Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

April 5, 2021 R46747

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021
April 5, 2021
Funds for the judicial branch are included annually in the Financial Services and General
Government (FSGG) appropriations bill. The bill provides funding for the U.S. Supreme Court;
Barry J. McMillion
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; the U.S. Court of International Trade; U.S.
Analyst in American
courts of appeals and district courts; the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; the Federal
National Government
Judicial Center; the U.S. Sentencing Commission; federal defender organizations that provide

legal representation to defendants financially unable to retain counsel in federal criminal
proceedings; security and protective services for courthouses, judicial officers, and judicial

employees; and fees and allowances paid to jurors.
The judiciary’s FY2021 budget request was submitted to Congress on February 10, 2020. By law, the President includes,
without change, the appropriations request submitted by the judiciary in the annual budget submission to Congress.
The FY2021 budget request included $7.82 billion in discretionary funds, rep resenting a 4.4% increase over the FY2020
enacted level of $7.49 billion in discretionary funds provided in the FY2020 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 116-93).
The FY2021 budget request also included $739.7 million in mandatory funds to pay the salaries and benefits of certain types
of federal judges and to also provide for judicial retirement accounts.
The House Appropriations Committee held a markup (H.R. 7668) on July 15, 2020, and recommended the judiciary receive a
total of $7.77 billion in discretionary funds. On July 31, 2020, the House passed the FSGG ap propriations bill as part of a
second FY2021 consolidated appropriations bill (H.R. 7617).
The FSGG appropriations bill was not enacted prior to the beginning of FY2021 on October 1, 2020. Subsequently, the
judiciary was funded through a series of continuing appropriations resolutions (through December 11, 2020, by P.L. 116-159;
through December 18, 2020, by P.L. 116-215; through December 20, 2020, by P.L. 116-225; through December 21, 2020, by
P.L. 116-226; and through December 28, 2020, by P.L. 116-246).
On November 10, 2020, the Senate Appropriations Committee majority issued a press release that included, for the FSGG
appropriations bill and 11 other appropriations bills, links to draft bill text, explanatory statements and bill summaries. This
draft FSGG bill would have provided $7.67 billion in discretionary funds for the federal judiciary (an increase of $185
million over the enacted level for FY2020 and approximately $10 million less than what the House recommended for
FY2021).
The final FY2021 amount enacted by Congress for the federal judiciary was $7.72 billion in discretionary funds and was
included as part of Division E in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260, December 27, 2020).
In recent years, appropriations for the judiciary have comprised approximately 0.2% of total budget authority.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

Introduction
This report provides an overview of the federal judiciary’s FY2021 budget request, as wel as
information about Congress’s consideration of the judiciary’s request. The first section of this
report includes subsections covering each major action involving the judiciary’s FY2021 budget
request, including
 the initial submission by the President of the judiciary’s request on February 10,
2020;
 a hearing held on February 26, 2020, by the House Financial Services and
General Government Appropriations Subcommittee on the FY2021 judiciary
budget request;
 the House subcommittee markup on July 8, 2020;
 the House Appropriations Committee markup on July 15, 2020;
 passage of an FSGG appropriations bil by the House on July 31, 2020, as part of
the second FY2021 consolidated appropriations bil ;
 the enactment of several continuing resolutions during the period from October 1,
2020, to December 22, 2020;
 the Senate Appropriations Committee majority’s release, on November 10, 2020,
of a draft FSGG appropriations bil for FY2021; and
 enactment of FY2021 appropriations for the judiciary in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260, December 27, 2020).
The second section of the report provides information about the specific discretionary
appropriations requested by the judiciary for FY2021, as wel as information about the mandatory
appropriations and administrative provisions included in the appropriations process. The third
section provides information about the various courts, judicial entities, and judicial services that
are covered by appropriations for the judiciary. The report also identifies some of the courts and
judicial services that are not covered by such appropriations (but are covered by other
appropriations bil s). Final y, the report provides information about ongoing policy issues
affecting the judiciary that may be of interest to Congress during FY2021.
FY2021 Consideration: Overview of Actions
This section provides an overview of the major actions involving congressional consideration of
FY2021 judiciary appropriations. The final status of FY2021 judiciary appropriations is
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Overview of Congressional Consideration of Federal Judiciary’s Budget
Request, FY2021
Committee

Resolution of House-
Markup

Senate Differences

House
House Senate Senate Conference
Housea
Senate
Report Passage Report Passage
Report
House
Senate Public Law
7/15/20
See table H.Rept. 7/31/20 See table
12/21/20
12/21/20

12/27/20
(30-22)
note b
116-456 (217-197) note b
(327-85)
(92-6) P.L. 116-260
Congressional Research Service

1

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

Source: Congressional Research Service examination of data from http://congress.gov/.
Note: This table provides an overview of congressional consideration of the federal judiciary’s budget request
for FY2021.
a. The House subcommittee held its markup of the bil , which was reported by voice vote, on July 8, 2020.
b. On November 10, 2020, the Senate Appropriations Committee majority released draft bil text, explanatory
statements, and bil summaries for 12 regular FY2021 appropriations bil s, including the FSGG bil .
Submission of FY2021 Budget Request
The President’s proposed FY2021 budget request was submitted on February 10, 2020. It
contained $7.82 bil ion in discretionary funds for judicial branch activities and $739.7 mil ion in
mandatory funding for judges’ salaries and judicial retirement accounts.1 By law, the judicial
branch appropriations request is submitted to the President and included in the budget submission
without change.2
Appropriations for the judiciary comprise approximately 0.2% of total budget authority.3
House Subcommittee Hearing on FY2021 Budget Request
The House Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee held a
hearing on the FY2021 budget request on February 26, 2020. Judge John W. Lungstrum, a senior
U.S. district court judge for the District of Kansas and chairman of the Judicial Conference’s
Committee on the Budget, and James C. Duff, Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts, both testified before the subcommittee regarding the judiciary’s request.
Representative Mike Quigley (IL), chairman of the subcommittee, highlighted in his opening
statement several issues that the hearing would address, including making court hearings more
accessible to the public; the extension of temporary judgeships; increased funding for courthouse
construction and renovation projects; the judiciary’s Capital Security Program; and the judiciary’s
efforts to address employee complaints related to workplace misconduct.4
Chairman Quigley also highlighted the notable increase in the judiciary’s budget request related
to the Federal Defender Services program—specifical y, for “funding 237 more federal defender
positions to uphold our Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel,”5 as wel as a significant increase
related to hiring “94 additional staff in the Probation and Pretrial Services Offices to assist with

1 Office of Management and Budget, President’s Budget FY2021, Appendix, “Detailed Budget Estimates by Agency,”
Judicial Branch, at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/budget/2021/BUDGET -2021-APP. T he difference between
discretionary and mandatory appropriations is discussed further in the text.
2 Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 1105, “Estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations for the legislative branch and the
judicial branch to be included in each budget ... shall be submitted to the President ... and included in the budget by the
President without change.” Furthermore, Division C of the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74)
added language to 31 U.S.C. § 1107 relating to budget amendments, stating: “ T he President shall transmit promptly to
Congress without change, proposed deficiency and supplemental appropriations submitted to the President by the
legislative branch and the judicial branch.”
3 Calculations by CRS with data from Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, T able 5.2—Budget
Authority By Agency: 1976–2025, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables.
4 Rep. Mike Quigley, “Chairman Quigley Statement at Hearing on FY 2021 Judiciary Budget Request,” February 26,
2020, at https://appropriations.house.gov/news/statements/chairman-quigley-statement-at-hearing-on-fy-2021-
judiciary-budget -request. For an article related to the discussion during the hearing of workplace misconduct in the
federal judiciary, see Andrew Kragie, “Fed. Judge’s Misconduct A ‘Shock’ T o Kansas Colleagues,” Law360, February
26, 2020, at https://www.law360.com/articles/1246422/fed-judge-s-misconduct -a-shock-to-kansas-colleagues.
5 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 13 link to page 13 Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

post-release supervision.”6 He stated that he looked “forward to discussing the justification for
these budget increases as wel as how Congress can help the judiciary meets its growing
caseloads.”7
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and
General Government Markup
On July 8, 2020, the House subcommittee held a markup of the FY2021 Financial Services and
General Government (FSGG) bil . The subcommittee, by voice vote, recommended a total of
$7.77 bil ion in discretionary funds for the judiciary.8
House Appropriations Committee Markup
On July 15, 2020, the House Appropriations Committee held a markup of the FY2021 FSGG
bil .9 The committee recommended $7.77 bil ion in discretionary funds for the judiciary.10
The $7.77 bil ion in discretionary funding recommended for the judiciary represents
approximately 31.5% of the total $24.64 bil ion in discretionary funding included in the FSGG
appropriations bil reported by the committee (which also funds such entities as the Department
of the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President, the Consumer Product Safety Commission,
the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Smal Business
Administration).
The FY2021 FSGG bil was ordered reported by a roll cal vote of 30-22 (H.R. 7668, H.Rept.
116-456). No amendments related to the judiciary were offered during the committee markup.
The report that accompanied the committee’s markup addressed several issues of interest to the
committee. Specifical y, the committee’s report, in part:
 encouraged “the Supreme Court to take steps to permit video and live audio coverage of
al open sessions of the Court unless the Court decides that al owing such coverage in any
case would violate the due process of one or more of the parties before the Court”;11
 urged “the Supreme Court to adopt a Code of Conduct applicable to the Justices”;12
 encouraged “increased education for bankruptcy judges on how bankruptcy court
decisions impact national security”;13

6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Note that this amount does not include mandatory funds for salaries and benefits of certain types of judgeships. See
Table 3 and accompanying text for additional information.
9 House Appropriations Committee, “Appropriations Committee Approves Fiscal Year 2021 Financial Services and
General Government Funding Bill,” press release, July 15, 2020, at https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-
releases/appropriations-committee-approves-fiscal-year-2021-financial-services-and.
10 Note that this amount does not include mandatory funds for salaries and benefits of certain types of judgeships. See
Table 3 and accompanying text for additional information.
11 House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 116-456, p.45.
12 Ibid., p.45.
13 Ibid., p.46.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 13 Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

 directed the judiciary “to include in their annual justification to Congress a report on the
steps the [branch’s] Office of Integrity is taking to ensure it has enough resources and
staff to provide an exemplary workplace for every judge and every court employee”;14
and
 directed the judiciary “to expand its comprehensive training program on workplace
behavior and bystander intervention.”15
Passage by the House
The FSGG appropriations bil , included as part of a second FY2021 consolidated appropriations
bil (H.R. 7617), was passed by a roll cal vote of 217-197 in the House on July 31, 2020. No
amendments were offered during House consideration that were related to the judiciary.
Senate Appropriations Committee Majority Release of Draft Bill
Text, Explanatory Statement, and Bill Summary for FY2021 FSGG
Appropriations Bill
On November 10, 2020, the Senate Appropriations Committee majority issued a press release that
provided hypertext links to the subcommittee al ocations, as wel as draft legislative text,
explanatory statements, and highlights for each of the 12 FY2021 appropriations bil s, including
the FSGG bil .16
The Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft recommended a total of $7.67 bil ion in
discretionary funds for the judiciary.17 The draft stated the position that the amount “wil provide
sufficient funding for federal court activities, including timely and efficient processing of federal
cases, court security, and defender services.”18
Enactment of Five Continuing Appropriations Resolutions
Final enactment of the judiciary’s budget did not occur prior to the beginning of FY2021 on
October 1, 2020. Consequently, the judiciary was funded through December 11, 2020, by the
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act (P.L. 116-159, October 1, 2020).
The act passed the House on September 22, 2020, and the Senate on September 30, 2020. It was
signed by the President on October 1, 2020.
Congress enacted four additional continuing resolutions prior to the final enactment of FY2021
regular appropriations for the federal judiciary:

14 Ibid., p.47.
15 Ibid.
16 Senate Appropriations Committee, “Committee Releases FY21 Bills in Effort to Advance Process, Produc e
Bipartisan Results,” press release, November 10, 2020, at https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/commit tee-
releases-fy21-bills-in-effort -to-advance-process-produce-bipartisan-results.
17 Note that this amount does not include mandatory funds for salaries and benefits of certain types of judgeships. See
Table 3 and accompanying text for additional information.
18 Senate Appropriations Committee Press Release, “Committee Releases FY21 Bills in Effort to Advance Process,
Produce Bipartisan Results,” Financial Services and General Government, 2021, Highlights, November 10, 2020, at
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/committee-releases-fy21-bills-in-effort-to-advance-process-produce-
bipartisan-results.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 9 link to page 9 Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

 Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021, and Other Extensions Act (P.L.
116-215, December 11, 2020)—funded through December 18, 2020;
 Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-225,
December 18, 2020)—funded through December 20, 2020;
 Extension of Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-226, December 20,
2020)—funded through December 21, 2020; and
 Further Extension of Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-246,
December 22, 2020)—funded through December 28, 2020.
Final Enactment of FY2021 Regular Appropriations for the
Judiciary
Enactment of the judiciary’s budget for FY2021 was included in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2021.19 The total amount in discretionary funds appropriated for the judiciary was $7.72
bil ion, while the amount in mandatory funds provided for the judiciary was $733.55 mil ion. The
act passed both the House and Senate on December 21, 2020. It was signed by the President on
December 27, 2020.
FY2021 Judiciary Budget Request
Discretionary Appropriations
The judiciary’s FY2021 discretionary budget request totaled $7.82 bil ion and represented a 4.4%
increase from the $7.49 bil ion in discretionary appropriations enacted by Congress for FY2020.
Table 2 lists, for each account included in the judiciary’s discretionary budget, (1) the amount
enacted by Congress for FY2020, (2) the judiciary’s FY2021 request, (3) the FY2021 amount that
passed the House, (4) the FY2021 amount that was reported by the Senate Appropriations
Committee, and (5) the FY2021 enacted amount.20
Table 2. Judiciary Discretionary Appropriations, FY2020-FY2021
(in mil ions of dol ars)
FY2021 Senate
FY2021
Committee
FY2020
FY2021
House
Majority Draft
FY2021

Enacted
Requested
Passed
Bill
Enacted
Supreme Court (total)
$103.3
$105.3
$105.6
$105.3
$105.3
Salaries and Expenses
$87.7
$93.6
$95.0
$94.7
$94.7
Building and Grounds
$15.6
$11.7
$10.6
$10.6
$10.6
U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
$32.7
$34.0
$33.8
$33.1
$33.5

19 P.L. 116-260 (December 27, 2020).
20 T he figures reported in Table 2 for FY2020 are for regular FY2020 appropriations and do not include the
supplemental appropriations provided in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “ CARES Act”).
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 9 link to page 9 Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

FY2021 Senate
FY2021
Committee
FY2020
FY2021
House
Majority Draft
FY2021

Enacted
Requested
Passed
Bill
Enacted
U.S. Court of
International Trade
$19.6
$20.1
$20.0
$19.9
$20.0
Courts of Appeals,
District Courts, and
Other Judicial Services
$7,186.6
$7,504.9
$7,464.6
$7,366.6
$7,416.3
(total)
Salaries and Expenses
$5,250.2
$5,459.5
$5,412.9
$5,340.2
$5,393.7
Defender Services
$1,234.6
$1,316.2
$1,322.5
$1.316.2
$1,316.2
Court Security
$639.2
$664.0
$664.0
$664.0
$664.0
Fees of Jurors and
$53.5
$55.5
$55.5
$36.5
$32.5
Commissioners
Vaccine Injury Trust
Fund
$9.1
$9.7
$9.7
$9.7
$9.9
Administrative Office
of the U.S. Courts
$94.3
$99.8
$98.0
$95.7
$95.7
Federal Judicial Center
$30.4
$31.3
$31.1
$30.9
$29.0
U.S. Sentencing
Commission
$19.7
$20.3
$20.1
$20.0
$20.0
TOTAL (Judiciary)
$7,486.5
$7,815.7
$7,773.3
$7,671.5
$7,719.8
Sources: Congressional Research Service examination of data from H.Rept. 116-456; draft of FSGG
appropriations bil text provided by Senate Appropriations Committee at https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/
news/committee-releases-fy21-bil s-in-effort-to-advance-process-produce-bipartisan-results; Explanatory
Statement Submitted by Mrs. Lowey, Chairwoman of the House Committee on Appropriations, Regarding the
House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 133, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021; FY2021
Judicial Branch Budget Justification; and The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2022 Congressional Budget Summary.
Notes: The figures reported in Table 2 for FY2020 are for regular FY2020 appropriations and do not include
the supplemental appropriations provided in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the
“CARES Act”). Al figures are rounded, and column sums may not equal the total due to rounding.
Three Largest Discretionary Accounts for FY2021
Of the judiciary’s FY2021 request for $7.82 bil ion in discretionary funds (see the second column
in Table 2), the greatest percentage was for the Salaries and Expenses—Courts of Appeals,
District Courts, and Other Judicial Services account—representing 69.9% of the request. The
second greatest percentage was for the Defender Services account, representing 16.8% of the total
discretionary request. The third greatest percentage was for the Court Security account,
representing 8.5% of the request.21 The remaining 4.8% of the FY2021 discretionary request was
for the other accounts listed in the table.22

21 Altogether, these three accounts represented 95.2% of the judiciary’s discretionary budget request for FY2021.
22 T he remaining nine accounts are listed here in descending order from the greatest percentage to smallest percentage
of the judiciary’s FY2021 discretionary budget request: Administrative Office of U.S. Courts (1.3%); Supreme Court—
Salaries and Expenses (1.2%); Fees of Jurors and Com m issioners (0.7%); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit (0.4%); Federal Judicial Center (0.4%); U.S. Court of International Trade (0.3%); U.S. Sentencing
Com m ission (0.3%); Suprem e Court—Building and Grounds (0.1%); and the Vaccine Injury Trust Fund (0.1%).
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

Similarly, of the $7.72 bil ion that was enacted by Congress for the judiciary’s FY2021 budget,
the greatest percentage was for the Salaries and Expenses—Courts of Appeals, District Courts,
and Other Judicial Services account (see the final column in Table 2)—representing 69.9% of the
enacted amount. The second greatest percentage was for the Defender Services account,
representing 17.0% of the total enacted amount. The third greatest percentage was for the Court
Security account, representing 8.6% of the enacted amount.23 The remaining 4.5% of the FY2021
enacted amount was for the other accounts listed in the table.24
Three Largest Percentage Increases from FY2020 Enacted Amounts
Of the accounts listed in Table 2, the largest percentage increase between the amount enacted in
FY2020 and the amount requested by the judiciary for FY2021 was for the Supreme Court—
Salaries and Expenses account—a 6.7% increase from the FY2020 amount enacted to the
FY2021 request. The next greatest increases were for the Defender Services and Vaccine Injury
Trust Fund accounts, both with a 6.6% increase.25
Of the same accounts listed in the table, the largest percentage increase between the amount
enacted in FY2020 and the amount enacted by Congress for FY2021 was for the Vaccine Injury
Trust Fund account—an 8.8% increase from the FY2020 enacted amount. The second greatest
increase was for the Supreme Court Salaries and Expenses account, an 8.0% increase. The third
greatest increase was for the Defender Services account, a 6.6% increase.26
Percentage of Judiciary’s FY2021 Request Enacted by Congress
Overal , Congress enacted $7.72 bil ion, or 98.8%, of the judiciary’s FY2021 discretionary
budget request of $7.82 bil ion. This was a slight increase from the percentage of the judiciary’s
budget request that Congress enacted for FY2020, when Congress enacted $7.49 bil ion, or
98.2%, of the judiciary’s FY2020 budget request of $7.62 bil ion.
The enacted FY2021 amount for 9 of the 12 accounts was, in each case, at least 95% of the
judiciary’s FY2021 request for that account.27 For example, for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit account, Congress provided $33.5 mil ion—representing 98.5% of the judiciary’s
FY2021 request of $34.0 mil ion.

23 Altogether, these three accounts represent 95.5% of the judiciary’s enacted FY2021 budget.
24 T he remaining nine accounts are listed here in descending order from the greatest percentage to smallest percentage
of the judiciary’s enacted FY2021 discretionary budget request: Supreme Court—Salaries and Expenses and
Adm inistrative Office of U.S. Courts (both at 1.2%); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Fees of Jurors and
Com m issioners, and Federal Judicial Center (both at 0.4%); U.S. Court of International Trade and U.S. Sentencing
Com m ission (both at 0.3%); and Suprem e Court—Building and Grounds and the Vaccine Injury Trust Fund (both at
0.1%).
25 Of all the accounts listed in Table 2, the percentage change between the amount enacted in FY2019 and the amount
requested for FY2020 ranged from a decrease of -25.0% (for the Suprem e Court—Building and Grounds account) to an
increase of 6.7% for the Suprem e Court—Salaries and Expenses account.
26 Of all the accounts listed in Table 2, the percentage change between the amount enacted in FY2020 and the amount
enacted in FY2021 ranged from a decline of -39.3% (for the Fees of Jurors and Com m issioners account) to a high of
8.8% for the Vaccine Injury Trust Fund account.
27 T he three accounts for which Congress appropriated less than 95% of the judiciary’s FY2021 request were the
Suprem e Court—Building and Grounds (90.6% of request enacted), Fees of Jurors and Com m issioners (58.6%), and
Federal Judicial Center (92.7%) accounts.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 9 link to page 15 link to page 15 Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

Altogether, for eight accounts, Congress appropriated less than the amount requested by the
judiciary in its FY2021 budget submission.28 For two accounts, Congress passed the same amount
as was requested by the judiciary.29 And for two accounts, Congress appropriated more than the
amount requested by the judiciary in its FY2021 budget submission.30
The federal courts, judicial entities, and judicial programs funded by the various accounts listed in
Table 2 are discussed below in greater detail in the section of the report titled “Courts, Programs,
and Other Items Funded by the Judiciary Budget”.
Discretionary Appropriations in Recent Years
FY2020
FY2020 judiciary funding was provided in Division C, Title III, of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-93), which was enacted on December 20, 2019. The act
provided $7.49 bil ion in discretionary funds for the judiciary.
Enactment of Supplemental FY2020 Appropriations for COVID-19 Response
On March 27, 2020, the President signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
(the “CARES Act”)31 to address the nationwide impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-
19).32 The act, in part, provided $7,500,000 in funding for the federal judiciary to respond to the
pandemic. Specifical y, the CARES Act made appropriations to the federal judiciary “to prevent,
prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestical y or international y.” By law, Congress
designated such appropriations to be for an emergency requirement.
Three judiciary accounts received funds under the act: the Supreme Court of the United States—
Salaries and Expenses account ($500,000); the Courts of Appeals, District Courts, And Other
Judicial Services—Salaries and Expenses account ($6 mil ion); and the Defender Services
account ($1 mil ion).
FY2019
FY2019 judiciary funding was provided in Division D, Title III, of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6), which was enacted on February 15, 2019. The act
provided $7.25 bil ion in discretionary funds for the judiciary.
FY2018
FY2018 judiciary funding was provided in Division E, Title III, of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141), which was enacted on March 23, 2018. The act
provided $7.11 bil ion in discretionary funds for the judiciary.

28 T hese eight accounts (and the percentage of the judiciary’s FY2021 request that was passed by Congress) ar e
Suprem e Court—Building and Grounds (90.6%); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (98.5%); U.S. Court of
International Trade (99.5%); Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services—Salaries and Expenses
(98.8%); Fees of Jurors and Com m issioners (58.6%); Adm inistrative Office of U.S. Courts (95.9%); Federal Judicial
Center (92.7%); and U.S. Sentencing Com m ission (98.5%).
29 T hese two accounts are Defender Services and Court Security.
30 T hese two accounts (and the percentage of the judiciary’s FY2021 request that was enacted by Congress) are the
Suprem e Court—Salaries and Expenses (101.2%); and Vaccine Injury Trust Fund (102.1%).
31 P.L. 116-136 (March 27, 2020).
32 T he Senate had passed the bill on March 25, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

8

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

FY2017
FY2017 judiciary funding was provided in Division E, Title III, of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31), which was enacted on May 5, 2017. The act provided
$6.93 bil ion in discretionary funds for the judiciary.
Use of Nonappropriated Funds
The judiciary also uses nonappropriated funds to help offset its funding requirements. The
majority of these nonappropriated funds are from the collection of fees, primarily court filing
fees33 and fees associated with obtaining case and docket information online from various federal
courts.34 These monies are used to offset expenses that would otherwise be covered by the
discretionary Salaries and Expenses subaccount for the courts of appeals, district courts, and
other judicial services. The numbers presented in this report reflect the net resources for the
judiciary, and do not include these offsetting nonappropriated funds.
Mandatory Appropriations
Mandatory appropriations are used to meet the constitutional and statutory obligations associated
with the salaries and expenses of certain types of judgeships (and, consequently, are not
considered discretionary appropriations for the judiciary).
Such appropriations fal into two categories: (1) funds used to pay the salaries of Article III
judges (Supreme Court Justices, U.S. courts of appeals judges, etc.) and certain other types of
federal judges (e.g., bankruptcy judges); and (2) funds used for several judicial retirement
accounts—specifical y, the Judicial Officers’ Retirement Fund (28 U.S.C. §377(o)); the Judicial
Survivors’ Annuities Fund (28 U.S.C. §376(c)); and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judges’
Retirement Fund (28 U.S.C. §178(1)).
Table 3. Judiciary Mandatory Funding, FY2020-FY2021
(in mil ions of dol ars)
FY2020
FY2021
Account
Enacted
Enacted
Supreme Court
$2.7
$2.7
Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit
$3.1
$3.2
Court of International Trade
$1.6
$2.1

33 Each type of federal court, and other federal judicial services, publishes a list of fees that are charged for services
provided by the specific court. For a list of these fees, see Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Fees, at
https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees.
34 T he Public Access to Court Electronic Records, or PACER, is a service that allows users, for a fee, to obtain case and
docket information online from federal appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts, and the PACER Case Locator.
According to the federal judiciary, PACER is provided “in keeping with its commit ment to providing public access to
court information via a centralized service.” See https://www.pacer.gov. Congressional authorization for the judiciary
to collect fees was granted in the Judiciary Appropriations Act of 1991, P.L. 101-515 (November 5, 1990).
Specifically, the act states that “the Judicial Conference shall prescribe reasonable fees ... for collection by the courts
under those sections for access to information available through automatic data processing equipment.... T he Director,
under the direction of the Judicial Conference of the United States, shall prescribe a schedule of reasonable fees for
electronic access to information which the Director is required to maintain and make available to the public.” T itle IV,
§404(a); 104 Stat. 2132-2133.
Congressional Research Service

9

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

FY2020
FY2021
Account
Enacted
Enacted
Courts of Appeals, District Courts,
$437.8
$463.3
and Other Judicial Services
Judicial Retirement Funds
$240.1
$262.3
Total (Judiciary)
$685.3
$733.6
Source: Congressional Research Service examination of data from The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2022 Congressional
Budget Summary.
Note: Enacted column reflects FY2021 assumed financial plan levels. Al figures are rounded, and column sums
may not equal the total due to rounding.
The mandatory appropriations provided for FY2021 totaled $733.6 mil ion. Of the FY2021
mandatory amount, $471.3 mil ion, or 64.2%, is for salaries and expenses associated with
judgeships that the judiciary is constitutional y (or statutorily) required to pay. The remaining
$262.3 mil ion (or 35.8% of FY2021 mandatory appropriations) is to provide for judicial
retirement funds.
There was a similar breakdown in the use of mandatory funds for FY2020. Of the $685.3 mil ion
in mandatory appropriations provided for FY2020, $445.2 mil ion (or 65.0%) was to fund the
salaries and expenses associated with Article III judges and certain other types of federal judges.
The remaining $240.1 mil ion (or 35.0% of FY2020 mandatory appropriations) was to provide
for judicial retirement funds.
Administrative Provisions
The judiciary’s FY2021 request also contained several administrative provisions.35 The
provisions, in part, (1) al owed for the transfer, under certain conditions, of appropriations (up to
5%) between accounts, while also prohibiting some accounts from being increased by more than
10% by such transfers; (2) al owed for funds from the salaries and expenses appropriation for the
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services account to be available for
“official reception and representation expenses of the Judicial Conference of the United States”
(while also limiting the use of such funds to a maximum of $11,000); and (3) provided for the
extension of certain temporary U.S. district court judgeships.36
The final enacted FY2021 appropriations for the judiciary included versions of each of the six
administrative provisions included in the judiciary’s FY2021 request.

35 “Administrative provisions” or “general provisions” provides restrictions, conditions, or requirements that may apply
to an ent ire act, a specific department, agency, or account. Such provisions may be of a policy or operational character
and are typically included at the end of an act.
36 For a full list of the administrative provisions included in the judiciary’s FY2021 request see pp. 61-62 of The
Judiciary Fiscal Year 2021 Congressional Budget Sum m ary.
Congressional Research Service

10

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

Courts, Programs, and Other Items Funded by the
Judiciary Budget
U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter in the federal court system. Congress has authorized
nine judgeships for the Court. Among the nine Justices on the Court, one is also appointed as
Chief Justice of the United States. Justices are appointed by the President with the advice and
consent of the Senate.
U.S. Courts of Appeals
U.S. courts of appeals, or circuit courts, take appeals from U.S. district court decisions and are
also empowered to review the decisions of many administrative agencies. When hearing a
chal enge to a district court decision from a court located within its geographic circuit, the task of
a court of appeals is to determine whether or not the law was applied correctly by the district
court.37 Cases presented to U.S. circuit courts are general y considered by judges sitting in three-
member panels (circuit courts do not use juries).
The nation is divided into 12 geographic circuits, each with a U.S. court of appeals. There is also
one nationwide circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (discussed in the text
below).
Altogether, 167 judgeships for these 12 regional circuit courts are currently authorized by law.
The First Circuit (comprising Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto
Rico) has the fewest number of authorized judgeships, 6, while the Ninth Circuit (comprising
Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawai , Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) has the
most, 29.38
U.S. circuit court judges are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Such appointments are general y considered to be effective for life (under Article III of the U.S.
Constitution),39 meaning judges remain in office until they die, assume senior status, resign,
retire, or are removed by Congress through the process of impeachment.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
This court has nationwide jurisdiction over certain types of cases, including international trade,
government contracts, patents, trademarks, certain money claims against the United States
government, federal personnel, veterans’ benefits, and public safety officers’ benefits claims. The
court also reviews certain administrative agency decisions.

37 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “ Court Role and Structure,” at https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-
courts/court -role-and-structure.
38 T he Ninth Circuit also includes two U.S. territories, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.
39 T hroughout the text of the report, the term “effective for life” reflects the constitutional prerogative of a judge
appointed to an Article III court to remain in office “during good Behavior.”
Congressional Research Service

11

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

In FY2018, the court’s jurisdiction consisted of “administrative law cases (20%), intel ectual
property cases (67%), and cases involving money damages against the United States government
(13%).”40
There are 12 judgeships authorized for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judges
serving on the Federal Circuit are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the
Senate. Such appointments are also considered to be effective for life (under Article III of the
U.S. Constitution), meaning judges remain in office until they die, assume senior status, resign,
retire, or are removed by Congress through the process of impeachment.
U.S. Court of International Trade
This court has nationwide jurisdiction over civil actions related to the customs and international
trade laws of the United States. Most of the cases heard by the court “involve antidumping and
countervailing duties, the classification and valuation of imported merchandise, actions to recover
unpaid customs duties and civil penalties, and various actions arising general y under the tariff
laws.”41 For the 12-month period ending September 30, 2020, the court reported a total of 3,670
case filings.42
There are nine judgeships authorized for the U.S. Court of International Trade. Judges serving on
the Court of International Trade are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the
Senate. Such appointments are also considered to be effective for life (under Article III of the
U.S. Constitution), meaning judges remain in office until they die, assume senior status, resign,
retire, or are removed by Congress through the process of impeachment.
U.S. District Courts (Including Territorial Courts)
District courts are the federal trial courts of general jurisdiction. These trial courts determine facts
and apply legal principles to resolve disputes.43 Trials are conducted by a district court judge or,
in some cases, a magistrate judge.
Each state has at least one district court (there is also one district court in each of the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands). States with more than one district court are
divided into judicial districts, with each district having one district court. For example, California
is divided into four judicial districts—each with its own district court. Altogether there are 94
district courts.44

40 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Court Jurisdiction, at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/the-court/
court -jurisdiction. “ T he administrative law cases consist of international trade disputes, personnel claims, and veterans’
claims. Nearly all of the intellectual property cases involve patents originating from the U .S. Patent and T rademark
Office and all U.S. District Courts. Suits for money damages against the United States government include government
contract cases, tax refund appeals, unlawful takings, and civilian and military pay cases.” Ibid.
41 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, U.S. Court of International Trade—Judicial Business 2019, at
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/us-court -international-trade-judicial-business-2019.
42 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Statistics & Reports, Data T ables, T able G-1, U.S. Court of International
T rade Judicial Business (September 30, 2020), at https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/g-1/judicial-business/2020/
09/30.
43 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “ Court Role and Structure,” at https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-
courts/court -role-and-structure.
44 T hese include three district courts located in several U.S. territories. Specifically, there is one district court each in
Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. T hese courts were established by Congress under its
Congressional Research Service

12

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

At present, there are 677 district court judgeships authorized by law.45 Congress has authorized
between 1 and 28 judgeships for each district court, with district courts serving more populous
areas general y having more authorized judgeships. Among judicial districts with Article III
judgeships, the Eastern District of Oklahoma (Muskogee) has the fewest number (with 1
authorized judgeship), while the district courts located in the Southern District of New York
(Manhattan) and the Central District of California (Los Angeles) have the greatest number (each
with 28 authorized judgeships).
U.S. district court judges are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the
Senate. Such appointments are considered to be effective for life (under Article III of the U.S.
Constitution), meaning judges remain in office until they die, assume senior status, resign, retire,
or are removed by Congress through the process of impeachment.
Territorial district court judges, serving the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands,46 are also appointed by the President with the advice and consent
of the Senate (under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution). These appointments, however, are not
effective for life but are for a fixed 10-year term in office.
U.S. Magistrate Judges
Certain types of trials and proceedings held by district courts can also be conducted by magistrate
judges.47 A district court judge may refer certain matters to a magistrate judge (e.g., a magistrate
judge may be assigned to hold a pretrial conference or an evidentiary hearing). A magistrate judge
may also conduct any type of civil trial as long as the parties consent (i.e., there is consent
jurisdiction), and they may also preside over al misdemeanor criminal trials as long as a
defendant has waived his right to a trial before a district judge.48 Magistrate judges cannot preside
over felony criminal cases (but can handle pretrial matters and preliminary proceedings in such
cases).49
The number of magistrate judge positions is determined by the Judicial Conference of the United
States. For FY2019, the Judicial Conference50 authorized 549 full-time magistrate judge
positions, 29 part-time positions, and 3 combination clerk/magistrate judge positions.51 Magistrate

authority to govern the territories granted by Article IV of the Constitution. Judges confirmed to these courts serve 10 -
year terms (unlike Article III U.S. dist rict court judges, who are appointed for life unless they voluntarily leave office
or are removed from office by Congress). As with Article III courts, territorial courts hear cases arising out of federal
law, their decisions may be appealed to a U.S. circuit court of appeals, and their judicial nominations are referred to the
Senate Judiciary Committee.
45 T his total includes 4 permanent territorial district court judgeships and 10 temporary U.S. district court judgeships.
See the U.S. Courts website at http://www.uscourts.gov/JudgesAndJudgeships/A uthorizedJudgeships.aspx.
46 Judges appointed to U.S. district courts for the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puer to Rico are
appointed as Article III judges (and not as territorial district court judges).
47 T he office of magistrate judge was created by the Federal Magistrates Act of 1968, in part, to provide relief to district
court judges in handling their caseloads. Federal Judicial Center, “ Magistrate Judges,” at https://www.fjc.gov/history/
judges/magistrate-judgeships.
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid.
50 T he Judicial Conference of the United States is the principal policymaking body for the federal courts system. T he
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the presiding officer of the conference, which comprises the chief judges of the
13 courts of appeals, a district judge from each of the 12 geographic circuits, and the chief judge of the Court of
International T rade.
51 Under 28 U.S.C. §631(c), with the approval of the Judicial Conference, a clerk or deputy clerk of a court may be
appointed as a part -time magistrate judge. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “ Status of Magistrate Judge
Congressional Research Service

13

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

judges are non-Article III judges and are appointed by majority vote of the active district court
judges serving on the court to which the magistrate would serve. Full-time magistrate judges
serve a term of eight years and may be reappointed.52
For the 12-month period ending September 30, 2019, magistrate judges disposed of a total of
1,387,592 matters53—this included 354,381 civil matters that had been referred to them by district
court judges; 17,817 civil cases in which they were the presiding judges for al proceedings by
consent of the parties; 244,367 felony pretrial matters (e.g., disposing of certain types of
motions); and 539,629 felony preliminary proceedings (e.g., search warrant applications). Other
matters disposed of by magistrate judges included Class A misdemeanor cases, petty offense
cases, and cases brought by prisoners (involving, for example, habeas corpus petitions and civil
rights claims).
U.S. Bankruptcy Courts
Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters (i.e., a bankruptcy case cannot
be filed in state court). Bankruptcy courts are units of the federal district courts and exercise
jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters as granted by statute and referred to them by their respective
district courts.54
For the 12-month period ending September 30, 2019, debtors filed a total of 776,674 bankruptcy
petitions—a 0.4% increase for the same period ending September 30, 2018.55 Of al petitions filed
during the 2019 fiscal year, nonbusiness (mostly consumer) petitions accounted for
approximately 97% and business petitions accounted for 3%.56
As of September 2019, there were a total of 347 bankruptcy judgeships authorized by Congress
(i.e., the number of bankruptcy judges is determined by Congress).57 This was three fewer than in
September 2018 due to the lapse of several temporary bankruptcy judgeships.58
Bankruptcy judges are non-Article III judges appointed by the court of appeals for the circuit
where the bankruptcy court is located. Judges are appointed for a term of 14 years and may be
reappointed.
U.S. Court of Federal Claims
This court has nationwide jurisdiction over various types of monetary claims against the federal
government, including “those involving tax refunds, federal taking of private property for public
use, pay and dismissal of federal civilian employees, pay and dismissal of military personnel,

Positions and Appointments—Judicial Business 2018,” at https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/status-magistrate-
judge-positions-and-appointments-judicial-business-2018.
52 28 U.S.C. §631(d).
53 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “U.S. Magistrate Judges—Judicial Business 2019,” at
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/us-magistrate-judges-judicial-business-2019.
54 Federal Judicial Center, “U.S. Bankruptcy Courts,” at https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/u.s.-bankruptcy-courts.
55 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “U.S. Bankruptcy Courts—Judicial Business 2019,” at
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/us-bankruptcy-courts-judicial-business-2019.
56 Ibid.
57 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Status of Bankruptcy Judgeships—Judicial Business 2019,” at
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/status-bankruptcy-judgeships-judicial-business-2019.
58 Specifically, two temporary judgeships for the Central District of California and one temporary judgeship for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania lapsed. Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

14

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

land claims brought by Native Americans and/or their tribe(s), contract disputes, bid protests,
patents and copyright, congressional reference, and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Act.”59
Each January, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §791(c), the clerk of the Court of Federal Claims submits to
Congress a statement of al the judgments rendered by the court. The statement “notes the names
of the claimants, the amounts, the dates of entry and nature of the claims, and the disposition for
al judgments rendered the previous fiscal year.”60
In 2019, filings decreased in the court by 8% to 2,044.61
The court consists of 16 non-Article III judges who are appointed for a term of 15 years by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Probation and Pretrial Services
Federal probation and pretrial services officers investigate and supervise defendants and offenders
within the federal criminal justice system. A pretrial services officer “supervises defendants
awaiting trial who are released”62 and provides reports “upon which the court can determine the
conditions of release or detention while criminal cases are pending adjudication.”63
A probation officer “provides the court with reliable information concerning the offender, the
victim, and the offense committed, as wel as an impartial application of the sentencing
guidelines.”64 Officers also “supervise offenders sentenced to probation, as wel as offenders
coming out of federal prison who are required to serve a term of supervised release.”65
In 2019, pretrial services officers prepared 103,092 pretrial services reports for judges—an
increase of 8% from 2018.66 Of these reports, 97% were prebail reports.67 Additional y, officers
provided pretrial services supervision for approximately 26,116 defendants—an increase of 10%
from 2018.68 Such supervision included providing various support services (e.g., substance abuse
treatment and location monitoring) and informing the courts and U.S. attorneys of any apparent
violations of release conditions.69
In 2019, a total of 128,904 individuals were under postconviction supervision by probation
officers—a decrease of less than 1% from 2018.70 Of those under postconviction supervision,

59 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “U.S. Courts of Federal Claims—Judicial Business 2019,” at
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/us-court -federal-claims-judicial-business-2019.
60 Ibid.
61 Ibid.
62 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2020 Congressional Budget Summary,
“Overview of the Judiciary,” p. 3.
63 Ibid.
64 Ibid.
65 Ibid.
66 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Pretrial Services—Judicial Business 2019,” at https://www.uscourts.gov/
statistics-reports/pretrial-services-judicial-business-2019.
67 Ibid.
68 Ibid.
69 Ibid.
70 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Post-Conviction Supervision—Judicial Business 2019,” at
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/post -conviction-supervision-judicial-business-2019.
Congressional Research Service

15

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

46% had been convicted of drug offenses; 17% had been convicted of property offenses; and 15%
had been convicted of firearms offenses.71
Federal probation officers also prepared 73,337 presentence investigative reports—an increase of
9% from 2018.72
Defender Services
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to representation by counsel
in serious criminal proceedings. The federal judiciary has, historical y, exercised “responsibility
for appointing counsel in federal criminal proceedings for those unable to bear the cost of
representation.”73
This account in the judiciary budget funds the operations of federal defender organizations
responsible for providing representation to defendants financial y unable to retain counsel in
federal criminal proceedings. At present, there are 81 authorized federal defender organizations
that employ more than 3,700 lawyers, investigators, paralegals, and support personnel.74
This account also provides funds to reimburse the services of private appointed counsel (i.e.,
panel attorneys) in federal criminal proceedings. The rates paid to panel attorneys cover both
attorney compensation and office overhead.75 There are case maximum amounts that limit the
compensation paid to a panel attorney based on the type of case to which he or she is appointed.76
Consequently, the costs associated with this account are driven, in part, by the number and type of
prosecutions brought by U.S. attorneys offices.
Court Security
This account provides for protective guard services and security systems and equipment for
United States courthouses and other facilities housing federal court operations.
The majority of funding for court security is transferred to the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS),
which is responsible for ensuring “the safe and secure conduct of judicial proceedings” and for
“protecting federal judges, jurors, and other members of the federal judiciary.”77

71 Ibid.
72 Ibid.
73 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Defender Services, at https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/defender-
services.
74 Ibid. T here are two types of federal defender organizations. T he first type, federal public defender organizations, are
federal entities and their staffs are federal employees. T he chief federal public defender is appointed to a four-year term
by the court of appeals of the circuit where the federal public defender organization is located. T he second type,
community defender organizations, are nonprofit defense counsel organizations incorporated under state laws. T hese
nonprofit organizations operate under the supervision of a board of directors and can, when included in a judicial
district’s plan to provide legal representation to indigent defendants, receive initial and sustaining grants from the
federal judiciary to fund their operations. Ibid.
75 At present, panel attorneys are paid an hourly rate of $148 on noncapital cases, and, in capital cases, a maximum
hourly rate of $190. Ibid.
76 For example, $11,500 is the maximum attorney compensation for felony cases; $3,300 is the maximum for
misdemeanors; and $8,200 is the maximum for ap peals. T hese maximums may be exceeded if higher amounts are
approved by the district judge (or circuit judge if the case is at the appellate level) and the chief judge of the circuit al so
approves. Ibid.
77 U.S. Marshals Service, Fact Sheet – Judicial Security 2021, at https://www.usmarshals.gov/judicial.
Congressional Research Service

16

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

At present, the Marshals protect 94 federal district courts, 866 judicial facilities (encompassing 67
mil ion square feet) and approximately 2,700 federal judges.78 The Marshals also have protective
responsibility for approximately 30,300 federal prosecutors and court officials.79 In FY2020, the
Marshals assessed or handled 4,261 threats and inappropriate communications against protected
persons in the judiciary.80 Additional y, in FY2020, the Marshals “managed the design,
instal ation, repair and replacement of 110 security projects, totaling $93.7 mil ion, to address
vulnerabilities to judicial personnel and facilities.”81
As part of its mission to protect the federal judicial process, the U.S. Marshals Service
administers the Judicial Facility Security Program (funded by the Court Security account). The
program “oversees the daily operation and management of security services performed by
approximately 5,600 court security officers”82 and “instal s and maintains security systems for the
protection of federal courthouses and other judicial facilities.”83
Fees of Jurors and Commissioners
This account in the judiciary’s budget funds the fees and al owances provided to petit and grand
jurors and compensation for jury and land commissioners.84 Petit jurors serve on a trial jury, while
grand jurors serve on a grand jury.85 Petit jurors are paid $50 per day86 but can, after serving 10
days on a jury, receive up to $60 per day.87 Grand jurors are also paid $50 per day but can, after
serving 45 days on a grand jury, receive up to $60 per day.88

78 Ibid.
79 Ibid.
80 Ibid.
81 Ibid.
82 Ibid.
83 Ibid.
84 Land commissioners are appointed in certain types of cases to “determine the issue of just compensation arising from
the deprivation of private property for public use,”84 including cases where a district court has ordered that
“compensation for condemned property be determined by a commission of three persons appointed by the court.” Land
commissioners are paid based on the daily equivalent of the highest rate payable under 5 U.S.C. §5332. U.S.
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Courts Of Appeals, District Courts, And Other Judicial Services—Fees of
Jurors and Com m issioners—Sum m ary Statem ent Of Account Requirem ents, p. 6.9, at https://www.uscourts.gov/file/
25694/download.
85 A trial jury decides “whether the defendant committed the crime as charged in a criminal case, or whether the
defendant injured the plaintiff in a civil case.” A grand jury “is presented with evidence from the U.S. attorney, the
prosecutor in federal criminal cases. T he grand jury determines whether there is ‘probable cause’ to believe the
individual has committed a crime and should be put on trial. If the grand jury determines there is enough evidence, an
indictment will be issued against the defendant.” Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Types of Juries, at
https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/jury-service/types-juries.
86 In FY2018, Congress approved the judiciary’s request t o increase the daily petit juror attendance fee from $40 to
$50, as well as increase the daily grand juror attendance fee from $40 to $50.
87 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Juror Pay, at https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/jury-service/juror-
pay.
88 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

17

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

Petit and grand jurors are also reimbursed for reasonable transportation expenses and parking
fees.89 Jurors can receive a subsistence al owance that covers their meals and lodging if they are
sequestered during their service.90
A jury commissioner is appointed in some cases to work with the clerk of court to manage the
random selection of petit and grand jurors.91 The compensation paid to a jury commissioner is
$50 per day (plus the reimbursement of reasonable expenses related to his or her service).92
According to the U.S. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “costs associated with this
account can be unpredictable and are driven by the number of jury trials, the length of those trials,
and statutory rates for reimbursement paid to jurors.”93
Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 198694 created a program to provide compensation
to people found to be injured by certain vaccines.95 The program “is designed to encourage
vaccination by providing a streamlined system for compensation in rare instances where an injury
results from vaccination”96 and provides “an alternative to traditional products liability and
medical malpractice litigation for persons injured by their receipt or one or more of the standard
childhood vaccines.”97
The program, according to the Department of Justice, “has succeeded in providing a less
adversarial, less expensive, and less time-consuming system of recovery than the traditional tort
system that governs medical malpractice, personal injury, and product liability cases.”98
The Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund provides funding for the compensation program,
covering claims related to vaccine-related injuries or deaths for covered vaccines administered on
or after October 1, 1988. An individual who believes he or she has been injured by a covered
vaccine can seek compensation from the fund by filing a claim against the Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.99
According to the most recent National Vaccine Injury Compensation Report (updated March 1,
2021) published by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), more than 23,902
petitions have been filed since 1988 with the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.100 Of these

89 Ibid.
90 Ibid.
91 28 U.S.C. §1863.
92 28 U.S.C. §1863(b)(1).
93 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2021 Congressional Budget Summary, p. 43, at
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/fy_2021_congressional_budget_summary_0.pdf.
94 42 U.S.C. §§300aa-1 to 300aa-34.
95 T he program “was established after lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and healthcare providers threatened to
cause vaccine shortages and reduce vaccination rates.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health
Resources and Service Administration, About the National Vaccine Injury Com pensation Program , at
https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/about/index.html.
96 U.S. Department of Justice, Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, at https://www.justice.gov/civil/vicp.
97 Ibid.
98 Ibid.
99 Ibid.
100 Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA), “Vaccine In jury Compensation Data,” at
https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/data/index.html.
Congressional Research Service

18

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

petitions, 19,609 have been adjudicated—with 7,874 petitions determined to be compensable and
11,735 petitions dismissed. The total compensation paid over the life of the program is
approximately $4.5 bil ion.101 The Department of the Treasury manages the fund’s investments.102
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) “is the agency within the judicial branch that
provides a broad range of legislative, legal, financial, technology, management, administrative,
and program support services to federal courts.”103 A main responsibility of AO is to provide staff
support and counsel for the Judicial Conference, the national policymaking body for the federal
courts, and the Conference’s committees.
With input from the Judicial Conference, AO also develops the annual judiciary budget for
submission by the President and approval by Congress.
Federal Judicial Center
As the federal judiciary’s research and education entity, the Federal Judicial Center (FJC)
“develops orientation and continuing education programs for judges and other court personnel. It
also studies judiciary operations and recommends to the Judicial Conference how to improve the
management and administration of the federal courts.”104
The operations of the FJC are “overseen by a board of directors whose members are the Chief
Justice, the director of the Administrative Office, and seven judges chosen by the Judicial
Conference.”105
United States Sentencing Commission
The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency that is located within the
federal judiciary. It was created by Congress in 1984 “to reduce sentencing disparities and
promote transparency and proportionality in sentencing.”106 As such, the commission establishes
and amends sentencing guidelines for the federal criminal justice system, as wel as “monitors
sentencing recommendations by probation officers and operates an information center on
sentencing practices.”107

101 Ibid.
102 Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA), “About the National Vaccine Injur y Compensation
Program,” at https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/about/index.html.
103 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Judicial Administration, at https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/
judicial-administration.
104 Ibid.
105 Ibid.
106 United States Sentencing Commission, About the Commission, at https://www.ussc.gov.
107 Administrative Office of the U.S. Court s, Judicial Administration, at https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/
judicial-administration. For FY2018, 87.8% of federal offenders received a sentence of impr isonment (and no other
type of sentence); 6.4% received probation (and no other type of sentence); 3.0% received a sentence of imprisonment
and alternatives; 2.0% received probation and alternatives; and 0.8% received a fine (and no other type of sentence) .
United States Sentencing Commission, U.S. Sentencing Com m ission’s 2018 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing
Statistics, 2018 Sentencing Information, Sentence T ype for Federal Offenders, Figure 6, at https://www.ussc.gov/
research/sourcebook-2018.
Congressional Research Service

19

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

The commission consists of seven voting members appointed by the President and confirmed by
the Senate, with members serving staggered six-year terms.108 No more than four members of the
commission can be members of the same political party, and at least three members must be
federal judges.109 In order for a sentencing guideline to be amended, the amendment must receive
the affirmative votes of four members of the commission.110
The commission has a staff of approximately 100 employees.111 The commission is also advised
by “four standing advisory groups representing the views of practitioners, probation officers,
victims, and tribal lands.”112 The purpose, in part, of the advisory group representing the views of
tribal lands is to provide the commission “its views on federal sentencing issues related to
American Indian defendants and victims and to offenses committed in Indian Country.”113
Federal Courts Not Funded by the Judiciary Budget
Three specialized courts within the federal court system are not funded under the judiciary
budget: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (funded in the Department of Defense
appropriations bil ), the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (funded in the Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bil ), and the U.S. Tax Court
(funded under Independent Agencies, Title V of the FSGG bil ). Additional y, federal courthouse
construction is funded within the General Services Administration account under Independent
Agencies, Title V of the FSGG bil .
Select Ongoing Policy Issues for FY2021
Number of U.S. District and Circuit Court Judgeships
Congress determines through legislative action both the size and structure of the federal judiciary.
Consequently, the creation of any new permanent or temporary U.S. circuit and district court
judgeships must be authorized by Congress.
The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body of the federal courts, makes
biennial recommendations to Congress that identify any circuit and district courts that, according
to the conference, require new permanent judgeships to appropriately administer civil and
criminal justice in the federal court system. In evaluating whether a court might need additional
judgeships, the Judicial Conference examines whether certain caseload levels have been met, as
wel as court-specific information that might uniquely affect a particular court.
The Judicial Conference’s most recent recommendation, released in March 2021, cal s for the
creation of two new permanent judgeships for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
(composed of California, eight other western states, and two U.S. territories). The Conference

108 United States Sentencing Commission, About—Organization, at https://www.ussc.gov/about/who-we-are/
organization.
109 Ibid. Additionally, the Attorney General, or the Attorney General’s designee, and the Chair of the U.S. Parole
Commission are each ex officio, nonvoting members of the commission.
110 Ibid.
111 Ibid.
112 United States Sentencing Commission, About, at https://www.ussc.gov/about-page.
113 United States Sentencing Commission, Advisory Groups—Tribal Issues Advisory Group, at https://www.ussc.gov/
about/who-we-are/advisory-groups.
Congressional Research Service

20

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

also recommends creating 77 new permanent U.S. district court judgeships, as wel as converting
9 current temporary district court judgeships to permanent status.114
According to the Judicial Conference, since the enactment of the most recent omnibus judgeship
bil in 1990 (P.L. 101-650), the number of U.S. circuit court judgeships has remained at 179 while
appel ate court case filings increased by 15% through the end of FY2018. During this same time
period, Congress enacted legislation that increased the number of permanent and temporary
district judgeships by 4% (from 645 to 673) while district court case filings increased by 39%. 115
In terms of specific types of cases, civil cases increased by 34% during the same period, and
cases involving criminal felony defendants increased by 60%.116
On February 24, 2021, the Subcommittee on Courts, Intel ectual Property, and the Internet of the
House Judiciary Committee held a hearing to explore “the impact on the judiciary, judges, and
litigants of not having a major addition of new lower court judgeships since the last
comprehensive judgeship bil in 1990.”117 In his opening remarks at the hearing, subcommittee
Chairman Representative Hank Johnson (GA) said that, since 1990, “the country grew by 75
mil ion people. Our economy more than doubled. The world became increasingly connected and
complex, and the business of the courts changed accordingly. But even after three decades of
rising caseloads and increasingly difficult cases, the number of federal judges has stayed almost
exactly the same.”118 While there was, general y, broad agreement among subcommittee members
over the need for new judgeships, some members expressed concern over the timing of the
hearing, held at the beginning of a new presidency, and any proposed legislation that might be
perceived as giving one party an advantage in making appointments to the federal bench.119
Judicial Security
Congress has, in the past, appropriated funds specifical y to enhance the personal security of
judges. For example, an FY2005 supplemental appropriations act included a provision providing
funds for home intrusion detection systems for federal judges.120 Additional y, the Court Security
Improvement Act of 2007 included various measures to enhance security for judges and court
personnel, as wel as courtroom safety for the public.121 The act, for example, amended 18 U.S.C.
§930(e)(1) to prohibit the possession of dangerous weapons (other than firearms, which were
already prohibited) in federal court facilities.

114 For a list of U.S. district courts that the conference recommends receive new judgeships, see
https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2021/03/16/judiciary-seeks-new-judgeships-reaffirms-need-enhanced-security.
115 Judicial Conference of the United States, letter to the Honorable Lindsey Graham, Chairman, Senate Committee on
the Judiciary, May 14, 2019, Appendix 2, p. 1.
116 Ibid.
117 Rep. Hank Johnson, “Rep. Johnson Chairs IP Subcommittee Hearing On New Lower Court Judgesh ips,” press
release, February 24, 2021, at https://hankjohnson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-johnson-chairs-ip-
subcommittee-hearing-new-lower-court -judgeships.
118 Ibid.
119 T he subcommittee hearing is available at https://judiciary.house.gov/subcommittees/subcommittee/?
SubcommitteeID=14928.
120 P.L. 109-13 (May 11, 2005). In FY2018, the Judicial Security Division (JSD) of the U.S. Marshals Service
maintained more than 1,600 residential security systems in judges’ personal residences. U.S. Marshal Ser vice, “Judicial
Security,” at https://www.usmarshals.gov/judicial.
121 P.L. 110-177 (January 7, 2008).
Congressional Research Service

21

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

Following a fatal attack in 2020 at the home of a federal judge in New Jersey122 and the
increasing number of threats directed against federal judges,123 the federal judiciary has urged
Congress to adopt several new safety measures intended to improve the security of federal
judges.124 One measure is a request by the judiciary that Congress appropriate funds to provide
security monitoring services for active, senior, recalled, and retired federal judges (including the
use of doorbell cameras, outdoor cameras, and motion detection devices).125
The judiciary also works closely with the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) to ensure that adequate
protective policies, procedures, and practices are in place for the federal courts. As discussed in
the text above, the Marshals are largely responsible for protecting federal courthouses, judges,
and other judicial employees. In FY2018, for example, after the USMS assessed the level of
danger in explicit threats and inappropriate communications directed at judges and other court
officers, there were 531 predicated protective investigations opened “based on the presence of or
potential for criminal activity.”126
Cost Containment by the Judiciary
The judiciary has implemented a number of cost containment initiatives since 2004, with a
specific focus on implementing cost-containment initiatives related to personnel and space
costs.127 One initiative was the adoption of a 3% national space reduction target; this initiative
reportedly “resulted in approximately 1.2 mil ion useable square feet of space being removed
from the Judiciary’s rent bil .”128 Overal , the judiciary indicates in its budget materials that it
“has exceeded its national space reduction goal by approximately 37 percent”129 and “resulted in
approximately $36 mil ion in annual rent avoidance.”130
Another initiative, the “No Net New policy,” requires that any increase in square footage within a
federal judicial circuit needs to be offset by an equivalent reduction in square footage identified
within the same fiscal year.131 In FY2019, there were 10 projects approved under the No Net New
policy, and the judiciary anticipates that these projects wil “reduce the Judiciary’s footprint by an
additional 57,000 square feet and result in $3 mil ion in rent cost avoidance every year.”132

122 For additional information see Brian Mann, “Fatal N.J. Shooting By ‘Anti-Feminist’ Raises Questions About
Protection of Judges,” National Public Radio, July 22, 2020, at https://www.npr.org/2020/07/22/894121071/fatal-n-j-
shooting-by-anti-feminist -raises-questions-about -protection-of-judges.
123 “In the last five years, threats of federal judges have jumped 400% to more than 4,000 last year—many of them
death threats, sometimes ending in violence.” Bill Whitaker, “Federal Judges Call For Increased Security After T hreats
Jump 400% And One Judge’s Son Is Killed,” CBS News, February 21, 2021, at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/
federal-judge-threats-attack-60-minutes-2021-02-21.
124 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Congress Urged to Adopt Judicial Security Measures,” September 9,
2020, at https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2020/09/09/congress-urged-adopt -judicial-security-measures.
125 Ibid. Another measure would “better prevent the unauthorized release of judges’ personally identifiable information,
particularly on the internet, including restrictions on posting or sharing judges’ personal information by private or
public entities.” Ibid. And another proposed measured would “give federal judges permanent authority to redact
personally identifiable information from financial disclosure reports.” Ibid.
126 U.S. Marshals Service, “Judicial Security,” at https://www.usmarshals.gov/judicial.
127 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2021 Congressional Budget Summary, p. iii.
128 Ibid.
129 Ibid.
130 Ibid.
131 Ibid.
132 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

22

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

The Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft explanatory statement for the FSGG
FY2021 appropriations bil addressed the issue of cost containment by the judiciary, stating that
the “judicial branch is subject to the same funding constraints facing the executive and legislative
branches. It is imperative that the Federal judiciary devote its resources primarily to the retention
of staff. Further, it is also important that the judiciary contain controllable costs such as travel,
construction, and other expenses.”133
Previously, in its FY2020 budget summary, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO)
provided specific examples of the judiciary’s space reduction campaign.134 Some examples
included the following:
 The bankruptcy court for the District of New Hampshire “was relocated from leased
space in Manchester into the District Court in Concord, NH. Savings: 20,000 square
feet.”135
 In New York, the bankruptcy court in Buffalo “relocated into the district courthouse. In
Manhattan, the Bankruptcy Court reduced space by digitizing paper records. Combined
savings: 39,000 square feet.”136
 The bankruptcy court in San Francisco “saved over 25,000 square feet and $1.5 mil ion in
annual rent by moving into the Phil ip Burton Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse.”137
 Courthouse “library reductions in Camden, NJ; Wilmington, DE; Harrisburg, PA;
Philadelphia; and U.S. Virgin Islands saved over 18,000 square feet.”
 The Sixth Circuit’s library headquarters in Cincinnati “relocated to space formerly used
for Clerk’s Office file storage. Total savings: 15,000 square feet.”138
 Courthouses for which there was no permanently assigned judge, that is, non-resident
courthouses, were closed in Bryson City, NC; Wilkesboro, NC; Beaufort, SC; and
Parkersburg, WV. “Total savings: over 35,000 square feet.”139
“In Miami, 33,000 square feet and $900,000 in annual rent were saved by relocating the
Bankruptcy Court into the C. Clyde Atkins U.S. Courthouse. Two magistrate judges were
relocated, and a circuit library and jury assembly area were vacated.”140

133 Senate Appropriations Committee, “Committee Releases FY21 Bills in Effort to Advance Process, Product
Bipartisan Results,” press release, Financial Services and General Government, 2021, Explanatory Statement For
Financial Services And General Governm ent Appropriations Bill, 2021 , November 10, 2020, at
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/committee-releases-fy21-bills-in-effort-to-advance-process-produce-
bipartisan-results
134 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2020 Congressional Budget Summary, pp. iii-
iv.
135 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Judiciary Succeeds in Campaign to Cut Space and Rents,” at
https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2018/12/11/judiciary-succeeds-campaign-cut-space-and-rents.
136 Ibid.
137 Ibid.
138 Ibid.
139 Ibid.
140 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

23

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021

Author Information

Barry J. McMillion

Analyst in American National Government

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46747 · VERSION 1 · NEW
24

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Apr. 5, 2021

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

American Law

Foreign Affairs

Appropriations

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON