The new Fiscal Year starts October 1.

Wyoming legislature signals retreat from merit selection of judges

The growing populism in the United States over the past decade has posed a serious challenge both to judges and judicial selection systems. States with ostensibly nonpartisan judicial elections have considered moving to openly partisan ones, and states with merit selection systems have discussed reverting back to contested elections.

The latest example is Wyoming, which has chosen its judges through a merit selection system since the 1970s. Under Wyoming’s current system, a seven-member judicial nominating commission (consisting of three lawyers appointyed by the state bar, three non-lawyers appointed by the governor, and the chief justice of the state supreme court) vets candidates for a judicial opening and sends three names to the governor, who must select one. Judges then face retention elections at the end of their terms if they wish to stay on the bench.

The system has worked well for decades, ensuring that finalists for a judgeship have a demonstrated amount of competence and skill. And the final decision still rests with the governor, a statewide elected official. But this is not enough for the Wyoming Freedom Caucus, which is angry about certain judicial decisions in Wyoming and now wants to overturn the entire apple cart. The Freedom Caucus convinced the state’s Senate Judicary Committee to narrowly pass a proposition that would give the state Senate final approval over the appointment of state supreme court justices. That proposition would still have to make its way through the legislative process and be approved by voters.

This is a classic solution is search of a problem. The news story linked above notes that only 13% of Wyomingites in a recent poll disapproved of how judges are handling their jobs. There is also the practical problem that the state Senate is in session only two months a year — what happens when a vacancy arises during the other ten months?

Sigh.

Transparency in the court system is an important value, and we should always be looking for more ways to build public confidence in the administration of justice. But let’s be clear: the only transparency here is the Freedom Caucus’s transparent attempt to turn the state judiciary into a political arm of the right. Hopefully wiser heads will prevail.

Interesting interactive chart on state court caseloads

Each year, state courts handle approximately 66 million cases, ranging from serious criminal felonies to minor traffic citations. The Pew Charitable Trusts have put together an interactive chart showing the breakdown of case types, based on data from the National Center for State Courts. It’s worth a look.

Federal Judges Association condemns attacks on the judiciary

The Federal Judges Association, a voluntary organization of federal judges, issued a statement on Wednesday condeming the recent attacks and threats against the federal judiciary on social media and elsewhere.

Many recent attacks have been fueled by judicial determinations that certain Trump Administration policies either violate federal law, or should be enjoined from going into effect until their legality can be determined. Such actions, commonplace in the courts for centuries, have incurred the wrath of Elon Musk and others. They have called for the impeachment (or worse) of many extremely respected judges — calls that are foolish at best, and verging on politically obscene.

The FJA’s statement sets out what any decent high school civics class should teach:

Specific decisions issued by judges are not formed from individual opinions, but rather are prepared against evaluation of what the ‘laws on the books’ require….

The security of federal judges and all those serving in the judicial branch of our government is fundamental to their ability to uphold the rule of law, and to fulfill their constitutional duty without fear or undue influence. Any erosion in the independence of the judiciary is a threat to our Constitution and to democratic rule of law. Ensuring judicial security is not just about protecting individuals, it is about preserving the integrity of our legal system and the public’s trust in an impartial judiciary.

Judges must be permitted to do their jobs without fear of violence or intimidation of any kind.

Yes.

House reintroduces JUDGES Act

The JUDGES Act, a bill that would have added 66 new federal judgeships over ten years, received bipartisan support in the last Congress before it was coldly vetoed by Joe Biden in the waning days on his presidency. This blog took Biden to task for a petty act of partisanship, denying a co-equal branch of government its basic needs just because an opposite-party president would have the opportunity to fill the first tranch of judgeships.

Rep. Darrell Issa has now reintroduced the Act, aiming at adding the same 66 new judgeships as before. And as before, Democrats are playing games. Representatives like Jamie Raskin, who certainly should know better, will continue to delay the legislation and punish the judiciary for no viable reason.

The bill worked its way out of committee on a party-line vote, but it’s hard to be optimistic that the courts will get this much-needed influx of judges anytime soon.

Trump Administration considering sale of courthouses and other federal judicial buildings

This week the General Services Administration (GSA), which manages most federal buildings, released a list of federally owned properties that it would consider closing and selling off as part of the new administration’s cost-cutting measures. The list included approximately 20 federal district courthouses, which are owned and maintained by the GSA and leased to the judiciary. It also includes other offices used by court adjuncts, like probation and pretrial services, as well as immigration and bankruptcy courts (which formally fall under the Article I authority of the U.S. Congress).

The list was released on Tuesday and then removed from the GSA’s website the next day. But those who saw familiar buildings on the list are not happy. Most prominently, both of Minnesota’s Senators wrote a letter opposing the proposed closure of the federal courthouse in Fergus Falls.

How this will ultimately play out is anyone’s guess. But it is an excellent illustration of the courts’ resource dependence. The judiciary is a coequal branch of government, yet it does not own or control its own courthouses or equipment, cannot hire its most important employees, and has virtually no mechanism for raising money on its own. The courts must be especially nimble in managing these dependencies, especially in fraught political times.

Massachusetts federal court adopts anti judge-shopping provision

Chief Judge Dennis Saylor of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has issued an order regarding the random assignment of certain civil cases filed in the district. The order states that “any civil action seeking to bar or mandate nationwide enforcement of a federal law, including a rule, regulation, policy, or order of the executive branch or a federal agency, whether by declaratory judgment and/or any form of injunctive relief,” will be randomly assigned to one of the district’s thirteen active Article III judges.

The order matters because the vast majority of the district’s judges sit in Boston, with only one judge located in each of Springfield and Worcester. A party hoping to enjoin a federal law or regulation might be tempted to file in one of those cities in order to secure the single judge assigned there. The federal courts have increasingly resisted such efforts to “judge shop,” especially in cases where a single district judge is invited to permit or prevent the application of a federal law nationwide.

Alaska Chief Justice pledges to speed up criminal cases, use AI for estate cases

In her State of the Judiciary Speech this week, Alaska Chief Justice Susan Carney acknowledged unacceptable delays in the court system’s processing of criminal cases, and vowed to speed up processing times. A media investigation earlier in the year found that the length of time needed to try the most serious felony cases in Alaska had tripled in the past decade.

Chief Justice Carney also noted efforts to improve the civil justice system, including in areas of family law and estate administration. The court system will be employing a generative AI chatbot to help people navigate the often arcane rules of estate processing after a loved one’s death.

This seems like an excellent use of AI (assuming, as always, that it provides accurate and reliable information). It can help ordinary people understand their obligations in handling an estate at lower cost and less time. I imagine that many court systems will look to implement this type of AI technology in the near term.

Indiana courts find interesting new applications for technology

The beginning of each calendar year is the prime time for State of the Judiciary addresses, an opportunity for each state’s Chief Justice to personally address legislators, request needed resources, and champion the court system’s accomplishments.

This year, Indiana Chief Justice Loretta Rush highlighted some fascinating technological developments in her court system. One involved a pilot project that uses AI to generate transcripts in mental health commitment cases. Transcripts are now available in minutes rather than months. This is critical because many commitment decisions are appealed, and in the ordinary case transcripts take so long to generate that the appeal cannot be heard until the period of commitment has passed, effectively denying a party the right of appeal. The new technology expedites the entire process and adds a meaningful appeal option in these difficult cases.

The second development is the creation of an integrated system for sharing data on the statewide jail population. Indiana currently has 20 different jail management software systems, which were not necessarily able to talk to each other. (This sounds incredible, but given the long history of local courts being tied to their county systems rather a statewide court management system, it’s still not all that surprising.) The new system will allow the sharing of critical information, including fingerprint data.

The Indiana legislature will have to fully fund the jail software to the tune of $3 million, and has not committed to it yet. But the developments are interesting and noteworthy, and seemingly highly beneficial for both court administration and public safety.

Judges in Harris County, Texas seek additional courts

The population of Harris County, Texas, which encompasses Houston and its environs, has swelled to nearly five million in recent years. Its local judges are seeking seven additional non-felony district courts for the county in order to keep up with the associated increase in case filings.

Houston Public Media reports:

The proposed expansion includes three new civil courts, three family courts and one juvenile court. According to Judge Latosha Lewis Payne, administrative judge for the county’s 67 district courts, the shortage of non-felony courts has led to increased legal costs and delays in case resolutions.

While six new felony courts were created last year, the county’s judicial system is still stretched thin, according to Payne, as no new non-felony district courts have been created in more than 50 years.

“We want to advocate for a balance and to address the needs of all of the aspects of the Harris County judiciary and the justice system,” Payne said. “All of our divisions are equally important.”

The request will need to go the state legislature for consideration.