Benjamin S. Weiss
Apr 18, 2025
Federal funding for judicial security measures has remained relatively flat for years, which the U.S. Judicial Conference told lawmakers is “unsustainable” amid high-profile cases which have generated media attention.
WASHINGTON (CN) — The federal judiciary’s policymaking body has warned congressional appropriators that funding for security measures at federal courts isn’t enough to meet rising threats against judges and courthouses.
The plea for additional security appropriations, which comes as Congress prepares to draft budget legislation for 2026, also arrives as some federal judges involved in high-profile cases have been personally targeted by Republicans and even President Donald Trump himself.
Lawmakers bought themselves extra time to negotiate the budget last month, passing a six-month spending patch which kept funding for most government programs frozen, including for federal courts. The stopgap, known as a continuing resolution, kept those spending levels in place from similar legislation passed last year.
And now, with its budget stagnant for roughly a year, the judiciary has urged appropriators to consider hiking spending on federal courts when it hammers out its full-year spending bills — especially when it comes to allocating money for judicial security.
Current resources make it difficult to properly secure federal courthouses and protect judges, the U.S. Judicial Conference told lawmakers in a letter sent last week and made public Friday.
“Consecutive years of flat security funding comes at a time when threats against federal judges and courthouses are escalating, making this situation unsustainable in the current environment,” wrote Amy St. Eve, chair of the Judicial Conference’s budget chair; and Robert Conrad, secretary of the policymaking body.
St. Eve and Conrad pointed to Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2024 year-end report on the judiciary, in which he noted a “significant uptick” in threats against judges. Those concerns have been borne out, they told Congress, in dozens of incidents, including some that have required the U.S. Marshals Service to provide additional security measures.
“In extreme cases, the U.S. Marshals Service has been required to take extraordinary measures to ensure the safety of judges,” the Judicial Conference officials wrote.
Roughly 50 people have been criminally charged in connection with threats to the judiciary, said St. Eve and Conrad. And 67 judges are receiving “enhanced online security screening services” due to their involvement in high-profile cases that have attracted attention in the news and on social media.
A handful of federal judges have come under personal attack in recent weeks over their rulings against the White House and its aggressive executive agenda.
Some Republicans and even Trump himself have called for some jurists — such as D.C. District Chief Judge James Boasberg — to be impeached and removed from office. And one GOP lawmaker went so far as to display a “wanted” poster outside his Capitol Hill office featuring photos of judges who issued injunctions or temporary restraining orders against administration actions, though that move has been panned by top Republicans.
Keeping funds for judicial security at 2024 levels, around $750 million, has already forced the judiciary to reprioritize spending and delay essential security upgrades, the Judicial Conference told appropriators. If funding remains the same for 2026, St. Eve and Conrad warned, courts may need to further reduce security. That move could affect security screenings at courthouses, as well as measures used to restrict access to secure areas and to monitor activity in federal courts, they said.
The Judicial Conference officials added that they were also concerned about the impact of budget shortfalls on staffing cuts at the Marshals Service and the General Services Administration, which could also affect the safety of judges.
But judicial security won’t be the only court program affected by reduced budget measures, St. Eve and Conrad said. They noted the federally run public defenders’ service was “significantly” underfunded. Thanks to the current continuing resolution, a hiring freeze on public attorneys will remain in effect through September, they said, and the government would need to pause as much as $92 million in payments to private attorneys from July until October.
Further, St. Eve and Conrad told lawmakers, spending freezes may require as many as 37% of appellate, district and bankruptcy court clerks’ offices to lay off staff, and that those impacts will affect courts’ abilities to handle heavy workloads. Short-staffing may also have an effect on probation offices, which will be forced to focus on the most high-risk offenders, leaving lower-risk offenders with less supervision and increasing the risk of new crime.
“We note that these budget challenges are occurring at the same time the administration has announced its prosecutorial priorities, including fentanyl trafficking and fighting cartels and violent gangs,” the Judicial Conference wrote.
The judiciary officials issued a final plea to congressional appropriators for more funding, pointing out that federal courts have a “broad mission” which depends on sufficient spending allocation from Congress.
“We do not set our own workload,” St. Eve and Conrad wrote. “We must hear all cases prosecuted by the Department of Justice, adjudicate all civil cases brought by the federal government and between private parties and resolve all bankruptcy cases brought by individuals and businesses. We must provide constitutionally guaranteed representation to individuals charged with federal crimes who are unable to afford an attorney. And we must pay citizens for performing their civic duty of serving on federal juries.”
In a budget blueprint passed this month, congressional Republicans laid the groundwork for their longstanding vow to slash government spending — though exactly how much they will cut is unclear.
The Senate’s version of the budget resolution, which sets the ground rules for forthcoming spending legislation, prescribes roughly $4 billion in cuts. Though the House approved that iteration, lawmakers in the lower chamber have called for as much as $2 trillion in spending reductions and may try to push for additional cuts as budget negotiations get underway.
It’s not clear how Congress would be able to achieve $2 trillion in budget cuts without drastic reductions to existing federal programs — and without dipping into non-discretionary government spending such as Medicare or Social Security.