Fiscal Accountability and Oversight of the Federal Courts

Courts and Competition Policy

2025-06-24

Loading video...

Source: Congress.gov

Summary

This meeting focused on the oversight of federal courts, including discussions on fiscal responsibility, judicial independence, and various challenges facing the judiciary. Members of Congress and judicial representatives debated funding needs, security concerns, and the role of judges in upholding constitutional principles amidst political pressures[ 00:19:30-00:19:42 ] .

Themes

Judicial Independence and Perceived Overreach

Concerns were raised regarding a federal judge in Boston allegedly circumventing a Supreme Court stay with a second injunction, which was cited as a defiance of the Supreme Court's intent. There was also extensive discussion about perceived judicial overreach through nationwide injunctions and the politicization of the judiciary. Members expressed strong disagreement with calls for impeachment based solely on judicial rulings, emphasizing that appellate review is the proper channel for disagreements with decisions. The importance of judicial independence, free from political influence, was a recurring point, with judges affirming their duty to apply the law without fear or favor.

Funding Needs and Fiscal Accountability

The judiciary presented a request for $9.4 billion for fiscal year 2026, a 9% increase, to address critical functions, security, and staffing[ 01:46:30 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Significant portions of this request are dedicated to judicial security, defender services, and IT modernization. The impact of prior funding freezes was highlighted, leading to deferred security projects, suspended payments to private attorneys, and hiring freezes in federal defender organizations. The need for adequate and consistent funding was stressed as essential for the judiciary to perform its constitutional and statutory responsibilities[ 00:58:31-00:58:33 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
.

Judicial Security (Physical and Cyber)

A major theme was the increasing threats against federal judges, judicial staff, and their families, with calls for enhanced funding for physical security measures and vulnerability management programs. The need for recapitalizing outdated security equipment was emphasized, as current equipment is on an extended replacement cycle due to funding freezes. Cybersecurity was also a significant concern, with judges acknowledging serious breaches and ransomware attacks, and requesting $74 million for IT modernization and security efforts.

Court Efficiency and Modernization

Discussions touched upon the expansion of the court to address case backlogs, which average over 600 cases per judge. There was an emphasis on modernizing IT systems, evaluating responsible uses for artificial intelligence, and addressing the vulnerabilities of systems like PACER. The outdated nature of current case management systems was acknowledged, alongside efforts to move towards a more enterprise-wide approach to system modernization to enhance security and efficiency.

Role of Federal Defender Services

The critical role of Federal Defender Services in upholding the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was underscored[ 00:58:52-00:59:00 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Funding shortfalls in this area, including a hiring freeze and imminent inability to pay court-appointed attorneys, were presented as a serious threat to the judiciary's ability to function constitutionally. It was argued that cutting these services would hinder the justice system, affect case progression, and potentially impact the quality of future judges.

Tone of the Meeting

The tone of the meeting was largely serious and concerned, marked by urgent appeals for increased funding and strong defense of judicial independence[ 01:21:21-01:21:31 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. While professional, there were moments of pointed debate and frank disagreement between members of Congress, particularly concerning the politicization of judicial decisions and the implications of budget cuts. Witnesses maintained a measured and diplomatic posture, often deferring to the Judicial Conference's official positions on contentious issues and emphasizing the practical needs of the judiciary[ 01:18:23-01:18:37 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
[ 01:25:37-01:25:39 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. The overall atmosphere reflected a deep awareness of the challenges facing the federal courts and a search for practical solutions amidst partisan tensions.

Participants

Transcript

The subcommittee will come to order without objection.  The chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time.  We welcome to today's hearing on oversight of the federal courts.
I'll now recognize myself for a longer opening statement than I thought.  As we speak now, a federal judge in Boston has decided that the U.S.  Supreme Court staying   His nationwide injunction, in fact, doesn't apply because he has issued a second injunction with the same plaintiffs, accomplishing effectively the same thing.  His earlier order said that these individuals were not to be deported back to South Sudan.
They have not been.  But in fact, under that base order, the Supreme Court has said they could be.
and yet they find themselves halfway in between when in fact the U.S.
Supreme Court has acted.
There is no greater definition of an absence of good behavior than in fact for a seated Article III judge to defy the strict letter of the Supreme Court, the intent, but rather say, but I can issue a second order.
What I find particularly bad about that
is it's not the first time we have seen judges do it and in other areas we've seen judges circumvent the clear intent of random selection for cases including patent we've seen this happen again and again and we've seen the supreme court act only to find that they must act again today i call on the u.s supreme court to act within minutes to stay the second order lest
and by the way, to prohibit a third, fourth, and fifth order in advance.  The Supreme Court cannot be effective if they have to effectively keep up with the speed of a judge signing things coming off a computer, probably written with chat GPT.
That's where we are today.
My original statement,
did say that today we are conducting oversight of federal courts, which is a routine part of our jurisdiction, and it is.
The federal courts are a critical part of the Constitution system, and this committee, on a bipartisan basis, has promoted the expansion of the court repeatedly under both Republican and Democrat chairman.  We continue to do so.
This subcommittee regularly attends
the judicial conference meetings, and deals directly with the conference.
Additionally, we're given the privilege of access to members of the Supreme Court in order to both express our opinions and to learn from them.  All of this is as our founders intended.
When we were founded,
The court was not in a separate building across the way, but in fact nestled between the House and the Senate in a way in which members of both bodies typically might have lunch with them.
It is unfortunate that we have grown so far apart because, in fact, we serve no purpose except to create laws which must be enforced.  The executive branch attempts to enforce them, but only the court   can determine the faithful execution by that other branch.  So as we speak of activist judges, we also speak of the need to expand the court to eliminate a backlog that now exceeds 600 cases on average per judge.  I want to take a moment to thank both our witnesses here today and the dozens of
federal judges who could go off into retirement at full pay, but stay and continue to work in senior status.
Those judges have done us a great service.
They not only have stepped aside from their lifetime appointments so that another can be appointed, helping us deal with a shortage, but they have continued to work.
That combination is the only reason that the court has managed to continue to function.
It will not function for long with the increased tempo unless we do our job.
So I call on all my members today to give real thought to quickly expanding the court, but at the same time, just as today, to continue to do our oversight, to continue to come as close as we can
to the founder's original intent, an intent that nestled the members of the Supreme Court right next to the House and Senate in a way in which the communication as to original intent, the communication as to as the court saw it, the communication as to what judges that then would ride circuit would even see.
All of that, in fact, is our obligation.   I have no doubt that there will be other subjects besides Rogue Rulings Act, which we have sent to the Senate today, but it is not the only thing we will discuss.
I want every member of both the Republican and Democratic side to consider this as an important hearing to vet all questions.
We fortunately have a distinguished panel that should be able to ask most but not all questions.  In consultation with
the ranking members of the full committee and the subcommittee, I'm using my discretion today to say we will not be swearing in the witnesses, as is the requirement of the committee, because it is our tradition not to swear in constitutional offices that come behind before us, unless in fact they are witnesses in an otherwise more specific discovery.
And with that, it's my
my honor and privilege to yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Johnson, for his opening statement.
Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  And I'm honored, Judge St.

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.

Sign up