Judiciary Appropriations, FY2024

May 29, 2024 R48077

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2024
May 29, 2024
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 federal judiciary’s FY2024 budget request was submitted to Congress on March 9, 2023. By law, the President includes
without change the judiciary’s appropriations request in the annual budget submission to Congress. The judiciary requested
$9.14 billion in discretionary funds for FY2024, an 8.0% increase over the FY2023 enacted level of $8.46 billion in such
funds. The judiciary updated its FY2024 request to Congress on November 8, 2023. The revised request was for $8.95 billion
in discretionary funds, a 5.8% increase over the FY2023 enacted level. The FY2024 amounts reported and discussed
throughout this report reflect the reestimated discretionary funding request submitted by the judiciary on November 8, 2023.
The judiciary’s FY2024 budget request also included $796.1 million in mandatory funds to pay the salaries and benefits of
certain types of federal judges and to provide for judicial retirement accounts (this amount was not affected by the updated
discretionary funding request submitted in November 2023).
The House Appropriations Committee held a markup (H.R. 4664) on July 13, 2023, and recommended the judiciary receive
$8.68 billion in discretionary funds.
The Senate Appropriations Committee held a markup (S. 2443) on July 13, 2023, and recommended the judiciary receive
$8.57 billion in discretionary funds.
The FSGG appropriations bill was not enacted prior to the beginning of FY2024 on October 1, 2023. Subsequently, the
judiciary was funded through November 17, 2023, by the FY2024 Continuing Appropriations and Other Extensions Act (P.L.
118-15). The judiciary was additionally funded through February 2, 2024, by the FY2024 Further Continuing Appropriations
and Other Extensions Act (P.L. 118-22), through March 8, 2024, by the FY2024 Further Additional Continuing
Appropriations and Other Extensions Act (P.L. 118-35), and through March 22, 2024, by the FY2024 Extension of
Continuing Appropriations and Other Matters Act (P.L. 118-40).
Regular appropriations for FY2024 were enacted by the FY2024 Further Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 118-47,
March 23, 2024).
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

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2024

Introduction
This report provides an overview of the federal judiciary’s FY2024 budget request, as well as
information about Congress’s consideration of the request.
The first section of the report provides information about each major action involving
congressional consideration of the judiciary’s FY2024 budget request
The second section of the report provides information about the specific discretionary
appropriations requested by the judiciary for FY2024, 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 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 some of the policy issues affecting the judiciary
during FY2024.
Congressional Consideration of the Judiciary’s
FY2024 Budget Request: Overview of Actions
This section provides a chronological overview of the major actions involving the submission of
the federal judiciary’s FY2024 budget request and congressional consideration of the judiciary’s
request.
Submission of FY2024 Budget Request
The President’s FY2024 budget request was submitted on March 9, 2023. It included $9.14
billion in discretionary funds for judicial branch activities and $796.1 million in mandatory
funding for judges’ salaries and judicial retirement accounts.1 By law, the judicial branch
appropriations request is submitted to the President and included in the budget submission
without change.2
In recent years, appropriations for the judiciary have comprised 0.1% to 0.2% of the federal
government’s total budget authority.3

1 Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2024, Appendix, “Detailed Budget
Estimates by Agency,” Judicial Branch, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/jud_fy2024.pdf. The
distinction between discretionary and mandatory appropriations is discussed further in the text of this report.
2 Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §1105, “Estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations for the legislative branch and the
judicial branch to be included in each budget ... shall be submitted to the President ... and included in the budget by the
President without change.” Furthermore, Division C of the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74)
added language to 31 U.S.C. §1107 relating to budget amendments, stating: “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.”
3 Calculations by CRS with data from Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 5.2—Budget
Authority By Agency: 1976–2028, https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historical-tables.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 13 Judiciary Appropriations, FY2024

House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and
General Government Markup
On June 22, 2023, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General
Government held a markup of the FY2024 Financial Services and General Government (FSGG)
bill. The subcommittee, by voice vote, recommended a total of $8.68 billion in discretionary
funds for the judiciary.
House Appropriations Committee Markup
On July 13, 2023, the House Appropriations Committee held a markup of the FY2024 FSGG
bill.4 The committee recommended $8.68 billion in discretionary funds for the judiciary.5
The $8.68 billion in discretionary funding recommended for the judiciary represents 34.3% of the
total $25.32 billion in discretionary funding included in the FSGG appropriations bill reported by
the committee (which also funds such entities as the Department of the Treasury, the Executive
Office of the President, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade
Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Small Business Administration).
The FY2024 FSGG bill was ordered reported by a roll call vote of 34-26 (H.R. 4664, H.Rept.
118-145).
No hearings were held by either the House FSGG subcommittee or the House Appropriations
Committee on the judiciary’s FY2024 budget request. Additionally, no amendments related to the
judiciary were offered during the committee markup.
The report accompanying the House committee’s markup addressed several issues of interest to
the committee. Specifically, the committee’s report, in part
• expressed that the committee “looks forward” to receiving a GAO review of
workplace misconduct in the federal judiciary, as well as recommendations
related to fostering a better workplace environment for judicial employees;6
• expressed its expectation that the judiciary and Federal Judicial Center “provide
regular and appropriate access to all necessary information requested by GAO
and the National Academy of Public Administration so that their work can be
completed in a timely manner”;7
• recognized the importance of national security considerations in the review of
bankruptcy and investment transactions, and directed the Federal Judicial Center
to brief the committee on its plan to incorporate national security considerations
into bankruptcy judge educational activities;8 and
• encouraged the Federal Judicial Center to educate judges “on the rise in third-
party funded patent litigation and the importance of ensuring that there is

4 U.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, “Committee Approves FY24 Financial Services and General
Government Bill,” press release, July 13, 2023, https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-
approves-fy24-financial-services-and-general-government-bill.
5 This amount does not include mandatory funds for salaries and benefits of certain types of judgeships. See Table 2
and accompanying text for additional information.
6 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
Bill, 2024, report to accompany H.R. 4664, 118th Cong., 1st sess., July 17, 2023, H.Rept. 118-145, p. 34.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 13 Judiciary Appropriations, FY2024

disclosure of interested parties including all beneficial owners and investors
involved in litigation.”9
Senate Appropriations Committee Markup
On July 13, 2023, the Senate Appropriations Committee held a markup of the FY2024 FSGG
bill.10 The committee recommended $8.57 billion in discretionary funds for the judiciary.11
The $8.57 billion in discretionary funding recommended for the judiciary represents 21.9% of the
total $39.11 billion in discretionary funding included in the FSGG appropriations bill reported by
the committee.
The FY2024 FSGG bill was ordered reported by a roll call vote of 29-0 (S. 2309, S.Rept. 118-
61).
No hearings were held by either the Senate FSGG subcommittee or the Senate Appropriations
Committee on the judiciary’s FY2024 budget request. Additionally, no amendments related to the
judiciary were offered during the committee markup.
The report accompanying the Senate committee’s markup addressed several issues of interest to
the committee. Specifically, the committee’s report, in part
• recognized the importance of the judiciary’s need to improve cybersecurity and
modernize information technology;12
• stated that the judiciary “should continue collaborating with GAO and other
stakeholders on various workplace studies” and expressed its expectation that the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and Federal Judicial Center “be
responsive to requests for information from GAO and the National Academy of
Public Administration and to provide access to necessary data requested in order
for their reviews to be completed in a timely manner”;13
• urged the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts to ensure that sufficient resources
are available to staff so that judges’ financial disclosure reports can be reviewed
and certified, as well as posted online, in a timely manner;14 and
• expressed its concern that the judiciary’s “method of providing recommendations
for filling or leaving open potential judicial vacancies can discriminate against
courts located in more rural, geographically vast areas” and encouraged the
judiciary to consider “other factors—such as geography, demographics, and other
mitigating factors” when it makes recommendations on whether to fill certain
judgeships.15

9 Ibid.
10 U.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, “Committee Approves FY24 Financial Services and General
Government Bill,” press release, July 13, 2023, https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-
approves-fy24-financial-services-and-general-government-bill.
11 This amount does not include mandatory funds for salaries and benefits of certain types of judgeships. See Table 2
and accompanying text for additional information.
12 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
Bill, 2024, report to accompany S. 2309, 118th Cong., 1st sess., July 13, 2023, S.Rept. 118-61, p. 46.
13 Ibid., p. 49.
14 Ibid., p. 50.
15 Ibid., p.50.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 9 Judiciary Appropriations, FY2024

Submission of Updated FY2024 Budget Request
On November 8, 2023, the judiciary submitted a revised FY2024 budget request to Congress.16
The revised request for $8.95 billion in discretionary funds was approximately $184 million less
than the judiciary’s initial FY2024 budget request of $9.14 billion. The revised request
represented a 5.8% increase from the amount enacted in FY2023 and reflected savings from
scaled-back hiring and investments that offset the judiciary’s FY2024 needs.17
The FY2024 amounts discussed in the sections below are the reestimated amounts included in the
judiciary’s revised request for $8.95 billion in discretionary funds.
Enactment of Continuing Appropriations
Final enactment of the judiciary’s budget did not occur prior to the beginning of FY2024 on
October 1, 2023. Consequently, the judiciary was funded through November 17, 2023, by the
FY2024 Continuing Appropriations and Other Extensions Act (P.L. 118-15, September 30, 2023).
Congress enacted three additional stopgap funding measures prior to the enactment of FY2024
regular appropriations for the federal judiciary. These included
• the FY2024 Further Continuing Appropriations and Other Extensions Act (P.L.
118-22, November 16, 2023), which extended funding through February 2, 2024;
• the FY2024 Further Additional Continuing Appropriations and Other Extensions
Act (P.L. 118-35, January 19, 2024), which extended funding through March 8,
2024; and
• the FY2024 Extension of Continuing Appropriations and Other Matters Act (P.L.
118-40, March 1, 2024), which extended funding through March 22, 2024.
Enactment of FY2024 Regular Appropriations for the Judiciary
Enactment of the judiciary’s budget for FY2024 was included in the FY2024 Further
Consolidated Appropriations Act.18 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 22, 2024, and passed the Senate on March 23,
2024. It was signed by the President on March 23, 2024.
The Judiciary’s FY2024 Budget Request
Discretionary Appropriations
The judiciary’s FY2024 discretionary budget request totaled $8.95 billion and represented a 5.8%
increase from the $8.46 billion in discretionary appropriations enacted by Congress for FY2023.
Table 1 lists, for each account included in the judiciary’s discretionary budget, (1) the amount
enacted by Congress for FY2023, (2) the judiciary’s FY2024 request, (3) the FY2024 amount

16 “Judicial Branch Updates FY 2024 Funding Request, But Remains Concerned About Budget Shortfall,”
Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, December 1, 2023, https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2023/12/01/judicial-branch-
updates-fy-2024-funding-request-remains-concerned-about-budget.
17 Ibid.
18 P.L. 118-47 (March 23, 2024).
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 10 Judiciary Appropriations, FY2024

from the House Appropriations Committee markup, (4) the FY2024 amount from the Senate
Appropriations Committee markup, and (5) the FY2024 enacted amount.
Table 1. Judiciary Discretionary Appropriations, FY2023-FY2024
(in millions of dollars)
FY2023
FY2024
FY2024 House
FY2024 Senate
FY2024

Enacted Requested Comm. Markup
Comm. Markup
Enacted
Supreme Court (total)
$138.8
$161.3
$144.6
$140.1
$150.0
Salaries and Expenses
$109.6
$140.6
$124.2
$119.4
$129.3
Building and Grounds
$29.3
$20.7
$20.4
$20.7
$20.7
U.S. Court of Appeals
$36.7
$39.7
$39.0
$36.7
$36.7
for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of
$21.3
$22.4
$22.1
$21.3
$21.3
International Trade
Courts of Appeals,
$8,106.1
$8,567.7
$8,314.7
$8,211.1
$8,264.1
District Courts, and
Other Judicial Services
(total)
Salaries and Expenses
$5,905.1
$6,217.3
$6,051.0
$6,010.1
$5,995.1
Defender Services
$1,382.7
$1,505.8
$1,411.1
$1,382.7
$1,450.7
Court Security
$750.2
$783.2
$782.7
$750.2
$750.2
Fees of Jurors and
$58.2
$50.6
$59.9
$58.2
$58.4
Commissioners
Vaccine Injury Comp.
$10.0
$10.9
$10.0
$10.0
$10.0
Trust Fund
Administrative Office
$102.7
$105.5
$107.3
$102.7
$102.7
of the U.S. Courts
Federal Judicial Center
$34.3
$35.1
$34.2
$34.3
$34.3
U.S. Sentencing
$21.7
$23.2
$22.5
$21.6
$21.6
Commission
TOTAL (Judiciary)
$8,461.5
$8,954.9
$8,684.4
$8,567.8
$8,630.7
Sources: Congressional Research Service examination of data from (1) FY2023 Consolidated Appropriations
Act (P.L. 117-328); (2) Enclosure 1 of Judicial Conference letter to Reps. Kay Granger, Steve Womack, Rosa
DeLauro, and Steny Hoyer, November 8, 2023; (3) H.R. 4664; (4) S. 2309; and (5) Further Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-47).
Notes: All figures are rounded, and column sums may not equal the total due to rounding. The FY2024
requested amounts reported in Table 1 reflect the amounts included in the judiciary’s reestimated discretionary
funding request submitted on November 8, 2023.
Percentage of Judiciary’s FY2024 Request Enacted by Congress
Overall, Congress enacted $8.63 billion, or 96.4%, of the judiciary’s FY2024 discretionary
budget request of $8.95 billion.19 As shown by Figure 1, the enacted amount for FY2024

19 This was a decrease from the percentage of the judiciary’s budget request that Congress enacted for FY2023, when
Congress enacted $8.46 billion, or 97.9%, of the judiciary’s FY2023 budget request of $8.64 billion.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 10

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2024

represents approximately a 2.0% increase over the regular appropriations amount enacted by
Congress for FY2023. As shown by the figure, the 2.0% increase was less than the median annual
percentage change in enacted discretionary appropriations from FY2012 to FY2023 (which was
an increase of 2.7%).20
Figure 1. Discretionary Appropriations Enacted for the Federal Judiciary
(FY2012 to FY2024)

Source: Congressional Research Service compilation of data provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts.
Notes: 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 FY2024 amount for 8 of the 12 accounts was, in each case, at least 95% of the
judiciary’s FY2024 request for that account.21 For example, for the U.S. Court of International
Trade account, Congress provided $21.3 million—representing 95.1% of the judiciary’s FY2024
request of $22.4 million.
Altogether, for 10 accounts, Congress appropriated less than the amount requested by the
judiciary in its FY2024 budget request.22 For one account, Congress passed the same amount as

20 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).
21 The four accounts for which Congress appropriated less than 95% of the amounts included in the judiciary’s FY2024
request were the Supreme Court—Salaries and Expenses, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Vaccine Injury
Compensation Trust Fund, and U.S. Sentencing Commission accounts. For these accounts, Congress enacted 92.0%,
92.4%, 91.7%, and 93.1%, respectively, of the judiciary’s FY2024 request.
22 In addition to the four accounts identified in the footnote above, the six accounts for which Congress enacted less
than the amounts included in judiciary’s FY2024 request were the U.S. Court of International Trade; Courts of
Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services—Salaries and Expenses; Defender Services; Court Security;
Administrative Office of U.S. Courts; and the Federal Judicial Center accounts. For these accounts, Congress enacted
95.1%, 96.4%, 96.3%, 95.8%, 97.3%, and 97.7%, respectively, of the judiciary’s FY2024 request.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 9 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 9 link to page 11 link to page 9 link to page 9

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2024

requested by the judiciary.23 For another account, Congress appropriated more than the amount
requested by the judiciary for FY2024.24
The federal courts, judicial entities, and judicial programs funded by the various accounts listed in
Table 1 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 FY2024
Of the judiciary’s FY2024 request for $8.95 billion in discretionary funds (see the second column
in Table 1), the greatest percentage was for the Salaries and Expenses—Courts of Appeals,
District Courts, and Other Judicial Services account—representing 69.4% of the request. The
second-greatest percentage was for the Defender Services account, representing 16.8% of the total
discretionary request. The third-greatest percentage was for the Court Security account,
representing 8.7% of the request.25 The remaining 5.0% of the FY2024 discretionary request was
for the other accounts listed in the table.26
Figure 2 shows, for the total appropriation amount enacted by Congress for FY2024, the
percentage breakdown of the total by the enacted amounts for the 12 judiciary accounts listed in
Table 1. The percentage breakdown of the enacted amounts for each account tracked closely to
the breakdown of the judiciary’s request (described in the paragraph above).
Figure 2. Enacted Discretionary Appropriations, Percentage by Account
(FY2024)

Source: Congressional Research Service compilation of data provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts.
Of the $8.63 billion enacted by Congress for the judiciary’s FY2024 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 1)—representing 69.5% 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 8.7% of the enacted amount.27 The amounts appropriated for the Salaries

23 Congress enacted the full amount requested by the judiciary for the Supreme Court—Buildings and Grounds account.
24 Congress enacted more than the amount requested by the judiciary for the Fees of Jurors and Commissioners
account.
25 Altogether, these three accounts represented 95.0% of the judiciary’s discretionary budget request for FY2024.
26 The remaining nine accounts are listed here in descending order from the greatest percentage to smallest percentage
of the judiciary’s FY2024 discretionary budget request: Supreme Court—Salaries and Expenses (1.6%); Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts (1.2%); Fees of Jurors and Commissioners (0.6%); 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 (0.2%); and the Vaccine Injury Trust Fund (0.1%).
27 Altogether, these three accounts represent 95.0% of the judiciary’s enacted FY2024 budget.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 Judiciary Appropriations, FY2024

and Expenses—Supreme Court and Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts accounts represent
1.5% and 1.2%, respectively, of the total enacted amount of FY2024 discretionary appropriations
for the judiciary. The remaining 2.3% of the FY2024 enacted amount was for the other seven
accounts listed in the table.28
Three Largest Percentage Increases from FY2023 Enacted Amounts
Comparison to Requested Amounts for FY2024
Of the accounts listed in Table 1, the largest percentage increase between the amount enacted in
FY2023 and the amount requested by the judiciary for FY2024 was for the Supreme Court—
Salaries and Expenses account—a 28.3% increase. The next-greatest percentage increase was for
the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund account, a 9.2% increase, followed by the increase
for the Defender Services account, an 8.9% increase.29
Comparison to Enacted Amounts for FY2024
Of the accounts listed in Table 1, the largest percentage increase between the amount enacted in
FY2023 and the amount enacted by Congress for FY2024 was for the Supreme Court—Salaries
and Expenses account, an increase of 18.0%. The second-greatest percentage increase was for the
Defender Services account—a 4.9% increase from the FY2023 enacted amount. The third greatest
increase was for the Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services—Salaries
and Expenses account, a 1.5% increase.30
Two of the three accounts with the greatest percentage increases between the FY2023 enacted
amount and the amount requested by the judiciary for FY2024 were also among the three
accounts with the greatest percentage increases between the FY2023 enacted amount and amount
enacted by Congress in FY2024 (the Supreme Court—Salaries and Expenses and Defender
Services accounts).
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.31 These monies are used to offset expenses that would otherwise be covered by the

28 The remaining seven accounts are listed in descending order from the greatest percentage to smallest percentage of
the enacted FY2024 discretionary budget for the judiciary: 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. Sentencing Commission (0.3%); Supreme
Court—Building and Grounds (0.2%); U.S. Court of International Trade (0.2%); and the Vaccine Injury Trust Fund
(0.1%).
29 Of all the accounts listed in Table 1, the percentage change between the amount enacted in FY2023 and the amount
requested for FY2024 ranged from a low of -29.2% (for the Supreme Court—Building and Grounds account) to a high
of 28.3% for the Supreme Court—Salaries and Expenses account.
30 Of all the accounts listed in Table 1, the percentage change between the amount enacted in FY2023 and the amount
enacted in FY2024 ranged from close to no change in the amounts appropriated for the Court Security and
Administrative Office of U.S. Courts accounts to a high of 18.0% for the Supreme Court—Salaries and Expenses
account.
31 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 “Fees,” Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 13 Judiciary Appropriations, FY2024

discretionary Salaries and Expenses account for the courts of appeals, district courts, and other
judicial services. The amounts presented in this report reflect the net resources for the judiciary,
and do not include nonappropriated funds used to offset expenses.
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).
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 2 shows, by account, the enacted mandatory appropriations for FY2023 and the estimated
mandatory appropriations for FY2024.
Table 2. Judiciary Mandatory Funding, FY2023-FY2024
(in millions of dollars)
FY2023
FY2024
Account
Enacted
Estimated
Supreme Court
$2.9
$3.1
Court of Appeals for the Federal
$3.4
$3.5
Circuit
Court of International Trade
$2.2
$2.4
Courts of Appeals, District Courts,
$501.2
$535.3
and Other Judicial Services
Judicial Retirement Funds
$251.8
$251.9
Total (Judiciary)
$761.4
$796.1
Source: Congressional Research Service examination of data from The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2023 Congressional
Budget Summary.

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., “Options to Access Records if you Cannot Afford PACER Fees,”
PACER, 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

9

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2024

Note: The column for FY2024 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 FY2024 totaled $796.1 million. Of the FY2024
mandatory amount, $544.2 million, or 68.4%, is for salaries and expenses associated with
judgeships that the judiciary is constitutionally (or statutorily) required to pay. The remaining
$251.9 million (or 31.6% of FY2024 assumed mandatory appropriations) is to provide for judicial
retirement funds.
There was a similar breakdown in the use of mandatory funds for FY2023. Of the $761.4 million
in mandatory appropriations provided for FY2023, $509.6 million (or 66.9%) was to fund the
salaries and expenses associated with Article III judges and certain other types of federal judges.
The remaining $251.8 million (or 33.1% of FY2023 mandatory appropriations) was to provide
for judicial retirement funds.
Administrative Provisions
The enacted FY2024 appropriations for the judiciary also include the following administrative
provisions:32
1. makes funds appropriated for salaries and expenses available for services
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109;
2. provides transfer authority of appropriated amounts, with certain limitations,
among judiciary accounts;
3. permits not more than $11,000 to be used for official reception and representation
expenses of the Judicial Conference;
4. extends through FY2024 the delegation authority to the judiciary for contracts for
repairs of less than $100,000;
5. continues a pilot program where the U.S. Marshals Service provides perimeter
security services at selected courthouses;
6. extends 10 temporary U.S. district court judgeships; and
7. reduces the administrative burdens associated with private panel attorney
payments.33
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. Justices, including the Chief Justice of the United States, are
appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

32 “Administrative provisions” or “general provisions” provides restrictions, conditions, or requirements that may apply
to an entire act or 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.
33 Joint Explanatory Statement, Division B—Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act 2024, p.
H1745, https://www.congress.gov/118/crec/2024/03/22/170/51/CREC-2024-03-22-bk2.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

10

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2024

U.S. Courts of Appeals
U.S. courts of appeals, or circuit courts, take appeals from U.S. district courts and are also
empowered to review the decisions of many administrative agencies. 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).
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.34 Cases presented to U.S. circuit courts are generally considered by judges sitting in
three-member panels (circuit courts do not use juries).
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
Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) has the
most, 29.35
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),36 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 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.37
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.38
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

34 “Court Role and Structure,” Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-
courts/court-role-and-structure.
35 The Ninth Circuit also includes two U.S. territories, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.
36 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.”
37 “Court Jurisdiction,” United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 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).
38 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

11

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2024

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
“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.”39
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.40 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.41
At present, there are 677 district court judgeships authorized by law.42 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

39 “U.S. Court of International Trade—Judicial Business 2021,” Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/us-court-international-trade-judicial-business-2021.
40 “Court Role and Structure,” Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-
courts/court-role-and-structure.
41 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.
42 This total includes 4 permanent territorial district court judgeships and 10 temporary U.S. district court judgeships.
See “Judges and Judgeships,” Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, http://www.uscourts.gov/
JudgesAndJudgeships/AuthorizedJudgeships.aspx.
Congressional Research Service

12

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2024

(Manhattan) and the Central District of California (Los Angeles) have the greatest number (each
with 28 authorized judgeships).43
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).44 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.45 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.46 Magistrate judges cannot preside
over felony criminal cases (but can handle pretrial matters and preliminary proceedings in such
cases).47
The number of magistrate judge positions is determined by the Judicial Conference of the United
States. For the 12-month period ending September 30, 2023, the Judicial Conference authorized
562 full-time magistrate judge positions, 25 part-time positions, and 2 combination
clerk/magistrate judge positions.48
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.49 During FY2023, there
were 92 appointments of full-time magistrate judges, including 44 new appointments and 48
reappointments.50

43 The 28 judgeships authorized for the Central District of California includes 27 permanent judgeships and 1
temporary judgeship.
44 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).
45 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. “Magistrate Judges,” Federal Judicial Center, https://www.fjc.gov/history/
judges/magistrate-judgeships.
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid.
48 “Status of Magistrate Judge Positions and Appointments—Judicial Business 2023,” Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts, https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/status-magistrate-judge-positions-and-appointments-judicial-
business-2023.
49 28 U.S.C. §631(d).
50 “Status of Magistrate Judge Positions and Appointments—Judicial Business 2023,” Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts, https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/status-magistrate-judge-positions-and-appointments-judicial-
business-2023. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “the average age of new appointees to full-
time magistrate judge positions was 49 years.…New full-time appointees had been members of the bar for an average
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

13

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2024

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.51
Congress, by legislative action, determines the number of bankruptcy judgeships. As of
September 30, 2023, there were a total of 345 bankruptcy judgeships authorized by Congress.52
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.53
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
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.”54
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.55
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.”56 For example, for the

of 22 years at the time of appointment.” Of the new full-time magistrate judges in FY2023, the most common types of
position or employment at the time of appointment included assistant U.S. attorneys (16 appointees), attorneys in
private practice (12), state court judges (3), and assistant federal public defenders (3).
51 “U.S. Bankruptcy Courts,” Federal Judicial Center, https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/u.s.-bankruptcy-courts.
52 “Status of Bankruptcy Judgeships—Judicial Business 2023,” Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/status-bankruptcy-judgeships-judicial-business-2023.
53 “U.S. Courts of Federal Claims—Judicial Business 2023,” Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/us-court-federal-claims-judicial-business-2023.
54 Ibid.
55 28 U.S.C. §178.
56 “Pretrial Services—Judicial Business 2023,” Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, https://www.uscourts.gov/
statistics-reports/pretrial-services-judicial-business-2023.
Congressional Research Service

14

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2024

12-month period ending September 30, 2023, pretrial services officers prepared 67,799 pretrial
services reports for judges.57
Pretrial service officers also supervise those defendants released by judges pending adjudication
of their criminal cases.58 For the 12-month period ending September 30, 2023, officers provided
pretrial services supervision for approximately 21,508 defendants. 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.59
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.”60
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.”61 On September 30,
2023, a total of 122,824 individuals were under postconviction supervision by probation
officers.62
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.”63 As such, 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 82 authorized federal defender organizations that employ more than 3,700
lawyers, investigators, paralegals, and support personnel.64
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

57 Ibid.
58 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2023 Congressional Budget Summary,
“Overview of the Judiciary,” p. 3, https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/
FY%202023%20Congressional%20Budget%20Summary.pdf.
59 “Pretrial Services—Judicial Business 2023,” Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, https://www.uscourts.gov/
statistics-reports/pretrial-services-judicial-business-2023.
60 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2023 Congressional Budget Summary,
“Overview of the Judiciary,” p. 3, https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/
FY%202023%20Congressional%20Budget%20Summary.pdf.
61 Ibid.
62 “Post-Conviction Supervision—Judicial Business 2023,” Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/post-conviction-supervision-judicial-business-2023.
63 “Defender Services,” Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/defender-
services.
64 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. At present, there are 65 federal public defender organizations and 17
community defender organizations. “Criminal Justice Act—Judicial Business 2023,” Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts, https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/criminal-justice-act-judicial-business-2023.
Congressional Research Service

15

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2024

attorney compensation and office overhead.65 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.66
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, 2023, there were a total of 145,781
representations by counsel affiliated with federal defender organizations or who served as panel
attorneys under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA).67 The number of private attorneys who were paid
during this period through the CJA as panel attorneys was 8,327.68
Court Security
This account provides for protective guard services and security systems and equipment for
federal 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.”69
At present, the Marshals protect 94 federal district courts, 800 judicial facilities, and
approximately 2,700 federal judges.70 The Marshals also have protective responsibility for
approximately 30,300 federal prosecutors and court officials.71 In FY2023, the Marshals
investigated 1,061 threats and potential threats to protected persons in the judiciary.72
Fees of Jurors and Commissioners
This account funds the fees and allowances provided to petit and grand jurors and compensation
for jury and land commissioners.73 Petit jurors serve on a trial jury, while grand jurors serve on a

65 Panel attorneys are paid an hourly rate of $172 for noncapital cases, and, for capital cases, a maximum hourly rate of
$220. “Defender Services,” Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/
defender-services.
66 Ibid. For example, $13,400 is the maximum attorney compensation for felony cases; $3,800 is the maximum for
misdemeanors; and $9,600 is the maximum for appeals.
67 “Criminal Justice Act—Judicial Business 2023,” Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/criminal-justice-act-judicial-business-2023.
68 Ibid.
69 U.S. Marshals Service, Fact Sheet—Judicial Security 2024, https://www.usmarshals.gov/sites/default/files/media/
document/2024-Judicial-Security.pdf.
70 Ibid.
71 Ibid.
72 Ibid.
73 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, https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/
fy_2022_congressional_budget_summary_fy_2022.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

16

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2024

grand jury.74 Petit jurors are paid $50 per day but can, after serving 10 days on a jury, receive up
to $60 per day.75 Grand jurors are also paid $50 per day but can, after serving 45 days on a grand
jury, receive up to $60 per day.76
Petit and grand jurors are also reimbursed for reasonable transportation expenses and parking
fees.77 Jurors can receive a subsistence allowance that covers their meals and lodging, if they are
sequestered during their service.78
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.79 The compensation paid to a jury commissioner is
$50 per day (plus the reimbursement of reasonable expenses related to his or her service).80
According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, “costs associated with this account
may vary and are driven by the number of jury trials, the length of those trials, and statutory rates
for reimbursement paid to jurors.”81
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.82 The VICP “was established after lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and
healthcare providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce vaccination rates.”83
Additionally, the program “is designed to encourage vaccination by providing a streamlined
system for compensation in rare instances where an injury results from vaccination”84 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.”85
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.”86

74 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.” “Types of Juries,” Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/jury-service/types-juries.
75 “Juror Pay,” Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/jury-service/juror-
pay.
76 Ibid.
77 Ibid.
78 Ibid.
79 28 U.S.C. §1863.
80 28 U.S.C. §1863(b)(1).
81 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2024 Congressional Budget Summary, p. 49,
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FY%202024%20Congressional%20Budget%20Summary.pdf.
82 42 U.S.C. §§300aa-1 to 300aa-34.
83 “About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Health Resources and Service Administration, https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/about/index.html.
84 “Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,” U.S. Department of Justice, https://www.justice.gov/civil/vicp.
85 Ibid.
86 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

17

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2024

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,
1988.87 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.88
Total compensation paid over the life of VICP, as of this writing, is approximately $5 billion.89
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), with a staff of over 1,000 employees, “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.”90
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.”91
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.”92
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.”93 As such, the commission is
responsible for establishing and amending the sentencing guidelines used by the federal
judiciary.94

87 The Department of the Treasury manages the fund’s investments. “About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources & Services Administration,
https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/about/index.html.
88 “Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,” U.S. Department of Justice, https://www.justice.gov/civil/vicp.
89 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources & Services Administration, National Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program Data Report, updated May 1, 2024, https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/data.
90 “Judicial Administration,” Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/
judicial-administration.
91 Ibid.
92 Ibid.
93 “About the Commission,” United States Sentencing Commission, https://www.ussc.gov.
94 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

18

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2024

The commission consists of seven voting members appointed by the President and confirmed by
the Senate, with members serving staggered six-year terms.95 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.96 For a sentencing guideline to be amended, the amendment must receive the
affirmative votes of four members of the commission.97
The commission has a staff of approximately 100 employees.98 The commission is also advised
by “four standing advisory groups representing the views of practitioners, probation officers,
victims, and tribal lands.”99
Federal Courts Not Funded by the Judiciary Budget
Three specialized courts within the federal court system are not funded under the judiciary’s
budget:
1. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (funded in the Department of
Defense appropriations bill);
2. U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (funded in the Military Construction,
Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill); and
3. U.S. Tax Court (funded under Independent Agencies, Title V of the FSGG bill).
Additionally, the judiciary’s courthouse construction and capital security projects are funded by
the budget for the General Services Administration (GSA).

Author Information

Barry J. McMillion

Analyst in American National Government

95 “Organization,” United States Sentencing Commission, https://www.ussc.gov/about/who-we-are/organization.
96 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.
97 Ibid.
98 Ibid.
99 “About,” United States Sentencing Commission, 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 “Advisory
Groups,” United States Sentencing Commission, https://www.ussc.gov/about/who-we-are/advisory-groups.
Congressional Research Service

19

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2024

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
R48077 · VERSION 1 · NEW
20

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

May. 29, 2024

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

American Law

Foreign Affairs

Appropriations

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON