Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

June 10, 2022 R47155

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022
June 10, 2022
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; the 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 FY2022 budget request was submitted to Congress on May 28, 2021. By law, the President includes, without
change, the appropriations request submitted by the judiciary in the annual budget submission to Congress.
The FY2022 budget request included $8.12 billion in discretionary funds, representing a 5.2% increase over the FY2021
enacted level of $7.72 billion in discretionary funds provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260).
The FY2022 budget request also included $756.5 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. 4345) on June 29, 2021, and recommended the judiciary receive
a total of $8.15 billion in discretionary funds. On July 29, 2021, the House passed the FSGG appropriations bill as part of a
FY2022 consolidated appropriations bill (H.R. 4502).
The FSGG appropriations bill was not enacted prior to the beginning of FY2022 on October 1, 2021. Subsequently, the
judiciary was funded through a series of continuing appropriations resolutions (through December 3, 2021, by P.L. 117-43;
through February 18, 2022, by P.L. 117-70; through March 11, 2022, by P.L. 117-86; and through March 15, 2022, by P.L.
117-95).
On October 18, 2021, the Senate Appropriations Committee majority issued a press release that included, for the FSGG
appropriations bill and eight other appropriations bills, links to draft bill text, explanatory statements and bill summaries. This
draft FSGG bill would have provided $8.07 billion in discretionary funds for the federal judiciary (an increase of
approximately $354 million over the enacted level for FY2021 and approximately $78 million less than what the House
recommended for FY2022).
The final FY2022 amount enacted by Congress for the federal judiciary was $7.99 billion in discretionary funds and was
included as part of Division E in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103, March 15, 2022).
In recent years, appropriations for the judiciary have comprised 0.1% to 0.2% of the federal government’s total budget
authority.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 6 Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

Introduction
This report provides an overview of the federal judiciary’s FY2022 budget request, as well 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 FY2022 budget
request, including
 the initial submission by the President of the judiciary’s request on May 28,
2021;
 a hearing held on February 24, 2021, by the House Financial Services and
General Government Appropriations Subcommittee on the FY2022 judiciary
budget request;1
 the House subcommittee markup on June 24, 2021;
 the House Appropriations Committee markup on June 29, 2021;
 passage of an FSGG appropriations bill by the House on July 29, 2021, as part of
a FY2022 consolidated appropriations bill;
 the enactment of several continuing resolutions during the period from
September 30, 2021, to March 11, 2021;
 the Senate Appropriations Committee majority’s release, on October 18, 2021, of
a draft FSGG appropriations bill for FY2022; and
 enactment of FY2022 appropriations for the judiciary in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103, March 15, 2022).
The second section of the report provides information about the specific discretionary
appropriations requested by the judiciary for FY2022, as well 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 which are covered by
other appropriations bills).
Finally, the report provides information about relevant policy issues affecting the judiciary during
FY2022.
FY2022 Consideration: Overview of Actions
This section provides an overview of the major actions involving congressional consideration of
FY2022 judiciary appropriations. The final status of FY2022 judiciary appropriations is
summarized in Table 1.

1 While the President, by law, submits the federal judiciary’s appropriations request without change in his annual
budget submission to Congress, the judiciary can release its budget request prior to the President’s formal submission.
The judiciary released its FY2022 discretionary budget request and Congressional Budget Summary in February 2021.
The House Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee held a hearing on the judiciary’s
request that same month, prior to the formal submission of the judiciary’s request by the President on May 28, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

Table 1. Overview of Congressional Consideration of Federal Judiciary’s Budget
Request, FY2022
Committee
Resolution of House-
Markup

Senate Differences

House House Senate Senate Conference
Housea Senate Report Passage Report Passage
Report
House
Senate Public Law
6/29/2021 See table H.Rept.
7/29/21 See table
3/9/22
3/10/22 3/15/22
(33-24)
note b 117-79 (219-208) note b

(361-69)
(68-31) P.L. 117-103
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 FY2022.
a. The House subcommittee held its markup of the bil , which was reported by voice vote, on June 24, 2021.
b. On October 18, 2021, the Senate Appropriations Committee majority released draft bil text, explanatory
statements, and bil summaries for nine regular FY2022 appropriations bil s, including the FSGG bil .
Submission of FY2022 Budget Request
The President’s proposed FY2022 budget request was submitted on May 28, 2021. It included
$8.1 billion in discretionary funds for judicial branch activities and $756.5 million in mandatory
funding for judges’ salaries and judicial retirement accounts.2 By law, the judicial branch
appropriations request is submitted to the President and included in the budget submission
without change.3
In recent years, appropriations for the judiciary have comprised 0.1% to 0.2% of the federal
government’s total budget authority.4
House Subcommittee Hearing on FY2022 Budget Request
The House Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee held a
hearing on the FY2022 budget request on February 24, 2021.5 Judge John W. Lungstrum, a senior
U.S. district court judge for the District of Kansas and chairman of the Judicial Conference’s

2 Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2022, Appendix, “Detailed Budget
Estimates by Agency,” Judicial Branch, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2022-APP/pdf/BUDGET-
2022-APP.pdf. The distinction between discretionary and mandatory appropriations is discussed further in the text.
3 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: “The 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.”
4 Calculations by CRS with data from Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 5.2—Budget
Authority By Agency: 1976–2026, at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/budget/2022/BUDGET-2022-TAB.
5 While the President, by law, submits the federal judiciary’s appropriations request without change in his annual
budget submission to Congress, the judiciary can release its budget request prior to the President’s formal submission.
The judiciary released its FY2022 discretionary budget request and Congressional Budget Summary in February 2021.
The House Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee held a hearing on the judiciary’s
request that same month, prior to the formal submission of the judiciary’s request by the President on May 28, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 15 link to page 15 Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

Committee on the Budget, and Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf, director of the Administrative Office
of the U.S. Courts, both testified before the subcommittee regarding the judiciary’s request.6
In his opening statement, Representative Mike Quigley (IL), chairman of the subcommittee,
encouraged the Judicial Conference to explore permanently expanding its livestreaming practices
for certain court proceedings (which had been implemented by the judiciary to continue
operations during the COVID-19 pandemic).7 Chairman Quigley also expressed his interest in
learning more about federal defender organizations given a recent Supreme Court decision that
referred a “substantial number” of state cases to federal prosecutors.8 Additionally, Chairman
Quigley expressed interest in learning “more about the progress made on workplace misconduct
procedures at the Judiciary and on standing up a robust new office of Judiciary Integrity.”9
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and
General Government Markup
On June 24, 2021, the House subcommittee held a markup of the FY2022 Financial Services and
General Government (FSGG) bill. The subcommittee, by voice vote, recommended a total of
$8.15 billion in discretionary funds for the judiciary.10
House Appropriations Committee Markup
On June 29, 2021, the House Appropriations Committee held a markup of the FY2022 FSGG
bill.11 The committee recommended $8.15 billion in discretionary funds for the judiciary.12
The $8.15 billion in discretionary funding recommended for the judiciary represents 28.0% of the
total $29.10 billion in discretionary funding included in the FSGG appropriations bill reported by

6 The Judicial Conference of the United States is the principal policymaking body for the federal courts system. The
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 Trade. For more information, see Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Governance & the Judicial
Conference,” at https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/governance-judicial-conference.
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.” For more information, see Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Judicial Administration,” at
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/judicial-administration.
7 Opening statement of Rep. Mike Quigley, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
Financial Services and General Government, Hearing on the Judiciary’s FY 2022 Budget, February 24, 2021, at
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP23/20210224/111220/HHRG-117-AP23-MState-Q000023-20210224.pdf.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid. This is not a full list of judiciary-related issues included in Rep. Quigley’s opening statement. For additional
issues, see his full statement cited at the source above.
10 House Appropriations Committee, “Chairman Quigley Statement at Subcommittee Markup of Fiscal Year 2022
Financial Services and General Government Funding Bill,” press release, June 24, 2021, at
https://appropriations.house.gov/news/statements/chairman-quigley-statement-at-subcommittee-markup-of-fy-2022-
financial-services-and. Note that the amount reported in the text 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, “Appropriations Committee Approves Fiscal Year 2022 Financial Services and
General Government Funding Bill,” press release, June 29, 2021, at https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-
releases/appropriations-subcommittee-approves-fiscal-year-2022-financial-services-and-0.
12 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.
Congressional Research Service

3

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

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 Small Business Administration).
The FY2022 FSGG bill was ordered reported by a roll call vote of 33-24 (H.R. 4345, H.Rept.
117-79). No amendments related to the judiciary were offered during the committee markup.
The report that accompanied the House committee’s markup addressed several issues of interest
to the committee.13 Specifically, the committee’s report, in part
 commended the Supreme Court for its “continued success with real-time audio
oral arguments”;14
 encouraged the Supreme Court “to permit video coverage of all open sessions of
the Court unless allowing such coverage in any case would violate the due
process of one or more of the parties in the case before the Court”;15
 urged the Supreme Court to “adopt a Code of Conduct applicable for the
Justices” and expressed its expectation “to be briefed on proposals for the
adoption of a Code of Conduct within 60 days” of the appropriations act being
enacted;16
 expressed its hope that “the momentum created from using technology to
continue operations during the COVID-19 pandemic will continue, allowing
greater public access to the courts”;17 and
 expressed its concern with the “safety of all Judicial employees” and with “the
number of recent attacks and threats made to Judicial staff.” The committee
requested to be kept informed of the security resources needed to protect the
employees of the federal judiciary.18
Passage by the House
The FSGG appropriations bill, included as part of a FY2022 consolidated appropriations bill
(H.R. 4502), was passed by a roll call vote of 219-208 in the House on July 29, 2021. No
amendments were offered during House consideration that were related to the judiciary.

13 The joint explanatory statement that accompanied final enactment of the FSGG appropriations bill as part of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, does not include any language that contradicts the language used by H.Rept.
117-79 for the five issues described by the bullet points in the text.
14 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
Bill, 2022, report to accompany H.R. 4345, 117th Cong., 1st sess., July 1, 2021, H.Rept. 117-79, p.49.
15 H.Rept. 117-79, p. 50.
16 H.Rept. 117-79, p. 50.
17 H.Rept. 117-79, p. 49.
18 H.Rept. 117-79, p. 49.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 15 Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

Senate Appropriations Committee Majority Release of Draft Bill
Text, Explanatory Statement, and Bill Summary for FY2022 FSGG
Appropriations Bill
On October 18, 2021, the Senate Appropriations Committee majority issued a press release that
provided hypertext links to draft legislative text, explanatory statements, and highlights for nine
FY2022 appropriations bills, including the FSGG bill.19
The Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft recommended a total of $8.07 billion in
discretionary funds for the judiciary.20 The draft stated the position that the amount recommended
by the committee supports “the Federal judiciary’s role of providing equal justice under the law
and include[s] sufficient funds to support this critical mission.”21
Enactment of Four Continuing Appropriations Resolutions
Final enactment of the judiciary’s budget did not occur prior to the beginning of FY2022 on
October 1, 2021. Consequently, the judiciary was funded through December 3, 2021, by the
Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 117-43,
September 30, 2021). The act passed both the House and Senate on September 30, 2021. It was
also signed by the President on the same date.
Congress enacted three additional continuing resolutions prior to the final enactment of FY2022
regular appropriations for the federal judiciary:
 Further Extending Government Funding Act (P.L. 117-70, December 3, 2021)—
funded through February 18, 2022;
 Further Additional Continuing Resolution (P.L. 117-86, February 18, 2022)—
funded through March 11, 2022; and
 Extension of Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 117-95, March 11, 2022)—
funded through March 15, 2022.
Final Enactment of FY2022 Regular Appropriations for the
Judiciary
Enactment of the judiciary’s budget for FY2022 was included in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2022.22 The total amount in discretionary funds appropriated for the judiciary was $7.99
billion, while the amount in mandatory funds provided for the judiciary was $761.3 million. The
act passed the House on March 9, 2022, and passed the Senate on March 10, 2022. It was signed
by the President on March 15, 2022.

19 Senate Appropriations Committee, “Chairman Leahy Releases Remaining Nine Senate Appropriations Bills,” press
release, October 18, 2021, at https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/majority/chairman-leahy-releases-remaining-
nine-senate-appropriations-bills.
20 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.
21 Senate Appropriations Committee, Explanatory Statement for Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Bill, 2022, October 18, 2021, https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
FSGGRPT_FINAL2.PDF.
22 P.L. 117-103 (March 15, 2022).
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 10 Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

Joint Explanatory Statement
The joint explanatory statement that accompanied Division E of the Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2022 directs the judiciary to submit reports on various issues to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and Senate, including
 a report “on how to expand the number of judgeships in districts with the highest
caseload per judge and highest number of recommended judgeships”;23
 a report “on the number of formal workplace misconduct complaints received,
investigations conducted, types of misconduct alleged or found, and actions taken
to address identified misconduct in each judicial circuit, separately reporting
those complaints relating to claims of sexual harassment and other sexual
misconduct”;24 and
 a report “identifying jurisdictions that have a high number of civil jury trials and
analyze whether the litigation practices, local court rules, or other factors in those
jurisdictions may contribute to a higher incidence of civil jury trials.”25
FY2022 Judiciary Budget Request
Discretionary Appropriations
The judiciary’s FY2022 discretionary budget request totaled $8.12 billion and represented a 5.2%
increase from the $7.72 billion in discretionary appropriations enacted by Congress for FY2021.
Table 2 lists, for each account included in the judiciary’s discretionary budget, (1) the amount
enacted by Congress for FY2021, (2) the judiciary’s FY2022 request, (3) the FY2022 amount that
passed the House, (4) the FY2022 amount included in the Senate Appropriations Committee
majority draft bill, and (5) the FY2022 enacted amount.
Table 2. Judiciary Discretionary Appropriations, FY2021-FY2022
(in millions of dollars)
FY2022 Senate
FY2022
Committee
FY2021
FY2022
House
Majority Draft
FY2022

Enacted Requested
Passed
Bill
Enacted
Supreme Court (total)
$105.3
$107.8
$108.6
$108.6
$112.7
Salaries and Expenses
$94.7
$97.5
$98.3
$98.3
$98.3
Building and Grounds
$10.6
$10.3
$10.3
$10.3
$14.4
U.S. Court of Appeals
$33.5
$34.3
$34.5
$34.5
$34.3
for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of
$20.0
$20.7
$20.8
$20.8
$20.6
International Trade

23 Joint Explanatory Statement, Division E—Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act 2022, p.
24, available at https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20220307/BILLS-117RCP35-JES-DIVISION-E.pdf.
24 Ibid., p. 25 (the explanatory statement also requires the report to include comparable statistics for the Administrative
Office of U.S. Courts, the Federal Judicial Center, and the Sentencing Commission).
25 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

6

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

FY2022 Senate
FY2022
Committee
FY2021
FY2022
House
Majority Draft
FY2022

Enacted Requested
Passed
Bill
Enacted
Courts of Appeals,
$7,416.3
$7,807.0
$7,831.8
$7,758.8
$7,670.6
District Courts, and
Other Judicial Services
(total)
Salaries and Expenses
$5,393.7
$5,651.4
$5,724.4
$5,651.4
$5,580.1
Defender Services
$1,316.2
$1,409.6
$1,368.2
$1,368.2
$1,343.2
Court Security
$664.0
$682.1
$682.3
$682.3
$704.8
Fees of Jurors and
$32.5
$53.7
$47.0
$47.0
$32.6
Commissioners
Vaccine Injury Comp.
$9.9
$10.2
$9.9
$9.9
$9.9
Trust Fund
Administrative Office
$95.7
$100.3
$103.6
$100.0
$98.5
of the U.S. Courts
Federal Judicial Center
$29.0
$31.9
$32.2
$30.4
$29.9
U.S. Sentencing
$20.0
$20.6
$20.8
$20.8
$20.6
Commission
TOTAL (Judiciary)
$7,719.8
$8,122.6
$8,152.3
$8,073.9
$7,987.2
Sources: Congressional Research Service examination of data from (1) FY2022 Judicial Branch Budget Justification;
(2) FY2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act (LHHSED, AG, E&W, FSGG, Int., MCVA, THUD), H.R. 4502 (July
29, 2021); (3) draft of FSGG appropriations bil text provided by Senate Appropriations Committee at
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FSGGFY2022_Final2.PDF; and (4) FY2022 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, H.R. 2471 (P.L. 117-103, March 15, 2022).
Notes: All figures are rounded, and column sums may not equal the total due to rounding.
Percentage of Judiciary’s FY2022 Request Enacted by Congress
Overall, Congress enacted $7.99 billion, or 98.3%, of the judiciary’s FY2022 discretionary
budget request of $8.12 billion.26 As shown by Figure 1, the enacted amount for FY2022
represents a 3.5% increase over the regular appropriations amount enacted by Congress for
FY2021. As shown by the figure, the 3.5% increase was also greater than the median annual
percentage change (an increase of 2.7%) in enacted discretionary appropriations from FY2012 to
FY2022.27

26 This was a slight decrease from the percentage of the judiciary’s budget request that Congress enacted for FY2021,
when Congress enacted $7.72 billion, or 98.8%, of the judiciary’s FY2021 budget request of $7.82 billion.
27 The amounts included in Figure 1 do not include supplemental appropriations provided to the judiciary by Congress.
For example, the amount reported for FY2020 does not include supplemental appropriations provided to assist the
judiciary in responding to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). On March 27, 2020, the President signed the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”) to address the nationwide impact of COVID-
19. The act, in part, provided $7.5 million in funding for the federal judiciary to respond to the pandemic. Specifically,
the CARES Act made appropriations to the federal judiciary “to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus,
domestically or internationally.” 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 million); and the Defender Services account ($1 million).
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 10 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 10

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

Figure 1. Discretionary Judiciary Appropriations Enacted by Congress
(FY2012 to FY2022)

Source: Congressional Research Service compilation of data provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts.
Note: The amounts reported in the figure do not include any supplemental appropriations for the judiciary that
may have been enacted during a fiscal year.
The enacted FY2022 amount for 10 of the 12 accounts was, in each case, at least 95% of the
judiciary’s FY2022 request for that account.28 For example, for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit account, Congress provided $34.3 million—representing 100% of the judiciary’s
FY2022 request of $34.3 million.
Altogether, for seven accounts, Congress appropriated less than the amount requested by the
judiciary in its FY2022 budget submission.29 For two accounts, Congress passed the same amount
as was requested by the judiciary.30 And for three accounts, Congress appropriated more than the
amount requested by the judiciary in its FY2022 budget submission.31
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.”
Three Largest Discretionary Accounts for FY2022
Of the judiciary’s FY2022 request for $8.12 billion 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 69.6% of the request. The
second-greatest percentage was for the Defender Services account, representing 17.4% of the total
discretionary request. The third greatest percentage was for the Court Security account,

28 The two accounts for which Congress appropriated less than 95% of the judiciary’s FY2022 request were the Federal
Judicial Center (93.7% of request enacted) and Fees of Jurors and Commissioners (60.7%) accounts.
29 These seven accounts (and the percentage of the judiciary’s FY2022 request that was passed by Congress) are U.S.
Court of International Trade (99.5%); Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services—Salaries and
Expenses (98.7%); Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (98.2%); Vaccine Injury Trust Fund (97.1%); Defender
Services (95.3%); Federal Judicial Center (93.7%); and Fees of Jurors and Commissioners (60.7%).
30 These two accounts are the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
31 These three accounts (and the percentage of the judiciary’s FY2022 request that was enacted by Congress) are the
Supreme Court-Building and Grounds (139.8%); Court Security (103.3%); and Supreme Court—Salaries and Expenses
(100.8%).
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 10 link to page 10

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

representing 8.4% of the request.32 The remaining 4.7% of the FY2022 discretionary request was
for the other accounts listed in the table.33
Figure 2 shows, for the total appropriation amount enacted by Congress for FY2022, the
percentage breakdown of the total by the enacted amounts for the 12 judiciary accounts listed in
Table 1. Of the $7.99 billion that was enacted by Congress for the judiciary’s FY2022 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 16.8% of the total enacted amount. The third-greatest percentage was for the Court
Security account, representing 8.8% of the enacted amount.34 The amounts appropriated for the
Salaries and Expenses—Supreme Court and Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts accounts
each represent 1.2% of the total enacted amount for the judiciary’s FY2022 discretionary
appropriations. The remaining 2.1% of the FY2022 enacted amount was for the other seven
accounts listed in the table.35
Figure 2. Enacted Discretionary Appropriations, Percentage by Account
(FY2022)

Source: Congressional Research Service compilation of data provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts.
Three Largest Percentage Increases from FY2021 Enacted Amounts
Comparison to Requested Amounts for FY2022
Of the accounts listed in Table 2, the largest percentage increase between the amount enacted in
FY2021 and the amount requested by the judiciary for FY2022 was for the Fees of Jurors and
Commissioners account—a 65.2% increase. The next greatest percentage increase was for the

32 Altogether, these three accounts represented 95.4% of the judiciary’s discretionary budget request for FY2022.
33 The remaining nine accounts are listed here in descending order from the greatest percentage to smallest percentage
of the judiciary’s FY2022 discretionary budget request: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (1.2%); Supreme
Court—Salaries and Expenses (1.2%); Fees of Jurors and Commissioners (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
Commission (0.3%); Supreme Court—Building and Grounds (0.1%); and the Vaccine Injury Trust Fund (0.1%).
34 Altogether, these three accounts represent 95.5% of the judiciary’s enacted FY2022 budget.
35 The remaining seven accounts are listed here in descending order from the greatest percentage to smallest percentage
of the judiciary’s enacted FY2022 discretionary budget request: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (0.4%);
Fees of Jurors and Commissioners (0.4%); Federal Judicial Center (0.4%); U.S. Court of International Trade (0.3%);
U.S. Sentencing Commission (0.3%); Supreme Court—Building and Grounds (0.2%); and the Vaccine Injury Trust
Fund (0.1%).
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 10 link to page 10 Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

Federal Judicial Center account, a 10.0% increase, followed by the increase for the Defender
Services account, a 7.1% increase.36
Comparison to Enacted Amounts for FY2022
Of the same accounts listed in the table, the largest percentage increase between the amount
enacted in FY2021 and the amount enacted by Congress for FY2022 was for the Supreme Court
Building and Grounds account, an increase of 35.8%. The second-greatest percentage increase
was for the Court Security account—a 6.1% increase from the FY2021enacted mount. The third
greatest increase was for the Supreme Court Salaries and Expenses account, a 3.8% increase.37
None of the three accounts for which there was the greatest percentage increase between the
FY2021 enacted amount and the amount requested by the judiciary for FY2022 were the same as
the three accounts for which there was the greatest percentage increase between the FY2021
enacted amount and the amount enacted by Congress for the judiciary in FY2022.
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 fees
and fees associated with obtaining case and docket information online from various federal
courts.38 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.

36 Of all the accounts listed in Table 2, the percentage change between the amount enacted in FY2021 and the amount
requested for FY2022 ranged from a decrease of -2.8% (for the Supreme Court—Building and Grounds account) to an
increase of 65.2% for the Fees of Jurors and Commissioners account.
37 Of all the accounts listed in Table 2, the percentage change between the amount enacted in FY2021 and the amount
enacted in FY2022 ranged from no change in the amount appropriated (for the Vaccine Injury Trust Fund account) to a
high of 35.8% for the Supreme Court Building and Grounds account.
38 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.
The Public Access to Court Electronic Records, or PACER, is a fee-generating service that allows users to obtain case
and docket information online from federal appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts, and the PACER Case Locator.
Many users are charged a fee to obtain such information (although there are some circumstances for which there is no
fee charged for accessing court records—see, e.g., PACER, “Options to Access Records if you Cannot Afford PACER
Fees,” at https://pacer.uscourts.gov/my-account-billing/billing/options-access-records-if-you-cannot-afford-pacer-fees).
According to the federal judiciary, PACER is provided “in keeping with its commitment 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.... The 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.” Title IV, §404(a); 104 Stat. 2132-2133.
Congressional Research Service

10

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

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 fall 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—specifically, 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 shows, by account, the enacted mandatory appropriations for FY2021 and the estimated
mandatory appropriations for FY2022.
Table 3. Judiciary Mandatory Funding, FY2021-FY2022
(in millions of dollars)
FY2021
FY2022
Account
Enacted
Estimated
Supreme Court
$2.7
$2.8
Court of Appeals for the Federal
$3.1
$3.2
Circuit
Court of International Trade
$1.8
$2.2
Courts of Appeals, District Courts,
$445.0
$480.5
and Other Judicial Services
Judicial Retirement Funds
$262.3
$272.6
Total (Judiciary)
$714.9
$761.3
Source: Congressional Research Service examination of data from The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2023 Congressional
Budget Summary.
Note: The column for FY2022 reflects assumed financial plan levels. All figures are rounded, and column sums
may not equal the total due to rounding.
The mandatory appropriations estimated for FY2022 totaled $761.3 million. Of the FY2022
mandatory amount, $488.7 million, or 64.2%, is for salaries and expenses associated with
judgeships that the judiciary is constitutionally (or statutorily) required to pay. The remaining
$272.6 million (or 35.8% of FY2022 assumed mandatory appropriations) is to provide for judicial
retirement funds.
There was a similar breakdown in the use of mandatory funds for FY2021. Of the $714.9 million
in mandatory appropriations provided for FY2021, $452.6 million (or 63.3%) was to fund the
salaries and expenses associated with Article III judges and certain other types of federal judges.
The remaining $262.3 million (or 36.7% of FY2021 mandatory appropriations) was to provide
for judicial retirement funds.
Congressional Research Service

11

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

Administrative Provisions
The judiciary’s FY2022 request also contained several administrative provisions.39 The requested
provisions, in part, (1) allowed 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) allowed 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.40
The final enacted FY2022 appropriations for the judiciary included versions of each of the six
administrative provisions included in the judiciary’s FY2022 request.
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
challenge to a decision from a district 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.41 Cases presented to U.S. circuit courts are generally 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 circuit court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with nationwide jurisdiction
(this court is discussed in the text below).
Altogether, 167 judgeships for the 12 regional circuit courts are currently authorized by law. The
First Circuit (comprised of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto
Rico) has the fewest number of authorized judgeships, 6, while the Ninth Circuit (comprised of

39 “Administrative provisions” or “general provisions” provides restrictions, conditions, or requirements that may apply
to an entire act, a specific department, agency, or account. Such provisions may be of a policy or operational character
and are typically listed at the end of an act.
40 For a full list of the administrative provisions included in the judiciary’s FY2022 request, see Administrative Office
of the U.S. Courts, The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2022 Congressional Budget Summary, pp. 59-60.
41 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Court Role and Structure,” at https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-
courts/court-role-and-structure.
Congressional Research Service

12

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) has the
most, 29.42
U.S. circuit court judges are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Such appointments are generally considered to be effective for life (under Article III of the U.S.
Constitution),43 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
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 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. Consequently, the court takes appeals from all federal district
courts, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the U.S. Court of International Trade, and the U.S.
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.44
The court also reviews certain administrative agency decisions, including decisions by the U.S.
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Boards of
Contract Appeals, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, the Office of Congressional
Workplace Rights, the Government Accountability Office Personnel Appeals Board, and the U.S.
International Trade Commission.45
Of the 1,434 cases filed with the Federal Circuit for the 12-month period from January 1, 2021, to
December 31, 2021, the five most common sources of appeals to the court were the Patent and
Trademark Office (492 filings, or 34% of all appeals); U.S. district courts (295 filings, 21% of
appeals); U.S. Court of Federal Claims (169 filings, 12% of appeals); Merit Systems Protection
Board (143 filings, 10% of appeals); and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (126
filings, 9% of appeals).46 Altogether, for the 2021 calendar year, 85% of the appeals to the Federal
Circuit were from these five sources.
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
The U.S. Court of International Trade 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

42 The Ninth Circuit also includes two U.S. territories, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.
43 Throughout 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.”
44 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, “Court Jurisdiction,” at https://cafc.uscourts.gov/home/the-
court/about-the-court/court-jurisdiction. Despite its nationwide jurisdiction, the court does not hear appeals from other
U.S. courts of appeals (the appeals from those courts are directed to the U.S. Supreme Court).
45 Ibid.
46 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Caseload Statistics Data Tables,” Table B-8—U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics, at https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/caseload-
statistics-data-tables.
Congressional Research Service

13

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

“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 generally under the tariff laws.”47
For the 12-month period ending September 30, 2021, the court reported a total of 781 case
filings.48
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.49 Trials are conducted by a district court judge or,
in some cases, a magistrate judge.
Each state has at least one U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. district court. Altogether
there are 94 district courts.50
At present, there are 677 district court judgeships authorized by law.51 Congress has authorized
between 1 and 28 judgeships for each U.S. district court, with district courts serving more
populous areas generally 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).52

47 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “U.S. Court of International Trade—Judicial Business 2021,” at
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/us-court-international-trade-judicial-business-2021.
48 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Statistics & Reports, Data Tables,” Table G-1, U.S. Court of International
Trade Judicial Business (September 30, 2021), at https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/g-1/judicial-business/2021/
09/30.
49 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Court Role and Structure,” at https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-
courts/court-role-and-structure.
50 These 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. These courts were established by Congress under its
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. district 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.
51 This total includes 4 permanent territorial district court judgeships and 10 temporary U.S. district court judgeships.
See Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Judges and Judgeships,” at http://www.uscourts.gov/
JudgesAndJudgeships/AuthorizedJudgeships.aspx.
52 The 28 judgeships authorized for the Central District of California includes 27 permanent judgeships and 1
temporary judgeship.
Congressional Research Service

14

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

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, are also appointed by the President with the advice and consent of
the Senate (under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution).53 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.54 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 all misdemeanor criminal trials as long as a
defendant has waived his right to a trial before a district judge.55 Magistrate judges cannot preside
over felony criminal cases (but can handle pretrial matters and preliminary proceedings in such
cases).56
The number of magistrate judge positions is determined by the Judicial Conference of the United
States. For the 12-month period ending September 30, 2021, the Judicial Conference authorized
561 full-time magistrate judge positions, 25 part-time positions, and 2 combination
clerk/magistrate judge positions.57 Magistrate judges are non-Article III judges and are appointed
by majority vote of the active district court judges serving on the court on which the magistrate
would serve. Full-time magistrate judges serve a term of eight years and may be reappointed.58
During FY2021, there were 76 appointments of full-time magistrate judges, including 40 new
appointments and 36 reappointments.59

53 Judges appointed to U.S. district courts for the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are
appointed as Article III judges (and not as territorial district court judges).
54 The 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.
55 Ibid.
56 Ibid.
57 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Judicial Officers in the U.S. Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and
Bankruptcy Courts,” Table 1.1—U.S. Federal Courts Judicial Facts and Figures (September 30, 2021), at
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/11/judicial-facts-and-figures/2021/09/30. 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.
58 28 U.S.C. §631(d).
59 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Status of Magistrate Judge Positions and Appointments—Judicial
Business 2021,” at https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/status-magistrate-judge-positions-and-appointments-
judicial-business-2021. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “the average age of new appointees
to full-time magistrate judge positions was 50 years. New full-time appointees had been members of the bar for an
average of 23 years at the time of appointment.” Of the new full-time magistrate judges in FY2021, the most common
types of position or employment at the time of appointment included assistant United States attorneys (15 appointees),
attorneys in private practice (14), law clerks (2), and assistant federal public defenders (2).
Congressional Research Service

15

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

For the 12-month period ending September 30, 2021, magistrate judges disposed of a total of
1,228,277 matters (an increase of 3% from the 12-month period ending September 30, 2020)60—
this included 356,568 civil matters that had been referred to them by district court judges; 16,974
civil cases in which they were the presiding judges for all proceedings by consent of the parties;
243,516 felony pretrial matters (e.g., disposing of certain types of motions); and 490,212 felony
preliminary proceedings (e.g., search warrant applications). Other types of 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.61
For the 12-month period ending September 30, 2021, debtors filed a total of 434,540 bankruptcy
petitions—a 29.1% decrease for the same period ending September 30, 2020.62 Of all petitions
filed during FY2021, nonbusiness (mostly consumer) petitions accounted for approximately 96%
and business petitions accounted for 4%.63
Congress, by legislative action, determines the number of bankruptcy judgeships. As of
September 30, 2021, there were a total of 345 bankruptcy judgeships authorized by Congress.64
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
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has nationwide jurisdiction over various “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, 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.”65
Each January, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §791(c), the clerk of the Court of Federal Claims submits to
Congress a statement of all the judgments rendered by the court. The statement “notes the names

60 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “U.S. Magistrate Judges—Judicial Business 2021,” at
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/us-magistrate-judges-judicial-business-2021.
61 Federal Judicial Center, “U.S. Bankruptcy Courts,” at https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/u.s.-bankruptcy-courts.
62 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “U.S. Bankruptcy Courts—Judicial Business 2021,” at
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/us-bankruptcy-courts-judicial-business-2021.
63 Ibid.
64 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Judicial Officers in the U.S. Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and
Bankruptcy Courts,” Table 1.1—U.S. Federal Courts Judicial Facts and Figures (September 30, 2021), at
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/11/judicial-facts-and-figures/2021/09/30.
65 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “U.S. Courts of Federal Claims—Judicial Business 2021,” at
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/us-court-federal-claims-judicial-business-2021.
Congressional Research Service

16

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

of the claimants, the amounts, the dates of entry and nature of the claims, and the disposition for
all judgments rendered the previous fiscal year.”66
For the 12-month period ending September 30, 2021, the court reported a total of 2,753 case
filings (an increase of 47% from the 12-month period ending September 30, 2020).67
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 (i.e., with Senate confirmation). A judge may
be reappointed by a President to serve an additional 15-year term if his or her nomination is
confirmed by the Senate.68
Pretrial Services and Probation
Federal pretrial services and probation officers investigate and supervise defendants and offenders
within the federal criminal justice system. Pretrial services officers “prepare reports for judges to
use in determining whether to order the release or detention of defendants.”69 Pretrial service
officers also supervise those defendants released by judges pending adjudication of their criminal
cases.70
Probation officers provide courts “with reliable information concerning the offender, the victim,
and the offense committed, as well as an impartial application of the sentencing guidelines.”71
Probation officers also “supervise offenders sentenced to probation, as well as offenders coming
out of federal prison who are required to serve a term of supervised release.”72
For the 12-month period ending September 30, 2021, pretrial services officers prepared 73,054
pretrial services reports for judges—a decrease of 5% from 2020.73 Of these reports, 97% were
prebail reports.74 Additionally, officers provided pretrial services supervision for approximately
30,025 defendants.75 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.76
On September 30, 2021, a total of 122,458 individuals were under postconviction supervision by
probation officers—a decrease of 4% from the same date in 2020.77 Of those under

66 Ibid.
67 Ibid.
68 28 U.S.C. §178.
69 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Pretrial Services—Judicial Business 2021,” at https://www.uscourts.gov/
statistics-reports/pretrial-services-judicial-business-2021.
70 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2022 Congressional Budget Summary,
“Overview of the Judiciary,” p. 3, at https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/
fy_2022_congressional_budget_summary_fy_2022.pdf.
71 Ibid.
72 Ibid.
73 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Pretrial Services—Judicial Business 2021,” at https://www.uscourts.gov/
statistics-reports/pretrial-services-judicial-business-2021.
74 Ibid.
75 Ibid.
76 Ibid.
77 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Post-Conviction Supervision—Judicial Business 2021,” at
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/post-conviction-supervision-judicial-business-2021.
Congressional Research Service

17

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

postconviction supervision, 43% had been convicted of drug offenses; 15% had been convicted of
property offenses; and 17% had been convicted of firearms offenses.78
Federal probation officers also prepared 54,689 full presentence investigative reports—of which
98% were presentence guideline reports prepared in felony or Class A misdemeanor cases (and
for which guidelines have been promulgated by the U.S. Sentencing Commission).79
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, historically, exercised “responsibility
for appointing counsel in federal criminal proceedings for those unable to bear the cost of
representation.”80
This account in the judiciary budget funds the operations of federal defender organizations
responsible for providing representation to defendants financially 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.81
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.82 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.83
Consequently, the costs associated with this account are driven, in part, by the number and type of
prosecutions brought by U.S. Attorneys’ offices.
For the 12-month period ending September 30, 2021, there were a total of 145,726
representations by counsel affiliated with federal defender organizations or who served as panel

78 Ibid.
79 Ibid.
80 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Defender Services,” at https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/defender-
services.
81 Ibid. There are two types of federal defender organizations. The first type, federal public defender organizations, are
federal entities and their staffs are federal employees. The 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. The second type,
community defender organizations, are nonprofit defense counsel organizations incorporated under state laws. These
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. At present, there are 64 federal public defender organizations and 17
community defender organizations. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Criminal Justice Act—Judicial Business
2021,” at https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/criminal-justice-act-judicial-business-2021.
82 Panel attorneys are paid an hourly rate of $148 for noncapital cases, and, for capital cases, a maximum hourly rate of
$190. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Defender Services, at https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/
defender-services.
83 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 appeals. These 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 also
approves. Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

18

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

attorneys under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA).84 The number of private attorneys who were paid
during this period through the CJA as panel attorneys was 7,337.85
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 Judicial Security Division (JSD) of
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.”86
At present, the Marshals protect 94 federal district courts, 888 judicial facilities, and
approximately 2,700 federal judges.87 The Marshals also have protective responsibility for
approximately 30,300 federal prosecutors and court officials.88 In FY2021, the Marshals assessed
or handled 4,511 threats and inappropriate communications against protected persons in the
judiciary.89
The JSD is comprised of several program offices, including the Office of Court Security (which
“ensures the protection of the federal judicial process through screening and protection of all
federal court facilities”), the Office of Protective Intelligence (which provides direct support to
field investigators and others “to ensure all threats to protected persons and events are thoroughly
investigated, assessed, and mitigated in a timely fashion”), and the Office of Security Systems
(which is “responsible for designing, installing, and maintaining efficient, cost-effective physical
security systems for the protection of the federal judiciary, judicial employees, courthouse
visitors, and judicial facilities”).90
Fees of Jurors and Commissioners
This account in the judiciary’s budget funds the fees and allowances provided to petit and grand
jurors and compensation for jury and land commissioners.91 Petit jurors serve on a trial jury, while

84 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Criminal Justice Act—Judicial Business 2021,” at
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/criminal-justice-act-judicial-business-2021.
85 Ibid.
86 U.S. Marshals Service, Fact Sheet—Judicial Security 2022, at https://www.usmarshals.gov/duties/factsheets/
judicial_sec.pdf.
87 Ibid.
88 Ibid.
89 Ibid.
90 U.S. Marshals Service, “Judicial Security,” at https://www.usmarshals.gov/judicial.
91 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,” 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.” U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, hearings before the Subcommittee on the Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, February 23, 1988. Land commissioners are paid based on the
daily equivalent of the highest rate payable under 5 U.S.C. §5332. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, The
Judiciary Fiscal Year 2022 Congressional Budget Summary, “Courts Of Appeals, District Courts, And Other Judicial
Services—Fees of Jurors and Commissioners,” p. 44, at https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/
fy_2022_congressional_budget_summary_fy_2022.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

19

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

grand jurors serve on a grand jury.92 Petit jurors are paid $50 per day but can, after serving 10
days on a jury, receive up to $60 per day.93 Grand jurors are also paid $50 per day but can, after
serving 45 days on a grand jury, receive up to $60 per day.94
Petit and grand jurors are also reimbursed for reasonable transportation expenses and parking
fees.95 Jurors can receive a subsistence allowance that covers their meals and lodging, if they are
sequestered during their service.96
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.97 The compensation paid to a jury commissioner is
$50 per day (plus the reimbursement of reasonable expenses related to his or her service).98
According to the 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.”99
Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 created the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program (VICP), to provide compensation to people found to be injured by certain
vaccines.100 The VICP “was established after lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and
healthcare providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce vaccination rates.”101
Additionally, the program “is designed to encourage vaccination by providing a streamlined
system for compensation in rare instances where an injury results from vaccination”102 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.”103

92 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. The 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.
93 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Juror Pay,” at https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/jury-service/juror-
pay.
94 Ibid.
95 Ibid.
96 Ibid.
97 28 U.S.C. §1863.
98 28 U.S.C. §1863(b)(1).
99 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2022 Congressional Budget Summary, p. 43, at
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/fy_2022_congressional_budget_summary_fy_2022.pdf.
100 42 U.S.C. §§300aa-1 to 300aa-34.
101 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Service Administration, About the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, at https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/about/index.html.
102 U.S. Department of Justice, “Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,” at https://www.justice.gov/civil/vicp.
103 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

20

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

The VICP, 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.”104
The Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund provides funding for VICP, covering claims related
to vaccine-related injuries or deaths for covered vaccines administered on or after October 1,
1988.105 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.106
As of May 1, 2022, a total of 24,969 petitions were filed with VICP since its inception in 1988.107
Of these petitions, 21,025 had been adjudicated as of May 2022—with 8,922 petitions, or 42%,
being compensable (i.e., paid compensation as a result of a settlement between parties or a
decision made by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims) and 12,103, 58%, being dismissed.108
Petitions are typically not adjudicated in the same fiscal year as they are filed and, on average, it
takes two to three years to adjudicate a petition after it is filed.109
Total compensation paid over the life of VICP, as of this writing, is approximately $4.7 billion.110
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.”111 A main responsibility of AO is to provide staff
support and counsel for the Judicial Conference and the conference’s committees. The Judicial
Conference committees also advise AO as it develops the annual judiciary budget request 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.”112

104 Ibid.
105 The Department of the Treasury manages the fund’s investments. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Health Resources & Services Administration, “About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,” at
https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/about/index.html.
106 U.S. Department of Justice, “Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,” at https://www.justice.gov/civil/vicp.
107 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources & Services Administration, National Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program Data Report, updated May 1, 2022, at https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/
vaccine-compensation/data/vicp-stats-05-01-2022.pdf.
108 Ibid.
109 Ibid.
110 Ibid.
111 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Judicial Administration,” at https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-
courts/judicial-administration.
112 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

21

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

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.”113
United States Sentencing Commission
The United States Sentencing Commission is a bipartisan, 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.”114 As such, the commission is
responsible for establishing and amending the sentencing guidelines used by the federal
judiciary.115 The commission’s activities, in part, include (1) maintaining a research and
development program to serve as a clearinghouse and information center for the collection,
preparation, and dissemination of information on federal sentencing practices; (2) publishing data
concerning the sentencing process; (3) collecting and disseminating information concerning
sentences actually imposed and the relationship of such sentences to the factors set forth in
Section 3553(a) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code; and (4) collecting and disseminating information
regarding the effectiveness of sentences imposed.116
The commission consists of seven voting members appointed by the President and confirmed by
the Senate, with members serving staggered six-year terms.117 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.118 For a sentencing guideline to be amended, the amendment must receive the
affirmative votes of four members of the commission.119
The commission has a staff of approximately 100 employees.120 The commission is also advised
by “four standing advisory groups representing the views of practitioners, probation officers,
victims, and tribal lands.”121
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

113 Ibid.
114 United States Sentencing Commission, “About the Commission,” at https://www.ussc.gov.
115 Ibid.
116 United States Sentencing Commission, “Introduction to the Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics,” at
https://www.ussc.gov/research/sourcebook-2021. For FY2021, 88.4% of federal offenders received a sentence of
imprisonment (and no other type of sentence); 6.2% received probation (and no other type of sentence); 2.9% received
a sentence of imprisonment and alternatives; 1.8% received probation and alternatives; and 0.7% received a fine (and
no other type of sentence). United States Sentencing Commission, 2021 Annual Report and Sourcebook of Federal
Sentencing Statistics, “Sentencing Information,” Figure 6, p. 61, at https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/
research-and-publications/annual-reports-and-sourcebooks/2021/2021_Annual_Report_and_Sourcebook.pdf.
117 United States Sentencing Commission, “Organization,” at https://www.ussc.gov/about/who-we-are/organization.
118 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.
119 Ibid.
120 Ibid.
121 United States Sentencing Commission, “About,” at https://www.ussc.gov/about-page. 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.” See United
States Sentencing Commission, “Advisory Groups,” at https://www.ussc.gov/about/who-we-are/advisory-groups.
Congressional Research Service

22

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

appropriations bill), the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (funded in the Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill), and the U.S. Tax Court
(funded under Independent Agencies, Title V of the FSGG bill). Additionally, federal courthouse
construction is funded within the General Services Administration account under Independent
Agencies, Title V of the FSGG bill.
Select Policy Issues Relevant During FY2022
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 effectively 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
well as court-specific information that might uniquely affect a particular court.
The Judicial Conference’s most recent recommendation, released in March 2021, calls 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
also recommends creating 77 new permanent U.S. district court judgeships, as well as converting
9 current temporary district court judgeships to permanent status.122
Several pieces of legislation authorizing additional U.S. district court judgeships were introduced
in 2021, either during FY2021 or FY2022.123 On July 30, 2021, Representative Henry (“Hank”)
Johnson, Jr., introduced the District Court Judgeships Act of 2021.124 The legislation would
authorize the creation of 203 additional permanent district court judgeships across 32 judicial
districts and the conversion of 9 temporary judgeships to permanent judgeships.
On July 29, 2021, Senator Todd Young introduced the JUDGES Act. The legislation would
authorize the creation of 39 permanent U.S. district court judgeships on or after January 21, 2025,
and the creation of an additional 38 permanent U.S. district court judgeships on or after January
21, 2029. The permanent judgeships would be authorized for 13 specified judicial districts. The
legislation also converts 9 temporary judgeships to permanent judgeships.125
Legislation has also been introduced to increase the number of judgeships for a single judicial
district. For example, on December 8, 2021, the Colorado Judgeship Act was introduced in both
the House and Senate to increase by three the number of permanent judgeships for the U.S.

122 For a list of U.S. district courts that the conference recommends receive new judgeships, see Administrative Office
of the U.S. Courts, “Judiciary Seeks New Judgeships, Reaffirms Need for Enhanced Security,” press release, March 16,
2021, at https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2021/03/16/judiciary-seeks-new-judgeships-reaffirms-need-enhanced-security.
123 None of these bills have advanced beyond committee referral.
124 H.R. 4886 (117th Congress). At present, a companion bill has not been introduced in the Senate.
125 S. 2535 (117th Congress). On July 30, 2021, companion legislation, H.R. 4885, was introduced in the House by Rep.
Darrell Issa.
Congressional Research Service

23

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

District Court for the District of Colorado.126 Legislation was also introduced in the House and
Senate to authorize one additional judgeship for the U.S. District Court of Idaho.127 And the
Puerto Rico Federal Judicial Improvement Act, introduced on January 15, 2021, would increase
by one the number of permanent judgeships authorized for the U.S. District Court for the District
of Puerto Rico.128
At present, the sole piece of legislation introduced during the 117th Congress to authorize
additional U.S. circuit court judgeships is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judgeship and
Reorganization Act of 2021.129 In addition to dividing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit into two new judicial circuits, the bill would also authorize five new permanent
judgeships to be distributed between the two circuits.
Workplace Misconduct
Allegations and incidents of sexual harassment and other workplace misconduct in the federal
judiciary have continued to be of congressional interest during FY2022.130 For example, the Joint
Explanatory Statement for the FY2022 enacted appropriations directs the judiciary to submit to
Congress a report “on the number of formal workplace misconduct complaints received,
investigations conducted, types of misconduct alleged or found, and actions taken to address
identified misconduct in each judicial circuit, separately reporting those complaints relating to
claims of sexual harassment and other sexual misconduct.”131
Additionally, shortly after appropriations were enacted for FY2022, the House Judiciary
Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held a hearing on
the issue of workplace misconduct in the judiciary.132 The hearing, Workplace Protections for
Federal Judiciary Employees: Flaws in the Current System and the Need for Statutory Change,
included, in part, statements from several witnesses who encouraged Congress to adopt the

126 H.R. 6188 (117th Congress) and S. 3342 (117th Congress).
127 H.R. 319 (117th Congress) and S. 23 (117th Congress).
128 H.R. 329 (117th Congress). At present, a companion bill has not been introduced in the Senate.
129 H.R. 320 (117th Congress). At present, a companion bill has not been introduced in the Senate.
130 See, for example, Ann E. Marimow, “Judges accused of sex discrimination, bullying, internal survey shows,”
Washington Post, May 16, 2022, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/16/judges-accused-
discrimination-bullying; Ann E. Marimow, “Court revives sexual harassment lawsuit targeting federal judiciary,”
Washington Post, April 26, 2022, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/26/federal-judiciary-sexual-
harassment-lawsuit; and Nate Raymond, “Federal judiciary defends internal sexual harassment review process,”
Reuters, November 4, 2021, at https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/federal-judiciary-defends-internal-sexual-
harassment-review-process-2021-11-04.
131 Joint Explanatory Statement, Division E—Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act 2022, p.
25, at https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20220307/BILLS-117RCP35-JES-DIVISION-E.pdf. The explanatory
statement also requires the report to include comparable statistics for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the
Federal Judicial Center, and the Sentencing Commission.
132 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet,
Workplace Protections for Federal Judiciary Employees: Flaws in the Current System and the Need for Statutory
Change, hearings, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., March 17, 2022, at https://judiciary.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?
EventID=4883.
Congressional Research Service

24

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

Judiciary Accountability Act of 2021,133 legislation that was introduced earlier in the 117th
Congress (during FY2021).134
The Judiciary Accountability Act, in part, extends certain statutory protections and remedies to
judicial branch employees (such protections and remedies are already available to private sector
employees, as well as to employees of the federal legislative and executive branches). The
legislation also establishes several entities within the federal judiciary that would be responsible
for addressing workplace misconduct, including an Office of Employee Advocacy that would
provide legal assistance, representation, and consultation to judicial employees. For its part, the
Judicial Conference, the national policymaking body for the federal courts, “opposes the
legislation on grounds that it interferes with [its] internal governance ... creates structures that
compete with existing governing authorities within the Judiciary, and imposes intrusive
requirements on Judicial Conference procedures.”135
Financial Disclosure
A recent investigation by the Wall Street Journal found that 131 federal judges had violated U.S.
law and judicial ethics by failing to recuse themselves from 685 cases that involved companies in
which they or their families owned stock.136 As a result of the investigation, legislation was
introduced in both the House and Senate on October 25, 2021, to require more stringent
disclosure requirements of financial holdings and stock trades by federal judges, including
Supreme Court Justices.137 The legislation passed the Senate by voice vote on February 17, 2022,
and a final version passed the House on April 27, 2022.138 The President signed the legislation on
May 13, 2022 (P.L. 117-125).
Judicial Security
Following a fatal attack in 2020 at the home of a federal judge in New Jersey and the increasing
number of threats directed against federal judges,139 the federal judiciary has urged Congress to
adopt several new safety measures intended to improve the security of federal judges.140 In

133 Ibid. See, for example, statements by Ms. Caitlyn Clark (former law clerk, U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia), Ms. Ally Coll (president and cofounder, The Purple Campaign), and Ms. Laura C. Minor (former
associate director, ret., Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts).
134 H.R. 4827 (July 29, 2021, 117th Congress) and S. 2553 (July 29, 2021, 117th Congress).
135 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Annual Report 2021, “The Courts and Congress,” at
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/courts-and-congress-annual-report-2021.
136 James V. Grimaldi, Coulter Jones, and Joe Palazzolo, “131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where
They Had a Financial Interest,” Wall Street Journal, September 28, 2021, at https://www.wsj.com/articles/131-federal-
judges-broke-the-law-by-hearing-cases-where-they-had-a-financial-interest-11632834421.
137 H.R. 5720 (117th Congress) and S. 3059 (117th Congress). See Nate Raymond and Moira Warburton, “Congress
approves tougher financial disclosure rules for U.S. judges,” Reuters, April 27, 2022, at https://www.reuters.com/
world/europe/congress-poised-subject-us-judges-more-financial-disclosure-2022-04-27.
138 An initial version of the bill passed the House on December 1, 2021, by a vote of 422-4.
139 For additional information on the New Jersey attack, 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. Regarding increased
threats against federal judges generally, one media report noted that “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 Threats 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.
140 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Congress Urged to Adopt Judicial Security Measures,” press release,
Congressional Research Service

25

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

response to the attack, the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act (named after the late
son of Judge Esther Salas) was introduced in the Senate on July 14, 2021.141 At present, the
legislation is pending on the Senate Legislative Calendar after being reported out of the Senate
Judiciary Committee by a bipartisan vote of 21-0.142 The legislation would, in part, protect judges’
personally identifiable information from resale by data brokers, allow federal judges to redact
personal information on federal government internet sites, and prevent the publication of personal
information by other businesses and individuals unless there is a legitimate news media or other
public interest.143
Most recently, the Senate passed, by unanimous consent, the Supreme Court Police Parity Act of
2022.144 The legislation would extend security currently provided to Supreme Court Justices to
their immediate families. The bill was also introduced in the House on May 10, 2022.145 Alternate
legislation, the Supreme Court Families Security Act of 2022, was also introduced in the House
on May 10, 2022.146 This legislation would also extend security to the families of Supreme Court
employees, such as clerks. Recently, House leadership indicated the chamber would take up this
alternate legislation.147
In addition to enacting any specific legislation related to judicial security, Congress appropriates
annual funds for the purpose of providing security for the conduct of judicial proceedings and for
the protection of federal judges, other judicial branch employees, and jurors. As discussed above,
most of these funds are transferred to the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) for the purpose of
ensuring that adequate protective policies, procedures, and practices are in place for federal
courthouses, judges, and other federal judicial employees.
Congress has, in the past, also appropriated supplemental funds specifically 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.148
Additionally, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007 included various measures to enhance
security for judges and court personnel, as well as courtroom safety for the public.149 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.

September 9, 2020, at https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2020/09/09/congress-urged-adopt-judicial-security-measures.
141 S. 2340 (117th Congress). A companion bill, H.R. 4436, was introduced in the House on July 16, 2021. The Daniel
Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act was also introduced during the 116th Congress (S. 4711 introduced on
September 24, 2020, and H.R. 8591 introduced on October 13, 2020).
142 The committee vote occurred on December 2, 2021. In addition to the 21 votes in favor of the legislation, there was
1 “present” vote.
143 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “Judicial Security Bill Advances: Judge Who Lost Son Urges Final
Passage,” press release, December 2, 2021, at https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2021/12/02/judicial-security-bill-
advances-judge-who-lost-son-urges-final-passage. See also Megan Mineiro, “Senate Judiciary Committee Markup:
Bipartisan approval sets up judicial safety legislation for Senate floor vote,” CQ Committee Coverage, December 2,
2021, at https://plus.cq.com/doc/committees-20211202476308?2&searchId=k7v1gBDn.
144 S. 4160 (May 9, 2022; 117th Congress).
145 H.R. 7705 (117th Congress).
146 H.R. 7712 (117th Congress).
147 Madison Alder, “House Democrats to Pursue Broader Supreme Court Security Bill,” Bloomberg Law, May 13,
2022, at https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/house-democrats-to-pursue-broader-supreme-court-security-bill.
148 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 Service, “Judicial
Security,” at https://www.usmarshals.gov/judicial.
149 P.L. 110-177 (January 7, 2008).
Congressional Research Service

26

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2022

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 not 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
R47155 · VERSION 1 · NEW
27

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Jun. 10, 2022

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

American Law

Foreign Affairs

Appropriations

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON