Category: court administration

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.

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.

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.

Georgia legislature advances bill to keep judges’ private information out of public records

The Georgia House Judiciary Committee had advanced a bill that would shield personal information of state judges. The bill would allow judges to submit certain forms through the state Administrative Office of the Courts. The AOC would then forward information to the relevant local authorities, which would be charged with removing the judges’ personal information from public records.

The bill comes in response to ongoing threats to the judiciary across the United States. Keeping judicial addresses and phone numbers confidential is a small way to prevent harassment by dissatisfied litigants or others.

Arkansas Chief Justice digs in on scope of administrative powers

In early January, newly elected Arkansas Chief Justice Karen Baker caused a commotion by attempting to fire several senior court system administrators, including the Director of the state’s Administrative Office of the Courts. Baker was swiftly rebuked by five of her Supreme Court colleagues, who issued an order clarifying that such employees can only by fired by a majority of the Court. The Arkansas Judicial Council later issued a formal resolution — an apology of sorts — which recognized the targeted employees’ service to the judiciary.

But Chief Justice Baker is not done fighting about the scope of her authority. Last week she met with the Arkansas House Judiciary Committee. As the local press reports:

“There are differences of opinion about whether I have the same authority that chief justices have always had in Arkansas, and I am unwilling to accept that I don’t have the same authority to hire the Administrative Office of the Courts executive director, which is the area of contention,” Baker told lawmakers. “If we can’t work that out, we’ll probably be litigating that issue.”

Whatever the evenutal outcome, this fight will undoubtedly cause distraction and bad blood in the workplace. Ugh.

Illinois Supreme Court issues policy on use of generative AI

The Illinois Supreme Court has issued a policy governing the use of generative AI. The policy is consistent with the ABA’s Formal Opinion on AI that came out last summer. Unsurprisingly, the Illinois policy extends an attorney’s ordinary ethical obligations to the use of generative AI, holding lawyers accountable for understanding how the technology works, as well as checking for errors and hallucinations, before filing anything with the court.

Texas expands virtual court program for criminal cases

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice has announced plans to expand remote court appearances for inmates using videoconferencing technology. Rather than being transported to county courthouses for hearings and other legal proceedings, inmates would appear before the court using secure video.

Video hearings offer much in the way of efficiency and even safety, relieving the state of the burden of having to transport parties to and from the courthouse. But they still need to provide all the constitutional guarantees of due process. If the video technology is unreliable or if there is a real sense that not being in the courthouse deprives a party of his or her day in court, the program would need to be revisited.

These types of video hearings took off during the pandemic, and some states made the hearings available for public viewing on YouTube or their own websites. I watched a few during that period (mostly from Michigan), and the prisons offered inmates with a hearing a private, quiet space for the videoconference. If Texas can continue that tradition, this seems like a meaningful advance for all involved.

NCSC creates innovation lab to introduce new technology to courts

This is a very cool development. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has created an innovation lab that allows court leaders to observe and test the latest court technology. The lab grew of a recognition that courthouse space needs to be used more creatively in order to provide meaningful access to users.

The lab’s focus extends beyond the courtroom, with prototype “community access points” for public users who will be accessing court services from another location, as well as advanced conference rooms and huddle spaces.

Kudos to the NCSC for embracing the challenges of innovation. I’ll look forward to seeing how these technologies are incorporated by the courts in the coming years.

Weekend tibdits: Dog bites man, 3L runs for judge, Arkansas judges make nice

A few interesting state court stories from the last couple of days:

  • Repairs on a courthouse elevator in Texas were delayed after the technician was bitten by a dog on his way into the building. A few rabies shots later, the tech and the elevator were both doing fine. The dog remains at large.
  • A 24-year old student at Brooklyn Law School is planning to run for magistrate judge in his local Pennsylvania community this spring, and will campaign while completing his studies. The judicial position does not require a law degree in any event. He plans to file as both a Democrat and Republican for purposes of the state primary.
  • The Arkansas Judicial Council, working to mend fences after the new chief justice attempted unsuccessfully to fire ten senior court employees, issued a formal resolution recognizing the employees’ service to the judiciary.