Looking Down The Road – Belt-Tightening Inside The Beltway

Cissy Jackson served as counsel and national security adviser to Sen. Doug Jones, D-Ala. before joining ArentFox Schiff. She also has extensive experience in the private practice of law, handling white collar, False Claims Act, grand jury investigation, and commercial property tax appeal matters. Jackson has represented multinational corporations, small businesses, and individuals in high-stakes civil and criminal litigation.

President Donald Trump and Republican Congressional leaders have made no secret about their plans to tackle to tackle the runaway federal budget deficit by dramatically reducing government spending. Trump’s newly-established advisory committee, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), is already investigating and testing the reactions to various proposed spending cuts. Although we expect DOGE to focus the majority of its attention on the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch should not assume its budget will escape scrutiny, either from DOGE or Congress.

Each year, the Judicial Conference presents the President with a detailed budget request accompanied by supporting data, and the President includes the Judiciary’s request in a full federal government budget request, which is submitted to Congress in February or March before the new fiscal year begins in October. From the time the President’s Budget is presented until the end of September, Congress attempts to negotiate and pass 12 appropriations bills, providing funds and spending limits for the entire federal government.

Although Fiscal Year 2025 began on October 1, 2024, Congress was unable to agree on appropriations legislation before that date, instead enacting a series of Continuing Resolutions (CRs) carrying forward Fiscal Year 2024 spending levels into the new year. The current CR ends March 14, 2025, meaning that in the first few months of this year Congress will be setting spending limits for the remainder of the fiscal year that is already underway. To avoid a government shutdown on March 14, Congress must pass1 FY 2025 appropriations legislation (or another CR), and shortly thereafter must turn to the President’s budget request for FY 2026. Thus, as the newly-constituted Congress gets underway, FBA members have the opportunity to impress upon their elected representatives that efficiency and fiscal responsibility are already embodied in the Judiciary’s budget requests for both FY 2025 and FY 2026.

In recent years the Judiciary’s budget has comprised less than 0.2% of federal discretionary spending, with Fiscal Year 2024 discretionary appropriations totaling $8.6 billion (which was $500 million less than requested). The Judiciary’s request for FY 2025 is $9.4 billion. The increase is based upon the need to maintain current operations; the anticipated hiring of additional staff for clerks of court, U.S. Probation Offices, and the Defender Services program; IT modernization and safeguarding against cyber-threats; and judicial security.

Court administrators know that every dollar is already stretched to its limits, and cuts have real consequences. As Southern District of Florida Chief Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga explains, “each year, we are faced with increased operating costs and shrinking budgets. The cost of goods and services has risen exponentially, and cyber-threats have increased in frequency and sophistication. Funding projects that are vital to our infrastructure often come at the expense of staffing needs. To sustain operations, critical positions are often left unfilled, and improvement projects are delayed or eliminated. While the Court is deeply committed to its mission, and our staff work tirelessly to meet increasing demands ever mindful of cost containment, deeper funding cuts will only cause further delays to litigants and prevent the expansion of services to the public.”

The Judiciary’s FY 2025 Congressional Budget Summary2 details some of the impacts of shortfalls in key accounts for FY 2024. For example, the reduced funding appropriated for the Defender Services account strains the agency’s ability to fulfill its constitutional mission to provide legal representation to federal criminal defendants who cannot afford to pay. The workload is substantial—as we noted in a previous Beltway Bulletin,3 90 percent of federal criminal defendants qualify for court-appointed counsel. Nevertheless, the funds provided do not support the staffing levels needed to address the workload dictated by the current federal defender formula. Additionally, because funds are not available from the FY 2024 budget, approximately one month of panel attorney payments have been deferred to FY 2025. In the past, cuts to federal defender services also have forced staff furloughs or layoffs, delayed prosecutions, led to longer detentions, and caused other docket disruptions.

Congress’ reductions to the Court Security account for FY2024 have necessitated the deferral of new security staff hires, as well as reduced expenditures for security systems and equipment. The amounts requested for courthouse security and personnel protection are an unfortunate necessity in a time when threats against judges are on the rise. As FBA members highlighted in successfully advocating for passage of the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, the U.S. Marshals Service reports a 300 percent increase in recent years in the number of threats and inappropriate communications aimed at judges and other essential court personnel.

As the Judiciary’s FY 2025 Budget Summary explains, cuts to the courts’ Salaries and Expenses significantly hamper the Judiciary’s ability to hire staff to handle increasing workloads. Insufficient funds in this account have adverse impacts across a multitude of services, including case intake and docketing, jury management, processing of restitution payments to crime victims, and timely notice to creditors in bankruptcy cases, as well as public-facing services at filing intake counters. Understaffing in probation and pretrial services offices poses serious risks to public safety “as remaining officers are forced to supervise higher numbers of defendants and offenders, including high-risk offenders,” resulting in “overworked officers, a greater risk of recidivism, and a detrimental impact on defendants and offenders who need rigorous monitoring and supportive services to reintegrate successfully and safely into their communities.”4 Put simply, “[o]ur constitutional system of government, with separation of powers and checks and balances, cannot function as intended if the judicial branch is not sufficiently resourced.”5

The FBA is increasingly recognized and respected for its nonpartisan perspective on policies affecting federal courts and federal jurisprudence. Fully funding the judiciary’s budget request is a perennial FBA priority, and the voices of FBA members will be particularly important this year as budget hawks sharpen their pencils. Please make time this year to participate in FBA advocacy meetings with your elected representatives and plan to join us inside the Beltway for Capitol Hill Day on March 27, 2025. To borrow a phrase from Beltway insider Cokie Roberts, participating in Capitol Hill Day is actually “enlightened self-interest.” While helping the federal courts, you will also build new connections, strengthen existing relationships, and gain useful insights. You may even find, perhaps to your surprise, that Capitol Hill Day is lots of fun. We look forward to seeing you in March.

Endnotes

1 —and the President must sign—

2 https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/fy_2025_congressional_budget_summary.pdf

3 Jackson, C. “Why Funding For Defender Services Should Matter to You,” Fed. Law. Spring 2024.

4 https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/letters_to_congress_re_funding.pdf

5 Id.